Saturday, 31 January 2009

One of those irritating but have-to-do quizes...

Via Obnoxio, another one of those annoying quizes...

You are a right social libertarian.
Right: 7.23, Libertarian: 3.68

Apparently, I am a moderate libertarian - but with a neo-con twist :-)

Clearly, my pro-gay marriage, being able to say what you like about any ethnic group, etc. and violent video game but anti-abortion and pro-banging up criminals for life views completely fuck up their American-based 'Culture War' thingy though...

This has probably been debated to death on the interwebby, but what is it that makes someone a libertarian, i.e. what are 'core' libertarian views?

I would say:

- Belief in negative rights - free speech, freedom of association, all equal before the law, etc. This includes proper punishment for those who infringe those rights, not 5 seconds of 'community service'.
- No such thing as 'positive' rights
- Belief in a small state
- Economic liberalism (which might mean regulation when markets fail, provided the government failure isn't even worse)

Clearly, not all would agree with me though:

- The Chicago School libertarians take what is a useful simplification for analytical purposes - that markets work - and make it into dogma. Whereas markets do sometimes fail. What is then important is whether state intervention can make it any better, without imposing massive costs or distortions, and without infringing basic liberties. I think that it can in some cases.
- Some also have some slightly mad (in my view) opinions on returning to the gold standard and the like. I like to think that I'm radical, but... Basically, human psychology means that wages can't easily drop - they're not sufficiently flexible. So we're stuck with some inflation as the price...
- Many libertarians dislike /hate my more interventionist views with regard to foreign policy, e.g. in principle, I support the intervention in Afghanistan, although we're fucking it up somewhat...
- It is very difficult to deal with irrational individuals, particularly Islamists who want to make the UK into an Islamic state, by force - I tend to feel that they should go live in an Islamist country and leave us alone; whereas a classic libertarian would allow them to live here and simply imprison those who commit crimes. My problem with this is that I don't think a rational approach works with people who cannot be appealed to with reason;
- Most libertarians rather idealistically believe in open borders - I don't think this is practical in a world where most countries don't practice this and there are such disparities of wealth.

Still, libertarianism's a broad church... isn't it? :-)

Saturday, 24 January 2009

Next stop for the UK police?

Apparently, some Nigerians think a thief has shape-shifted into a goat, and their local police force has been forced to take it into custody!

[This might explain a lot... After all, Harriet Harperson can't be human - perhaps she's that famous Sudanese goat that was married off to some peasant after he was caught, ahem, engaging in marital relations with it. Might explain her hatred of men and the idea that they might enjoy having sex...

On the other hand, maybe she's just a man-hating lesbian who has been forced into a sham marriage with a 'man' (using the widest definition of 'man' possible, given that it is Jack Dromey we're talking about here...)...]

Anyhooo... it's just so easy to go off-topic when it comes to the utter cunts that 'Govern' our country...

I think the point of raising this - apart from the fact that it's a tad amusing - was that it could never happen here... could it?

Personally, I'm not so sure... with the Government's anti-Darwinian scheme to reduce average intelligence, otherwise known as the 'Welfare State', funded by piling ever more taxes on hard-working individuals (whether they have families or not), whilst the likes of Paul Myners get rich courtesy of the taxpayer (via shorting banks, something which he is now slagging off, the hypocritical cunt) and pay very little tax...

And the outcome? How about this, for starters...

Friday, 23 January 2009

Fake charities

An eagle-eyed reader may have noticed that Devil's Kitchen has launched the website, after yet another 'charity' was revealed to be nothing of the sort, but rather a front for the Government to claim popular support for imposing yet more illiberal legislation on us.

Like the Devil, I am thoroughly pissed-off with this state of affairs - it's bad enough that businesses do this (see, e.g. The Truth About Drug Companies for examples of how Big Pharma uses charities to persuade the sheeple to lobby for ineffective drugs, like Herceptin for early stage breast cancer). But now the illiberal cunts in Government are using the same dirty tricks, cunts that they are.

So I have volunteered to help this noble cause. And I urge you to do the same.

My first contribution: some FoI requests:


Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I would be grateful if you could let me know which charities received funding from the DCSF and its agencies:

- In 2008; and
- In 2007.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Brennan


Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I would be grateful if you could let me know which charities received funding from the Department of Health and its agencies:

- In 2008; and
- In 2007.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Brennan



Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I would be grateful if you could let me know which charities received funding from the Home Office and its agencies:

- In 2008; and
- In 2007.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Brennan


Let's see if the cunts respond with some answers, or dodgy excuses... Not holding my breath...

PS I see the Devil is talking about the alcohol 'limits' which some 'scientists' invented in the 1980s, and which Government uses 'charities' - and dumbass 'liberal' democrat MPs - to promote. Did you know that they also made up '5 a day' - apparently, it's actually 3 a day.

Update: All Depts have promised to respond within 20 days, other than HM Treasury...

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Tim Ireland - Necessary Evil or Just a Knob?

I guess I am not the first to blog about this... and I'm sure I won't be the last :-(

I have had the unfortunate 'pleasure' of reading comments from Tim Ireland on various blogs over the last week, having only heard about him second-hand via Guido and Iain Dale.

My instinctive reaction, as I put it on Recess Monkey, was to tell him to get a life. And his response was martyrdom!

And I see he is being his usual irritating self on - self-appointed fount of righteousness in the blogosphere that he is.

The guy is clearly a knob... and yet I am inclined to believe that there is a place for all, even for the most nakedly self-righteous, in all of our 'occasional' blogrolls. Even though Guido is clearly a million miles from the level of power exercised by Rupert Murdoch, we should always think about the underlying interests of all those whose opinions we read, because they can all have an influence over our developing views. Well, obviously with the exception of the genuinely stupid and self-serving (Polly Toynbee springs to mind, as the Devil illustrates nicely in his latest post).

But... Tim - and I mean this in the nicest way - could you at least try to be a little less pompous and self-satisfied in the way that you perform your important social function? After all, we all have to eat fibre - but it can be in the form of tastier fare like rye bread rather than the cardboard taste of bran flakes (and you can even put sugar on those!).

Labour get fisted!

I see that have taken on the pisspoor and taken Mandy's statement about engaging openly rather too literally for Mandy's liking.

Comment of the day so far....

    • Paul says:

      As my comment on this post was deleted on LabourList, I thought I should post it here…

      Mandy, can you tell us the name of the young man you were spotted with in Marrakech?

  1. Lord Mandelson, what do you think of your early adventures in Second Life, brought to an eager audience courtesy of the Daily Mail?

    And do you really have that tattoo?

    • A small Arab boy says:

      مصرع طفلين في قصف على مدرسة للأونروا بقطاع غزة، وجرح تسعة جنود إسرائيليين داخل القطاع.


Well, it made me laugh....

Monday, 12 January 2009

Oh. My. God.

As you probably know, the Devil already has a blog. But, in that case, it's clearly not the Devil in the evil - Satanic, Beelzebub - sense

Now, however - via one of DK's Anonymous disciples - it seems that Satan - the real one - has learned the art of seeking to spread his poison online.

Some of you may remember Rory Bremner's avatar of Peter Mandelson on his C4 show (well, C4 has to be useful for something...). I thought it was funny.

Now I'm not so sure...

Is nowhere safe from these bastards?

Citizens of Second Life - prepare yourselves for:
  • Eye-watering levels of virtual taxation and government debt
  • Monitoring of all your online activities.
  • Harriet Harman stopping any sexual fantasies (unless they involve ugly women only)
  • Virtual imprisonment / hanging for smoking or speeding offences; rewards for committing anything previously regarded as criminal
  • 'Losing' your data so that it can be used by criminals
  • A financial crisis that 'began in America' but hits the UK worse than anywhere else, for reasons that can't be explained, other than by some vague reference to potential other governments being 'do-nothing' organisations
  • Gulags for anyone that doesn't repeat, parrot-style, everything that the Mandelson avatar says
  • A Second Life Broadcasting Corporation - funded by compulsory taxation - which features such 'balanced' reporters as 'Toilets' Macguire and 'Toenails' Robinson
  • Free inside information for a Robert Peston avatar
  • All-in-all, a virtual USSR - a model for the UK if Labour win the next election.
Is it possible to have a virtual revolution? Are there any Second-Lifers who would volunteer to lead it - and treat the Mandelson avatar to Bolshevik-style retribution?

Please, God - what did we do? :-(

The bishop is back... and angry as ever!

Dear Reader

Apologies for the absence of posts recently - I've been enjoying a (well-earned?) holiday.

I gather that I'm not the only one... Mandy Pandy has apparently been spotted in Marrakech (incidentally, not his first time there...). Some of Guido's co-conspirators have even suggested that he might have been enjoying some of the, ahem, adult entertainment that Marrakech offers.

Well, clearly the Bishop isn't in a position to judge the truth of the matter - nor, as a libertarian, does he care if Mandy or anyone else indulges in such activities, provided they involve consenting adults. But, if this was what Mandy was doing, and given Harriet Harperson's Jacqui Smith's new law which will insist that clients check prostitutes' ages and that they aren't trafficked, perhaps Mandy could let us know whether he took similar precautions in North Africa, and how he ensured that he was told the truth?

Or, as anyone outside the Labour Party knows, will the legislation not work? There was an excellent article by Hannah Fletcher and Claudia Fromme in the Times on this, back in November. In particular, it points to experience in Finland, where, 'Since [similar] legislation came into effect, there has not been one single prosecution', because it is impossible to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that a client knew that a prostitute was trafficked.

Perhaps this is all part of Labour's ongoing attempts to turn England into a police state? The failure of the legislation will mean that 'beyond reasonable doubt', the backbone of a fair and just legal system for centuries, will be changed - no doubt, to 'if you support Labour, you're a victim and we'll pay you vast amounts of taxpayers' money, and, if not, you're an evil criminal who doesn't understand social justice, and we'll send you to the gulag'.

Perhaps the Prime Mentalist is more like Stalin than Mr Bean, after all?

Getting back to the subject in hand, I think it is worth reflecting on some of what the article says in detail...

When Richard Gere picked up Julia Roberts in his Lotus Esprit in Pretty Woman, it was the start of a great Hollywood romance. The classic prostitute with a heart of gold, she was transformed almost instantly into a glamous sex kitten, equally at home shopping on Rodeo Drive, decorating his arm at the opera in San Francisco or stamping the divots at a polo match. And, of course, there was a fairytale ending in which the corporate prince rescued the fair maiden as she promised to “rescue him right back”.

But if an English Gere — perhaps a hedge-fund manager trying to find Notting Hill in the dark — attempted a similar stunt in the brave new world of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, he wouldn't be handing out strawberries in the hotel penthouse but having his mugshot taken at the nearest police station.

Well, yeah. I mean, does anyone seriously think that prostitution is glamorous? Pretty Woman is a shit film, and hardly compares to reality (for a start, Richard Gere [edited for legal purposes! ;-)]). Seriously... (I guess they had to do this, as such sensationalisation seems to be a requirment even for broadsheet journalists these days... But forgive them - the rest of the article is unusually balanced and fair).

Andy Hayman, former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, thinks that the new proposals are ludicrous. “The police have so many other priorities, such as knife crime,” he says. “They don't want to hound prostitutes who obviously need the money, or their clients, unless they are causing serious problems.

“What these women need is help. Many of them are drug addicts or behind with their rent; they already have criminal convictions so they can't find another job. They don't need to be forced farther underground. Most are already very co-operative, and they are great informers. Coppers will ignore this one.”

Wow! The police being sensible? Perhaps Inspector Gadget despairs too much? Although it is an ex-copper talking... And they probably should go after the people traffickers....

"This is an disaster for many working women,” says Virginia (not her real name), who works in a sex parlour in southeast England that is run by a middle-aged couple. “These measures will make our jobs far more dangerous. The couple I work for are not pimps, they check my clients and make sure I'm safe. The sex between my client and myself is a consensual act.”

Nicky Adams, a spokeswoman (NB not 'spokesperson' - naughty, naughty!) for the English Collective of Prostitutes (NB note that 'union' seems to be a dirty word here - perhaps this explains Labour's hatred for them?), adds:

...prostitutes are now terrified of ending up with the most unscrupulous pimps. “All this will do is hound the decent parlour owners. The Government is trying to take the moral high ground but it's a low blow for women who are struggling to make ends meet, whether they are from Croydon or Croatia.”

But, as Harperson argues, isn't prostitution just, well, wrong? If women demean themselves by being prostitutes, why should we want them to be protected? After all, if we can get murder and rape figures up, then we can put all men (the raping bastards!) in prison and have a much better world! And we don't want any pretty Eastern European women here, showing how ugly many British women are! After all, how's a girl to get a girlfriend against that sort of competition?

If only women would simply look and dress like Harriet or our dear Jacqui (especially in her knife-proof vest, and with her protection squad, vital for any Labour Minister given what they've done to this country), then no man would want to fuck them! And then there would be no prostitution.

Except for rent boys in Marrakech, accessible only to senior Labour Ministers. Nothing wrong with that - after all, gay and Labour, now that's a minority group that deserves the full protection of the law...