Posted in September 2007

Apropos of nothing

This is an entirely pointless piece of kit for daft Americans. But why the hell is it promoting a minging city in Berkshire?

[note: I neither know nor care whether said location actually has city status, or is merely a big crap town]

If you’re scared of terrorists, I hope they fucking kill you

Everyone dies. Most people die while old of chronically painful diseases. Some die in accidents; some die while young of chronically painful diseases.

Then, a number of people that – even if every fucking would-be-terrorist out there was left entirely unchecked – would still equate to less than 1% of total deaths are killed by terrorist actions.

With those odds, to spend any time whatsoever worrying about that miniscule risk is Just Fucking Stupid, and anyone who is worried that they or someone they love will be killed or injured in a terrorist attack should Just Fucking Stop It.

Which brings me to the paranoid nutjobs on this comment thread who think it’s entirely reasonable to send a girl to jail for wearing flashing LEDs at an airport. “Oooh, but she could have been a terrorist; she was lucky they didn’t shoot her”. Possibly she was lucky the evil cunts who manage security at airports didn’t shoot her (in the unlikely event that there is a major successful terrorist act on an airport, the deaths of some airport security cunts will be one of the few upsides), but I’m not sure that’s really the point…

Libellists

Yes, I know I’m late on this one.

Uzbek tycoon Alisher Usmanov, who may or may not be a wobber, a wapist and a pickpocket, is looking to buy Arsenal Football Club. Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, doesn’t think Mr Usmanov is a fit and proper man to do such a thing, and published an article to that effect (Indymedia mirror) on his website.

Mr Usmanov, following in the proud tradition of fine characters such as James Goldsmith, Jeffrey Archer, Robert Maxwell and Sonia Sutcliffe, immediately hired expensive libel lawyers to threaten Mr Murray with Dire Consequences unless he expunged the article forthwith. Mr Murray’s response was that the article was true, and that he’d happily see Mr Usmanov in court (this is also known as an ‘Arkell versus Pressdram‘ moment).

If the British libel laws weren’t appallingly stupid, that would have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately, they are, and anyone who distributes a libel, knowingly or unknowingly and on a ridiculously wide definition of ‘distributes’ (legally, a paperboy delivering a newspaper with a libel on p24 would count…) is also liable to be sued. So Mr Usmanov’s lawyers also threatened the hosting company for Mr Murray’s site with a libel writ, and cravenly-but-understandably they backed down and pulled the plug.

[understandably because it's not their fight; it's not reasonable to expect the directors of a small web hosting firm to potentially lose their livelihood because the law is an ass, even if fighting for truth would be the morally courageous thing for them to do]

The good news is that, via a massive blog campaign, Mr Murray’s article has now achieved a far larger readership than it would ever otherwise have done, that Mr Usmanov’s past is now on the agenda for mainstream news organisations – and more generally, that the existence of the Internet has reduced the extent to which corrupt and powerful men can cheat and bully critics into silence. And who knows – maybe their demonstrable futility will actually lead to the reform of the UK’s libel laws to become more sane.

Personally, I don’t believe there should be libel laws at all: if people want to tell lies about me, that should be their prerogative, just as it should be mine to tell the world that the people lying about me are a shower of despicable cunts.

When I’ve raised this to people, they’ve tended to suggest that their abolition would harm innocent people wronged by the evil press. I’m sceptical that’s the case, though: I can’t think of a single libel case ever that wasn’t either over something so trivial that it’s frankly an insult to drag it into the courts (“Ugly single middle-aged rich man pays for sex! Bottle-blond pop star is gay!”), or brought by someone so despicable that – even if the story were false – the most appropriate resolution to the case would still have been to sandpaper the litigant to death.

If anyone knows of a libel case where a genuinely malicious press organ was held to account for publishing a seriously damaging and false story about someone who wasn’t a vile cunt, please post details in the comments – you might even change my mind…

Is it racist to hate white South Africans?

Not if you’re fucking white yourself it isn’t.

NB obviously, this doesn’t make Terry Kelly any less of an idiot – it’s just that his reasonable dislike of white South Africans is not one of the many qualities that make up his idiocy.

If only he were mute

Why the fuck is what David Blunkett thinks about anything news? Rentaquote gobshite; I hope he drowns while a crowd of plastic coppers watches and cheers (incidentally, the CSOs did absolutely the right thing in the case discussed here: they couldn’t see where they body was, so there wasn’t much point in going on a pointless and potentially fatal wild goose chase).

I was going to lighten the mood a bit with a link to the bible retold in lolcatz style, but the site appears to be buggered. Ah well, misanthropy and misery it is then…

Bad Lembit

It is a truth universally acknowledged, other than by charlatans and lunatics, that 32B breasts are the world’s finest, with 34B running them a close second.

However, it is also clear that un-surgeonised A-cup breasts are infinitely preferably to silicone-artificial C-cup breasts. And I’ve lost all respect for Lembit Opik for failing to stick up for this principle.

Mosley-ites

Max Mosley is an utter cunt, and should be crucified. And anyone with anything other than contempt for the corrupt Wop bastards at Ferrari should have their arms and legs cut off.

NB if you merely have contempt for the whole Formula 1 business, that’s also acceptable.

No, they just flipped an ‘evil’ coin

At daft cunt Ian Dale‘s site, and at various other fucktard-infested parts of the right-wing blogosphere, the BBC is being slated for its “Why did September 11 happen?” page on its news-for-kids Newsround portal.

The offending text [now amended to something more anodyne, but which is probably still sane enough to piss off the nutters] read:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda – who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.

In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war – called a jihad – against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

As those of you who aren’t gibbering right-wing nutjobs might notice, while a bit simplistic, it’s all entirely true, entirely unbiased, and exactly in line with the findings of the 9/11 Commission’s own report [pdf, large].

Unfortunately, crazy bigoted hatred of one’s opponents in defiance of rational fact and sanity are almost as prevalent among Anglo-American right-wing fundamentalists as they are among Islamist fundamentalists…

A final point: the utter, utter cunts at the Biased BBC blog have been instrumental in making this non-story into a story. But in the process of doing so, they reveal something quite nasty and disturbing about their own motivations…

In a very long and boring piece about how the BBC is incredibly evil for changing the picture on one of the pages and saying it didn’t, or not changing a picture and saying it did, or something, they say “[the BBC's 'who is Al Qaeda' page is] fairly uncontroversial, though could be better written, for instance, AQ doesn’t just believe it is fighting a holy war – it is fighting a holy war, unless all those attacks are just ‘beliefs’ too“.

Traditionally, in order to ‘fight a holy war’, you need to have two sides, both of whom are trying to fight a holy war. Now, as I understand it, we’re not currently trying to fight a holy war to eradicate Islam and Christianise its people. But clearly, the Biased BBC-ites think differently…

[9/11 Commission comparison via Gavin Whendale]

Doctoring standards: officially slipping

Doctors have an age-old tradition of moonlighting as murderers, from Crippen through to Shipman. However, they also have a vague reputation for not being thick-as-pigshit fuckwits.

Which brings us to anonymous blogging medic Dr Rant. For those of you who’ve been on Mars for the last six months, god-bothering doctors Kate and Gerry McCann went on holiday in Portugal and murdered their child abandoned their child to be murdered were the cruel victims of Evil Child Abductors and Sinister Foreign Policemen. Unsurprisingly, this has become something of a news story.

Telegraph journalist Ben Ehrman, enterprisingly, signed up on Friends Reunited in Kate McCann’s school and medical school years, in the hope of getting in touch with some contemporaries who were willing to give him quotes and/or stories about Ms McCann. He contacted some of these contemporaries by email – in the first line of which he explained that he was working as a journalist for the Telegraph.

Dr Rant seems to think that this is in some way bad, rather than a sensible way of pursuing a legitimate public interest story that misled nobody and invaded nobody’s privacy. This makes Dr Rant a moronic fucktard and disgrace to his profession, who should probably be forced to swap places with a nurse in a care home wiping up old people’s shit for all eternity.

Don’t set fire to your jacket

A new blog for your perusal, because there aren’t enough ranty libertarians on the web. It’s possible I know this person in real life, but don’t let that put you off. And the title may or may not be a real and necessary warning label.