Pigdogfucker

Unsurprisingly, given the generally accepted lameness of the UK’s would-be terrorists, nobody even bothered to argue with my assessment that if the police’s evidence against Andrew Ibrahim is accurate, he’s a schoolboy dilettante with fuck all in the “explosives worth bothering with” stakes.

Indeed:

The teenager has been accused of possessing Hexamethylene Triperoxide Diamine, also known as HMTD, which is an explosive organic chemical compound. He has also been accused of possessing, among other items, two home-made vests, a quantity of ball bearings, a quantity of air gun pellets, a quantity of nails and screws, wired circuitry, batteries and electric bulb filaments.

Now, homemade HMTD is almost completely fucking useless, since it either doesn’t work at all or explodes while you’re still carrying it (properly made HMTD hasn’t been commercially available for years for related reasons), and creating it requires the chemistry skills of a half-trained ape. And as far as the other items go, anyone could get hold of them given half an hour’s shopping time.

Given all that, then if he is guilty, I’m actually vaguely impressed the rozzers managed to nick Mr Ibrahim (and once again, it’s very good evidence that if anyone was planning anything serious against the UK that required non-trivial explosives and an actual conspiracy of people, they’d already be in jail…). Perhaps the years of utterly pointless raids on home MDMA and LSD labs have actually provided “watch out if person X buys chemical Y” skills that are vaguely transferrable – if so, this may well be the only positive consequence of the War On Drugs…

[for the avoidance of doubt, I do think it’s a good thing that Mr Ibrahim is on trial, just as I’d prefer it if anyone accused of saying that they were going to kill me, and then firing an airgun at me from 100 yards away while blindfolded in the fervent belief that it would do me serious harm, were to go on trial…]

Yes, I know that “ooh, this is how people found my blog” articles are so tiresome that you can now read them in the Guardian.

Equally, the number of unspeakably disturbing and filthy searches that lead – doubtless rather disappointed – deviant wankers to this website is quite large. Which I guess isn’t surprising, given the blog title and some of the subject material. How d’you think I found Dr Newman K Lin? (note: this is a rhetorical question).

However, this is definitely the best week ever to get a referral from Google Austria for the search term “fuck child under 13“. Do you think they have Internet access in the St Poelton county jail...?

Via Phil in comments, a badly reported story of idiots screwing each other over in a way that may have disturbing implications for non-idiots.

The story, at least according to the BBC is that Gavin Brent, who in fairness does look like a thick twat, got arrested for some kind of arcane Internet thievery. DC Steve Lloyd interviewed Mr Brent over said thievery; then went on paternity leave whilst Mr Brent was being charged. Mr Brent then ranted on his blog about how shit it was that he was being arrested and how the officers arresting him were cunts, suffixed with “P.S. – D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby”.

This isn’t A Clever Thing To Do. However, in the eyes of anyone who isn’t certifiably, immediately and permanently paranoidly deranged, it’s entirely fucking clear that that sentence means means “I hope your baby manages to get around the handicap of having a dad who’s an utter dickhead”, not “I’m going to set fire to your baby”. Unfortunately for Mr Brent, DC Lloyd is indeed a paranoid dickhead, and hence charged Mr Brent with [something]. The magistrates – possibly because most magistrates are complete and utter lackeys who’ll convict anyone of anything the police ask no matter what the actual law may be – found him guilty and fined him £150.

The reason for the [something] and the “possibly” is that the only report of this I’ve been able to find is on the BBC website (plus a few ranty blogs that have linked to it), and in the style of most “ooh, comedy interest” local news stories, the reporting is a pile of arse and doesn’t mention the actual offence with which Mr Brent was charged. Equally unfortunately, Mr Brent’s blog has been deleted and I’ve not been able to track down any archives or backups of it.

Readers, do you have any more info on this story? In particular, I’d be interested to see a) what the hell he was charged with and b) any evidence at all that the magistrates were justified in concluding that “any reasonable person would find the words about the baby to be menacing in the context of the overall blog“. Because unless the evidence goes well beyond the BBC story there is none, and the magistrates should immediately be fired.

Update – thanks to Mike in comments:

But one thing that is entirely fucking clear is that his blog it is absolutely free of threats, but riven with whiney denunciations. This means that the magistrates who interpreted his whiney denunciation as a threat are moronic cretins; if someone successfully crucifies all three of them to death and posts the photos in comments here, I’ll give them a fiver and a bag of chips.

So the PM is taking the ‘there’s no scientific evidence, but it’s a FACT route, promoting the upgrade (yay! a free upgrade!) of cannabis to a class B drug from a class C despite the fact that his science advisors have told him it’s a bloody stupid idea.

Fine, yup, so that’s typical government cuntage. But it looks extremely unlike the Tories are going to come out in opposition to the stupid move (if they do, then I’ll vote for them next time round. CAST IRON PIGDOGFUCKER GUARANTEE!!), in which case anyone who claims to be libertarian but to be considering a Tory vote in the next election deserves their head beaten with a bicycle chain…

If I was Belgian, I’d be pleased to see the Austrians taking on the mantle of weird insular paedoland. As Jamie says, the Josef Fritzl case is definitely the hallmark of a traditional, not a modern, society (see also: his mum’s horrible anecdote about Stoke in the 1950s).

But this isn’t a sophisticated and analytical blog, so I’ll confine myself to pointing out that Josef Fritzl looks almost identical to Viz’s paedophilic and artophilic baker Fru T Bunn:

Scummiest article ever?

Not only are the Scum effectively inviting murderous lynch-mob vengeance on a harmless wanker, driving him out of his home, said harmless wanker probably isn’t even a paedo.

You see, he was collared as part of the worst miscarriage of justice of the century so far – Operation Ore, where the Yank police raided a chap called Thomas Reedy, who processed credit cards on behalf of porn sites and sent him to jail forever for not checking whether the sites he was processing were adult or kiddypr0n [*]. Harsh but fair, you might say, and you’d probably be right – except that the Yank police then passed the whole list of all the cards Reedy had processed whether or not the site subscribed to was child porn onto British rozzers, who proceeded to arrest all UK nationals on the list and do them for child porn offences. Even when the card was demonstrably stolen…

In cases where there was actual evidence beyond the bullshit list, people were charged with actual offences. In cases where there was no evidence beyond the credit card list, the police offered people a caution as a sick bargain: “yes, we know there’s no evidence against you, but if we charge you with and prosecute you for a child porn offence then you’ll lose your job, friends and family and some thick pikey Sun readers will burn down your house. Why not have a caution instead?”.

While in retrospect, you can see why a caution might be a bad idea (“ooooooooooooh”, says moron with IQ of 5 on Internet, “he must be guilty or he wouldn’t have accepted a caution, would he? String ‘im up”), it’s also easy to see why the offer might be tempting at the time. Only a few brave guys actually fought the case; they were the stolen card guys not the adult porn guys, and they had to face years of ostracism before their day in court, and still are doubtless mistrusted by ‘no smoke without fire, and won’t somebody think of the children?’ fuckwits.

So it’s entirely likely that Billy Wand isn’t a paedophile (which is odd, because under different circumstances I’d assume he was purely because of his name and profession), but someone who has had his life ruined for buying legal adult porn by a combination of not-giving-a-fuck rozzers, not-giving-a-fuck tabloid hacks, and the general lunatic hysteria over something which really isn’t that bad in the first place (well, it isn’t. They’re pixels on a fucking screen; they’re a selection of zeros and ones. If you think that warrants jail and social ostracism, you warrant being beaten to death with a bicycle chain [**]).

Semi-relatedly, I wish that Michelle Elliot of Kidscape would fuck right off. “I think it’s wrong and sends the wrong message that he’s not gone to prison”, she says, of a man who even in the unlikely event that the police weren’t lying in this case still hasn’not actually harmed anyone in any way nor sought to (compared to, say, seeking to have a man’s life destroyed whilst he’s subjected to horrible abuse in jail…)

[shorter this article: “I’d sooner let someone who’d been arrested under Operation Ore near my kids than someone who wore make-up and called himself Billy Wand”...]

[*] obviously Reedy’s trial was reported as “evil child pr0n kingpin”, rather than “unfussy money launderer”; this reflects the fact that the police are lying scum and the media believe whatever the police tell them.

[**] as with rocket launchers and explosives, the fact that owning them isn’t inherently evil doesn’t stop society from banning them on the grounds that they’re likely to contribute to substantial harm. This is a decent case for criminalisation, not “OMG TEH EVILS, this man gets turned on by pictures that are gross”.

And fuck the horse you rode in on.

Any mention of “toxic assets”, unless you’re talking about a company which disposes of industrial waste.

Using “sub-prime” to mean anything other than “mortgage loans made in the US which did not meet Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae guidelines”. Also, conflating “a bank which is having trouble funding itself because everybody’s cagy about lending anyone money at the moment” with “a bank that bought US sub-prime loans and has now lost an enormous amount of money on them”.

Claiming that the Bank of England loan this week was a £50bn hand-out to the banks, rather than providing some urgently needed liquidity while getting a claim on some really good assets to ensure that there is no risk should things go titsup.

Fretting about the entirely trivial “a few buy-to-letters will be ruined; good” UK housing market blip which the government is taking exactly the right steps to sort with minimum pain, instead of the fact that high food prices have led to starvation, which had been almost eradicated from non-warzones, making a glorious comeback in the parts of the world where people are actually poor and have real things to worry about.

Signs that, if you’re having a conversation about current political/economic conditions with someone, they have no fucking idea what they are talking about and can be ignored:

1) use of the term “fiat money”, as I’ve already highlighted here

2) use of the term “moral hazard” in any context at all. Although there is, in theory, a real meaning for the term in sixth-form economics, the fact that 99% of uses in real life mean “I think this thing is wrong, and this thing is to do with economics, and I know fuck-all about economics, but I know this word and it sounds like it ought to mean something in economics which is wrong” disqualifies it from the lexicon of non-cunty words

3) use of the term “profiteering” for people who aren’t cheating the rationing system during a state of total war. Otherwise, what they’re doing is “making a profit” (oh, and wWith reference to UK utilities in particular: your electricity bill has gone up because there’s a shortage of gas and oil; and the benefit has accrued to the Saudis and the Russians [or more accurately, the thieving tyrants who own said countries] not to your utilities provider)

4) non-use of the term “that utter cunt who offered to get someone beaten up for money” for Boris Johnson. Although even that isn’t as bad as people who try and defend him: listen to yourselves, you daft fuckers, and feel the lameness… “Well, yeah, he said he’d get the chap beaten up, and never went to the police about it or even suggested that it was a bad idea – but he never actually arranged the beating, did he?“. Yes, that makes it all OK then. “well, yeah, he said procure a child prostitute for his paedo friend, and never went to the police about it or even suggested that it was a bad idea – but he never actually arranged the child, did he?” is, I’m sure, a defence that would absolve anyone who used it not only of legal blame, but also of all moral culpability in the matter.

One of the latest right-wing memes going round [*] is that under the Human Rights Act it is illegal for the Royal Navy to detain pirates. The New York Times has a particularly strident op-ed criticising Britain for being namby-pamby liberal pansies and surrendering to the Piratofascists.

There’s only one problem with this: it’s absolute horseshit. There is nothing stopping the Navy from detaining pirates; the Human Rights Act is entirely irrelevant to the subject, and there are no cases at all, ever, of the Navy letting pirates go for human rights reasons. Rather, the entire thing appears to have been made up by lying cunts as a way of discrediting the HRA.

Alex The Yorkshire Ranter has a more detailed, evidence-based demolition, of which the paragraph above is a summary.

[*] for the avoidance of doubt, “right-wing” used in the context of this blog means “a cunt who believes stupid shit”. Tedious wankery about whether the Nazis were socialists, etc etc, is therefore irrelevant.