Filed under Filthy foreigners

Daft vindictive cuntery

We should never have given the wankers independence in the first place. As if there were anyone Yankside with 1/20th the talent of Amy Whitehouse’s little finger…

Fucking justice yeah

So the poor sods who got locked up in Guantanamo for four-and-a-half years for once vaguely having looked at a chap whose brother knew an Evil Terrorist Wot Is Going To Kill Us All return, only to be arrested under the little-known No Smoke Without Fire Act 2005.

Can we not just fucking leave it out? [and yes, to you anti-Europeans: I entirely accept that the Spanish are being even worse than us on this one, and that if we didn't have European Arrest Warrants and extradition treaties then these guys would be in a better position...]

Obligatory Teddygate post

Aqoul has a good take on the Sudan Mohammed-teddy story, looking at the wider political background driving the apparent (and indeed, actual) lunacy.

Commenter Abu Sinan has an even better point, that I’d vaguely wondered about before but not explored because I’d assumed I was just being ignorant about Islam:

Some Muslims “veneration” for the Prophet Mohammed is way over the top. They almost worship him in the manner that Christians worship Jesus. Mohammed is not God, but from the way some Muslims act about him, you’d be hard pressed to know it.

I had asked before what would have happened if a bear was named Issa or Musa, would the idiots have had an issue then? Seeing that the “Muslim” bear in the link is named “Adam”, the first Prophet, then it seems, once against Mohammed is being held to a higher standard than other Prophets.

Either it is blasphemy for all Prophets, or for non..

The way they treat Mohammed borders on shirk [idolatry/heresy], not to mention it makes them look like eejits.

Ditto the cartoon scandal. The only positions you can take under which it’s blasphemous to draw cartoons of Mohammed are that either it’s blasphemous to draw cartoons of anyone made by your god, or that Mohammed is your god. So assuming you’re not a shirker [lolz], you’re stuck with either jihad against all comics ever, or a nice cup of shut-the-fuck-up.

I guess it’s not that surprising that head-chopping self-exploding nutjobs know even less about their own religion than sarcastic atheist cunts on the Internet, but still…

Why are Europhobics such lying fuckwits?

Europhobic blogger Prodicus has a heartfelt rant on the EU treaty. He thinks we need a referendum on it, even though we don’t normally have referenda in our political system.

The reason why he claims to think this is dressed up in paragraphs of elegant and enraged piffle – but in short, he says that the current treaty represents Parliament permanently and irrevocably giving up our sovereignty to the EU.

Only one problem: this is complete and utter bollocks. Any British parliament convened at any future event can vote – on a simple majority – to revoke the treaty and withdraw from the EU. If UKIP were elected next Tuesday, they could have us out of the EU by Wednesday (obviously the administrative tasks of deporting the foreigners, dealing with retirees evicted from Spain, abolishing human rights, losing our entire financial services industry to Frankfurt and so on would take longer, but the admin’s always a killer…). The same will be true once the new treaty is in force: we do not have to follow the treaty for one second longer than Parliament deems it appropriate for us to do so.

Why the fuck do the likes of Prodicus perpetually spread the lie that the EU, and not Parliament, has the ultimate power? Is it, err, because they don’t actually have any sane grounds to oppose the EU so need to make shit up…?

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…

Poles: awesome; the Daily Express: liars

The Daily Express are an evil bunch of cunts. They say:

Around 112,000 [Eastern European] migrants who came to Britain to work are now claiming state handouts – the equivalent of one in six of those who have headed here since the EU expanded

However, this is grossly misleading.

That includes some 68,927 receiving child benefit of up to £17.45 a week and 38,578 in receipt of tax credits that range between £1,365 and £5,300-a-year. There are also 3,600 claiming job-seeker’s allowance, income support or pension credit and another 803 approved for local authority housing assistance.

In other words, 3,600, or one in 180, of the Eastern European migrants who’ve come to Britain – including pensioners – are claiming benefits rather than financially contributing to society. The others are working full-time; some of these are being let off some of their tax payments and others of these are receiving small sums to help them raise the children who they are working to support.

Somewhat better than the natives, no?

Killing: bad; bribing: bothered

The BAe bribery scandal has been moderately entertaining. The latest news is that the Yanks want to investigate, presumably on the basis that shafting foreign competitors is a Good Idea.

But while it’s quite funny to watch the accusations piling up, it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s no moral justification for the case.

If BAe does anything that’s morally wrong, then that would be selling arms to corrupt tinpot dictators for the oppression of their own people and their neighbours.

It doesn’t make a blind bit of difference whether the dictators also use the BAe contracts as an excuse to steal money from their own people, or whether they merely use the BAe weapons as a tool to ensure they can continue stealing money from their own people.

In other words, anyone who thinks that BAe’s core business is acceptable, but that paying off a few dodgy princes is unacceptable, is a sanctimonious cunt talking sanctimonious cant. And the fact that the law allows us to sell guns ‘n’ bombs to third world hellholes, but not to slip their rulers the occasional baksheesh, is fucking stupid.

Amen, brother

Those who the gods love die young. Jerry Falwell was 73.

No offence, la

I’m not convinced that slavery reparations are generally a good thing. The fact that the average black American, despite having a lifespan despicably lower than the average white American, has a lifespan despicably higher than the average black African, is an example of how financial costing can’t really make any sense of the whole issue.

However, there is one factor on the basis of which I would massively support the payment of enormous reparations from the UK to pretty much anywhere on the basis of our involvement in the slave trade. Its name is Liverpool.

Slavery was an immaterial criterion in London and Edinburgh’s route to being the financial wealth generation centres of the UK; it was immaterial in Birmingham and Glasgow’s route to being the heavy manufacturing weath generation centre of the UK; and it was immaterial in Manchester’s route to being the cotton processing wealth generation centre of the UK.

Rather, slavery enriched the ‘we’ve got boats and we do fuck all else’ centre of Liverpool.

Since Scousers, despite being in a theoretically better position than most people in the North [*] whine a lot about everything [**], it would be delightful to see them being held personally responsible for the real, rather than made-up-and-whined-about-in-an-irritating-accent suffering of the victims of the slave trade. Maybe we could even enslave, whip and torture the fuckers.

[*] in the UK we don’t make much anymore, but we import a fuck of a lot. Because Scouse dockers are lazy incompetent fucktards, even importing goods to the North of England is now done by making detours to Southampton, Harwich or Rotterdam Europort.

[**] see: footballing death event where Scousers are documented to have urinated and robbed the dead bodies of other Scousers. This is an absolutely true fact. Anyone who mentions it – like (the idiot) Boris Johnson and (the surprisingly praiseworthy, if only for standing up to the Whiny Scouse Cunt lobby) Kelvin McKenzie – gets pilloried, but it is true. If you deny that the bodies of Liverpool supporters were urinated on and robbed by other Liverpool supporters at the Hillsborough disaster, you are a liar and in denial. Most Scousers are liars and in denial.