Send the Rioters to London - That’s a Real Punishment.

Ah, those were the days. When the courts of England could banish their “ne’er-do-wells” to lands far beyond their borders.

Step up Richard Miller who, after one presumes reasonable consideration, went to the Government’s daft “Petition” website and started a daft petition. He wanted Parliament to debate his suggestion that his fellow English men and women, who are prone to a bit of rioting and looting, should be deported. Not to Australia this time. Rather, his preferred option was the Outer Hebrides.

Mr Miller’s petition states that the islands have “none of the comforts of English city living e.g. no running water, electricity, decent food, culture and shopping”. As such this would constitute punishment. He goes on to say that as some of the islanders keep sheep, they could look after the English yobs as well.

Surely not in the same field. What have the sheep done to deserve that?

You would have to hope that there was an element of mischief behind this petition but, this particular Dick might actually believe that he has come up with a solution. He may even be Jeremy Clarkson in disguise. But, with the inclusion of words in the petition that contained more than two syllables, this seems unlikely.

As for the Outer Hebrides? 

Well, of course there’s running water. OK it hasn’t done the recycling rounds like the drinking water of the South-east. So, if you prefer your water to have previously resided in the bladders of a couple of strangers, then the Hebrides are not for you.

Electricity? Renewable and subsidising the Green House Gas emission reductions of the gas and coal burning South.

Decent food? Granted, no jellied eels, faggots or pie and liquor here. And alas no McDonald’s or KFC. But he could try some fresh lobsters, prawns or scallops. Maybe a bit of salmon or venison. 

As for Culture? Here I would have to admit to knowing little of the traditions and customs of English city life. I know there are brass bands, clogs and Whippets, pearly kings and queens and Morris dancing. But perhaps he means the galleries full of the work of foreign artists, Italian High Opera, or the proximity to concert halls where he can listen to the music of Bach, Beethoven or Strauss. Either way. I’m not convinced that any of those he wishes to inflict on the people of the Hebrides would recognise a fugue as long as the hole in their arse points to the ground. 

How that stacks up against the culture of Hebrides, with an impeccable provenance and an unbroken history going back over a millennium, is perhaps a matter of individual preference. It is certainly not for comparison.

It is also interesting that Mr Miller thinks that denying his fellow citizens the ability to go shopping is a punishment. It was apparently obvious, from the television pictures beamed around the world that they prefer to steal rather than shop.

And Mr Miller needn’t be so modest. What about all the other things that English city life offers that they don’t have in the Outer Hebrides.

Polluted air, muggings, murders, rapes, drug dealers hanging around the school gate and the very real chance of having your children shot or stabbed to death by one of their peers. And all this on litter strewn streets that are costing English councils close on £1 billion a year to clean up.

And let’s not forget the most recent contribution to civilisation to have sprung from English city life, the brain-dead knuckle draggers who rioted, looted and trashed the very places of whose virtues he extols.

London would surely top the list of places of places most suitable for internal exile.

Having said that, there may perhaps be some merit in this idea.

A reciprocal arrangement that saw the despatching of Hebridean delinquents south would be a deterrent unrivalled. Although actually being forced to reside in one of Mr Miller’s urban utopias would surely be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Still, Richard Miller got his 15 minutes of fame, albeit only in the Outer Hebrides. I for one hope that he has a few more such petitions up his sleeve. A man with such remarkable insight and knowledge of Britain must surely be destined for great things. Even if the freedom of Stornoway is not one of them.

McCoist Gets an Apology – But What About the Rest of Us?

Ally McCoist got an apology from BBC Scotland (sic) after they manipulated film footage to suggest that he took a flippant attitude to sectarian violence. But what about the rest of us who were, and not for the first time, deliberately lied to by the state sponsored broadcaster. The people of Scotland were treated with contempt and its time that the liars were kicked over the border to where they really want to be.

The Rangers’ manager, Ally McCoist has received an apology from the BBC in Scotland after it deliberately  manipulated footage from a press conference in an attempt to show the Ibrox boss taking what he referred to as “flippant” attitude towards sectarian-fuelled violence surrounding his side's games against Celtic. McCoist refused to speak to the BBC until they apologised.

In the clip McCoist was shown appearing to smile when answering a question about violence at Old Firm matches. This was followed by the reporter saying “Well it might not bother Mr McCoist”

The thing was that the footage showing the Rangers manager smiling was his reaction to a different question.

This wasn’t just a piece of clumsy editing. The voice-over on this portion of the film makes it all too clear that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the viewers. But to what end?

Last season, when the Celtic manager was receiving death threats, the BBC chose to make a report from outside Ibrox. The obvious conclusion – to make the link between the attacks on Lennon and Rangers FC.

While no one can argue that sectarianism is no more manifest than through the actions of some of those that follow the Old Firm, filming this report outside the Rangers’ ground was a deliberate attempt to make an association that simply did not exist.

This is not the first time that creative editing has been used by the corporation north of the border.

Normally it is reserved for its anti-SNP propaganda. This was seen clearly when Reporting Scotland manipulated footage from the Scottish Parliament last November. In this pathetic little piece it appears as though First Minister, Alex Salmond is apparently mocking a statement by his Finance Minister, John Swinney. In fact he was reacting to a statement by the then leader of the Lib-Dems, Tavish Scott.

The lie can be seen here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn5T3e4Nk2I&feature=player_embedded 

The truth can be seen here.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nTcGkEEU8&feature=player_embedded

The actively pro-unionist stance taken by the BBC in Scotland is nothing new. Although in recent times it has become so obvious as to suggest that those in news and current affairs have given up any pretence of impartiality. 

It is the BBC's attitude to sectarianism that many might now question. It undoubtedly sees the problem as nothing more than an opportunity for sensationalism. A chance to do what it does best – continually put Scotland down in an attempt to reinforce the greatest lie of all – that Scotland and its people are incapable of self-determination.

While Ally McCoist has had his apology, that is not really good enough for the rest of us. We were told a lie. Not only that, what we got was yet another deliberate manipulation of the media to promote this lie.

It would be nice to see those responsible for this getting their arses kicked onto the dole.

That's not likely to happen though. And it is doubtful that it will deter the liars at BBC Scotland from carrying on with their agenda of treating the people of Scotland with contempt.

The Gangs of New Somalia Part II

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the loony Islamist al-Shabab has found that its psychopathic take on running a country has proved to be disastrous. They are the only reason that millions of Somalis have, up until now been deprived of the aid that they so desperately need.

In the past al-Shabab have been more interested with the prohibition of music, the banning of mixed-sex handshakes and the idea that women who refuse to get married should be beheaded.

However, while they were getting on with the important aspects of misogynistic medievalism and turning the sane world against them, the will of Allah was about to bite them on the arse.

With Somalia now in the grip of famine, these numbskulls are now desperate for help.

After threatening to kill everybody that worked for an aid agency in the areas that they controlled they now are asking the very people they have vowed to kill to help them out.

It is hard to imagine that they really care about those they have enslaved to their archaic and twisted ideology. History shows us the opposite. The thing is that with starving Somalis leaving the country in the hundreds of thousand, this lot of murdering tossers are fast running out of people to persecute.

They now however, need the help of, amongst others, their greatest enemy – the USA.

Let’s not forget that al-Shabab is a terrorist organisation hell-bent on the crackpot idea of a world where, anyone they leave alive would be ruled by their own particularly nasty interpretation of Islam.

 

It is very unlikely that those who are starving in Somalia are the gun-toting, brainless thugs of al-Shabab.

The ordinary Somalis, who have lived under a reign of terror for far too long now, need to be helped.

What is worrying the West though, is that al-Shabab will somehow manage to take credit for the aid. But the people should be given more credit than that. They’re not stupid. They will understand that the aid has nothing to do with their persecutors. They wouldn't

dare say so though.

The problem is that al-Shabab is nothing more than a gang of killers and extortionists, only too ready to seize an opportunity to line their pockets. They cannot be trusted. I doubt very much that the aid agencies will be left alone. And whereas those delivering the aid might well be willing to pay the “taxes” and bribes that the terrorists will no doubt demand, governments won’t. If, and when, any sort of payments come to light, money from western governments and especially the US will cease.

We all need to help the people of Somalia.

We all need to rid the world of murdering shit like al-Sshabab.

One question though, for the clerics who like to think that they give al-Shabab some sort of moral authority.

Just what is so great about this god that he derives such obvious satisfaction from inflicting suffering on those who worship him?

Labour Living in the Past With Fascist Insult

So, heckling your opponents in the Commons means that you are a neo-fascist.

Glasgow South West Labour MP Ian Davidson thinks so. But, presumably, only if you’re a nationalist.

As SNP MPs heckled him during a debate on the Scotland Bill on Tuesday night, he said: "I notice the way in which efforts have been made to shout me down.”

"That's what's happened traditionally in Scotland when people challenge the nationalists. Those of us who want to challenge the narrow, neo-fascism of the nationalists."

Now, now.

Heckling in the House of Commons is par for the course and you would have to be a real twat to consider that it was an indication of neo-fascism.

Was the Labour Party “shouted down” during the recent Holyrood elections?

I don’t think so.

However.

It should come as no surprise that a Labour MP should use this phrase against the SNP. The party, especially north of the border, have long attempted to place in the minds of the electorate some connection between Scottish Nationalism and fascism, in particular the ludicrous suggestion that the SNP should be equated with the National Socialists of Nazi Germany. When one considers the “corporate” governments of Blair and Brown this is might sound a wee bit rich.

It’s an accusation that is as tired as the Labour Party itself.

It harks back to Labour’s ideal of a one world where we would all be subject to a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, as opposed to Nu-Labour’s preference that we that we be subject to a dictatorship of the banks.

Former East Lothian MP Anne Moffat once claimed that Alex Salmond gaining power was comparable with the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany. A suggestion that beggars reason.

And then there was Lord “Fuckwit” Foulkes who directed a "Mussolini" jibe at Mr Salmond, referring to the First Minister as "Il Duce" at a Holyrood committee. Yet another socialist from the people’s party that couldn’t wait to get into the House of Lords and join the rest of the “working class heroes”.

These are, historically, the people who use to refer to Stalin as “Uncle Joe”. Well, we all know what kind of an uncle he turned out to be.

They live in the selective past. A past that has seen the people of Scotland kick their collective arses out of Holyrood.

To refer to the 900,000 Scots who democratically elected the SNP at the last election, as neo-fascists is just fucking stupid. It is an unbelievable insult to all those Scots who fought against fascism, not only in WWII but during the Spanish Civil War and chose to think that Scotland should be a country that had the temerity to exist outwith the UK.

The guy really doesn’t have a clue as to what fascism is. He is regurgitating this pish parrot fashion. The sad, and dangerous, thing is that there are many in the Labour party that agree with him. It stems from an irrational hatred of the SNP which in itself can only come from an insular political perspective. Perhaps even fascism.

They live in the past. The era of cloth caps and rickets.

The people of Scotland have moved on. They have aspirations of a better life.

It is doubtful if that life includes a Labour party that includes the likes of Ian Davidson.

Blundering Blundell Just Won’t Give Up.

The Scotland Office just won’t give up with its daft attacks on the independence referendum. First it was the nonsense about “Two Referendums” then it got all hot and bothered about “Two Questions”. It has now gone for a hat-trick of irrelevance.

Following in the meandering footsteps of his boss, Michael Moore, David Blundell has taken another tilt at the windmill by claiming that there would “be little confidence in the referendum” because the Electoral Commission would not be involved. Instead Holyrood is to set up a Scottish Referendum Commission.

When it was pointed out to him that the legal situation meant that Commission could not be formally involved, even with new legislation he made another of his “on the hoof” promises that his government, the one in London, would be willing to “give the Electoral Commission the authority.”

So, basically, what he is saying is that the people of Scotland are not to be trusted and are incapable of running a fair and free referendum and that he and his unionist cronies would be only to happy to step in and make sure its done properly.

This is the underbelly of unionism.

So far the argument from the Moore and Mundell has been that the people of Scotland can’t be trusted to do things for themselves. They are not capable. They don’t understand things. They need help from London. It is central to the unionist argument that Scotland is incapable of hacking it as an independent nation state. Expect more of this from Labour and the Lib-Dems in the future.

If someone is feeding Scotland Office this crap then they are certainly doing a good job, as far as the SNP is concerned.

The Lights Are On - But No One’s in at the Scotland Office

It would appear that the Scotland Office is determined to show us just how little they seem to know about what is going on around them.

After the recent ridiculous statement made by Michael Moore about the legality of the independence referendum we now have blundering David Mundell putting his foot in it to try and muddy the waters even further.

The only Tory MP north of the border is warning the people of Scotland that if his government doesn’t have a say in the wording on the ballot paper then it will end up before the Supreme Court in London.

Blundell is demanding that only one question, “Independence – “yes or no” be put before the people. The Scottish Government’s has said that it is open to the option of two questions. The second, asking if, in the event that they did not want independence, would those voting want greater fiscal autonomy.

It would appear that Blundell, along with quite a few others, does not understand that a two question ballot paper will make no difference to the vote for independence. Either people favour it or they don’t.

However, its got nothing to do with that.

Blundell and the unionist cabal want the choice to be independence or the status quo. Therefore, if the vote did not favour independence they would be able to say that that people of Scotland were happy with the way things were. As that might not actually be the case the SNP want, quite rightly, to offer another option.

One could vote for independence and greater fiscal autonomy. One could vote against independence but for greater fiscal autonomy. One could vote “no” to both. This would give a clear picture of what the people wanted.

So why do the unionists see this as a problem?

Because it is. And its one of their own making.

They will go into the independence campaign telling the people of Scotland that they have been given everything that they are going to get. The London Government has already told the Scots that they will get no more than the insipid unionist Calman Report recommended. Had they given Scotland more, the fear was that by the time the referendum comes about the SNP would be able to show that with greater fiscal autonomy Scotland was better off. And the reason that they don’t want it now is the same reason that they don’t want to risk it on the ballot.

So for them there can only be straight choice between independence and the union. However, if they are confident that everything in the UK garden is rosy then surely all that they have to do is tell people to vote for the “No – No” option.

The contribution to the debate by the Scotland Office so far, has been a mixture of arrogant posturing and threats of constitutional bludgeoning.

If they have an argument as to why it would be beneficial for Scotland to remain in a political union that is well past its “sell by” date then they should make it.

So far, it would appear that they do not.

English Attorney General to Prosecute the World Wide Web

 

The Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve, now saying that he will prosecute people who “Tweet” the names of those who have taken out super injunctions.

This will no doubt be met by a chorus of “Bring it on” from many of those who see the internet as a legitimate weapon against the old order. They will, with some justification, see this as the Government and the judiciary yet again siding with the elite.

Grieve’s views are endorsed by David Allen Green, a media lawyer and (according to the BBC) an “expert on social media”. He points out that everyone who publishes the names of those hiding behind these injunctions are open to prosecution.

Get real!

The image of Ryan Giggs was one of a consummate professional sportsman and role model for youngsters. As with Tiger Woods, this image was intrinsic to his status in both the sport and its associated commercial enterprises. As such, it is without doubt, in the public interest to know whether this remains the case. There are quite a few who portray themselves in a manner which bestows a certain status, coupled with an ability to make a lot of money. They are more than happy to use the media to promote this image. It is a public image. And that’s the point.

When that public image is shown to be a lie, then the public should be told.

This is not about privacy.

I couldn’t care less what any of these self-important twats had for their breakfast. I don’t care what hand they use to wipe their arse. And I’m certainly not in the slightest bit interested where they go on holiday and whether they get their kit off on the beach.

However, when they achieve a prominence and wealth by dint of a societal belief in a self-proclaimed portrayal then that society needs to be told that it has been deceived.

The problem over people “tweeting” the names of such people is one that has been created by the courts. These super-injunctions should have been declared dead in the water. By not doing so, judges are telling us in no uncertain terms, that the rich can have their cake and eat it.

This, rather than any tabloid styled expose, is the reason people post the names on the internet.

As for the Attorney General’s idea of prosecuting thousands (and bear in mind if he goes down this road it will become millions) of people who live outside England and Wales is a much anticipated exercise in wasting public money.

Are we to see injunctions against newspapers in Scotland, Eire, France, and the USA et al?

He might be able to go after Twitter, but unless he has any ideas on how to close down all the other websites in the world he’s doing what politicians do – talking spam. Unhelpful. Unwanted. And ultimately useless. Only to be believed by the gullible. And maybe the celebrity elite who think they can hide behind ludicrous judgements made in the now, unfortunately,  discredited English courts.