Longrider

In response to a request, here is an occasional feature; Fuckwit of the day. Today’s star is Louise Casey; Respect coordinator. Now, there’s job worth having… I mean, how does one coordinate respect?

Anyway, commenting on the new supernannies  planned by the Blair government to cure all our ills – and, be assured that this is not indicative of a nanny state, oh, no, the right dishonourable Blair says it’s not, so it ain’t, so there – Louise, bless her heart, comes out with this wonderful statement:

“I am very comfortable - as is every member of the public, the Mori poll shows - that if you need to force people on to parenting courses to get help, then you should.”

I see. I’m not comfortable with it in the slightest, not one jot, not one wit. And I am not the only one. Therefore, Ms Casey is factually wrong. So, is she arrogant, stupid or going for the double?

Via Mr E, the odious Blair government notes that the peasants citizens are revolting daring to speak their mind.

Tony Blair’s outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fuelling a “crisis” in the relationship between politicians and voters.

As opposed, that is, to the venal, lying, mendacious, stupid, authoritarian control freaks in Whitehall.

Matthew Taylor - who stressed he was speaking as a “citizen” not a government spokesman - said the web could be “fantastic” for democracy.

Indeed.

But it was too often used to encourage the “shrill discourse of demands” that dominated modern politics.

Really? Wonder why that is?

“We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government,” Mr Taylor told the audience.

Oh, I see. Mr Taylor has decided that we are incapable of self-government. Well, I suppose he has a point, we did put this bunch of fuckers into parliament, which does rather suggest a lack of sound judgement. Well, a lack of sound judgement on the part of the 22% of voters dimwitted enough to vote for them. The rest of us, however, are perfectly capable. It is politicians who have decided that we are not, that we need to be “managed” for our own good. Behold; the nanny state personified.

Like “teenagers”, people were demanding, but “conflicted” about what they actually wanted, he argued.

Au contraire, I know exactly what I want. I want politicians to get their noses out of my damned business and keep out. There’s nothing conflicted about that. Oh, and I deeply resent the inference that I am a teenager unable to decide what I want. Mr Taylor is an insolent rapscallion.

But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or “mendacious” by the media, which he described as “a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage”.

That is because they are mendacious. Didn’t I use that word already? Well, never mind. It’s a good word, so I’ll use it again. Blair has not only lied and lied consistently, he has been caught out doing it, so why should I believe anything he says? Yup; mendacious. His government seeks to regulate every wrinkle of our lives, to micro-manage us as if we are incapable of managing ourselves. As I have pointed out, I am perfectly capable of managing my life. Politicians merely pollute it.

He went on: “At a time at which we need a richer relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had, to confront the shared challenges we face, arguably we have a more impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had.”

And who’s fault is that?

“It seems to me this is something which is worth calling a crisis.”

And who’s fault is that?

The internet, he told the conference, was part of that “crisis”.

Ah, yes, I see where this is going… Nothing so simple as mendacious, venal, lying, power obsessed politicians then. It’s that new-fangled interweb thingy.

The internet has immense potential but we face a real problem if the main way in which that potential expresses itself is through allowing citizens to participate in a shrill discourse of demands.

If you look at the way in which citizens are using technology and the way that is growing up, there are worrying signs that that is the case.

What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It’s basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are.

And in particular; it’s blogs that are to blame.

You arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious, patronising arsehole. How dare you pass responsibility for the failings of politicians onto those whom they are supposed to serve. How dare you, you obnoxious little shit! How dare you presume in your imperious tone to suppose that you are allowing us to participate. It is not your place to allow us to speak our minds. This is what is known as freedom of speech; a freedom along with many that is being systematically eroded by Blair and his diabolical cohorts; the corrupt, venal, mendacious government to which you so recently belonged. If there is a problem here is it your fault and yours alone. How dare you presume you have any authority to allow us to voice dissent in the face of your betrayal of our liberties. You arrogant shit-head. 

“I want people to have more power, but I want them to have more power in the context of a more mature discourse about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens,” Mr Taylor told delegates.

Really? Really? And systematic lying by politicians is “mature” is it? Driving people to commit suicide is “mature” is it? Hyping up terror alerts to create an environment of fear is “mature” is it? Stealing people’s identities and franchising them back is “mature” is it? Attempting to bypass parliament is “mature” is it? Eroding habeas corpus is “mature” is it? You bastard! How dare you! Clean up your own back yard before you turn on us.

Part of the problem, he added, was the “net-head” culture itself, which was rooted in libertarianism and “anti-establishment” attitudes.

Doubtless it hasn’t occurred to this stupid little prick that the rise in libertarianism might just be inversely proportional to the erosion of our liberty indulged in by his now erstwhile boss and his henchmen? And, since when did liberty become a dirty word?

Oh, no, that we complain about our liberties being raped is our fault, not that of the perpetrators. Or, as Mr E puts it:

Blogs are merely loudspeakers through which ordinary people voice their frustrations with the way they are governed. And those who choose to sit at a keyboard to air those views are actually a more representative sample than you might think. If you’re going to be tough on shrill, be tough on the causes of shrill, too.

Quite.

Now… How long before they try to regulate us?

I’m a bit late with this discourse (busy and all that). However, I wanted to comment as I have a slightly different perspective. Councillor Terry Kelly accuses David Farrer of being a far right nutter.

When you write a political web page you expect feedback, some of it hostile, some supportive and some disturbing. I was told that some guy had written about me on his blog in a very uncomplimentary way, this complete eejit ( David Ferrens from memory ) writes very well which makes him even more sinister because he’s a barking far right nutter. He uses Burns’s phrase “whiskey & freedom gang the gither” as his title which I’m sure would have the second rate old Ayrshire plagiarist spinning in his grave, his views however and the views of the incestuous sycophants who write to him are capable of making your skin crawl. These people peddle very dangerous and disturbing views, they come across as being capable of almost anything which doesn’t require courage, they describe themselves as libertarians of the right to which I have to say, I’ve never met or heard of a right wing libertarian who wasn’t well off and self obsessed.

Riiiight. What we have here is insult without backup. What views are “disturbing”? In what way is David Farrer “sinister”? Left handed, perchance? And self obsessed? Can’t say I’d noticed. But then, libertarianism isn’t about “self” it’s about liberty. And liberty is for everyone.

Anyway, my perspective is slightly different because I come from a Labour background. My parents voted Labour, my grandparents voted Labour, I was educated by the state (for all the good it did me) and had to put right the resulting deficiencies myself; I’ve been a trades union activist and representative, I was a card carrying member of the Labour party and campaigned for them, consequently I know a little about socialism from the inside. Mr Kelly declares himself a socialist, therefore I understand him. On his sidebar he claims to approve of the redistribution of wealth.

The problem, of course, is that socialism just doesn’t work in practice. I began to realise this following the 1997 election. The egalitarian ideals are all very well, but we are not all equal and that evidence stares us in the face. “Redistributing” someone’s wealth is simply theft by another name. The fine principle of each according to his means and each according to his needs boils down to state sponsored theft from those who work in order to provide handouts for those who don’t. If working hard means having the fruits of one’s labour forcibly removed and fed to the feckless layabouts who can’t be arsed, then you start to think twice about the benefits of entrepreneurship, and that ultimately destroys the economy. We can’t all be feckless layabouts; who would provide the handouts?

The idea that wealth creation is some evil influence again flies in the face of reason and facts. People who start businesses do so with their own capital or borrow against their assets. They spend time, effort and sleepless nights getting together business plans and putting those plans into practice. Eventually, if they are successful, then everyone wins. They become wealthy (and it takes an incredible degree of mean spiritedness to begrudge them that), they provide employment, they provide earnings for suppliers, they provide a product or service for their customers and they pay taxes, so the robber barons in the exchequer get a cut too. Wealth creators are good. The evidence tells us so. Wealth creation is a part of human nature. Now here’s the rub. You can’t be a socialist and sign up to this concept. And, another rub while we are at it; wealth creation and its knock-on effect is a matter of fact, not opinion.

So, what do we do when faced with a conflict between what we have been taught to believe; and believe with a passion; and the hard, cold facts? Well, one option is denial. The other is to stare the facts square in the eye, tip one’s hat and revise one’s opinion. The day I did that, I ceased to be a socialist. Councillor Kelly’s writing; dire, ignorant and dull; a consequence of the education he would enforce on future generations; displays sufficient denial to keep an AA convention going for a fortnight with nary time for a tea break.

If he genuinely believes the tosh he writes, it is he, not David Farrer who is sinister and dangerous. For it is his party that is demolishing the rule of law, the right to freedom of expression, the right of assembly, freedom of religion, and desires to steal our very identities and franchise them back to us. Such authoritarian control freaks need petty officials to do their dirty work for them. Step forward Mr Kelly. Y’see, that’s the beauty of socialism, the mediocre rise to power and in their insecurity seek to control and subvert those who are their natural betters; those with charisma, drive, creativity and talent; for such people expose them for what they are; petty tyrants full of ignorance, spite, envy and bile. And it is that, above all, which I most detest about socialism.

If you have been paying attention at the back, there, you will have noticed this blog referred to as a swearblog by some of the reprobates found in the land of British blogs. Well, they should know…

The odd thing about this is that in person, I’m mild mannered and rarely swear. Indeed, this rare occurrence is usually preceded by five minutes in front of the box when the BBC news is on. Bad combination, very bad combination. Mrs Longrider once asked why I do it. It must be a form of masochism, I guess, because the result is always the same, increased blood pressure, an enraged tantrum and foul language vented in the direction of the morons putting out such trite, biased nonsense. Trite biased nonsense for which we are extorted over a hundred quid a year, no less.

Apart from that one aberration however, you would not normally find me cussing. Nor, for that matter is it a part of my usual writing style. I prefer a cool, serene delivery. And, to be fair, when I started this blog, such was the intention. However, when faced with a barrage of illiberal authoritarianism from Whitehall on an almost daily basis, coupled with imbeciles claiming that such erosion of our liberties is in some way good for us, is it any wonder that I display the outward two signs of Britishness? Indeed, the purveyors of our imminent descent into totalitarianism and the fools who follow slavishly at their feet are not deserving of serene, thoughtful dissection. No, what they deserve is a vicious hatchet job delivered with all the force of Anglo Saxon terminology.

This blog has become a safety valve. A chance to vent and say what I really feel about the second rate minds who govern us. Sometimes, though, it isn’t anonymous strangers who read what we write.

Mrs Longrider chanced upon such a piece of invective yesterday. “Oh,” she said, adjusting her reading glasses. “You don’t pull your punches, do you?”

Indeed. However, don’t tell anyone, but Mrs Longrider has been known to utter the odd profanity at the BBC news, too.

James Hall is the man charged with bringing about the identity cards scheme. If Blair and his bunch of lying, bullying, authoritarian fuckwits were not bad enough, the civil service, unelected and übercontrolling is worse; far worse. The latest evidence of the uncivil service’s arrogant contempt for our liberty is summarised by a piece of newspeak from this unspeakable bastard defending the thoroughly maleficent identity cards scheme.

ID cards could “help safeguard civil liberties,” says the man in charge of introducing them.

Full marks for effrontery and nil points for honesty and integrity. Talk about the new black being white. Sometimes a lie is so stupendous, so outrageous in its barefaced cheek, that you can’t quite believe anyone would have the sheer front to utter it. But, here we are, fuckwit in chief, Mr James Hall, tells us black really is white and we are expected to believe him.

The chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service, James Hall, said in a Downing St web chat that there would be “tight controls” to prevent abuse.

Yeah, right. Given the astounding piece of bollocks that went before it, nothing Mr Hall says is to be trusted.

But Mr Hall said the cards were likely to “reduce the number of times you have to reveal personal information”.

How, exactly? I’d love an answer to that one, but none seems forthcoming. The assertion is made and that’s it. fait accompli. Jesus Christ! If I hold politicians in utter contempt, I wonder just how much lower we can go before we reach the depths at which this loathsome bottom feeder exists.

Mr Hall said: “ I don’t think that ID cards will threaten personal privacy.”

“Rather the reverse; they will likely reduce the number of times you have to reveal personal information and increase the security of your personal data. “

“Maybe we should start arguing the case that ID Cards will reduce the threat of the surveillance society and help safeguard civil liberties,” he added, during the 70-minute moderated web chat.

My blood pressure is going to suffer, I can tell… Mr Hall “thinks” that ID cards won’t threaten personal privacy. Oh, well, that’s okay then. Go home and stop worrying chaps; Mr Hall says it’s all okay and he must be right; after all, we have his assertion and that must mean something, mustn’t it? As for arguing the case for ID cards reducing surveillance and safeguarding civil liberties, it would be funny if this was Rory Bremner. As it is, we have a civil servant telling us that systematic data mining will reduce the threat of, well, systematic data mining. As for these unelected turds talking of defending our liberties, I’m reminded of the thought that wolves would make excellent shepherds.

It isn’t about terrorism, mind:

But Mr Hall said one of his “frustrations was the common assumption that the National Identity Scheme is only about terrorism”.

Oh, no, wait a minute, it is about terrorism.

“But we do know that terrorists use multiple identities to avoid detection and anything we can do to make this more difficult must help”.

Predictable, or what? I wondered how long before the disingenuous blackguard would trot that one out. They always do.

Asked how he could ensure that information would not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals, he said it would be “security accredited to the highest standard.”

Sigh… The standard being? the evidence to support the assertion? Oh, that’s right, there isn’t any.

And he dismissed accusations that ministers were forcing through ID cards in the face of huge public opposition.

He said the government was elected with the ID cards as a manifesto commitment, Parliament voted for it, and the civil servants had to implement it.

“That’s what I and my team are committed to doing. Oh, and by the way the evidence is that the general public supports the scheme and are frustrated that it is taking so long,” he added.

And the evidence of this overwhelming public support (as opposed to indifference, ignorance and apathy)? A few out-of-date polls. I can’t say that I’ve come across any evidence of public frustration at the delay, either. So, what we have is Mr Hall making another of his assertions. As for the assertion that we voted for it; I most certainly didn’t and neither did the majority of those who voted at the last election. In fact – if we are to sully this discussion with anything as crude and dirty as facts; around 22% voted for it – presuming, of course, they even knew what was in the manifesto. So, Mr Hall is either a fool or a liar. Which is it, I wonder?

“The track record [of government IT systems] is nothing like as bad as you might conclude from the press.” 

And my name is Mary Poppins.

How about taking a leaf from the odious Mr Hall’s book? Let’s have a serious discussion about the role of the uncivil service. Such as, just for starters, mind, making them accountable for their own fuckups? Now, there’s a thought.

This week is the “yetanotherthon” extravaganza that is “Children in Need”. I’ll make it clear at the start; this is not a charity that I have ever felt the need to support. I’ve not given much thought to this, I just felt a mild distaste for the whole thing and left it at that.

Charitable giving is a personal thing. I give, as many do, to those causes with which I feel some empathy. The odd few quid as and when and give it no more thought. The rise of the charitable “thon” during the late eighties with extravagant displays of celebs urging us to give tended to put me off rather than encourage me to donate. Particularly when some raggedy Irishman is ranting at me to “give us your fucking money”. The response is; “If you can’t ask properly, then you can piss right off”. I didn’t give to that one, either.

The “thon” became synonymous with workmates blackmailing colleagues to give in response to some silly stunt, such as head shaving. I resisted this, despite subliminal reproof. You see, I have this quaint idea that philanthropy should be something entered into freely, without precondition, without coercion and without expectation of exchange. That I do, without entering into silly stunts, without blackmailing colleagues and friends and without making a fuss about it.

Then came the addition to the silly stunts for money; the charity auction. In the case of Children in Need; the “things money can’t buy”. Except, of course, money can buy them. An awful lot of money. On Terry Wogan’s show yesterday morning (I’m not listening today, once was enough), we had an evening with Raymond Blanc, a night at the theatre with some cleleb or other, a day at an airforce base and so on. Sure, nice enough purchases if that’s what you want to do and why not do it for charity? Why not indeed? Well, if the BBC put a realistic price on the purchases – say a couple of hundred quid – and then asked people to phone in, then I’d see nothing wrong with that. What they did, though, was brazenly play the auction fever card. Auctions can be as damaging as gambling as people become caught up in wanting to win so much that they bid more than they originally intend to. Stupid, you might say and I would agree with you. But deliberately encouraging it to raise money is deeply unethical as it plays on human weakness for gain. That the end use is for the good does not excuse the tactic. It is still repellent.

Then there’s the motivation of someone who is willing to spend thousands; nay tens of thousands; of pounds on something worth a fraction of that “for charidee”. It seems less philanthropy than grandstanding. Even the anonymous donors will not be anonymous to those with whom they share the purchase. They will, doubtless feel good about themselves. Philanthropists do, I suspect. But, this isn’t philanthropy. Why not just write a cheque and be done with it? Why get embroiled in a public auction and pay way over the odds for something in a tacky “thon”? Philanthropy is about the expectation of nothing in return. Charitable giving is about giving, not receiving and has nothing to do with thousands of pounds on a radio auction.

Yesterday evening, my thoughts on the matter crystallised. Where had I come across this before? Ah, yes, the widow’s mite.

Hiring a car at Stansted airport now means being fingerprinted like a criminal.

Hiring a car can now mean leaving a fingerprint. And check-out staff are scanning the customers as well as the shopping. Biometrics are entering every day life.

Getting your fingerprints taken would once have meant only one thing. You were helping the police with their inquiries. Now such “biometric” identification is entering the mainstream of every day life.

If you want to hire a car at Stansted Airport, you now need to give a fingerprint.

The scheme being tested by Essex police and car hire firms, is not voluntary. Every car rental customer must take part.

Fine. But it is erroneous to state that there is no choice involved. We all have a choice. Mine is to tell the car hire companies operating out of Stansted exactly what they can do with their cars.

“It’s not intrusive really. It’s different - and people need to adjust to it. It’s not Big Brother, it’s about protecting people’s identities. The police will never see these thumbprints unless a crime is committed.”

Of course it’s fucking intrusive! Normal, law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals because the police are too inept and lazy to use proper policing methods to deal with the perpetrators of crime. Punishing everybody is easier for them. Notice the “protecting people’s identities” newspeak bollocks. Here we go again; the slow of wit using Blairite banalities to justify yet another erosion of our liberties. 

But it hasn’t been well received by all customers. Ciaran Moore from Belfast was “astounded” when he was asked for his fingerprint. He thought the staff were joking.

Making fingerprints compulsory, he says, is “disproportionate” and he has written to complain.

“Disproportionate” is an understatement. Along with writing to complain, perhaps Mr Moore should have told them where to stick it, taken the train and hired a car elsewhere. That’s what I would do.

I heard on the radio this morning that the credit card companies, being so hard done by and unable to scrape together a profit, want to return to charging an annual fee for their services. These being lending money at exorbitant rates of interest – unless the customer pays in full each month, which is hardly the done thing. Bankers have to eat, you know…

Annual fees for having a credit card could be on the way back, a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) says.

The fees, which fell out of fashion in the late 1990s, could make a comeback as card providers try to recoup losses from new consumer protection measures.

The Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) cap on credit card default charges and its payment-protection insurance probe has hit card providers’ incomes.

Losses, eh? Well, I can’t feel too concerned about it. After all, they are all too willing to fleece the consumer with over high charges, so having to pay them back is not such a bad thing. Unless you are a credit card company, of course. Now is the biter bit, it seems.

Still:

Fees of £35 would have to be levied to make up their losses, PWC said.

Ah… That would be the £35 they lifted from their customers’ wallets for defaulting and had to pay back, would it? I’m fortunate, I haven’t lost money in this way. That’s because I set up direct debit payments for the minimum amount each month, thereby insuring myself against such fines should I have a senior moment and forget the payment date. If, however, I’m to be clobbered by an annual fee, then I’ll be rethinking my arrangements. At present, I have four credit cards. I don’t know why, I just sort of collected them over the years. My Amex Blue Card already has a small annual fee that is more than offset by the money back I get each year; so effectively it’s cost neutral. I use it for business expenses, so will keep that one. The Barclaycard I use for personal day-to-day expenses. That leaves my two MBNA cards. One is issued by the British Motorcyclists Federation and they get a proportion of the money MBNA collect in fees from merchants. The other was originally an Abbey National credit card until MBNA took over the operation. Now, are these two cards worth seventy quid? No. So they will go. Now, multiply that reaction across the credit card owning population as people dispose of excess cards and any gains made by the companies might well be lost as people decide that that fashionable idea of the early nineties wasn’t such a bad thing after all.