Heathrow protests

Air travel is too cheap.

It is not an inalienable human right to travel to a sunny destination overseas for half the cost of a train ticket to the other end of this country.

And Easyjet and RyanAir are not philanthropic organisations set up with a charter to bring low cost transport to the masses thereby broadening our minds and making us a more civilised society.

In fact they are money grabbing bastards who treat their passengers like cattle and don’t give a flying fuck about the environmental impact of their operations.

And all this is facilitated by the government who, by not taxing aviation fuel allow an absurdly low price of 26p per litre. Lobbying by the aviation industry internationally has ensured that this is protected by Chicago Treaty, which we are told makes it sacrosanct. Strange how the same logic doesn't extend to the Kyoto Agreement isn't it ?

Having myself grown up in the shadow of Heathrow I can clearly remember how lessons in school would be constantly interrupted whilst we waited for planes to pass over and how my mum couldn’t put out washing in the garden without it being blackened by pollution. And that was thirty years ago – I pity the poor sods who have to live at the end of the runaway nowadays.

Which is why I fully support the protesters at Heathrow.

And yes - I do use air travel; in fact I will do so this week. But I expect to pay a reasonable price for it, and for it to be punitively taxed both as a deterrent and to help repair some of the damage it will cause.

M40 Shooting

I didn't go to the Bulldog Bash this year; largely because I really didn't want to see the headline act Status Quo (again).

With an HA member shot dead on his way home from the festival, the news coverage would have you think that the three day event was something like a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the gunfight at the OK Coral.

The papers are again full of hysterical stories about imminent gang warfare coming to Britain, and 'background' pieces about back patch clubs. There's even references to Sonny Barger and Altamont.

I've been going to these festivals on and off for years and can vouch for the fact that they are more genuinely laid back and less commercial than anything else on the festival circuit. I still remember the first time I went to the HA's Kent Custom Show - having worked on the Saturday I arrived pretty late at night - the HA on the gate took pity and only charged me half the entrance fee. Try arguing that one at Glastonbury or WOMAD.

And I know it's a cliche that you can leave your tent unlocked and your helmet on your handlebars without fear of theft, but it is also TRUE. And with the HA vetting the price lists of the various food and drink vendors there is not the same shameless rip-off of other festivals either.

I'm not naive. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the bike scene knows that when the shit comes down with the clubs it will undoubtedly be some very bad shit. What happened yesterday, was I'm sure, in one way or another, a part of that. But that is a matter for the guy's family and his club brothers. To suggest that it is representative of what goes on in the UK biker scene or that we now face an escalating 'biker war' is hysterical bollocks.

With all due respect; this does't deserve respect

I believe that unquestionably the best way to challenge stupid things is to take the piss out of them. Which is why I also believe that their should be no blasphemy laws. As one of the more fundamentally stupid things that people can believe, religion is the last thing that should be off-limits.

And don’t talk about ‘respect ‘, any belief system that condemns those who don’t share it are pretty fucking disrespectful themselves and so forfeit the right to protection. Which is why Pat Condell, atheist comedian has some genius insights – check out his website.

As enjoyable as Pat is, some of the comments there from mentalist religious types are even better. And close after religion, one of the other stupidest belief systems is nationalism. Also ripe for ridicule.

Which is why comedian Dave Jones is currently being hounded for this superb one-liner aimed at some Israeli’s in the front row at a recent Comedy Store gig:

‘Are you the Israeli students? - I’ve just been in the box office and there’s a group of ten Palestinians who say you’re occupying their seats.’

Crap Christian driving & stupid symbols

Infuriated to be stuck behind an appalling driver this morning with one of those Christian fish symbols that people stick on the back of their vehicles.

What is the idea of these symbols ? Does he not have to worry about his driving because Jesus is looking after him - and if so what about me as a potential victim of his dangerous incompetence - as a non-believer presumably I don't get the benefit of Jesus' protection and have to look out for myself.

When I was young one of my more devout relatives gave me a St Christopher (patron saint of travelers) key-ring, I think it was for my first communion or possibly confirmation, but either way some time before I was driving or riding.

Even at my young age this key-ring posed some interesting theological questions. Was it the medallion of St Christopher that protected me or was it actually St Christopher; and if so why did I have to carry it all the time ? If I left it at home would St Christopher get the hump and withdraw his protection ? There was an egg-timer type buzzer built in to the key-ring which you could set to remind yourself to return to your parking meter. This posed fresh questions; why was a mechanical device necessary ? Were parking meters too trivial for St Christopher to bother with himself; if so where did you draw the line ? A puncture, broken fan belt, minor scrape or a multi-vehicle pile up ?

Apologies to any Protestants reading this who might interpret this as idolatrous and polytheistic mumbo-jumbo. They would be absolutely right.

As an historical aside the prat of a driver with a fish on his bumper was at least being historically accurate in choosing that particular symbol rather than a cross. The fish was used by the early church as a symbol, and when the emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion he used the Greek initials of Christ's name, the 'chi-roi' to decorate official insignia. The later adoption of the cross seems a curious choice; the heretic Cathars hated the symbol seeing it as a celebration of Christ's suffering. Of course they were predictably persecuted and wiped out for their logic.

Bill Hicks put it nicely when he asked Christians what the idea was with the cross - 'if Jesus comes back that's going to be like the last thing he wants to see - you guys are really missing the point'. I don't care what symbol a crap driver sticks on their car - the cheery 'Smile Jesus loves you' or the more melodramatic ' I am covered in the blood of Jesus'. He could have the entire fucking Sistine chapel ceiling sprayed on his car; I'd rather he put less faith in divine intervention, kept his eyes on the road and tried not to kill any innocent bystanders on their way to work.

History by the winners.

History as we know is written by the winners.

Which is why nobody is making much noise about an anniversary today that marks the start of the modern age:

The first dropping of an atomic bomb - on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

In the immediate aftermath of the dropping of the bomb 70,000 largely civilian Japanese were killed. Estimates vary, but up to double this number were casualties by December of 1945. And within days, a similar bomb was also dropped on Nagasaki. Apparently there were plans for a third bomb that were cut short by the Japanese surrender.

And this is the great lie that is propagated to justify the bombing as a necessary evil to shorten the war and thereby halt the casualties that would otherwise have followed the Japanese refusal to surrender. (Notice how Churchill's refusal to surrender in 1940 was heroic determination but Japan's refusal in 1945 was oriental fanaticism ?)

But at the time this rationale was not universally accepted within the US military. Eisenhower. McArthur and even the US Strategic Bombing Survey were all of the opinion that the Japanese war machine was on its last legs and that actually surrender was likely within months, even without an invasion. In fact in the tentative communications before the bombs were dropped, the main obstacle to surrender was that the Japanese emperor be able to retain his title. This of course was something that the US readily agreed to after the bomb had been dropped.

With the benefit of forty years hindsight we now know that dropping the bomb didn't mark the end of one war so much as the start of a new one; the Cold War. It sent a very un-ambiguous message to the Soviets who having defeated the Nazis in Eastern Europe were poised to invade Japanese Manchuria and were now asserting themselves as a superpower.

So the last word should go to Einstein, grand-father of the bomb who was appalled at his progeny:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

NOT just a tragic accident

If you squint hard enough, there is possibly a vague similarity between these two men. The one on the right is Osman Hussain, the bloke that the police had identified as a suspected terrorist, and the bloke on the left is, of course, Charles de Menezes, the bloke they actually shot.

To be fair, the CCTV operator who had been staking out the block of flats were both men lived did ask for verification of the identity from his superiors before they decided to follow the man on the left. There was a delay though because the officer in question had stepped out to take a piss. As a result the authorization was given anyway. And of course this led to a chain of events that culminated in the wrong man being shot dead when he was followed onto a crowded tube.

On the basis of this narrative, I would be willing to concede that the affair was a tragic accident. I would also be loathe to criticize the guys who actually pulled the trigger (albeit seven times); whether they were armed police, SAS , SRR or whoever else. Never having personally confronted someone who I had been told was a suicide bomber, I wouldn't presume to know what constitutes an acceptable level of force.

But none of that is really the issue.

The inquiry has made it clear that within minutes of killing Charles de Menezes the police realised that they had got the wrong bloke.

And then lied systematically about it.

• They said that he was dressed in bulky clothing (possibly concealing a bomb) - inappropriate for a hot July day.

• They said that he was running.

• They said that he vaulted the ticket barrier.

• They said that they identified themselves as armed police and that he ignored their warning.

All of which it now appears according to the inquiry, was total bollocks.

The correct outcome of this revelation should be very straight-forward. Every police officer who colluded with this deceit should be removed from their post and prosecuted . And the eye-witnesses who appeared on the TV news to confirm the police lies should be traced and prosecuted.

Quite simply nothing less is adequate in a democracy; if authority is entrusted with the power of life and death it must be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. After this scrutiny it might be accepted that operatives on the ground made an honest but tragic mistake. But a conspiracy to conceal the truth from the public can never be accepted.

If it is, we are taking a step towards a police-state (an over-used phrase but the only one appropriate).

And finally:

It is utterly unbelievable that Commissioner Ian Blair was not aware that his own organisation was lying. According to the inquiry within hours of the shooting there was gossip around Scotland Yard to this effect. A competent manager in touch with his organisation would have picked up on this gossip and investigated it; so if he didn't Ian Blair is at very least a pretty poor leader for the Metropolitan Police. One way or another he facilitated a calculated piece of arse-covering, and now is dishonourably trying to duck out of his responsibility.

Stuck-up NIMBY snobs

Residents of Ashtead in the Surrey stock broker belt have being trying to oppose planning permission for a hostel in their area.

What is it that have got these Not-In-My-Back-Yard bigots up in arms ? A half-way house for released sex offenders, somewhere for recovering addicts, or emergency housing for asylum seekers ? No - it's a hostel for the families of injured servicemen who are patients at a local military hospital / rehabilitation centre.

Ashtead is the sort of area where you get a funny look if you're not wearing a poppy in November and old gits in blazers pontificate in saloon bars about the merits of national service. I would also imagine that support for the war in Iraq is also probably higher than average as well.

No doubt if it had been any other sort of hostel the residents would be reaching for their hoods, getting out the old fiery cross and preparing a lynch party.

These people are small minded NIMBY scum whose greatest concern in life is the level of house prices.

And before anyone asks - yes, actually we do ourselves live opposite a hostel for people with mental health problems. In all honesty I would rather it was something else but, contrary to the great Thatcher lie - there IS such a thing as society and I AM my brother's keeper, so I wouldn't dream of opposing it.

And if you don't feel the same way, frankly you should just fuck off and live on your desert island somewhere.

Tory wants US-style policing for London

The attention-seeking Boris Johnson has received quite enough coverage, both in the real world and on this blog. But what about the other possible Tory candidates for London’s mayor ? So I had a look at Victoria Borwick’s website.

She’s awfully keen on law and order - presumably some dusky hoodie oiks from other parts of London must be getting into her Kennsington and Chelsea constituency and causing trouble.Her policies for London can pretty much be summarised as:

• American-style police patrols (not sure what that means – I like The Shield but I don’t think that’s really what she has in mind)

• Zero-tolerance policing – because our prisons are not clogged up enough with petty criminals already.

• A senior police officer to be recruited from the US as an advisor – because they have such low crime rates over there. (Actually Iceland has the lowest murder rate in the world but maybe they can’t spare anyone).

• The appointment of a crime ‘tsar’ as a supremo on all policy matters.

And it’s the last point that really gets to me; why do we keep hearing talk of tsars for drugs, transport, health etc. Why has this ridiculous expression re-entered the language ?

All the tsars I know of were deluded, out of touch, unelected, unaccountable and tried to hold back the advancement of their people.

You might recall that as a result they were rejected and executed.

Plane spotting with attitude

I have to confess to a liking for World War Two aircraft. Up close there's something about the smell of the fuel and the sound of the engines that comes close to being a motorcycle with wings.

This affinity between bikes and planes is nothing new - many bike clubs were started after the war by aircrew veterans . In fact even the name of the most famous bike club in the world is inspired by that of various USAAC squadrons.

Which is a long winded explanation of why I found myself this weekend at Duxford for the American Historic Air Show. I went to see Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Flying Fortresses, both up close and in flight. I wasn't disappointed in this, but what I also got was a full-on propaganda assault from the current US Air Force.

There were various static displays all over the airfield by USAF units, and the historic fly-pasts were outnumbered by contemporary jets and helicopters. These were accompanied with a commentary on the PA that made numerous references to operations 'Iraqi Freedom' and 'Enduring Freedom.'

I hadn't signed up for this, and resented the constant spurious connections with the present war on terror and US contribution in the Second War World. The not-so implied message was 'we were the defenders of freedom then and have been ever since'.

Despite the taste for old planes and history in general, I am generally of the view that war is not something to be glorified and have opposed every war our country has been involved within my lifetime.

But the Second War World occupies a special place for me. Perhaps just because it is the war of my parents' generation. Whilst other wars both before and after, generally seem like imperialist adventures and senseless wastes of lives, the Second War World can claim at least in some sense to be truly a People's War. I know that many aspects of it weren't - just think of the war in the Far East. And the motives of many of the leaders were doubtless the same as those of other generations of politicians and generals. But for many of the ordinary men and women involved, they were fighting to defend democracy against fascism.

Which is why I find it offensive to see the recent adventures in Iraq spoken of in the same way. It is more appropriate to link them to the wars of the nineteenth century when Britain was the number one imperial superpower, carving up the world for its own interest under the cloak of morality as an international policeman.

There were many service people and their families from nearby US airbases at the Duxford show, both in and out of uniform. And they were not bad people. A little too clean-cut, smiley and preppy for my tastes, but not bad people. Drinking beers and eating hotdogs in the sunshine, there was certainly nothing menacing about them. I'm not sure that I would have felt the same way about similar numbers of off-duty British squaddies.

Little snatches of overheard conversation showed that they took themselves and their perceived mission to the world of protecting 'our values' extremely seriously. Clearly they believe themselves to be in the tradition of Stephen Ambrose's 'Citizen Soldiers'. They may well be more naive and deluded rather than bad, but either way they are wrong; these days US Forces are as likely to be oppressors as they are liberators.

Lids lids lids ...

Brought a new crash helmet yesterday. Like most riders I have grown up with helmet compulsion and cannot remember the good old days when it was permissible to wear a beret, leather flying helmet, or flat cap and goggles. Or nothing at all.

Much as I believe in the right of consenting adults to decide whether to wear a helmet or not - personally I always would, compulsion or not. But given that we are compelled - we are also doubly penalised.

1.Why is VAT charged on helmets when other safety equipment ( builders' hard hats and steel toe-capped boots etc) are tax exempt ? When VAT was first brought in under Harold Wilson the rationale was that it was a tax on luxury goods. A helmet is hardly a luxury when you face a fine and penalty points (or even imprisonment) for not wearing one.

2. Why are helmets so bloody expensive ? A top of the range helmet can go for more than I have paid for some bikes. And why is it that if you want a plain colour or style, this is only available at the very top end of the market or at the very bottom end of the market ? In between, helmets are covered in the kind of gaudy graphics that everywhere else died out in the eighties.

My own preference is for the traditional black open face (or as they call them in the US; 3/4 helmets). Maybe it doesn't give as much protection as a full face but then I am more concerned with saving my brain than my good looks. And of course there is a style aspect to it - I choose not to look like Darth Vada.

But to get such a simple classic helmet the choice is either the very cheapest Chinese-made copies of long-discontinued styles, all of which seem to fit badly (and whatever the kite mark standard, a helmet that doesn't fit is useless), or , at the most expensive end there is the retro style craft-made option.

I have opted for the latter, which is supposed to be the Rolls-Royce of helmets. And at the price it bloody well should be.

Floods

Scenes of homes in picturesque old towns in central England under water have understandably provoked a wave of sympathy around the country.

And rightly so. But similar scenes in the not-quite-so-quaint cities of Hull, Sheffield and Leeds haven't met with the same response. Maybe this is because the Seven and Thames valleys are not just geographically in central England, they are also very much in Middle England.

I have complete sympathy for those whose homes are devastated, and I wish them well in obtaining justice from those thieving bastards at the insurance companies who only ever seem to want to provide cover for those eventualities that are never actually going to happen. So they are now questioning the renewal of flood cover for anybody living in areas prone to flooding.

BUT no one seems to be picking up on the irony of Middle England bleating that it's all the government's fault.

Generally I'm all for blaming most of the evils of the past few years on New Labour, but even I think that blaming the bad weather on them is stretching it a bit. Although there is of course a serious underlying argument here about the possible effects of global warming, and a lack of investment in infrastructure .

And here's the issue;

Middle England is the land that baulks at the prospect of taxation and public spending - and civil engineering on the scale to provide adequate flood defences doesn't come cheap. This is also the land that believes it's every citizen's right to own their own Barratt home, whether it's in a flood plain or not. It's the land that said local authorities shouldn't get in the way of private property developers. And its Middle England who supported and profited from the privatisation of public utilities ...like the water companies who haven't updated their sewage and mains systems.

I don't believe in divine retribution - but you can see a certain irony in all this. A bit like when the Countryside Alliance complained about the loss of rural jobs having voted Tory for years and not supported other workers (like the miners) trying to save their jobs.

And finally, to all those Little Englanders who are now saying that we should stop foreign aid and divert the resources to domestic flood relief - get some fucking perspective! Comparisons with the devastation of the tsunami or Hurricane Katrina are in very poor taste.

Sportster - Happy 50th

Braved monsoons and floods to go to the HD Riders' Club Sportster rally at the weekend.

In an age when technology three years old is considered obsolete - the Sportster has been in production for 50 years this year. Admittedly, since 1957 it has gained a new engine, belt drive, rubber mounting and fuel injection. But these changes have been in increments over the years and a modern Sportster is still very much identifiable as such.

Originally HD brought out the Sportster because their heavyweight range were being out-performed by imported lightweight Nortons and Triumphs. So in the Wild One, recreating the famous Hollister riots of 1947, Marlo Brando rides a Triumph whilst arch rival Lee Marvin rides a war surplus Harley. If the film was set 10 years later no doubt Brando should have been riding a Sportster.

By no stretch of the imagination does the Sportster meet the criteria of a 'sports' bike today. But whilst other parts of Harley's range have become increasingly bloated platforms for ever more chrome and tassels, the Sportster stays close to the spirit of the original bobbers and choppers; if it doesn't help make it go or make it stop - throw it away.

Hypocrisy from the Home Secretary

I did it a few times. I knew it was wrong and I didn't particularly enjoy it.

So says new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on smoking cannabis as a student whilst at the same time backing Brown's reversal of the previous government's more liberal stance on the drug. And the rest of the cabinet are now saying similar things.

What a load of sanctimonious shit. If it's true then how stupid and weak-minded was she at the time in doing it for no apparent reason, and on the otherhand how hypocritical is she now in wanting to criminalize young people for doing exactly what she did as a priveleged undergraduate ?

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a politician say:

Yes we smoked and laughed our faces off - it was great and we didn't see why it should be illegal. But I don't do it anymore because I have a responsible job and that doesn't mix with midnight munchies and short term memory loss.

Some chance.

Boris.

He rides a bike. He jogs. He believes higher education is a good thing. He's a serial shagger but appears to be disarmingly honest about his indiscretions. He displays occasional glimpses of genuine erudition. He's very funny on 'Have I Got News..' He has the tolerant cosmopolitan outlook of the international elite. His mop-haired scruffiness is a refreshing change from all those well-groomed, well-spun Stepford politicians.

BUT BORIS JOHNSON IS STILL A FUCKING TORY TOFF !

Which is why I will NOT be voting for him as mayor.

War On Terror - Medieval Style.

The anniversary today of the crusaders' capture of Jerusalem in 1099.

National curriculum history is again being revised, and again the idea seems to be that kids should better understand the world around them and how we managed to get into the mess we are currently in.

So here follows the First Crusade for Dummies:

The pope is having a bit of bother with the nobles of Europe who are generally getting a bit uppity. Calling on them to take part in a crusade is an excellent way of getting them all in line and bigging up the authority of the church. A spot of adventure especially suits the younger sons of the nobility who can’t get their hands on any spare land at home, particularly the various branches of Norman medieval mafiosi .

Meanwhile in the Middle East, the Orthodox Byzantine empire which is normally considered to be a heretical rival, is turned into a victim who must be defended from Muslim hordes threatening pilgrims visiting the holy land.

In fact there's no such problem. No weapons of mass destruction aimed at the Byzantine empire. There's a bit of faction fighting going on between Sunni Seljuks and Shi-ite Fatamids, but no real threat to Christians at all. Actually the holy land is at this time a more multicultural patchwork of various types of Christians, Muslims and Jews than it ever has been since.

The crusaders are undeterred by the truth of the situation and so set off on the long overland journey to the Middle East. They start off with a pogrom of European Jews just to show that they mean business. When they finally get to Constantinople, the Byzantines are horrified at their uncultured ‘saviours’ , and the nervous emperor gets the leaders to swear loyalty to him ( although a couple of them cross their fingers at this point).

Pleased to get them off his hands, the emperor packs them off to fight their way to Jerusalem. Along the way there's numerous rows as the various leaders will insist on venturing off on their own to claim land. Baldwin of Lorraine is the first to do so when he gets himself made Count of Edessa having grabbed the title from the (Christian) Armenian King. Bohemond of Toranto then gets himself made Prince of Antioch by ‘liberating’ that city which previously belonged to the (Christian) emperor.

Things get a bit tetchy and the crusaders decide that they need a sign to confirm that they are on the right course, or they will all go home. Miraculously, the ‘holy lance’ is duly found. Re-enthused, the crusaders go off to Jerusalem where, after a particularly gruesome siege they liberate the holy city on July 15th 1099. Not only do they slaughter the Muslim men women and children who have taken refuge in the Al-Aqsa mosque, they also slaughter the Jews who do the same in the synagogue. And many Orthodox, Coptic, Maronite and other Christians who happen to get in the way.

Regime change complete; Baldwin’s brother Godfrey is made de-facto King of Jerusalem. The resulting occupation and insurgency last for about 250 years and the effects are still being felt today. Still it's not all doom and gloom though; the crusaders did manage to bring back mathematics, astronomy and medicine - all of which they learnt from the Muslims.

Storm in a royal teacup

The BBC are in trouble for creatively editing some footage of the queen in a documentary that shows her sitting for a portrait with celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.

The controller of BBC1 is appaently not going to resign despite the fact that it said the editing erroneously shows the queen ‘storming’ out.

Imagine it – showing a member of the royal family as grumpy and arrogant. Absolutely outrageous …

PS I don’t remember any such fuss when BBC News was found to have edited footage to show striking miners charging police lines when it was actually the other way round. But hey – I guess that was far less significant than a documentary about the sodding queen having her picture taken.

Dangerous censorship

I can't say that this kind of religious art is really my bag. But if you are a fan of Botucelli's Saint Sebastian, you'd better hurry up and make the most of it in all it's homo-erotic, sado-masochistic glory.

Why? Because if the latest proposed anti-pornography Bill goes through you could (arguably) be arrested for downloading the image here. After all, there is no denying that, under the language of the Bill, it falls into the category of ‘images of acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury’.

By the way it wouldn't get Botucelli of the hook if he had stuck on a disclaimer to say that no models were injured in the making of this painting or that the model has consented to being shot or depicted as being shot. You see apparently it's the contents of the image that matters.

Of course this is 'art'. But one man's art is another man's porn with a massive grey area in-between into which has fallen at various times Lady Chatterly's Lover and the photography of Robert Mappleforth.

I'm not entirely naive - I have no doubt that there is all sort of truly nasty shit out there which cannot by any description be deemed to be 'art'; although I'd be very cautious to say where those boundaries are. But then the nasty shit portrays activities like child abuse or non-consensual sex which are already illegal anyway. And if what is portrayed in the images is actually happening, then we don't need any new laws to prosecute the people who make these images.

Which is my point, as soon as we start trying to legislate against images of things, rather than the things themselves, we are on a slippery slope. At best there is a danger of ending up looking pretty silly and small minded. At worst, we end up with a state-imposed puritanism.

In other words: I think if Botucelli actually strapped some bloke to a tree and shot arrows at him, then he probably deserved to be nicked for attempted murder or GBH at least. But of course he didn't; he just summoned the rather bizzare image out of his imagination. And I don't really feel justified in criminalising him because his imagination doesn't coincide with my taste.

Many on the Left, influenced by some strands of Feminism, support this kind of legislation; I understand why but I'm afraid they are wrong. If we're going to combat the exploitation of women in the sex industry, we'd be better off looking at the largely hidden human trafficking of modern-day slaves from the poorest parts of Eastern Europe.

Goodbye George

I can’t let the passing of George Melly go without mention.

Jazz musician, surrealist artist, writer, cultural theorist, anarchist, atheist, bon-viveur and general renaissance nut-case.

A fine example of how to grow old dis-gracefully who brought some much needed colour and rebellion into an increasingly bland and conformist world…

Muslim doctors.

The fact that those religious funda-mentalists who attempted the terrorist attacks at the weekend were doctors or health workers has caused outrage.

Fair enough you might initially think. There is something particularly obscene at the thought of people supposedly dedicated to saving life being so prepared to indiscriminately kill innocents.

But the voice of Middle England appears to be crying out: ‘we trusted these people, accepted them into the middle class and now they repay us like this’. In their outrage their reveal a nice mixture of racism and snobbery.

For the outraged of Middle England possibly their only contact with Asians, other than the occasional visit to the local Tandoori, would be to their Asian doctor. So, like the waiter at the restaurant, the Asian doctor has become a stock figure, the 'good Asian' - almost one of 'us'.

If you don’t believe me – have a look at the BBC’s 'Have Your Say’ website.

It’s the depressingly authentic voice of every gay-bashing, muslim-hating, anti-immigrant, it’s–political-correctness-gone-mad, hang’em-and-flog’em, bring-back-national-service, it-all-went-wrong-in-the-sixties, Maggie-would-have-sorted-it-out, we-are-the-silent-majority, Mr-&-Mrs-Daily-Mail.

On a happier note though, many of these people now say that with these terrorist attacks they are too scared to come to London. Good. Fuck off back to the shires then. (They never really liked the city and only came to see a Lloyd-Weber musical, go to Selfridges and attend a Countryside Alliance march anyway).

Things to really worry about

With the smoking ban now in place I’ve heard some people say that it is a sign of this country becoming ‘fascist’. Of course saying this is deeply offensive to anyone who has genuinely experienced the horror of fascism. Indicators of creeping fascism would involve much more serious developments than simply banning smoking in public places. Stuff like:

• Widespread surveillance that encroaches on the daily lives of innocent citizens.

• The replacement of due legal process with arbitrary detention.

• A general expansion of police powers.

• Scape-goating of minorities to distract the populace from social and economic problems.

• Government acting independently of the democratic process.

• Militaristic foreign policy that ignores the rule of international law.

Oh hang on a minute there.....Shit

Fat Cat Management

Post Office workers were branded old fashioned and lazy by their fat cat bosses Crozier and Leighton when they went on strike last week.

At the heart of the dispute is the disastrous Thatcherite / Blairite principle that public services should be run as private businesses.

The post office is old fashioned. And it doesn't match up with private business. But the post office is a public service; it has a charter that obliges it to provide a universal daily delivery service. No such restriction applies to TNT or DHL. So it's a no-brainer that it struggles to compete in the open market against those carriers who can cherry-pick the services they provide.

Which is probably why it lost the all-important Amazon contract.

But the whole private business benchmark is a double standard. In what other private business would the senior management survive loosing an £8 million contact without at least offering to fall on their swords?

Crozier's salary and bonus take his earnings to 52 times that of an average postal worker. Leighton only works a two day week and mixes this with other directorships the rest of the time. He has actually elevated this moonlighting to a business theory of 'portfolio management'. Remember all the stink when it came out that some firefighters supplemented their unspectacular earnings with a bit of building work or mini-cabbing?

Part of the Thacher / Blair myth is that a small business should be the model for any enterprise - no doubt in the likeness of Maggie's dad's shop in Grantham. But such differentials are unheard of in small/medium businesses (I should be so lucky).

And no small business would tolerate a pair of wankers like Crozier and Leighton.

Spot the Nazi

Some pretty eye-catching ink on this chap.

Neo-Nazi Curtis Allgier killed a guard, broke out of prison in Utah and was later re-captured at a burger joint.

Pre-conceptions about tattooed people are not good. Who knows, the surgeon who saves your life, the lawyer who saves your ass, or even (God forbid) the consultant who saves your business, could all turn out to be tattooed.

So when this picture initially caught my eye, my first reaction was that facial tattoo’s on neo-Nazis were not good PR for the tattooed community.

But thinking again; possibly it should be compulsory for all neo-Nazis. It would make it easier for the rest of us to identify them, hunt them down and then dispatch them swiftly to whatever fucked-up Valhalla they aspire to…

Same shit. New PM.

So we have a new Prime Minister. I feel that I should have something meaningful to say about it, but frankly I don't. Even to mention the event probably dignifies the occasion with more significance than it should have.

Ever since that fateful dinner at Granita it was clear that the price of Brown's succession would be a commitment to deliver more Blairism after Blair. New Labour is now in such a place that it is really unthinkable that it could go in any other direction. Blair-babe Harman's election to the deputy leadership only confirms quite how irrevocable this now is.

Obviously there is however a massive difference in personal style as Cavalier-Blair is replaced with Roundhead-Brown.

And funnily enough, in this age of dumbed-down presidential politics, where personality and image is everything, Brown's style (or lack of it) may actually be his saving grace. Blair's public school gloss has worn thin after all these years of spin, and there is now a widespread suspicion of untrustworthy politicians. Cameron of course is cut from the same cloth - an opportunist with a toff's charm.

So it's now conceivable that although Brown will doubtless continue the same discredited policies, his dour Scottish Presbyterian bank manager persona may just help to keep the Blair Shit Project alive.

Blair & The Church

Having flirted with Catholicism for much of his life, Blair is now going to start the formal process of conversion.

I spent the first 18years of my own life being raised as a Catholic, and the next eight years in the pre-Blair-ite Labour Party before it was ruined. So I am inclined to simply say that the two parties thoroughly deserve each other. But then on reflection; Blair’s late conversion is symptomatic of his spineless careerism.

There can only be one possible explanation of why he didn’t take the step sooner; being a Catholic in this country is simply not a great career move. The 1701 Act Of Settlement prevents a Catholic from taking the position of monarch and also prevents a monarch from marrying a Catholic. But even Blair’s ambitions probably don’t go that far. Instead I am sure that he is aware that, although it is not constitutionally prohibited, Britain has never has a Catholic prime minister. Why is this ?

One reason is xenophobia and anti-immigrant prejudice. With the exception of a few Brideshead-type aristos, and some quirky pockets such as part of Lancashire, Catholicism in England did not really survive the Reformation. There is therefore something distinctly ‘foreign’ about it. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century with mass immigration from Ireland, and to a lesser extent other parts of Europe, that there was a Catholic revival. (A phenomenon that we see again now with the arrival of Polish immigrants).

Even in that nation of immigrants, the USA, Catholicism was considered to be the faith of undesirable newcomers. White Anglo Saxon Protestants defined themselves as an elite to resist swamping by the later arrival of the Catholic hordes from Ireland, Italy, Poland and the Hispanic countries. Kennedy, the first and only Catholic president, had to defend himself against the accusation that Catholicism was un-American.

But there is also a totally justifiable suspicion of Catholics in public office.

Whilst it may seem reasonable to say that religious faith is a personal matter and need not influence the political process, no good Catholic would ever accept this . Because Catholicism is not a faith based simply on the individual's own supposed relationship with God.

Alone of the major world religions, Catholicism extends acknowledgement of the authority of the Church to a doctrinal point. It is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism: God’s will is supposedly not just revealed to the individual by the study of scripture, but by the active role of the Church that acts as God’s agent on earth. This point also separates Catholicism from Judaism and Islam, who both have no priests but only teachers to help the faithful interpret the scriptures. It may come as a shock but not even the most extreme fundamentalist imam claims the same divine authority as a humble Catholic parish priest.

Which is why Catholics in public office are always going to be problematic; their ultimate loyalties are always going to lie with the Church and not with the electorate.

In English history it is the same phenomenon expressed in both the homicidal fanatic Guy Fawkes and the noble refusnik Thomas More. On the otherhand, I’ve always believed Oliver Cromwell to be much mis-understood on this matter. He certainly was pretty intense when it came to his own personal religion belief, but he was quite happy to extend this to others, even, and unusually for the times, to the Jews. But not to the Catholics.

They could not be trusted to put loyalty to the sovereign body of parliament before that of loyalty to Church. Which is why the Catholics were the most die-hard adherents to the King’s cause and encouraged him to seek alliances with the Irish, the French or the Spanish, just about anyone other than their own countrymen. And to be fair Cromwell had the same objection to Presbyterians who were willing to assist a Scottish invasion to further their Church’s cause.

Cromwell’s view of the Church was that of a congregation of like-minded individuals who were free to join, leave or set up their own congregations. If we must have any religion at all (I’d much rather we didn’t) his is the only version that is compatible with a democracy.

And if all this sounds like an obscure historical rant, ask yourself could you trust a Catholic politician to set aside the Church’s view on abortion rights, homosexuality or sex education, if it ran contrary to the mandate of his party or the electorate as a whole ? And why not form a party to honestly express Catholic views ? This is what the Christian Democrats did in Europe, and such a party has always been Blair's spiritual (!) home.

Dish-individualism.

My part of London doesn’t have many tower blocks. Most of the housing stock is terraced Victorian / Edwardian houses from the time when the area was a bastion of artisan / lower middle class respectability. With the onset of inner city decay, most of the larger houses have been divided into flats. Other purpose built flats have also been built on some sites that would previously have housed industries now disappeared.

But whatever the form of housing, one un-mistakable feature on all of them is the proliferation of those fucking hideous satellite TV dishes.

An apt symbol of our post-Thatcher times; the age of the homeowner-democracy myth. Spurning anything that smacked of collectivism, in the ‘eighties we were told that we would be empowered by each owning our own home. Greed was good and there was no such thing as society.

Now in the ‘noughties, we are bombarded with 24 hour access to multi-media, mind-numbing, dumbed-down, celebrity/reality bollocks.

Put the two together – and the result? Every house has its own individual satellite dish and in the case of multiple occupier dwellings, several dishes on the one house.

A visible reminder of quite how shallow our lives have become and a fucking ugly blot on the urban landscape too.

Would it be too far a stretch to think that we might have communal satellite dishes for which we paid a rental fee to access?

Maybe it’s the inevitable march of progress and the rot set in when we abandoned the communal well.

Another racist bites the dust.

The nation’s favourite bigot died yesterday.

Bernard - “I’m not a racist me – it’s all political correctness gone mad” – Manning.

I’ve never subscribed to ‘don’t talk ill of the dead’; he was a vile arsehole when he was alive and now he’s a dead vile arsehole.

His was the humour of the school yard bully, mocking any vulnerable minority. Such as the lone black policeman who was the focus of his act at a police charity dinner. Or the two black waitresses at a roundtable event. How sweet was it when a fly-on-the-wall documentary team followed his tour of India ? Manning was determined to show that his paki jokes would go do down as well there as on the white northern club circuit. With the tables turned and him now the minority, he died on his feet in front of bemused and offended audiences.

It was also the humour of the ignorant. He would rant that black and asian people weren’t truly British – how could they be they weren’t with ‘us’ in the war – where were they at Dunkirk ? Again sweet humiliation as he was challenged by Richard Wilson on the Mrs Merton Show, reminding him of the role of empire troops.

It was his appearance on this show that finally forced Manning to show his true colours. Previously he had denied that he was really a racist and that it was all 'just' comedy. He actually came out with the classic ‘just because a dog is born in a stable, it doesn’t make him a horse’ to refute that non-white could ever be considered British.

Doubtless in the inevitable obituaries it will be argued that Manning just reflected the cultural prejudices of working class people of his generation. Bollocks. My parents are of a similar age. It’s true that they occasionally use expressions that are out of step with current attitudes. But at worst they are awkward, like ‘coloured gentleman’. Or they are overly polite to black and asian people because they want to make them feel 'at home'. Embarrassing at times but certainly forgivable. They would never dream of using the kind of language that Manning did, out of basic politeness and courtesy. And of course that fundamentally is all that political correctness is about.

Bernard Manning 1930-2007. Bigot and supposed comedian. Good riddance.

Falklands 25 Years On

25 years ago I was doing my A levels. History was my thing, and I was thoroughly immersed in the nineteenth century. So when the Falklands came along, the parallels with Palmerston and his era of gun-boat diplomacy were immediate. The policy of embarking on colonial adventures whenever things got a bit sticky on the domestic front seemed to be the inspiration for Thatcher's thinking.

Only a year or so earlier I had been in the cadets and suffered from an obsession with all things military; a couple of the older lads from my unit actually served in the Falklands (and happily returned). But by the time of the war, I couldn't believe that so many people weren't able to see the connection with the mounting anger at unemployment and recession, and the off-setting feel-good factor of a war.

So the Falklands were a defining moment for me, when I first really became aware of politics. I was by then already a CND supporter, and my family background provided a vaguely socialist influence. Even so, it wasn't until the war engulfed the country in a tide of jingoism that I realised what it was to stand up and argue against the mainstream.

There is a danger that at its 25th anniversary the Falklands war seems like an echo from a 'cleaner' more innocent age. A war where civilian 'collateral' damage consisted of a few wounded sheep; there were even bayonet charges. Contrast this with Iraq and its daily news of suicide bombings and torture allegations .

But this is to ignore the sinking of the Bellgrano and the cynical manipulation of public opinion - (remember The Sun's "Gotcha" ?). Still, the biggest war crime of the Falklands was in facilitating Thatcher's re-election in a frenzy of flag waiving. Without this Britain would now be a very different place. Who knows, there might never have been Blairism, we might even still have a Labour Party worthy of the name.

Cornwall for the Cornish ?

All nationalism is stupid.

At the BNP end of the spectrum, in all its racist and fascist varieties it is repugnant. In its Little Englander, xenophobic and small minded varieties it is infuriating and depressing. And then in its hopeless eccentric lost cause variety it is plain hilarious.

Which is why I have included in full this statement from the Cornish National Liberation Army. Funny at the moment , but just imagine for a minute that the arseholes who wrote this ever actually took power. The regime would look like a fourth reich in miniature complete with 'incomers' taking the place of Jews.

There's not much of a Black or Asian community in Cornwall, but just imagine if some of these 'incomers' were non-Aryan, or that it was Ainsley Harriot rather than Rick Stein who had a restaurant there. This whole business would seem a bit less comic then.

Any similarities to Reg's speech from Monty Python's People's Front of Judea are I'm sure coincidental - a sense of humour is probably not part of these guys' arsenal:

Following a recent meeting between members of the AN GOF militant organisation (originally founded in 1980 and reformed in 2007) and the Cornish National Liberation Army it has been agreed to stand both Organisations down and to reform as the CORNISH NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY. The CNLA will maintain an east and west division in Kernow.

The previous AN GOF programme to remove all flags of St. George (white with a red cross) from our Country of Cornwall (Kernow) will be incorporated into the new tactical objectives plan.

We are pleased to announce substantial funding from the other Celtic Countries and from Irish groups in the United States of America. Our growing membership, a combination of younger and more experienced patriots, operating in devolved groups under the control of a central Council have received training from members of the Free Wales Army (FWA), the Scottish National Liberation Army (SNLA) and members of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and the now defunct Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provo IRA). We have recruited members from one of these organisations into the CNLA and hope others will follow. We do have limited weapons available but intend to reply on more controlled methods to achieve our aims.

1. RICK STEIN AND PADSTOW (PADSTEIN)
Two of our members have been approached by Cornish residents of the town regarding the problems caused by Stein. He owns businesses at: The Seafood Restaurant, St. Petroc´s Hotel, The Cafe and Stein´s Shop, The Seafood School, Fish and Chips and Deli and The St. Edmund´s Hotel.
Recently at the Obby Oss Day he was rough handled by local Cornish Nationals sickened at his presence in our Country whilst he was in a local Public House. He will deny all knowledge of this for fear of bad publicity to his business interests although what happened was witnessed by many.
In a recent letter to Tony Rickard, a local protest leader (who has no connection with the CNLA at all) he stated that other businesses ´have benefited from the rosy glow of (Stein´s) publicity´.They have not and many have witnessed the effect Stein has had in our Cornish port of Padstow. We feel that the time must now be here for Stein to feel the ´rosy glow´of a real fire and so we declare his businesses, him and his clients and their transport a bone fide target.

2. JAMIE OLIVER AND WATERGATE BAY
We have seen the effects of this arrogant English man in our Country causing property prices to swell. We also declare this man, his business and the Watergate Bay Hotel, clients and cars bone fide targets.

3. THE ENGLISH FLAG OF ST. GEORGE
This English flag (white with a red cross) has no place in Kernow no more than it does in Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Its presence insults many Cornish people some of whom are afraid to say as much. It is a flagrant reminder of the 1549 Cornish Holocaust and is used by our enemies, the British National Party and the Unionist parties in the North of Ireland. The now defunct An Gof organisation removed such flags at Tresillian and on the Bodmin Moor cafes and elsewhere and are pleased to note that the untarnished and non Imperialistic flag of St Piran (black with a white cross) is now seen on the Moors. This St. Piran´s flag is a guarantee of safety whilst those flying the Flag of St. George (white with a red cross) are bone fide targets of the CNLA be such flyers English incomers, misinformed Cornish Nationals or Tourists. To fly this flag is an invitation for our devolved operatives to take action and other damage to property cannot be ruled out.

Whilst we greatly admire and respect the efforts of Cornish Nationals who seek change through moderate means, we note that previous members of the IRA are now in power in the North of Ireland showing that there is a place for military action. Therefore we may use direct means to underline the efforts of moderate Cornish Nationals.

Kernow Bys Vyken !

signed: The Council of the Cornish National Liberation Army

In defence of design

Working at the edge of the design world - actually at the artisan end in pre-press - the whole 2012 Olympics logo business makes me cringe.

Let's face it the logo is crap. We set the task for some of our apprentice artworkers to see what they could come up with in an afternoon; and their results were all better.

I know that it's supposed to be considered not just as a static printed logo but also in dynamic multi-media form. I also know that the marketing brief, which specifically excluded emphasis on sport or London (?!?), was probably the main culprit in the fiasco. But it's still crap.

We're probably going to have to live with if for five years which is bad enough, but even worse the logo undermines the already fragile status of the public view of the design industry.

This was summed up in the business press when some city-type spoke about 'easy money again for the men who don't wear ties'.

I'm not going to defend the £400k fee, but as wasted money goes this is a drop in the ocean against the Iraq war, bonuses for city fat cats, or cronies in quangos. Even worse, there is the implication that design is really just poncey bollocks that anybody can do.

I know that on a scale of usefulness to society, designers come considerably behind doctors, nurses, fire-fighters, teachers, and social workers, but I would also say considerably ahead of futures traders, private equity consultants , tax advisers and corporate lawyers.

Designers can be guilty of the kind of appalling pretentiousness and bollock-speak that graces pseuds-corner ;although a lot of that comes more from the marketeers and brand strategy consultants than it does from actual designers.

But there's no getting around the fact that unless you live in a wilderness somewhere, every bit of your environment for better or worse, is made up of the work of designers.

And for this reason alone, we don't need to take any shit from city-suits.