There is a lot being made about the changes in Facebook's privacy rules at the moment. I have never used it, so I couldn't tell you whether they are huge changes, or little changes. From the comments I've seen, it seems they are HUGE changes, and that Facebook is pretty much throwing the concept of privacy out of the window. The theory being if you go online, you forfeit any right to privacy you might have thought you had.

Obviously, I don't agree with this. I wasn't both with the name Angelholme, nor with the other name I use a lot - SammyWrae. But since I do actually value my privacy online, I tend to use pseudonyms, and write using aliases. I refer to my company as Pathway Software, and previously Gemini Software, because I don't want to use their names. I refer to my girlfriend as Amy, and the woman I work with as Emily, neither of which are their real names.

I rarely talk about my own life, because a) it is not that exciting, and b) there are things in my life a lot of people know about, even if they don't know they know about it, and if I start making a lot of references, it might point people to who I actually am.

Whether Facebook believe you deserve privacy on the internet or not is not really my point. Nor is whether you actually deserve privacy on line or not.

It's the idea of privacy itself, and the fact that - in the past year or so - the press seem to be invading it more and more, and not getting punished. And people seem to be quite happy to accept it. MPs - the people we ask to protect us, to make our laws and enforce our laws - seem happy to accept it as well, which is even more disturbing.

During the expenses scandal, thousands of pages of documents were leaked to the Telegraph. The documents detailed all the expenses claims, what MPs did what, and what they did wrong. But they also included personal details. Bank account numbers, Telephone numbers. Addresses. HOME addresses. Addresses where children live.

And what did Parliament do? Did they object about the leak? Did they try to find the person who leaked it?

Did they buggery.

Instead when The Speaker stood up for them - for THEIR right to privacy - they sacked him. They didn't thank him for trying to protect their private details - no, they just handed him to the wolves in a display of public piety.

There are a few times I have been truly ashamed of the people that govern this country, and that was one of them.

If the people who are supposed to protect us, to ensure we can live our lives, have such scant regard for their own privacy, what do you think they will think about the rest of the country's?

And then we come to Sky broadcasting the PRIVATE comments of Gordon Brown. He was not talking to the public, he was not caught on a microphone after a speech. No - he was in the privacy of his own car, talking to his staff. And yet Sky decided they had the right to invade his privacy - invade the privacy of The Prime Minister of Great Britain - and broadcast his remarks.

And what did Brown do? Did he sue them? Did he try to get them punished for invading his privacy? No. He just sat back and took it. He pretty much bent over and let them shaft him over and over and over again.

Why was there no outcry? Why did no one question whether or not Sky were right to broadcast these comments? Why, indeed, were Sky still recording after the event had ended? Were they hoping to pick up something in his private comments they could use against him? It's no secret Sky supported the Tories in this election - were they wanting to pick up strategy plans? Some little thing that would give Cameron the edge over Brown?

Nearly a month later, and still there has been no reports of Sky being punished, or even investigated for their activities.

Finally, the most recent story about Lord Triesmen. He was talking in private to friends about the possibility some of the other bidders for the 2018 World Cup might not be trustworthy. And then they handed that story to the press, who published it without a second thought.

And what is the result? Is the paper that published it being punished? Investigated? No - Triesmen is just sitting back and taking it, resigning from his job and not saying a word about the shocking and appalling breach in privacy the press was responsible for.

I support the free press. Having a news reporting system that can talk about the government is an important part of a democracy (and we are still a democracy, even if it is a a very British democracy, and I would not want to limit the power of the press to talk about the government, or Parliament, or anyone else who is involved in running our country, and running our lives.

But what I do oppose is the concept that the public has a right to know everything about everybody. Because that is simply NOT true. What Gordon and Sarah Brown talk about over tea is none of our business. What Cameron does in the privacy of his own home is none of our business. What Nick Griffin does in the privacy of his own home is none of our business. If these people are not breaking the law, their personal lives should not concern us.

(I accept there is sometimes a "public interest" argument. That if Cameron is saying he is the Prime Minister of family values, and it turns out he is shagging his secretary, the public probably should know about that. But those are very limited circumstances).

People think freedom of the press means the press should be free to do what they want, with no limits or barriers or boundaries. That the press can use any tactic, any means at their disposal to get a story, simply because we have "a free press".

I disagree, but I seem to be in the minority. The key part of a free press is, as I said before, that they are not controlled by the state. That they do not just act as a propaganda arm of the government, but instead they are free to print what they want about those in power without fear or reprisal or closure, or worse.

But in this new world that we are apparently moving into, people seem to be mistaking equating an increase in press freedom with a decrease in personal privacy. And while so far it has only been "major" public figures targeted (Brown, Triesmen, MPs etc), how long before the press feel they can do this to anyone? To you, your friends, your family, your children?

How long before no one has any privacy from anyone?

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, if the right people don’t have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it: politicians, councillors, ordinary voters!
Bernard: But aren’t they supposed to, in a democracy?
Sir Humphrey: This is a British democracy, Bernard!

When we are young, we are told that we live in a democracy. That we get to decide how our country is run, and that - when we vote - our vote matters. That the Prime Minister represents the country, because the country elects him.

And because we are young, we believe it. We believe the fairy tale that - because once every four or five years we get to put a cross on a piece of paper - we are actually in charge of the country, and that we live in a democratic society.

But when we grow older, we realise just how bit a crock of lies that tale actually is.

We don't get to choose who runs the country. We certainly don't get to choose our Prime Minister, and despite all the recent talk of "Elected PM" and "Unelected PM", we never have. It was one of my biggest objections to the debates we were subjected to during the last General Election Farce.

The party picks its leader. Labour chose Gordon Brown, The Tories chose Cameron and The Lib Dems chose Clegg. This is how it has always been done, for at least as long as I can remember.

The party picks its leader, and which ever party has a majority, that leader becomes The Prime Minister and our Head of Government. It is how Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Brown were chosen, and Prime Ministers Major and Thatcher before them.

Now - I understand the argument that Gordon Brown was not an "Elected PM" - even if it is entirely fallacious and utterly stupid. The argument goes that because the country didn't get a say in picking him, he wasn't truly a "Prime Minister".

But by that rule, neither was John Major for part of his term in office. He was selected by The Tory Party after Thatcher stood down, without facing the country. The country did not select him, because that is not how politics works in this country. And yet you hear very few Tories telling that part of the story.

Gordon Brown was chosen by his party, and as such he was the Prime Minister. Anyone who wants to modify that with "unelected" is either very ill-informed, very stupid or very snarky. And, regardless of which they are, their opinion on the matter should be ignored.

But whether you understand the way politics works or not (ie whether you can grasp the simple concept that PMs are not chosen by the people, but by the party), it is very hard to see Cameron as a legitimate PM.

If you believe the lie - that PMs are elected by the country - then this country did not elect a Prime Minister in the past election. Sufficient numbers of people were against the idea of Cameron becoming PM to ensure that his party got neither the majority of the seats, nor the majority of the vote.

And while you can argue that the other parties did worse, I am not certain that that argument does the Tory party much good. "Of all the parties that lost, we lost the least". In other words, of all the people the country didn't chose, you were the one they opposed the least, and now we are being lead by someone who was the least objectionable, not the most suitable.

And if you accept the truth - that we don't elect PMs, we elect our representative, then the situation is pretty much the same. The country did not put the Tory Party in power. They did not put anyone in power. Instead, there was (for want of a better phrase) a mini-coup.

The Tory Party wasn't chosen by The Electorate, it was chosen by The Lib Dems. And it was chosen by Nick Clegg.

The Lib Dems have 57 seats in Parliament. So our new government - a government that the country is supposedly meant to choose in a democratic process - was in fact chosen by 57 people.

And I defy anyone who can describe that as true democracy. Or even as something approaching a pale shadow of democracy.

Back in the days of yore - when almost no one was allowed to vote - the MPs were generally chosen by very few people. And bribery and corruption were pretty much rampant. When you only had three people who voted for you, you could bribe two and claim a 2/3 majority.

But after a while, most people found that to be a pretty horrific situation, and one that wasn't democratic.

So Parliament was reformed. In to a more democratic system. Where every person was allowed to vote (unless the returning officer ran out of ballot papers, or only put two members of staff on duty for a constituency of 200,00, or did any one of a number of other dumb-ass things to prevent people from voting) and every vote counted.

In to a system where the third largest party (not even the second, but the third) decided to put someone else in to power. Where the future of the country was decided not by the electorate, but by 57 people.

Cameron wasn't chosen by the people. In the end, he wasn't even chosen by his party.

He was chosen by Clegg.

And yet the right-wing press, a fair number of MPs and even Nick Robinson (who's reputation as an unbiased and politically neutral reporter has more or less vanished in the past six days) are saying he is an "Elected PM" - which not only confers some sense of legitimacy on him, but at the same time strips it from Gordon Brown. Despite the fact Gordon Brown was chosen by his party, the party that (at the time) was in power, and Cameron was chosen by a single man.

There is no doubt someone reading this who will say "But if you combine the Tory party and Lib Dems, they have a majority. Which suggests that the electorate did choose this government".

And they may be right. But they may not.

I, for one, did not vote for my Lib Dem candidate so he could sell out the party to The Tories. That was not what was in my mind when I placed my cross next to his name. And I am willing to bet that I am not the only person who feels this way.

But we can't truly ever know. Unless they interview everyone who voted Lib Dem across the country, you can not definitively say one way or the other whether this was the will of the country.

(Personally, and this is just my opinion, I would think most people who voted for Lib Dems would be on the left-wing of politics, and would find the idea of a Tory government a truly repulsive idea. But that's just my opinion.)

So while it is true that The Tories and Lib Dems won most seats, that does not automatically translate to a government that the voters wanted. And it leads back to the one simple truth :-

This is not a government elected by the people. This is not a government chosen by the people.

This is a government chosen by 57 Lib Dem MPs. 29,653,638 people voted in the election, and yet the results was decided by just 57 people, or 0.0001% of the number that voted.

In the past, when parties have swept to power with massive majorities, we've been told that that is not true democracy, because they don't need to talk to other MPs or parties. They can just push all their views through, without negotiation or compromise.

And people have said in the past few days that this a true demonstration of democracy - of parties talking, negotiating, compromising. That a hung parliament makes the system more democratic and more accountable.

And, given the quote I opened this with, I have to agree that this was a true demonstration of what should happen in a democracy.

Or, at least, in a very British Democracy.

The YouGov poll puts Cameron as winner of tonight's debate. No other poll seems to agree. The CEO of YouGov is standing as a Tory Candidate.

Does anyone see a link between those three points?

Cameron criticises Brown for his action over closing British Airspace. Brown did it based on the advice from the safety advisers.

So would Cameron have ignored this advice? Or would he have done the same thing?

In the past month, two Tory MPs have made blatantly homophobic remarks. The Tory Party was responsible for Section 28 (a truly odious piece of legislation that legalized homophobia). Cameron spoke in favour and voted in favour of retaining this, as did William Hague.

So if the Tory party has changed, and is not a hotbed of homophobia and bigotry, why hasn't Cameron taken any action against the members of his party who are apparently blatant homophobes?

Brown and Cameron both say they are examining the policies of Lib Dems. And yet Cameron's lapdogs in the press are attacking the man, not the ball.

Is that what politicians should be doing?

Tonight I plan to watch "Fire Walk With Me", followed by "The Princess Bride". And, if time permits, episodes 5-8 of Series 3 of Xena: Warrior Princess.

Which, you might think, is somewhat surprising given my recent political comments in relation to the election, and the behaviour of some of the parties.

This is the first national debate of party leaders, and is (from all accounts) an historic event that could well change the course of the election, if not the entire future.

So why am I not watching it?

Two reasons. Possibly three, but I'll start with the first two.

Firstly - the rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8587362.stm

This is not a debate. It is a stage managed series of sound-bytes where each leader will tell us what we already know - they want to make Britain better, and they can do it better than the other two. Do we really need to spend any more time watching them preen in front of the camera to learn that?

This is not a debate. Question Time - that's a debate. The panellists can confront each other and question each other directly. And if they are lying, or not being entirely truthful, they can be challenged on it.

This is not a debate. A debate implies that topics will be discussed back and forth. That questions that come up during the debate can be asked and answered. A debate is not "You say this, then he says that, then we move on whether the question has been answered or not".

The second reason is that it flies in the face of what democracy is supposed to be in this country.

One of the main reasons for this "debate" taking place, from what I can gather, is because they work well in the USA. That the Presidential debates have given voters a chance to see their candidates debating the issues, discussing topics of relevance and so forth.

And that might be true. In the USA, the debates might serve an important purpose.

But here's the thing - in the USA, they are voting for the person they see on screen. They elect their President directly. When Bush and Kerry, Kennedy and Nixon and McCain and Obama debated, they were the ones who people who would vote for and put in to power.

In the UK, however, that is not the way it works.

We do not vote for a Prime Minister. We vote for a local candidate. We vote for the person who will be representative of our Constituency, not for the person who will run the country.

Even in the seats where Brown, Cameron and Clegg are candidates, they are candidates as local MPs, not as Prime Minister.

We vote for a candidate. The party that has the most candidates forms the government. And the party then picks their leader to be Prime Minister.

We get no say in that part. As was evidences when John Major succeeded Thatcher. And when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair.

The public are not consulted on who will lead any of the political parties. We just don't get a say. And, to one degree or another, that is how it should be, because the Prime Minister only leads the party. He is not the President - he is just one of many.

If you watch the debate and think "Hmm - that Cameron, he is a nice chap, I think I'll vote for him", there is nothing to stop the Tory party in a years time overthrowing him and putting someone else in as Prime Minister. And you won't be able to do anything about it. You won't be able to say "But I vote as him for PM, not this other guy", because guess what? You didn't vote for him as PM. You voted for your local candidate. Because that is how democracy works in this country.

So when you are sitting watching the debate tonight, just remember that you don't get to vote for that person as Prime Minister. Only three Constituencies in the country actually get to vote for one of those people, and even then, they are not picking the PM, they are just picking their representative to Parliament.

Thirdly (and it turns out there are three reasons) putting all the focus on one person undermines the activities of the rest of the MPs, and the idea that this is Democracy, not a Republic. We have Education Secretaries, Shadow Education Secretaries, Environment Ministers, Shadow Environment Ministers and dozens of other nominated positions. The people in those jobs have the responsibility for everything under their purview , so why don't we hear from them?

If education is an important issue, why not hear from the three education "ministers" (for want of a better phrase) from the three parties? Aren't they in a better position to speak to the topic than the leader of the party?

The reason you don't get that in the USA is because The President is the one who makes the choices, sets the policy and takes the decisions. Because he is the Chief Executive of his party, and the one in charge. He is (pretty much) an elected dictator, and those in his party have to do what he say. (Or rebel, but you get the idea).

So, are we supposed to take from these debates that we actually have a defacto presidency in this country? That since we are listening to Brown, Cameron and Clegg, and not the people in charge of their departments, that it is only the opinion of those three that matters?

Is this, in fact, a signal that we are now living in a Republic and we just don't know about it?

Has democracy in this country died without anyone noticing?

Chris Grayling - the Tory MP who wants to be responsible for law and order in this country - believes that discriminating against gay couples is acceptable behaviour.

That if you run a business in your own home, you can tell gay people they are not welcome.

And yet he, and his whole party, say they are not homophobic. That the Tory Party - the same Tory Party that wrote Clause 28 - is no longer anti-gay or anti-lesbian.

And yet their candidate for Home Secretary believes it is acceptable to be homophobic.

Is this the party you want to put in to power?

So yet again the right to strike has been overturned by a single person. And once again people who are fighting for their rights to decent working conditions are told to fuck off and die by someone who is just looking out for their money.

Truly a glorious country :)

So, Mr Cameron - what did Mrs Thatcher and John Major do when they stopped being Prime Minister?

Did they go off in to the night and never do any after dinner speeches? Or did they go on to the talk circuit and make a bit of money themselves?

And when you are no longer Tory leader, are you just going to retire and do nothing? Never make a single speech for which you will be given money? Or are you going to lie to us and say that is the case, even when you know it must be a lie?

"He's taken the lives of two beautiful children, very, very unnecessarily"

Just because I am curious, under what circumstances is it necessary to kill two children?

The Tories were insisting their first priority was to cut the deficit, and they would do it with billions of pounds worth of efficiency savings.

And now - today - they announce that they will use those savings to do what? To bribe people in to voting for them.

Are these really the people you want to run the country? People who have no credible policies and are now resorting to bribery to win votes?

If the pope wants to prove he didn't do anything wrong, why not prove it? Why not show the replies he sent about child molesting priests?

Generally if you go on the attack, with nothing to back your story up, it suggests guilt.

And now it seems he has. One person disputing the result, another claiming victory. Sounds just like Bush's version of democracy to me!

We are told that this is the most corrupt Parliament in recent history. That the current crop of MPs are the most greedy, grasping bastards we've ever known.

Does NO ONE remember Lord Archer? Neil Hamilton? Jonathan Aitken? Tim Smith?

All of them guilty of fairly serious crimes. Some of them less than a decade ago. A few of them even went to jail for the crimes they committed.

So when you hear Cameron banging on about how Labour MPs should be ashamed of themselves, phone him up and tell him to look at his own party history. And when reporters tell you that this is a horrible parliament that should be scrapped and started over, remind them that MPs in the past were just as bad, if not far, far worse.

And then tell them to shut the fuck up.

If an Iraqi, Iranian or Palestinian diplomat had used forged UK passports to organize the execution of an Israeli government member, we would be hearing the word "terrorist" being thrown about more than you can possibly imagine.

And yet some how an Israeli diplomat carries out a truly heinous act, and all we hear is "utterly deplorable".

Why don't they just admit Israel could take Gordon Brown from behind on national TV and all we would do is tut? Why not just tell the truth - we don't mind terrorism when it is carried out by Israel, because Israel is our friend, and so can murder, rape and commit mass murder with gay abandon and all we will do is shake our head and say "That's not right".

If this was three white guys, it would never have come to court.

Videos of them pretending to be "army guys" - things we have seen on Spaced and you can find on You Tube in large numbers.

Pictures of them dressing up as "army guys" - again, scan through facebook, you'll no doubt find quite a lot of them. And I am willing to bet that they are not training to be terrorists.

Videos of executions and explosions? It may surprise you, but some people like them. Now - that might make them twisted and sick, but I am pretty sure that twisted and sick is not the same as being a terrorist.

Is this country so paranoid and paralysed with fear of Muslims that any time they do anything that could vaguely be a possibility of suspicious we have to drag them in front of the national press and label them as evil?

Fucks' sake.

An American vice-president criticising Israel? Did that really happen? Am I dreaming?

Blame the internet. Don't blame yourself. Don't blame your child. No - it MUST be the evil, evil internet that is at fault!

Does anyone really believe that this woman (Eliza Manningham-Buller) didn't know what was going on? That she is entirely innocent in the matter of people being tortured?

The fact she is just announcing this shocking knowledge as an investigation is on-going is obviously just co-incidence, and is no way a blatant attempt to make herself look less guilty of appalling behaviour - apparently looking like a stupid, incompetent cow is better than being complicit in torture.

So the police (and the state) has held a woman for three years because they couldn't find a dictionary? They could't find out that a word might have another definition than the one they are using to punish her for something she didn't do?

Perhaps we don't need more bobbies on the beat - we need more bobbies who know how to use dictionaries/wikipedia/search engines etc....

So a solution to having too many people wanting to go to university is to increase the fees.

Basically - to make university the domain of the rich. To make sure all the people from poorer backgrounds can't go, and that only those parents who can afford it can get a degree.

That's really the best solution they can think of?

Oh - wait. Of course. Students can get loans. So their parents don't have to be rich. No - instead you will put someone in crippling debt for the rest of their lives. That's obviously a good idea!!!

Education should be free. I get that that is not always possible, but to deliberately set out to create a country where the rich can buy a degree and the poor can't.... it's criminal.

So someone else has been wrongly convicted of terrorism. But this time, it's not the police who fucked up (although they probably did), but the law under which this guy was convicted is just too vague and wide-ranging, and it turns out this guy was not actually a terrorist, nor was he doing something that might possibly, potentially, maybe in the future have the slightest possibility of maybe being useful to someone who could be a terrorist.

But apparently that's what the law covers. If you do something that might be useful to someone who might be a terrorist, you are by association a terrorist and will go to jail.

So when I took pictures of Big Ben, of The London Eye, of The Thames and the boats on it..... if someone doesn't like me, they can suggest I am a terrorist and, based on today's report, I could easily be sent down.

We truly live in a glorious country.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151859102

So - if the BBC was at fault for Dr Kelly's death, why all the secrecy? Why hide the cause of death? Why hide the records? Why hide anything?

Surely you only hide things if you have got something to hide?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8473790.stm

While David Cameron might not have made the decision, I am pretty sure he was one of the many Tories who voted to go to war, along with the Labour Party.

So when do we hear his reasons for voting for it? Why does he get to cast the government in a bad light when we know full well a vast number of Tories voted to go to war, and so much share equally in the blame for what happened as a result of their choice?

Or does he just get off scot free, not having to answer for his decision?

So the government supports free speech as long as they agree with what is being said?

Is this group proscribed? Is it an actual terrorist group?

Because if it isn't, then the government is pretty much censoring a political group because it can - because it has the power to do it and because it doesn't like what the group is saying.

Which, forgive me if I am wrong, does not sound like the act of a democratic body.

It sounds like the act of a dictatorship.

The idea of this post wasn't for the government to ban the group and declare it illegal.

It was for the government to get their heads out of their asses and not stop every single person they object to speaking.

Is this new government policy? Any time you find something you object to, you ban it? Because again - this doesn't sound like a democracy.

So the government supports free speech as long as they agree with what is being said?

Is this group proscribed? Is it an actual terrorist group?

Because if it isn't, then the government is pretty much censoring a political group because it can - because it has the power to do it and because it doesn't like what the group is saying.

Which, forgive me if I am wrong, does not sound like the act of a democratic body.

It sounds like the act of a dictatorship.

If we are winning the war on terror, why is everyone on the news scared shitless?

The people being interviewed about these new body scanners are all sounding terrified.

Which, I thought, was the point of terrorism. Not to kill, not to maim, but to make your enemy scared.

And since everyone seems to be scared - so scared they are willing to give up their privacy completely (what else do you call a scanner that takes pictures of you naked, and, I assume, stores the pictures in some way for evidence purposes) - then I can only assume that the terrorists have, in fact, won.

According to the BBC news, Google have been convicted of large scale copyright violations. A French court has ruled that it is violating copyright laws by posting extracts of books without permission from the publishers.

So given that Google's motto is "Don't be evil", and they have apparently violated this pretty badly, what else have they been doing that could be considered evil?

Have they got too used to being so well liked they are now trying to do whatever they want, without regard to law or morality?

As someone who writes stories (not professionally, but still I write a fair amount), the protection of my stories is something I hold quite important. And by the same token I would hold people who copy/adapt/plagiarise/etc them (or anyone else's stories) as pretty nasty people. (Recently I found a story that had been ripped off wholesale from one of my favourite authors, and was utterly appalled that anyone could do that. Happily, once the original author reported this, the copied story seems to have been removed from the archive, so yay for a happy ending!).

Which might explain why I think this action of Google is actually pretty bad, and verging on unforgivable.

And, on another related note, when I started writing HP Fanfiction (which is fun - you should try it), I referred to the HP Lexicon quite a lot. However after the author of that site decided to release it publicly (and was subsequently stopped because it was, it was ruled, a huge violation of copyright) I haven't been back to it at all - using Wiki and other sites instead. Again - because it is somewhat unforgivable.

So - have Google broken their basic creed? And should they be judged on that act?

Israel invade and occupy vast acres of land 40 odd years ago. They drive out the people who are living there, and claim it for their own.

And yet they think the UN are providing money to support the people they drove out is an "Anti-Israeli" statement.

Guess what, Israel - if you want the "Anti-Israeli" statements to stop, why not move out of the land you occupied and give it back to the rightful owners? Then maybe the UN wouldn't need to support them, and you can get back to the normal level of self-satisfied persecution you seem to revel in.

Now that the sign has been stolen, is someone going to hear the name "Auschwitz" and think "What is that place?"

Are they going to forget what happened there because there isn't a sign above the entrance?

And honestly - how many people could tell you what the sign said before today? I am a fairly educated man, who doesn't deny anything about the Holocaust, and before today I couldn't have told you whether there was a sign or not. But that didn't stop me knowing what Auschwitz was infamous for, and how many people died there.

Just get a fucking grip - it's a sign. It's not an act of war - it's just stupid, moronic twats being stupid and moronic. Ignore them, and they will go away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6840142/Auschwitz-sign-stolen-by-neo-Nazis.html

By what definition is this an act of war? Invading Israel is an act of war. Nuking Tel-Aviv is an act of war. Saying "We are now at war with you" is an act of war.

But stealing a sign? Unless whoever stole the sign uses it to beat Israeli citizens to death, I can't imagine who anyone could see this as "an act of war".

Seriously - Israel needs to get a fucking grip on reality and stop being such a bunch of whiny shits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/13/parents-tory-plan-free-schools

Thatcher started the crusade to make all education private when she was in power, and now it looks like Cameron is going to finish it.

Just out of curiosity, how many Muslim groups are going to be allowed to run their own schools? Or are they going to ban all "faith-based" schools, regardless of religion?

Plus who sets the curriculum? The parents? The LEA? The central government? Will anyone ensure that what is taught is correct? (I am not talking about the dispute between string theory and unified theory, I am talking about teachers who teach that Jews are to blame for everything, and that black people are genetically inferior - and don't tell me that people don't believe that, because you know it as well as I do).

All in all, this is not going to end well, and the idea of hundreds of these schools shaping the future of the country....... not good. Not good at all.

They invade and occupy another country, and now - to make sure that the settlements built on occupied land can survive, they are going to give them a shed load more money.

What a great country! How can anyone not love a country that invades and occupies another one, and then - instead of saying "Sorry - we were wrong" just amplifies the level of their criminal activity by giving the occupiers more money?

(And yes, I understand the irony of someone from the UK saying that, given what we are doing to Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is kind of my point).

Blair has more or less admitted that he would have used any justification necessary to go to war.

Just like those of us who opposed it said.

I really have this urge to go back to Gemini and smack my former boss in the face for every single thing he said to me about this, because he was an utter twat (and probably still is).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8405033.stm

While I have no doubt that President Obama will do more than enough to deserve this in the future, right now I think this could easily be more about saying "Nya-nya-na-naaaa-nya" to Bush than it is about saying "Well done" to President Obama, simply because Obama hasn't been in power enough to really do anything to deserve this since he took office.

And if that is the case, I am really quite impressed, and very amused :)

The family of Amanda Knox are saying that they can't understand how a judicial system could come up with the verdict that it did. That the press reports biased the judge and jurours against their daughter.

Which sounds all well and good until you realise they are from America.

Where a judicial system once convicted Louise Woodward of Second Degree Murder.
Where the press can say anything they like during a trial (take the Michael Jackson trial) as an example.

Makes me wonder if they are going to look at their own country's legal system in the next few weeks?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8390623.stm

The government will have the ability to amend copyright laws as they see fit?

So if the government wants to amend the law to monitor ALL computer interactions, on the belief that it will help prevent copyright, then this law would give them that permission to do it? Without taking it to Parliament at all?

Does that not scare the crap out of anyone else?

We sent soldiers to fight and die in America's war in Afghanistan, because America promised that any sacrifice would be worth it because the people of Afghanistan would have a free, fair and democratic government.

And now - after eight years and over 200 hundred British Military deaths, America is planning on taking the government out of the loop. They are going to bypass the government they put in power, because they don't think it is trustworthy.

Which has to make you proud of every single death the British Military has suffered. It has to make you proud that they fought and died to put such a corrupt, useless, bad government in to power that America hardly recognises it any more.

There's a woman on TV at the moment who is clearly a Republican (she voted for McCain and Palin, which is what I'm basing it on) and she is talking about how "government should be smaller". That the government is interfering in too much of people's lives, and that it should butt out.

So why is it that Republicans (who want a smaller government, and less interference from their government) want the government to ban gay marriage? Isn't that interfering?
And why is it that the same Republicans who want government to do less want this government to ban abortion? Isn't that interfering?

(from The West Wing) "I like how Republicans want to make government just small enough to fit in to your bedroom".

So - if there are any Republicans out there who are reading this (which I admit is not all that likely, but you never know), can you tell my why? Why do you want less interference from government and yet still want it to interfere in marriage laws? In people's private lives? Cause I really, really don't understand how you can have both.

In all the discussions of why Bin Laden wasn't caught eight years ago, and why Brown is pushing for it now, why has no one pointed out that Bin Laden wasn't caught because Bush didn't want to catch him?

He didn't care about punishing Al-Qadea. He didn't care about routing the Taleban. He didn't care about winning the war in Afghanistan. He didn't care about catching Bin Laden.

The only reason he went to Afghanistan was because he needed to make it look like he was punishing those responsible, otherwise his blind rush to Iraq would have been a lot harder. He couldn't go straight to Iraq without a token attempt of actually looking like he was going after the ones responsible.

Plus George Bush needed a boogie man - he needed Bin Laden out there, posting tapes, being scary and generally being the "big bad". Otherwise how could he terrify the public in to stripping away rights and liberties....

Why is no one talking about that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8374669.stm

So the police don't have to answer for the cold-blooded shooting of an innocent man in court. Instead, they use (what I can only assume) is public money to pay the family off.

Truly, we live in a glorious country.

So - they torture a guy until he admits what he did, then threaten him with more torture until he says he is admitting what he did freely and of his own volition.

Then - just to make sure he gets an extra fair trial, they hold it in a city where there are very good odds that anyone who serves on the jury will probably have been directly affected by the attacks he is accused of masterminding.

I thought that the phrase was "TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY", not lies, coercion, lynch mobs and the American Way.

But hey - why am I surprised? They fucked over Saddam Hussien and ensured that his trial was no where near fair or just, so why not do it to someone else?

And yet we want to protect these bastards, because apparently we'd rather stand by and watch them lynch someone, and we'd rather stand by and watch them torture people, than actually saying "hey - for a democratic nation, you really are a bunch of shits and since we believe in the law, we are going to object to the way you treat people you don't like".

I don't know which nation I am more appalled by.... Them for doing it, or us for not stopping them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/torture-foreign-office-miliband-judge

It is apparently better for the UK to suck up to torturers and criminals than to stand up for the truth and justice.

We truly live in a great nation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8356249.stm

I have to admit, after all the truly shitty things Israel has done in its recent history, I am quite surprised they ever let this become public, and even more so that they are punishing someone.

Given their repeated shows of playing up their Martyr status as victims of terrorism, I would have thought that they would not want to be seen to be a nation that produces terrorists themselves.

Maybe Israel is on the verge of becoming a decent, humanitarian nation again, as opposed to a country made up of what appears to be bullies and zealots.

When Jan Moir receives thousands of complaints about an article on Stephen Gatley's death, her response is to ask "How many of the people who complained actually read my column?".

As if to suggest that you can't complain about something unless you know the full details and that if you haven't read it, you have no right to comment.

Which is fair enough.

And yet - there is this : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1081974/JAN-MOIR-Misogyny-dressed-comedy.html

An article by Jan Moir on the Brand/Ross fiasco of a year or so ago. Saying they are both beyond contempt and appalling human beings.

But no where does it mention her listening to the show. No where does it mention her being one of the original TWO people who complained.

So why is when she is blasting someone for their behaviour, she can say whatever she wants, whether she heard the show or not, and yet now that she is being attacked an article that (having just read it now) is pretty offensive (she basically suggests that Gately did not die of natural causes and that everyone is covering up something far more sinister/perverted/etc, and appears to suggest anyone who enters in to a Civil Union is mentally disturbed), she thinks people who haven't read it shouldn't comment?

Then again - this is The Mail. Hate-filled, homophobic, hypocritical bastards who apparently have nothing better to do than bitch about everyone else without ever looking at their own and wondering "Huh - turns out I am a twat".

I thought we went to Afghanistan to bring democracy and freedom to the oppressed victims of the Taleban?

Was that not true either?

He is preaching about cutting red tape. And how? By introducing policies to control the red tape. He will ensure that if extra red tape is introduced in government, then they will put policies in place to make sure that it is cut elsewhere.

Which seems to suggest more red tape. To control the red tape. Which - since he was talking about cutting red-tape - seems to be a tad moronic, if not utterly fuckwhitted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8288424.stm

I was under the impression that we voted for the person who would run our constituency. That I voted for the candidate who would be my representative in the House of Commons.

I wasn't aware I was voting for the person who would be in charge of the party that would run the country. I know that this is not the case, because Cameron, Brown and Campbell were not on my ballot paper the last time I voted (in a General Election).

So why are we having to watch three people who I don't vote for talking about stuff?

Is this going to change the way the government works? So if we listen to the leaders, we get a say in who the leader will be?

Because no one got to say that Brown should become PM after Blair left, and that's how it should work. The party in power picks their leader, and their leader becomes the PM. The Tories did it between Thatcher and Major, and Labour did it with Blair and Brown.

But if - as this debate suggests - we vote by leader, and not by our own constituency, then does that mean if Brown, Cameron or Clegg step down after they become PM, we get another debate? That we get to pick the new leader?

Or are they going to overlook that part? Are we going to be forced to listen to Cameron poncing around, Brown stalling and Clegg pointing to a picture of himself saying "Yes, that's really me" for hour after hour, and then - two weeks after the election, find out that Cameron is stepping down and someone we haven't heard of is suddenly in his place? At that point, should there not be another debate so we can hear from our new Lord and Master before he becomes our Lord and Master?


This idea sucks. It is turning us in to America (where they do actually pick their leader directly, rather than their elected representatives doing it), and given the state of democracy in the USA over the past decade, I can't imagine how that would ever be a good thing. No offense to the USA (well, to be honest, some offence to the USA. They let a supreme court, appointed by Bush's father, put Bush in power. That really doesn't sound all that democratic) but I like my country as it is.

This, along with other changes (ideas to remove the court reporting laws, to modify liable laws, to hand over suspected terrorists, or bankers, or hackers, just because the FBI asks for them and so on and so on) really does seem to suggest we are turning to the USA, and at that point I think I will have to form a rebellion, and overthrow the government to bring order, sense and stability back to our country.

Seriously - we are NOT THE USA and we should not be voting for a leader.

A student who thinks the iGCSE is the better (vs the GCSE) says "Because you're competing against people from all over the world - it raises your game".

Unless the grades are based on how many people get the highest grade, the student is a moron. If I get 100%, and someone in South Africa gets 100%, I am pretty sure we both get "A" grades. I don't go empty handed because someone else got an "A" - that would be utterly silly.

And if that's what studying it is teaching the kids - that you are in competition for grades - then I think either the teacher is crap, the student is crap or the exam is utter crap. (And yes, generally "either" is a binary choice, either/or, but bite me).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8247833.stm

So - not actually innocent?

"They were British Born and wanted to do us harm" - another quote from BBC Breakfast.

Why are people so surprised? Weren't quite a lot of the people who worked with the IRA born in the UK? Didn't they do us a lot of harm?

Or have we just blanked the past and are going to pretend we've never had domestic terrorism before?