As for "A Joke" that was put up on the this forum in my name - I have learnt my lesson, and now have a much more complex Password, so that it is highly unlikely that some idiot will do this again in the future to damage my reputation.
But now, in an article entitled Dartford council candidate Steven Uncles stands by jokes about a Pakistani and suicide victim, his local paper tells us that Steve admits to posting the joke.
Mr Uncles admitted posting the joke, but says it was an experiment to test people’s reaction.
He said: “The joke is part of English culture.
“If people are told to stop telling jokes like these it turns into something like out of George Orwell’s 1984.
“It was an experiment to see what reaction I would get.”
What a plausible explanation. Presumably Steve only wrote to Sinn Fein to see what reaction he would get, and only acts like an obnoxious fat oaf for the same reason. It's an experiment you see. The whole world is but a laboratory to Steve.
On Thursday we get the opportunity to replace our First Past the Post electoral system with an Alternative Vote electoral system. It's a hobson's choice, and it's not the referendums on the EU and an English parliament that we the people actually want and need.
Our Kingdom have recently published video highlights of the Intelligence Squared AV Debate which features some very clever men demeaning their intelligence, and ours, by staging what attempts to pass for a principled debate over two systems that are little different. Their attempt fails because this is a debate that is about pragmatism not principles. They may as well be having an argument over which is best, sticky toffee pudding (STP) or treacle sponge pudding (TSP). The NO camp wants to stick with STP because that's what they've always had, and they've always enjoyed it; the YES camp wants to switch to TSP because, though it's no better than STP (and may even be worse), perhaps, if they do change, the school dinner lady will offer them another choice at a later date. Treacle sponge pudding could be a stepping stone to jam roly-poly. Or you could end up with semolina pudding.
So how should you vote? My advice is that you should follow David's advice and withhold your vote or spoil your ballot paper.
FPTP has failed England. AV is only a very slightly mitigated version of FPTP. Both will lead to more disproportional, unrepresentative UK parliaments that will continue to ignore not only the just demands for an English parliament but England’s very existence. Under the present UK political settlement, England as such is completely discounted and passed over in silence. The pro-AV campaign says that, under AV, your vote really counts. But England will still count for nothing, whether we have AV or FPTP.
So make your vote really count this Thursday in the AV referendum by greeting it with the silent contempt with which the political establishment treats England. England’s voice is not being consulted; so respond with sullen, stern silence in your turn. Don’t vote for a system – the UK parliament itself – that disenfranchises you. And let the result – whether a win for AV or FPTP – be rendered as meaningless as it really is through a derisory turn-out across England.
Neither camp deserves your vote. Vote NO and you legitimise the status quo. Vote YES and you legitimise the status quo elected under a different system, and you also lend your support to a YES camp that is backed by organisations, and infested by people, who have spent years trying to balkanise England into regions. The anti-establishment vote is a withheld vote, it sends the message that neither of the electoral systems on offer are enough to engage our interest and legitimise Westminster 'democracy'.
Please don't let the Westminster machine draw you into this distracting referendum on electoral reform, let them know that British democracy is worthless, whichever of these two systems is used to elect the fraudsters to Parliament, by withholding your English vote.
Fortunately for us honkies it's just black people who are affected by Cameron's massive hikes in tuition fees, or so John Denham would have you believe.
I appreciate the need for topicality in press releases, but really, this is pathetic.
Belatedley, a Happy New Year to you all. I'm now back in the YooKay, enjoying the rain, and contemplating another year of blogging about the English Question. In time honoured fashion here are my predictions for the forthcoming year.
The Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill debate will focus around 'farcical divisions' and the Barnett Formula. Tory MPs enthusiastic about English Votes on English Laws will suddenly realise how it will complicate the legislative process and Parliamentary timetable, and they will also come to understand that non-English MPs have an obligation to vote on English matters that affect the Barnett Formula.
In regard to the Barnett Formula Malcolm Rifkind will see this as vindication of his solution to the WLQ. David Davis will argue that Rifkind's solution is not a satisfactory solution for England.
In March Wales will vote for the Welsh Assembly to have primary law making powers. Bognador, Mycock, Hazell and Co will proclaim that Britain is now a "quasi-federation".
The Royal wedding will be accompanied by a rash of commentary on Britishness and national identity, and the health of British national identity will be unfairly measured by the perceived vigour of the celebrations and contrasted with the Charles and Diana wedding of thirty years ago. The presence of English flags on the streets, due to the wedding's proximity to St George's Day, will encourage speculation about the nature of Britishness.
In May's Scottish general election the Labour Party will become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament and will enter into a coalition with the Scottish Liberal Democrats, an event that results in Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs resigning the whip at Westminster thereby reducing Cameron's majority. However, no Lib Dem will cross the floor and join Labour.
The debate over the referendum on AV will bore the living shit out of every sane man, woman and child in Britain. The result will be YES but the winner will be apathy and disillusionment.
The Commission into the West Lothian Question will not report by the end of 2011. Word will leak out that they are recommending a convention by which Scottish MPs would abstain from voting on England-only laws, with the proviso that it would be unreasonable to expect this until the Barnett Formula is scrapped. Alex Salmond rubs his hands with glee.
The 'settled will of the Scottish people' will be ammended by the Scotland Bill, the slippery slope to fiscal federalism and ultimately independence is ironically greased by Unionists in the face of SNP opposition.
The 2011 census will show that 'English' not 'British' is the dominant national identity on these islands.
Years from now 2011 will be remembered as the year when Britain entered its death throes, but not because of devolution, quasi-federalism or territorial squabbling. 2011 is the year in which Parliament will signal its intent to create an elected upper house, after which the Union may struggle on but notions of 'Britain' will go into terminal decline with the abolishment of privilege, appointment and the final political emasculation of the aristocracy.
Former Labour MP David Chaytor has pleaded guilty to three charges of theft.
This was his Unlock Democracy EDM from four years ago.
That this House notes the growing concern about the impact of low turnouts at national and municipal elections, the decreasing membership of political parties and the alienation of many younger citizens from the political process; believes that there is an urgent need for all political parties to renew their policies on democratic renewal; considers that further devolution and decentralisation of power, combined with greater use of different forms of grass roots democracy, will be essential to this process; and congratulates Charter 88 and the Politics Network on their decision further to integrate their work, under the banner of Unlock Democracy, to enable them to campaign jointly on these issues.
Inadvertently the charlatan has boosted the case for democratic renewal better than he ever could have done as an MP. David Chaytor was one of the tosspots who tried to use parliamentary privilege to protect themselves from the law, had they succeeded in their attempt to pervert justice it would have been a bigger outrage than the theft itself. I hope that he spends Christmas in prison.
I would happily put my name to this letter in today's Guardian:
We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.
Promoting segregated education.
Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.
Extremely well put. That the English taxpayer should be paying for the visit of the head of an organisation that covers up the rape of children by its employees, and which is responsible for the needless deaths of countless thousands - and abject poverty of millions more - thanks to it's medieval views on birth control, is an utter disgrace.
And before someone pops up and accuses me of being anti-Catholic, I'm not; there is a world of difference between anti-Catholic and anti-Papal.
Iain Dale, yesterday at 10:54am:
If ever you wanted an example of the difference between Gordon Brown and David Cameron as Prime Minister, look at what's happening in Washington.
Brown and his Ministers cow-towed to the Americans over the one-sided extradition treaty and refused even to raise the subject of Gary McKinnon with their American counterparts.
I suspect that Iain was typing that blogpost before he had read this story:
David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.
He made the historical slip, neglecting the fact that the US had yet to enter the war, on the second day of his first trip to the US as prime minister.
We all want and expect a prime minister to have at least a reasonable understanding of modern history, but let's put to one side Cameron's historical illiteracy and ask the question 'why did Cameron feel the need to refer to the UK as the "junior partner" in World War II?'
The only answer I can come up with is that Cameron was kowtowing to the Americans.
Why Iain Dale feels that Gordon Brown and his ministers were towed by cows to talks on Gary McKinnon's extradition treaty remains unclear. Possibly an Eggcorn.
The Labour Leadership campaign has finally turned nasty.
I hardly think Diane Abbott's wideness is relevant to the debate. Shame on you Ed.
Shagger Prescott is now Lord Shagger, which is nice because he always wanted to shag a lady. I won't go into how disgusted I am by this appointment, I'll just point you in the direction of Guy Aitchison who is disgusted enough for both of us.
"I don’t want to be a member of the House of Lords. I will not accept it."
Added to the Prescottballs collection.