Debbie Purdy and the right to die

This is the story of the day as Debbie Purdy goes to court to stop her husband from being prosecuted for helping her to commit suicide.

However, I have never understood why this is presented in this way. Over on the LPUK blog it is being spun as the individual versus the state and the right to choose the method of your own demise. It is nothing of the sort.

In fact, it is a million miles from what this is all about.

What is up for debate here is a law that prevents people killing other people. What is wanted is for people who are ill to 'kill themselves' and for their loved one to either be there or help them do it, but not face prosecution for it.

This is farcical. The law is there to stop people murdering their loved one and then saying that's what they wanted. When all is said and done, there is no way the law can possibly know whether that is the case, no matter the will or other statement, and has to treat the whole thing as unlawful killing of some kind.

Going to a clinic in Switzerland presents a slightly different case, but similar in nature. The person travels there and is euthanized, the partner comes home. But that is another country and the only defence is the same 'It's what they wanted' , a statement from a nurse and a receipt.

On the balance of protecting the innocent who do not wish to be killed in their wheelchairs the law is a fair and just one. It is nothing about the right to choose and everything about the right to not be murdered. In the vast amount of cases the partner is not prosecuted because the Judge and Jury take pity, or the CPS don't take it to court.

From a personal, moral perspective I actually find it selfish. This is harsh, but true. The person who is ill knows they are ill, they know they will suffer a long and painful illness and then endure a very painful and possibly drawn out death. All this time the person that loves them more than life itself is the one caring for them. Then, upon gaining near total incapacity, they ask this loved one to finish them off.

Of course you wish to ease their pain and you would do anything for them, but to ask someone to do this I find horrible. I find it even more so because it isn't as though the person who is ill hasn't had countless chances to simply do it themselves. In short, if you want to do it, do it yourself, don't ask the person who loves you to kill you and then ask the state to not view that with suspicion.

It is a very complex and emotive subject of course and I have immense sympathy for all involved (even for the poor bloody Judge who has to make the decision). But when all is said and done it is better to have the law as it stands than to change it and open up the complete opposite: elderly and ill people being killed when they don't want to be.

It sounds libertarian to support this, but I don't think it is at all. It is about protecting the liberty of individuals who are in no position to protect it themselves.

EDIT Over 100 UK citizens have ended their lives at Dignitas and not one person who has accompanied them has ever been prosecuted on their return to the UK.

Ban on 'Massive' Choccy Bars

I despair sometimes I really do. You think things are pretty shit, the poxy government are fucking it all up and complete morons are running around like complete morons because of a bit of 'flu, and something comes along to really kick you in the nads.

They want to shrink the size of chocolate bars. Un-fucking-real.

I'm not a massive chocolate fan (no, seriously I'm not. I'm sweet enough already), but I am partial to the odd Kit-Kat from the machine, or maybe a Snickers. What I am also partial to is making my own fucking mind up.

It's just taking the piss. A while back they got rid of these king size bars because the kiddy-wids were getting all podge, so the manufacturers simply created the whole 'duo' thing. Very clever. But now they want to actually shrink the bars. The normal fucking bars. Thing is, like all adults, I'm convinced that all food and drink has shrunk over the last twenty years anyway. My arse has a Snickers always been that small and Maccy Ds can fuck right off saying a cheeseburger is still the same.

Soon you will have to load chocolate up on this stick and simply look at it on the screen

The reasoning is superb, a classic piece of socialist bullshit. Ready for the first bit of truly great bullshitting?

Almost nine out of 10 children aged seven to 14 drink fizzy drinks and 34% of 11-16 year-olds consume chocolate at least once a day, figures show.

No fucking shit! Fuck me when I was 'seven to 14' I pretty much lived on 'fizzy drinks'! And shock fucking horror, a third of teenagers have some chocolate everyday. Well fuck me hold the front fucking page we've got a newsflash here.

The point they should have actually made, but didn't because they are mind controlling fucktards, is that 66% of 11-16 year olds don't, in fact, eat chocolate everyday. Like some sort of evil Willy Wonka, Wally Wanker if you like, these bastards are going to take away everyone's chocolate because the fat cunt down the road can't stop stuffing his fucking face and his mum thinks he's a growing lad. Yeah he is, but in the wrong dimension you stupid bitch.

Then the Food Standards drone pipes up by denying that they are doing what they are clearly doing. The director of the deliciously ironic consumer choice department says:

What we are not doing is telling people what to eat.

What we want to do is to make it easier for people to make healthier choices - to choose foods with reduced saturated fat and sugar - or smaller portion sizes.

They are not, not, telling people what to eat. They are simply telling people that if they are going to eat this stuff then it will be on the state's terms. They want to make it 'easier' for people to make choices.

They seem to have missed the fact that by making all the portions the same fucking size there really isn't much choice left is it. It's like the classic communist 'You can have whatever coat you want as long as it's this one'.

And easier? What the fuck population do we have? Are we made up of 62 million descendants of Sloth from the fucking Goonies or something? It's a fucking chocolate bar people! Before they had the staggeringly hard choice of the Snickers or the Snickers Duo, which to be fair was made up of two smaller sized bars so may have confused them into thinking they were getting less. Now they have to make their minds up if they want the 50g Snickers, the 50g Mars or the 50g Kit-Kat.

According to the FSA, this is the average British person.

They even want to cut the size of a can of 'fizzy drink' from 330ml to 250ml. And you know that if this goes through the prices wouldn't come down. Because I'm sure you've noticed that the inflation of a Kit-Kat is absurd, the vending machine near me has them at 70p at the moment. Up from 60p a few months back.

A few people get fat because they stuff their faces with no self control, a load of spurious numbers are given about the cost to the NHS and before you know it, they are shrinking all your fucking food.

Strange how they have never decided to shrink fags. It's only a matter of time before we're all huddled under a heater in the fucking car park puffing away on a fag the size of a match stick in one hand with new 400ml pint of £6.50 piss water in the other.

Downing Street Suffers Terrible Loss

A terribly sad day today I'm afraid. if you are a human and have a heart that is not made of stone I urge you to look away now. The Chancellor's cat, Sybil The Cat, is dead.

Oh God, I promised I wouldn't cry. Give me a minute.

Okay.

Often rebuked for bringing in half eaten paparatzi, Sybil was a gentle and furry creature. A cat if you will. Featuring paws, ears, a little tail and a cute little nosey, Sybil was every inch a feline.

Sybil: Now in pussy heaven. Not that one.

Having only lived at Downing Street for 6 months, she returned to her native Scotland to feast on deep fried kitty bites and battered duck in a fish gravy. This had nothing to do with Gordon Brown not liking the cat.

Shortly after Tony Blair arrived at Downing Street, Humphrey the world famous cat was ousted. Both Humphrey and Sybil are now dead. The Labour party is denying that this is policy, but I think we all know what's going on here.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

It seems Mr Boatang and I have upset a few people.

Mr B and I have been slammed twice, by two different individuals, over the same article that appeared on our site. The article in question is the one I wrote on Afghanistan. The objectionable, sorry, 'repulsive', aspects to this article appear to be comments I made about squaddies and penal battalions.

I shan't say where the criticisms were posted or who made them, other than they were not emailed to us or posted as comments to the piece. At the time of writing, the B&D article attracted one positive comment, one constructive comment in disagreement and one comment which neither agreed not disagreed.

I will say that the attacks have come from within the LPUK, though as there appears to be a cessation of hostilities at this present time, I'll stop there.

It is of some concern that these criticisms have been levied - not because we discourage or dislike criticism (quite the opposite), but because there was no reasonable justification for my article being held up for public ridicule and derision within the forum it was raised.

The caveat that went with the attacks was that it is little wonder Mr B and I wish to remain anonymous, given that I have written the objectionable piece on Afghanistan. As if, were people to know our real identities, maybe our safety would be compromised. I don't know. Is this what they were insinuating? If so, that's a little troubling.

It is bizarre that, just because Mr B and I ask awkward questions and discuss where we think the party ought to be heading, efforts (co-ordinated and pre-planned efforts, if my suspicions are valid) are being made to embarrass us, shut us down and make us look bad to fellow libertarians.

This, after countless months of solid campaigning for the party and the philosophy. You only have to browse this site for a few minutes to see how much time and energy we put into our political beliefs. Here, and elsewhere online and in real life, Mr B and I constantly campaign for libertarianism and for the party.

Now, I wouldn't be so sore about all this, if:

• Other LPUK members were flawless in the tone and content of their written blog work.

• The accusations against my article were fair, balanced and representative of what I actually said.

"Er, I think I've found something on these guys, sir..."
"Hmmmm...Eeeexcellllent, Withers, Eeeeexcelllent"

To deal with the first one, briefly: I find it amazing that I should be hauled over the coals for one article I wrote which apparently contains repulsive material that is shameful to the party. I now ask you readers, to consider the many other LPUK members out there who run libertarian blogs, and who espouse far more controversial, offensive and potentially 'repulsive' material than the stuff that appears on our superb site.

I shan't name any such blogs, I'm sure you can figure them out for yourself. Let's put it this way, we've never wished death on people and we don't hope that anyone, politician or no, dies painfully of cancer.

Such views, to my eyes, go under the bridge as far as the LPUK are concerned. But what I said on Afghanistan has caused a huge stir. Shall we find out why?

Well, the 'feedback' we have received attacks my piece for slamming the British squaddie. Indeed, I do slam squaddies in my piece as you can see, although my view is based on the fact that..."my few experiences of them have been dire".

I also added a qualifier in my piece, where I note that not all squaddies are as bad as my perception has it..."Soldiers are, obviously, not all bad men".

Another huge bone of contention, apparently, was that I support the setting up of penal battalions. Which isn't quite how I phrased it..."I am still open to the suggestion of the formation of penal battalions to help with some sort of 'big push'."

Read: 'open to the suggestion'.

Now read this: Like with so many of my pieces, it was written tongue-in-cheek.

For Fuck Sake. Do you seriously think I'm sat at home, like some cunt, tossing off on my exercise book jotting down my new revolutionary thoughts on how the British Armed Forces ought to seriously consider working with the government to empty prisons, train up convicts under pain of death and send them into battles in which they have a 1% chance of survival?

Of course I'm not, you daft pillocks! I honestly hope, maybe a hope too far, that our readers are of such a degree of intelligence that they can work out where I'm being serious, when I'm being semi-serious and when I'm fucking around and being daft.

The real message of the article in question is that:

• I think that public opinion is fickle and people are less hardened to the realities of life now, compared to before when people were tougher and were prepared to sacrifice more.
• The Afghanistan war arguably has its plus sides, and in our prolonged times of peace, it is a good idea for bored, violence-prone squaddies to get out there and gather some experience and skills instead of sitting around on base etc.

That's pretty much the serious side of my piece. Other stuff, not so serious. If you had a different idea when you read it, why not post a comment asking for clarification or simply criticise the piece on the blog?

If you want to play the 'Mr Burns' figure with us, it won't work. We have all angles covered here at Boaty & D. We've been there, done that, bought the Simpsons t-shirt, the lot. The more people try to denigrate us or treat us unfairly, the more we'll get pissed off.

Some people, huh? They just never, ever learn do they? So cheeky and sneaky, when all that is required is a bit of fucking respect and openness.

3 Good Reasons to Grant Scotland Independence

Here you go. Three very topical and convincing reasons for why Scotland should be granted independence, thus loosing that nation from the bonds and reciprocal obligations between it and its southern neighbour.

GRANT. SCOTLAND. INDEPENDENCE.

Afghanistan: are we a bunch of fickle, nannied pussies?

I'm not particularly for or against the Afghanistan conflict. I can see the pros and cons, the ways in which it hurts Britain and the ways it may benefit the country. I largely consider the extended skirmish to be an important training exercise for British troops. If they weren't there blasting shit up, they'd be sat, bored at their barracks in England, or else dossing about in Cyprus raping Swedish tourists and beating up the barmen and club owners of Ayia Napa.

In any event, I am uninterested by what squaddies get up to. My few experiences of them have been dire (they are generally the types of people that are seriously ill-equipped for normal, civilised society and are best kept out the way in their area of expertise - being cunts in a field with a gun). Soldiers are, obviously, not all bad men. Whatever their stripe, they join the army for certain reasons (not all of them fluffy) and they understand the risks involved. If they don't, then it's a mighty strange career choice.

So, let them get on with it I say, and if they return as a band of men more capable of understanding battle and the rigours of modern conflict, then I guess that's a good thing.

It's not even as if the battle is costing that many lives. At the time of writing, it's 191 Brits.

Yet, according to the Independent today, the wave of recent K.I.A.s is too much for the British public to stomach.

"A majority of the public believes that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and British troops should be pulled out immediately, a poll for The Independent has found."

...

"More than half of voters (52 per cent) want troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan straight away, with 43 per cent disagreeing. Opposition to the military action is even stronger among women.

By a margin of nearly two-to-one, the public believes that the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily. Fifty-eight per cent view the war as "unwinnable", with 31 per cent disagreeing."

Fuck sake. What a bunch of pussies we are in this country. It's almost like we have forgotten what happened in World War II, where the casualty figures that are making us bitch and whine today would be the sort of tally that would have made a General weep with joy.

"The growing opposition to the military offensive emerged as another two UK soldiers were killed, bringing the number of deaths so far this month to 22"

Wow. 22. Shit me, that's getting out of hand, huh. I mean 22 people, we may as well get that white flag out now and offer to provide our freshest and rosiest backsides to the Taliban for a round of victory rogering. If it carries on like this, we'll have no soldiers left and we'll have to declare a state of martial law, form a 'Home Guard' and make everyone eat bully beef.

Then what will be do when Tesco has run out of ready meals and Goodfellas pizzas?

A Labour Minister greets the press to announce Britain's withdrawal from Afghanistan...

Just imagine if our pussy arsed, nannied, bitchy, molly-coddled, supermarket / X-Factor obsessed, tosser, fucking moron Joe Public had this attitude in the summer of 1940. You might remember something about that year - it was when the Dunkirk Evacuation took place, following Hitler's resounding success at the Western Front.

We lost 177 planes and 6 destroyers. I might be an incorrigible cynic, but I guess it's fair to say that a number of British people died at that very early juncture of the war.

What if we just said, 'Nope! Sorry, it's all too much. I can cope with us losing three men every ten years, maybe by the odd mine or lucky sniper's bullet, but all those poor boys? The frogs and Pollacks will have to manage themselves. We quit'.

What sort of message would that have sent the enemy? Apart from 'fuck my arse now, I have no balls, call me bitch'?

Why was the public all hunky dory about Afghanistan three minutes ago, but after a series of deaths within a few weeks, now it's a bad idea and there should be no reinforcements?

The fact is, like it or not, it's too late - if we pull out now, we'll (rightly) be the biggest fucking laughing stock out there. Known as the country that bottled it. Couldn't hack a bunch of 'rag heads' in the desert, with all that technical superiority and financial backing. The Islamists will piss themselves. Our enemies would gain succour and the lefties in this country would fill the pages of the Guardian for a fucking eon.

Therefore, whilst my base point is one of cavalier indifference, I'm annoyed at how the public have reacted in such a weak and fickle manner, I suspect this has occurred because the population has largely grown fat on nanny's teat after decades of socialism and peace and I cannot bear the notion that left wingers will wring their hands with 'I told you so' glee if we do pull out of Afghanistan.

Our soldiers should stay and get the fuck on with it, reinforcements or no. And yes, I am still open to the suggestion of the formation of penal battalions to help with some sort of 'big push'.

There are many ways to crack a nut, as a wise old fucker once said.

Adios.

Libertarianism in the UK: Where Next?

Let's get a few things straight - none of the main parties are libertarian, and pretty much none of the minority parties out there are libertarian either.

UKIP appears libertarian, but its 'Dad's Army Party' vibe and its overweening obsession with immigration and Europe rule it out from being a serious libertarian party with the ability to offer a coherent way forward with a wide range of viable policies.

It is also the case that political debate in Britain is still conducted within the old 'left-right' paradigm, and that when libertarianism is brought up, it is usually to slag it off for being too extreme, too 'libertine', too 'right wing' and too laissez-faire and neo-conservative.

What this boils down to, is that our enemies have us wrong and they are so dominant that their slurs stick. It's hard to counter misrepresentation, when there are so few libertarians on the scene politically, and when the consensus amongst our politicians and media barons is one that accepts the overarching power of Leviathan.

So, what to do?

Well, the first step has been achieved. There is a Libertarian Party in the UK (formed at the beginning of last year). It is abbreviated to 'LPUK', which sort of gives it a Spanish hockey feel to it (el-puck), but never mind. 'Labour' gives the image of a bloated wailer, spread-eagled on a bed with four midwives hovering around in rubber gloves. 'Tory' sounds like a posh public school girl with a snub nose and a flounce (spread-eagled image optional). 'Lib Dems' is a term that makes any healthy person sound like they have a cold, and are simply describing something incomprehensible as 'limp'.

So, 'LPUK' sounds daft, but not as bad as the others.

Thus far, LPUK have established their site, core policies, a forum and blog and they have fought two elections - one a council election and the other a (disastrous) by-election.

It's 'early days', some say. Which is just as well, because before we carry on any further, I would like to set out where I think the party should be heading.

Now, I like to do the odd bit of reading about libertarianism in my spare time (other hobbies include bowls, philately, train spotting and jerking off).

[joke, ed]

For me, essential libertarian philosophy can be understood by reading the likes of Milton Friedman, Immanuel Kant, F.A. Hayek, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand. These are some of my favourite philosophers and thinkers from down the ages. Much can be learnt from reading these guys.

However, our sources for inspiration need not enslave us libertarians who wish to see political success. We can inject pragmatism, without selling out. But ultimately, we must recognise that we live in a state-centric world, and as such, it's no good saying 'we're going to implement this drastic change' in the first five minutes, because everything would clearly implode.

So my answer is that the party takes a more pragmatic, moderate and careful approach to politics. This would have more widespread appeal, it would enable us to be taken seriously by people and it would get us pulled into the national debate.

At the moment, I fear the LPUK has policies which might go too far.

Take the policy on Income Tax, for example. The Party's position is that Income Tax must be abolished in the second year of a Libertarian government. It is Party policy that Corporation Tax be lowered to 10% and IHT and Capital Gains Tax be abolished in the first year of office.

This is a totally unrealistic platform to take. How on earth is this viable? To abolish income tax would effectively mean that the social security budget would be wiped out. Thus, de facto, welfare claimants would no longer be able to claim. It would lead to mass rioting and rapid social deprivation.

I personally think there needs to be massive, far-reaching reform on welfarism and the welfare state. It needs to be hauled back, the emphasis must be on work and getting people off the teat of nanny state - but this is something that takes time. A progressive rolling out of big policies is in order, because you can't go from one extreme to the other so quickly.

This is all very odd, because the LPUK's policy on immigration, as copied from the website is:

"As a party we are committed to establishing the free movement of goods, capital and people. However, the free movement of people into the UK is not yet practical while we have both a large welfare state and most other countries are themselves not broadly Libertarian in nature."

See that? 'not yet practical while we have ... a large welfare state'. Why is it possible to take a pragmatic position on immigration, but not taxation? Under the same logic (connected with considerations relating to the welfare state), there is no reason why the party cannot accept a more moderate and reasonable position on tax.

I am concerned that the LPUK goes too far - it appears almost anarcho-capitalist in its approach, and there is little appeal to libertarians who have similar ideas about individualism and freedom, but who do not wish for the role of the state to be virtually obliterated - which is what would happen if the state were deprived of virtually all of its revenue raising power.

Milton Friedman: The Godfather of modern day libertarianism

It's a funny old world, when the LPUK wishes to go further than the Godfather of libertarianism himself, Milton Friedman.

One of my favourite books of all time is this economist and libertarian legend's tome, 'Capitalism and Freedom'. Within this old, yet relevant and important book written in the '60s, Friedman sets out his vision of the role of the state, the importance of economic, civil and political rights and how best the individual can thrive in western democracy.

I will explain in greater length some of Friedman's ideas in my next post. For now, I will note the importance of his work and how even Friedman (one of the hated 'Chicago Boys, much detested by Liberal Fascists like Naomi Klein) believed there is a role for the state, that income tax should exist at a flat rate and that neighbourhood effects may exist that justify the necessary evil of public monopoly and government intervention (as in the case of preventing pollution, for example).

I do believe that the overriding presumption, the first goal of the libertarian, ought to be that power belongs to the individual, that government serves us and not the reverse and that a smaller state is better.

This does not mean the state should be abolished, that it has no role and that we should head into a state of anarchism. It is more important to offer people better democracy, referenda, choice and the ability to choose, than it is to simply remove the state from the equation entirely.

I call for a moderate, centre ground libertarian LPUK - now let's talk turkey.

[tune in soon for more in depth political discussion on the future of libertarianism and the LPUK in Britain. Also, it took me some time to add links to all the key words in this piece, so do have a browse. Thanks]

At Boaty & D, we make enemies so you don't have to

It's a proper public service we provide here at Boaty & D. We say what people out there think, but don't want to say or don't know where and how. We make enemies with people who other folks just want to avoid or ignore. We are a rare breed, in that we are remarkably intelligent, personable and politically astute, whilst at the same time possessing not the least compunction in fucking up everyone else's party.

There are no others out there quite like us. I wear as a badge of honour, the people I have offended and angered. I am proud of the plethora of forums from which I have personally been banned for life. Because I know, that whilst my enemies choose the lazy, blinkered and pious option of labelling me a trouble maker, a cunt and a 'troll', what really upsets my enemies is that I ask awkward questions, I hold people to account and I take no bullshit.

Mr Boatang is no different. In fact, his style is actually slightly more persistent and relentless than mine.

Some of our more recent wars include:

• A good couple of years worth of tumultuous, high-blood pressure, bruising encounters with Peter Hitchens and his blog contributors over at the Fleet Street journo's gaffe. (we post very rarely these days - there's only so much of one's genius one can expose to the same people without it being unfair on the rest of the world's population)

• A skirmish with a pretend, faux, bullshit 'libertarian' and Guido arselicker named Anna Raccoon - which led to me being banned from posting there.

• A well publicised war between us and the English Democrats Party (on here and also on the British Democracy Forum) which led to us showing up key people in that party for what they are.

• A growing dispute between us and our very own party to which we are members - largely on account of the stubborn intransigence of key senior figures who refuse to answer our questions, refuse to debate openly and publicly and who appear to thinly insinuate that we are 'soap box' dwelling trouble makers.

As I say, these are just some of the recent ones.

We do what we do, because we realise that in our imperfect world, consisting of (among other organisms) very imperfect humans, no-one gets it right every time, no-one has the right answers all the time, and above all - everyone and everything must be questioned.

You will be amazed how many people we come across who are so dogmatic, arrogant and ignorant, they genuinely think that they are a) totally right and b) people who ask awkward questions ought to be shut down.

If there's one thing that's guaranteed to turn us into blood thirsty hounds with the munchies, it is someone who tries to shut us down. I mean, these people may as well forget it - such arrogance equates to nothing less than a one way ticket to Migraine Hell. We will fuck you up, make no mistake. You're really better off just admitting you are wrong, open to persuasion or just plain stumped.

Do we titter and chortle as we carry out our raids on the web? Not really, no. In fact, we're more likely to take the task seriously. Believe it or not, we genuinely feel that if we don't hold certain self-styled mavericks, upstarts, journos and wannabe politicos to account, no-one will.

And yes, that includes that utter, total unmitigated wanker Guido, whom everyone has on their blogroll, everyone loves, everyone worships, but is actually no better than the very self-serving cocks he has on his target list.

Let's put it this way, if he was that amazing and that 'new wave' and important, he'd attract clever people to his blog - people up for intelligent debate. Bit like we have here most of the time. Instead he gets people in their multitude who are either ill, very young, very stupid, or very bored. My guess is a lot of people with all four of these attributes. For all the comments sections on his blog resemble a form of MSN chat. A very bad one at that.

Whether they are old school, new wave, bloggers, established Fleet Street hacks, politicians, amateur politicians, show biz figures, the BBC or who the fuck ever: we will press our point home and seek debate and answers on an even playing field.

If you aren't a regular reader, then I feel sorry for you. You've just missed out on 2 years worth of sheer brilliance. But it's OK, don't panic. Add us to your faves, flick through our archives and enjoy the show.

If you have read us, and don't like us; ooh, just let me have a quick delve into my big bag of 'bothered'...

Shame, nothing there. Never mind.

And now for something completely different...

Mr Boatang and I are in full throttle 'let's fuck off the world' mode at the moment. As such, we tend to sit in fifth gear for much of the time, tearing arseholes left right and centre whilst generating enough enemies to last several life times.

We enjoy this.

You enjoy this.

However, sometimes, the heavy nature of our discussion can become a tad tiring for author and reader alike. Therefore, without much further ado, I present a YouTube clip of a famous scene from the movie 'Bruno'. Pant wettingly funny, it most certainly is.

And so, now for something completely different.

Basic Concepts of Libertarianism? Nah, Fuck It.

Hello, Jonty McFucknut here. I'm a libertarian and don't give a fuck. You what? Who are you to give a fuck about whether I give a fuck or not? I'm a libertarian and don't give two shits what you think about anything at all.

Now, I love the LPUK with all my heart. They advocate lots of really good stuff and I once read their manifesto, though I didn't like most of it. But, hey, fuck it right? That's what libertarianism is all about.

I decided to look up what the basic concepts of libertarianism are and found this cunt Boaz on some shitfest called Cato. He has it so fucking wrong it's amazing really, like he even knows what it's all about. He talks some right shit:

"Individualism - Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility." You fucking what? Responsibility? Do me a favour pal, I do what I want, when I want and so can everyone else, no matter the consequences. Bullshit. If some cunt disagrees with me I'll delete his arse.

"Individual Rights - individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property." Damn fucking right mate. It's my life, my freedom and my property and I'll do what I want with it when I want. He has messed up though, I reckons he means 'the individual' because I couldn't give a toss about the security of anyone else's shit.

"Spontaneous Order - A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish." Spontaneous or not, bollocks. No order, no structure, only the individual to do what they want, when they want.

"The Rule of Law - Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome. " Nah, he's talking shit here. I know that it actually means I can do whatever I like and fuck the consequences because the state is evil. He's clearly some lefty wanker trying to create a socialist dictatorship.

My new symbol for libertarianism

"Limited Government - To protect rights, individuals form governments." This is where he really starts talking utter shit. Libertarianism stands for total removal of power from the state and the advocacy of a completely private economy. Bring it all down. everyone knows that and if they don't they are lefty fucks who just don't get libertarianism.

"Free Markets - Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people's economic choices is minimized. " This bloke is getting on my fucking tits now. Minimized? What? Zero you pleb, no intervention.

"The Virtue of Production - libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn." Bit more like it. I make it I keep it. Unless it's purely intellectual in which case it's only right that everyone can have my idea to do what they want with it no matter how much it cost me because obviously what is in my head is not real property.

"Natural Harmony of Interests - Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society." Couldn't give a shit as long as I'm alright.

"Peace - throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict." Whatever, bothered. Sounds like ban the bomb socialist bullshit to me.

It's bastards like this that undermine what libertarianism is really about: me. All this free and fair bollocks pisses me right off. Burn it all down, end it all, get rid of all the taxes and all the politicians and let me live how I want and do what I want. If it bothers others, fuck 'em. If it means they get hurt, that's their choice to get hurt.

I think once people really understand what libertarians are all about and we get rid of tossers like this Cato lot we'll be well popular.

Anarchy in the LPUK

For those still unaware of the Libertarian performance in the recent Norwich North by-election, the party to which Mr B and I are members scored a total of 36 votes.

This result cemented concerns that we both already had, in that we felt that communication in the party hovers between lacklustre and non-existent, and it is a grey area as to what the senior people in the party actually do.

I, for instance, have received one email (relating to the AGM) since I joined the party one year ago. That is it.

Presumably, when the party was founded, there were at least a handful of people willing to take the job on of taking the outfit forward with the purposes of accumulating members and public popularity.

Yet whenever Mr B and I raise our hands to make constructive comment, criticism or points of view, we are (irritatingly) told that the party doesn't have a 'machine', that the senior people 'have lives' and that with little resources, the party does the best it can.

This is inevitably followed up with 'put your money where you mouth is' type challenges, which is like saying 'if you don't like it, you bloody do it'.

A resounding chime of confidence rings out of our heads, I'm sure you can imagine.

Well, I am happy to be a paid up member and so is my colleague Mr Boatang. We too have 'busy lives', though this singularly fails to stop us from writing thousands of words of blinding, genius and original content every single day on the world's best blog.

As it happens, Mr B and I are actually up for becoming more active in the party and getting out there to help in campaigns. The LPUK would realise this were so much a a solitary individual with responsibility disposed towards communicating with members properly. Email, and ten minutes of time, is not exactly like asking someone to organise the next Cannes Film Festival.

So, when the Norwich North election result came in, Mr B and I braced ourselves for the predictable and infuriating waves of spin that got pumped out on the LPUK blog.

One chap did a post trying to gloss over the result, whilst still (after the campaign was dead and over) making negative remarks about the Tory candidate and winner.

The Party Chairman, Mr Withers, produced a more down to earth article on the result, though there was the notable air of spin about the piece and a lack of comment on how to move forward and progress. Members would read that and wonder where the hell the party can possibly go, unless we start to look deeply and inwardly at ourselves and our approach to campaigning.

This is where Mr B. and I decided to step up and make an appearance. The more we offered constructive criticism (read the comments sections of the articles on the LPUK blog for evidence), the more certain people got annoyed.

Interestingly, the level of irritation and panic over our comments solidified once we popped on their blog and ours to cock a snook at the incestuous, cliquey and inbred manner in which the party (and its core, root cabal of blogging campaigners) conduct matters.

If Libertarianism is (and it is) about openness, accountability, democracy, fairness, transparency and power to the individual, it is obviously of some concern when a small clique of faceless people start to try and shut down debate.

'We have a forum, this is not the best place to discuss this, go there instead' is one type of refrain we've been getting.

'This blog should be deleted' is, amazingly, another idea, along with 'the comments should be heavily moderated'.

The deletion of a place of accountability? A public forum where people can talk and air views, which are fairly and rightly offered to prospective members and the public?

The institution of a 'heavily moderated' place of discussion?

What the hell is this, fucking Pravda? Views like this are valid, but please, if you genuinely think that the LPUK should conduct itself in this manner, then I am sorely disappointed to inform you that maybe - just maybe - you are possibly not that much of a Libertarian.

People in the LPUK may not like what we have to say, but we have the god damned right (as members) to go on the members' blog to voice our views on how we can improve and move forward. We have the god damned right to ask questions of this campaign in Norwich, and what the hell happened. We note that there has been a piss poor attempt at answering those queries. But hey, 'they have lives' huh. So I guess I'll just have to sit back and accept what is doled out to me.

We did find out one thing, however, after our attempts to relentlessly pursue some answers. There was no discernible 'LPUK campaign' to speak of, outside of one lady who turned up from the West Country.

Brilliant. And, er, was there no bloody campaign co-ordinator out there with the common sense to email members to ask for help? Or are we all expected to read every thread or article on the blog or forum thing in order to grab what snippets of info we can?

Little wonder there was nil man power. Little wonder poor Thomas Burridge could only get his family and friends out to vote for him.

I, many years ago, worked as an intrinsic team member in a political campaign during a general election. I witnessed countless volunteers, unpaid people of generous years, give up their time to campaign for a party they didn't even quite agree with, but helped anyway because they were made to feel important. They had morale in their hearts. And all that brought them out was a fucking phone call or a knock on the door.

We're talking common sense, not money or resources, just a little bit of effort.

There will be LPUK people who will read this and fucking fume. They'll hate our guts. They'll think we're mad, or trouble makers, or just plain arrogant cocky arseholes who haven't the balls to make their own efforts to help.

They will be angry for these reasons: we are right, and they know we're right...and we have the fucking bow locks to tell it how it is. If people like us didn't, no-one would. We do so because we are libertarian, we actually want the party to go somewhere and do well, and we don't like being bullshitted.

I'll leave all our readers with this quote from a bloke called John Stuart Mill. You might, if you are even vaguely libertarian, have fucking heard of him:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error...

Mr B and I do not state opinion as though fact; as though we are 100% correct, 100% of the time and our interlocutors axiomatically wrong. But we have the right to speak up and voice our opinion. We will offer that dissenting voice and we seek answers and responses. We will not be silenced.

I will be doing more articles over the next few days on libertarianism and what it is to be libertarian in modern Britain. I also hope to feed more into party debate. I know Mr Boatang wishes to feed into this process - though it is never quite clear if anyone in the LPUK is listening.

It is possible that we will end up being silenced, or banished from the party. It's human nature and libertarians are no less immune to it than anyone else - people don't like having their cosy little boat rocked by others. The apple cart simply must go on, with all the fruit aboard left in tact.

Mr B and are are like libertarian bandits. We'll fuck up that cart, we'll eat all the apples and we'll put a fucking hole in the quaint little gondola if it makes people wake up, listen and help get things done.

The Passing of Harry Patch and an Era

Today brings the sad news of the death of Harry Patch, the last British survivor of the Great War. This comes little more than a week after Henry Allingham, the world's oldest man whom JD paid tribute to only seven days ago.

It is amazing to think that this terrible war was fought very nearly one hundred years ago and that a handful of the people who were involved were still with us until last week. Now only three survive. in the world.

For our generation this war is all around us, our lessons at school and documentaries on television. When Harry Patch was actually fighting at the age of 18, there wasn't television at all.

No matter how much we read or study or watch, none of us can grasp the horror that must have faced this young man when thrust into Passchendaele, fully aware of the previous three years. Not the naive gung-ho of 1914 for Patch and his peers, three of whom he saw blown to bits at just 19. Just three of the three hundred thousand Britsh dead in that one battle.

What makes Harry Patch and his contemporaries heroes to be remembered and honoured is not their stiff upper lip and grit, but that they were normal. They were plumbers and bricklayers and butchers who were asked to lay down their lives for their country in a war they most probably did not fully understand. Asked to leave their wives and children and go through pure hell.

I read this on the BBC obituary and was so moved I am compelled to copy it here.

But Patch had no time for the Act of Remembrance on 11 November, an event he described as "just show business".

He always maintained that his Remembrance Day was 22 September, the day he lost his three best mates and his war ended.

Jeremy Clarkson 'in trouble' for basic freedom of speech

Have to love it don't you, freedom of speech. I do, fucking great stuff. Freedom of speech lets B&D broadcast our genius and it let's me call Gordon Brown a cunt.

But the BBC News and the Guardian seem to feel that this is not he case for one J. Clarkson. The controller of BBC2 has said she has no problem with it all and no action will be taken.

Before broadcast, off air, warming up if you will, Clarkson talked about the government and how shit it was. He then called Brown a cunt. Obviously someone, maybe that wanker Mr Demetriou witnessed on the train, has felt this must be reported to the press. Oooh, he said last week too. Naughty boy.

He clearly hasn't done anything wrong so quite what the problem is I'm not sure. He also happens to be right, Brown is a cunt. Twice over.

As a libertarian, you see, I fundamentally believe in the freedom of speech and the removal of censorship. Over on the LPUK blog, there appears to be a feeling that stopping people from saying what they want to say because you disagree with it is perfectly fine, which is disturbing to say the least. It is also not beyond 'bloggers' such as guido and Raccoon to block and delete rather than argue their point.

Something that never happens here.

So I am fully supportive of Clarkson, even if he can be a twat most of the time. The fact the G and Beeb are even reporting this, without calling for it to be blocked, is a nice bit of moralising.

Cunts.

Why does Westminster listen to Guido?

Here's a question for you.

Why is that Fleet Street and Westminster are so obsessed with Paul 'Wank' Staines, aka 'Guido'? He appears on high profile broadcasts hosted by people like Paxman, he's interviewed on Terrestrial channels, he's given occasional slots in newspaper columns (Guardian, Times) and hacks fawn over him and deride him in varying measures every week.

But, why? The bloke has some connections, and he attacks 'the establishment'. Not especially unique characteristics. He's a great self-publicist and he uses his 'blog' to 'reveal' attack and berate. Except the reality is, his scoops and insights are very few and far between.

He spends most of his blogging time writing very poor quality 'articles', which often say little or nothing at all. Maybe a quip here and there, or something utterly unfunny (meant to show him up in a positive light).

When you boil it down, he's just a piss poor blogger who happens to have money and a few people feeding him info.

Yet he is obsessed over, as though he is this black angel in the shadows, waiting to swoop and take out our evil, corrupt establishment. Journalists dislike him, though they focus on the wrong reasons. They ought to look a little more deeply and study his 'HQ' a little better. For it is there that the Leprechaun bell end pumps out his self-promoting bullshit.

I had a little look earlier, and lo and behold, the place hasn't changed. Look at this piss poor 'article' for example. It's nothing out of the ordinary for Mr Wank. A quick piece about him lounging on a beach and telling the BBC to get lost on the phone. Tosser.

At the time of writing, the article attracted 1,750 'comments' from readers.

'Wow!' you're thinking, 'that's amazing...he must have a lot of readers, he must be good.'

Wrooooonnnng. Most of the comments are from the same people, who post under the most tear-jerkingly boring and puerile pseudonyms I have ever spotted. A hard core base of fans (and the odd plonker troll) who spend their lives on there like a gaggle of bored 13 year olds on MSN chat.

And this is what it is like there, every day. The comments pages reveal the most infantile, puerile, babyish, pathetic, sad, mentally deficient, remedial 'MSN' chat style discussions you'll ever see.

Outside of MSN chat logs belonging to daft 13 year olds that is.

And the mainstream media and MPs actually listen to this bloke? A bloke who writes shit and commands a sturdy following from assorted dick heads who write in text speak and can't formulate proper sentences never mind arguments within sentient discussion.

Take this contribution, for example, written by a tittering, dribbling Guido blog fan named 'thick as a cunt'

"Last warning kiddie fiddler. I’m gonna mod you to death if you don’t bow down to our lord, Gaydo."

Ah-ha! Ah-hahahaha! How hilarious! How witty!

Of course, as usual, a row or two develops on Guido comments sections. Good, healthy arguments? Er, I'm not sure.

For 'tat' levies this beauty at a contributor on the above article's comment's section:

"you are a nobody and I AM TOP BOY! SHUT IT YOU DOPEY SLAG!
we do not tolerate truther morons like you here. you are paranoid nutters.
I understand that atlas caters for that particular type of retard.
please leave this place immediately and take your gay lover 11.06 with you.
thankyou.
what a pair of sp@stics!"

Nice, huh? These are just two comments I've plucked out at random, I'm sure there are far, far worse on old 'MSN - Guido 2.0'.

Of course, at Boaty & D, we don't censor debate, but we certainly challenge any inappropriate and utterly banal and stupid comments from people who make them. We don't delete, as this is morally wrong and not remotely in the spirit of libertarianism, but if people are rude, unfunny and off-topic? Well, see for yourselves - we have some standards here at Boaty & D.

Even if you disagree with that, and you think the standard of debate here leaves a lot to be desired (sometimes it can descend slightly, though not too much), I think we ought to all agree that this bloke punches far and away above his weight on the media scene.

And his blog, and the discussions therein, are beyond pathetic.

UK Passport Unit Cost Revealed

About two weeks ago I wrote a piece about passport prices being cranked up yet again.

At the time I said that I made a Freedom of Information request to the Identity and Passport Service to find out the unit cost of a passport; that is, how much it costs the IPS to actually make a passport.

Today I got a response, remember that a passport now costs £77.50:

Thank you for your e-mail of 7 July in which you ask for information on passport costs. Your request has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

"I would like to know the unit cost (the cost of producing) a biometric passport as of 2009."

We believe that the information that you have asked for is already reasonably accessible to you. The question was raised by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne in the house of Commons and the response can be found in column WA53 on the Parliament website on the following link :-

Here

Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts the Identity and Passport Service from complying with the duty to supply you with this information on the grounds that it is already in the public domain. Should you have difficulties in accessing this information by the means listed above please do not hesitate to contact me again.

So two fold really. First off a quick search of Google reveals this information to not be remotely 'reasonably accessible' to me. Do I read Hansard? Do I fuck. A sneaky, shitty way to hide information they simply don't want you to have.

Second, how much? £57 basic production cost is total bollocks. It's a notepad, A5, with a bit of laminate at the back and a chip in it. They are either being mugged by the printers, or they are hiding some costs.

The Foreign Office then whack a completely unexplained £12 on it, presumably for the cost of issuing passports in the various locations around the world. Strange that the IPS cannot take cash from other places, but it can have cash taken from it.

Even with this, we have £69. That is a profit of £18.50 each and every time someone has to get a passport. Where does this money go? Staff? I would hope not because that would take self-financing to a whole new level, a level that I do not believe any other state body is anywhere near. And it wouldn't cover the cost.

Last time I checked my passport wasn't made by fucking Moleskine

They deny the cost of a passport goes towards the setting up of the ID Card scheme. My arse. that is exactly what the profit is for. It is not, as Phil Woolas said, £18.50 worth of 'customer service', it is a tidy trick of turning a nice profit to pump into a scheme that no one wants.

So I repeat, when ID Cards are dropped, will the price of passports come down? Course they won't. And no one will even ask about it in the media.

Other than here. In fact I have contacted Baroness Miller of Chilthorne, a Lib Dem Peer, and asked her to find out the breakdown of this £57. What does it include, admin, staff, postage, Gold dust? Because I would really love to know how a passport can cost fifty-seven British notes to make, not RRP, to actually make it.

The Boatang has a roundabout way of kicking the state in the balls.

Norwich North By-Election Results In Full

The results for Today's Norwich North By-election in full are:

Chloe Smith (C) 13,591 (39.54%, +6.29%)
Chris Ostrowski (Lab) 6,243 (18.16%, -26.70%)
April Pond (LD) 4,803 (13.97%, -2.22%)
Glenn Tingle (UKIP) 4,068 (11.83%, +9.45%)
Rupert Read (Green) 3,350 (9.74%, +7.08%)
Craig Murray (Honest) 953 (2.77%)
Robert West (BNP) 941 (2.74%)
Bill Holden (Ind) 166 (0.48%, -0.17%)
Howling Laud (Loony) 144 (0.42%)
Anne Fryatt (NOTA) 59 (0.17%)
Thomas Burridge (Libertarian) 36 (0.10%)
Peter Baggs (Ind) 23 (0.07%)

C maj 7,348 (21.37%) 16.49% swing Lab to C Electorate 75,124;
Turnout 34,377 (45.76%, -15.33%)

2005:

Lab maj 5,459 (11.61%) - Turnout 47,033 (61.09%)
Gibson (Lab) 21,097 (44.86%)
Tumbridge (C) 15,638 (33.25%)
Whitmore (LD) 7,616 (16.19%)
Holmes (Green) 1,252 (2.66%)
Youles (UKIP) 1,122 (2.39%)
Holden (Ind) 308 (0.65%)

The Obama, Professor Gates, Sergeant Crowley race row, in brief

I'd say that for the first time since becoming President, or even since he started his run for office last year, President Obama has finally put his bollocks on the line about racism in the US.

This story here in the Times explains what happened to Professor Gates when he broke into his own home on account of locking himself out. As you'll note, despite Gates offering incontrovertible proof of his identity, the cop wasn't interested and arrested him on the ridiculous, jumped up charge of 'disorderly conduct'.

In the UK this would be like arresting a man in his own home for a section 5 public order offence. Either that or a 'breach of the peace'. Except, in the UK, a 'breach of the peace' only counts if it takes place in a public place, outside of a residential dwelling.

Apparently, Obama's points of perfect logic on the whole matter has sparked 'an explosive national debate over the issues of race and police profiling...'.

This is a euphemism for, 'a lot of scared, reactionary white people will spit venom about the blacks and a lot of pissed off black people with an inferiority complex will blame white people generally for their plight.'.

The 'debate' is nothing new - it's just that sometimes, something happens that makes it all heated. One thing is for sure, the 'debate' will feature a bunch of clueless, overreacting idiots entrenching themselves stubbornly into their cosy little fox hole positions, and nothing will progress.

Two facts are clear on this case:

• Obama was right in what he said about the 'stupid' actions of the police, and also the disproportionate stop and searches against black people in America by the police.
• The Sergeant at the centre of the debate has refused to apologise for his actions.

Sgt Crowley denies being racist; yet if he isn't, and his actions weren't racially motivated or biased, then there's only one conclusion remaining - he's a fucking tool.

People lock themselves out of their homes / lose their keys and break back in all the time - because not everyone wants to wait for a locksmith. Shit happens. Police should know that this shit can, and will, happen. So a normal bobby would simply have verified the man's identity, drawn logical conclusions and left the place with a coke and a smile.

The fact he busted this guy, and didn't even appreciate the ramifications of that based on who Prof. Gates is, means that Crowley quite possibly is both racist and a total tool. Who knows?

Though I have no doubt at all that there'll be black people up and down the States stupidly calling all white people racist and the enemy.

There are, however, some people - a small group of people in fact - who have long held very radical views on race and racism in America. I can't bring myself to criticise them. This is because they are black music Gods.

I leave you with this to chew over while you read the Times piece (hopefully, if you're sufficiently clued up, in a separate window).

Adios!

A tale of the creeping fascism that cloaks modern Britain

What follows is an accurate depiction of real life events, experienced today by the God and Genius extraordinaire, known to many as...John Demetriou.

A personal tale for you today readers - we have been receiving good feedback lately for pieces we write that talk about our real life experiences, rather than just regular comment. So here's what happened, all in one lil' old day - today.

I was at the train station of a major English city this morning. On my way to work, as I decided to leave the car at home and try something different. Just for a change, like.

So I step into one of the carriages and, because I'm an anti-social sort of person who likes his own space, I didn't make my way to one of the vacant seats. I simply stood to the right of the door.

The train had barely a couple of minutes to depart, when I heard an almighty yell coming from the train platform, further towards the main hub of the station by the barriers and the insanely expensive baguette kiosk.

'Blimey', I thought, 'that's the sort of cry that is usually rent forth by men wearing brown shirts and cross-like medals.'

I shrugged, and carried on reading my book. A man with a large back pack stepped onto the train - an amiable looking bloke with brown cords and a foppish red mane. I had him down as a student, probably going home after the end of his third semester. Although he wasn't so young, maybe a mature student, or simply someone jaunting round the UK.

Next thing I know, an impatient man dressed immaculately in a suit and tie boarded the train and stared blankly at the backpacker. It was like a scene from American Psycho. I half expected him to ask the backpacker the time, blow his head off and make his way to the buffet cart for a nice cup of light brown powdered Kenco and a Twix.

The Suit man just hovered there. After a few moments, he spoke to the man who was clearly re-incarnated from a Lion.

"You do realise that you're not allowed to smoke on the station platform?" he said with an unwavering degree of severity.

"Oh, yes, sorry about that I didn't realise," the Lion stammered, "I apologise".

The huge, aggressive social contempt for smokers is now getting out of control

I looked up at the man in the suit, and he sniffed Lion-O briefly, and with contempt, and then got off the train and walked up one carriage and re-boarded. Lion-O was left distinctly embarrassed and slightly sad. Seeing me in the vicinity, he decided the shame was too much and he slopped off down the carriage, squeezing past the jutting seats with possibly the world's biggest bag strapped to his back.

He did, indeed, smell every so slightly of tobacco. But hold the fuck on for a minute here...

Firstly, there may well be this new 'no smoking' rule for station platforms. But the platform I was on was largely exposed to the open air. OK, he was breaking a law, a fascist law, but a law none-the-less. But why did the suited bloke feel quite so confrontational and bitter about it? Did it really bother him so greatly? Did he really feel the weight of societal guardianship on his shoulders? To the extent that he had to chastise and embarrass a fairly honest and decent looking member of the public?

I, obviously, put two and two together about the shouting from the railway employee - Lion-O had clearly been barked at by some jumped up jobsworth in a uniform, telling him to 'put that fag out!'

I'm also astounded at the immense piety and weirdness over the suited man moving carriages...as a snub and a statement at the man's tobacco scented clothing. I'm sorry to say this, but what a vile, fascist, jumped-up, arrogant, Labour government cock sucking, pussy-arsed cunt.

It was due to surprise at the events, and the rapidity in which they unfolded, that stopped me from asking him what the fuck his problem was.

Maybe I would not have minded so much, if Lion-o was clearly a pikey sort of bloke who not only smokes in newly banned areas, but also spits, farts, swears, jostles, bullies, intimidates and generally upsets people. But he wasn't. He just had a tab in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So this odd, disproportionate display of authoritarianism stuck with me for the day. Yet it was the homeward bound leg of my journey that cemented some thoughts in my head.

So, back I was at Fascist Central Station, sometime earlier this evening, when I boarded what is a very old and poorly maintained train destined for a place far hither and yonder. I'm staring out of the window, when two Asian lasses step on the train and stand next to me.

One of them was rather loquacious, spending every breathing second rabbiting and chortling to her mate about inane bollocks and shopping. She was small, ugly and kept staring at me. I'll call her The Orc, because that just about sums her up and it saves the time and awkwardness of calling her 'the Asian woman'.

So The Orc has been on the train for all of twenty seconds when she decides to start showing off in front of her mate, thereby boring me and everyone in the vicinity to tears.

"What's that smell? Smells of sweat in here it's disgusting!"

Well, I discreetly checked, and it wasn't me. In fact, as far as I could tell, it wasn't anyone specifically - it was the general dank, musty and muggy lukewarm atmosphere prevalent throughout the train. Anyone who uses public transport more than once every 7 years would not really make anything of the phenomenon.

Except Orc face wouldn't let it lie, would she. In an even louder voice, so everyone around could hear...

"That smell is fucking disgusting. Some people need to learn to use a fucking deodorant."

Now, sure, I swear a lot on my website, so this may sound hypocritical and pious, but really, that sort of public behaviour is taking the piss somewhat. The comments were obviously going to make people feel embarrassed and awkward, and any sentient person would be offended by it.

I wasn't offended, funny enough, and that is because one look at her face and all you can do is simply smile and remain satisfied that your life ain't hers.

But there are lessons to be drawn, when looking at the morning and evening experiences in unison. The platform smoker was hounded and chided publicly by two people in the space of a couple of minutes. All he did was have a fag outside, under a station awning, not harming anyone, and barely touching anyone with second hand smoke.

He broke a minor law, but his actions were not harmful or offensive - at least, in my mind, to reasonable people.

The Orc, on the other hand, behaved like a total bitch in a busy environment, not caring who she offended or upset, and her continued use of loud, aggressive bad language obviously did pollute the atmosphere - you could have cut it with a knife.

Except, as to be expected these days, no-one said a word to her.

I've been on trains - and I'm sure you have - where groups of blinged up wide-boy twats have spat on the train floor, hurled abuse at passengers, put their feet on the chairs and generally ruined everyone's day.

I remember one time, on a night bus going home through South London, some low life leaned into a corner by the stairs, pulled down his zipper and pissed all over the floor. I spent the next 40 minutes watching a yellow puddle move down the bus then up the bus, spreading out into a lake of sickly scented urine. No-one said anything. No-one ever dares say anything.

The scum have the upper hand. Sorry to say this, but if the scum happen to be of an ethnic minority, people are even more scared. Not necessarily of them, but of the biased law which clamps down harshly on those accused of being racially discriminatory.

This is modern Britain in a perfect nutshell. The real transgressors and haters of liberty and fairness are given a blank cheque, while the rest of us are easy meat for the new generation of Orwellian chieftains and rule makers.

They can't, or don't want to, cajole the anti-social and the miscreants into line. That is a war long lost, and in any case, they are generally not seen as class enemies.

Decent, normal, respectable people who care about individualism are derided and chased out of town. They are easy meat. You, and I, are fodder for the jobsworths and the pious - people who love to feel superior and impress power over difference and choice.

There is no logic in any of this sort of thing - I make it my job on Boaty & D to point out the illogical and inconsistent. So I will, undoubtedly, have more tales to tell in the near future.

Adios.

Swine Flu - Just shut up already

Yes, I know me writing this to tell people to shut the fuck up about Swine Flu is a tad ironic. Don't care. It needs to be said, namely by me. Because I'm a fucking god.

Swine Flu is getting fucking stupid. We're all going to die they scream, then week after week of the press discussing if it is because they are hyping it up, or if it is real. Then The Sun comes out with shite like 'Girl Dies Of Pig Flu'.

First off, most of the people who have died have had massively underlying factors leading to their demise. There are always underlying factors you see. It's just that the underlying factors aren't very interesting because they don't have quite the same hit as death by pig sneeze.

So off they scream, we're all going to fucking die of something other than Swine Flu but there will be a sure fire hint of a some swine related event. No mention that the deaths from Swine Flu are currently miles below just normal everyday 'flu. In fact, want to know the fatality rate? 0.1%. What's that based on? That, ladies and gents, is based on a 30% infection rate completely guessed at based upon previous pandemics. The last one being nearly 40 years ago

So bollocks then.

Around 12,000 people per year are said to die of normal 'flu. Not a fucking dicky bird about those poor fuckers, let's all rant and rave about someone who was dying anyway but got a touch of the old Swine Flu.

And they love lines like "The worst flu pandemic occurred in 1918, when Spanish flu is estimated to have killed up to 50m people worldwide", um, yeah, but slightly different circumstances weren't they so, totally irrelevant. Not even worth mentioning, you might as well talk about the fucking bubonic plague for the same link.

In other countries, no one really gives a shit. Are they getting it? Probably. Except they phone in sick, touch of 'flu, week off and then back to work. Here, we go on about it like someone has stolen all the fucking beer and we're walking around screaming 'Where's all the fucking beer gone?!'.

This won't be happening

Seen Shaun of the Dead? The bit at the beginning when all the news broadcasts are talking about a mystery illness? Then they wake up one morning and they are all zombies? Yeah? That won't fucking happen. It was a fucking film!

The media are going on about it like by September we'll all be zombie vampire killers if we don't have a website and a phone line stat!

A website and a call centre staffed by idiots who go 'Yeah, sneeze? Cough right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Really? Runny nose yeah? Tired? Have you had a nap?'. What exactly is that going to solve?

If we didn't have the mass panic about it all we wouldn't have Doctors rocking in their chairs mumbling imbecilic nonsense because they have been on the phone for 138 hours straight dealing with retards telling them they are going to die.

The advert should be "Do you have a sneeze? Do you feel achy wachy? Do you feel 'Dunno, bit tired I spose'? Then you could have Swine Flu and may be about to die. You might have normal 'flu. You may well be hungover. To be honest, we really don't know and we really can't tell."

The economy is fucked. We are at war. In fact the war is currently returning a lot of body bags. There is a by-election. There are stories everywhere, but Fleet Street has decided that because it's silly season a stupid story like this needs to be cranked up to 'riots in the streets' proportions.

People are phoning in to radio shows and complaining because the GP hasn't got something they don't know, but they do know that the GP needs it really badly for a reason they don't really know either.

For fuck sake people will you get a fucking grip!

What may be the best case all round is that all the people who are running around shouting that we're all going to die, namely everyone in the media and morons, get Swine Flu. And it is deadly. That should solve the fucking problem.

Norwich North By-Election - Calling The People Of Norwich

Today is the day the Teddy Bears get shafted. That is the hope of millions of people around this country and it falls to the people of Norwich to deliver. No pressure.

So, if you are a person in Norwich and are reading this during your break, please do the right thing and vote Libertarian. Here is a list of the candidates and as you can see, they are all useless bar one. Thomas Burridge.

Many people like a protest vote, even more so in the current climate. But please, please don't go and waste it on some reactionary extremist from the BNP, or some made up loony party. Let alone UKIP who may, possibly, share your views on Europe, but their domestic politics are a shambles.

Remind yourself of the expenses debacle. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat - they were all up to their necks in it. Don't give them the satisfaction of your vote.

Labour have destroyed this country.

The Tories are a shoe-in for the next election, but not winning this seat would give them the kick in the arse needed to attack to win it rather than sit back and let Brown lose it.

The Lib Dems are pointless. They won't win the election, they don't offer anything in Parliament. And remember this: if the election returns a hung Parliament they will have the casting vote, giving them another MP will probably give Labour one more as well when they side with them.

So that leaves the Libertarian Party. Here is the LPUK website and here is the manifesto. As you will see the party has a fundamental belief in your freedom of choice and the reduction of government powers to reduce that freedom.

Libertarianism is a wide ranging philosophy that encompasses wide ranging views from Left to Right. Your voice can be heard.

A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a kick in the teeth of the major parties and the rejection of the traditional protest parties. They have done nothing for anyone or anything. They represent the extremes of the traditional party system. The Libertarians do not, they represent a new approach that puts you first, a political party that challenges the political system itself.

Thomas Burridge is the second name on the ballot, send the right message to Westminster and the media of where you want this country to go.

The Cypriots pretend to be angry over something they do every weekend

Quite astounding hypocrisy is evident within this Telegraph story on Cypriot outrage over British ferry-bound sex orgies.

Apparently the Mayor of Ayia Napa is very upset over the fact that some tourists have been found to get up to naughty things on little night time boats at sea.

This is nothing new - the Brits took over Ayia Napa years ago and turned it, literally, into a fuck hole for the young 18-30s crowd. More to the point, there has been no shortage of Cypriots ready to cash in on this long standing tourism boon.

What with me having ancestral roots to the island, I have a little bit of an insight into all this.

First and foremost, the faux outrage is, in itself, outrageous. If the shock 'n' 'orred' local Greek communities were that bothered by the goings on amongst the young and boisterous holidaymakers, then they ought to consider whether setting up club after club after piss artist bar after Linekers after sweat-hole table top shit fest is a good idea. Almost every Greek family has at least one family member who made their fortunes in this industry.

Secondly, why all the fuss over a bunch of foreigners shagging in boats? Back in the nineties they were complaining about the English pissing and screwing up against the walls of the old church in the town centre. Fair enough, this is an issue - although allowing the throbbing heart of Pukesville to be build three metres away probably wasn't the best way of keeping the drunks off sacred soil.

But all this mock offence over some offshore orgies seems a little, well, populist.

But thirdly, and this is the killer, there is a phenomenon in Cyprus that is little known to us in the West and that is the phenomenon of the 'Cabaret'. This has nothing to do with bad comedy, this is about the spectacularly popular illicit, illegal sex trade, where Russian women are trafficked into the island every year by the in the hundreds so that they can entertain dodgy Cypriot males and their adolescent sons (it is a common right of passage, many fathers insist on it - I'm not joking).

Here's a link to 'Protection Project' which looks into this growing problem. A problem that places Cyprus on the UN and EU black lists of countries that have serious problems with the exploitation of imported women, sold as slaves for the purposes of being used by (often married) men.

When I lived there, these places were not confined to certain districts - they were, and are, everywhere. Next to apartment blocks with families, near the beach, near motorways, near just about anything. They are both official and unofficial (like most things out there) and exist due to utter flagrant corruption, a total indifference from the population who see these women as whores and worthless, and of course - the Russian and Turkish mafias.

There are more cabarets than doctors surgeries and schools. You can find a hooker from Siberia or Bulgaria more easily than you can locate a loaf of bread or a car mechanic.

They are easily spotted. Not only are they large clubs with tacky neon lights and blacked out windows, they are also small bars which have an air of mischief about them. You'll look through the tinted glass and there'll be three amazingly attractive, blond, suspiciously non-Greek women collecting glasses in 18 inch stilettos and mini skirts, and around 6 cab drivers and kiosk owners sat round the bar sipping Metaxa 7 star. At 4 in the afternoon.

There's no hiding it, and where the local males are happy with this arrangement, the local women hate the guts of these women as they generally steal their husbands. So if it weren't for the odd sympathetic Priest, this would be a human catastrophe that simply wouldn't be reported as such because either no-one knows, no-one cares, or we're too busy reading about Jordan or Jack Tweedy's latest rut.

So, in a nut shell, the Cypriots, until such time as they clean up their own act, can shut the merry fuck up.