Presumed Guilty: Personal Web Data to be Stored for a Year

Now the noose tightens.

We have had attempts by the EU to build a "Great Firewall of Europe" to somehow control what we see.

Now we see a more "effective" and altogether insidious move which has been on the cards for some time - the storage of our web movements and email relationships for a year. Mark my words, one year will soon become longer then become eternal. Content, not movement or relationships will soon be stored. Motive will be determined by the State observer and not the observed. Think of the absurd concept from the Macpherson Report (1999) on the death of Stephen Lawrence, stating that:

A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

This is utter hogwash, but that has not prevented it from being widely adopted by ricebowlers, self-loathers, sufferers of victimhood, Fabians and others. A terrorist incident, I suspect will be one determined by the "any other person". The motive and thoughts of the accused will be of no concern.

So, storing such information is an outrage that is unconstitutional for the following reasons IMHO:

1. It is an invasion of privacy.

2. No individual warrant has been issued for the collection of individuals' data

3. It presumes the guilt of all and not innocence

4. In relation to the above, it puts the burden of proof upon the individual to "explain" actions without due process or probable cause being presented by the authorities.

5. It has the potential to suppress the freedoms of all by making people think twice about otherwise perfectly legal activity in case it should be highlighted.

6. The pool of data is not, will not and could never be made adequately secure, allowing for individuals to be subject to blackmail, slander, innuendo, further contributing to the effect of 5., above.

7. The State is almost certain to begin "fishing" expeditions. Data mining is almost an addiction to some. Human curiosity and the need by many to systematise, pigeonhole and find out is unlimited and this database will feed and expand on that craving.

This project, I hear, is part of EU directives. I suspect our Authoritarian Gaulieters have been gold-plating it.

The argument that it is to fight "terrorism" or is "for the chiiiiiildren" is absurd. Anyone involved in such areas will make other arrangements immediately. No, I withdraw that - it is likely that such people and groups are ALREADY making arrangements. They would be pretty stupid not to have by now and with this news they will most certainly do so.

Therefore almost NO terrorists and almost NO kiddie fiddlers that might be caught will be caught by this. However, EVERYONE will feel the Panopticon breathing down their necks, the constant surveil of Big Brother behind the Telescreen.

Anyone pretending to suggest this measure will achieve the stated goals is either

a) Lying

b) A useful idiot parroting inanities

c) An imbecile

d) All the above.

As is so often with this New Labour Authoritarian administration, bureaucratic convenience trumps our freedoms in their eyes.

Again we see the mentality to "protect". This is to suggest that one proactively remove all possible threats and does not take into account freedom of the individual, personal responsibility and assessment of risk depending on circumstances by an adult or others under the supervision of adults.

We need "defence". We need a ready, willing and capable response to when something or someone transgresses. You know, like THE LAW does? Well, the Common Law, at least. And that is part of our problem.

I think it is the duty of all people in the UK to perform civil disobedience or forms of obfuscation to render their plans for naught. Maybe it will be the inclusion of tags and keywords to make ALL communications require manual checking, so bogging down their systems, or to implement highly encrypted channels and tunnels out of EU jurisdiction so as to prevent intercept or raise the cost of intercept to an unacceptable level.

On the other hand I might just learn gibberish.

Machine-wrapped with butter!

Gordon Brown: Smiling, yet the MSM lets him.

We have widespread Nationalisation of the banking industry.

This will result in interference in the companies concerned. If it does not, the Government would be nagged by vested interests until it did interfere. There are already calls, from envy-politicians who foam against bonuses to the Environazis who want the banks to "invest", i.e. subsidise, some pet "green technology" du jour.

State interference will reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a banking centre. The only consolation is that many other centres are also in the do-do and lining up behind the Socialist muck-spreader, so we might not get an immediate loss of status in the short term to our existing peer group (FFT, NY, TKY). However, places like Dubai are itching to expand and take over. Do not expect them to stop for Ramadan when they see an opportunity to eat our lunch. They will bag it for later, and good luck to them.

Having said that, if the Government is to create more debt for Taxpayers over this, it seems the least bad option to get shares in exchange for that debt. Let us hope the share prices outperform the coupon on that debt so we, the Taxpayer, can see a return for the risk.

What is so infuriating is that Gordon Brown is acting like some kind of saviour. Just imagine if someone had broken all your windows, kicked in your door, allowed the roof to go to rack and ruin - letting in water and causing all manner of damage and cost - smahed your drains, mains and automobiles. And shot your dog. Imagine that person arriving with a sheet of tarpaulin and a roll of gaffer tape while wearing a big grin and expecting to be welcomed like some romantic hero. His is what has happened in regard to Gordon Brown. The problem is the MSM and many pundits have fallen for it. Gordon has got his Falklands, but he did not deserve it.

Where is the contrition? Where is the acceptance of responsibility here? There is none. It is absolutely shocking yet the MSM, instead of nailing him to the mast or keel-hauling him are almost fluffing him off off-camera. I hear Polly is keen again.

"Son of the Manse" my painted arse. How can he ever trot out that sanctimonious, faux piety and prudence again when he has so blatantly chosen to intentionally ignore his dirty fingernails in the woes we face. He, a Marxist, must be loving it. The Great Protector. The State to the rescue. The big City Boys now beholden to Le Teat Majeure. 

Polly: Carbon Cretin.

I am going to break with my normal approach of pressing the "track changes" button, for in this case, I don't think Polly is being disingenuous or hypocritical. She is just barking mad.

Energy use has to be cut soon, so it's odd that this techno-savvy cabinet still shies away from a simple credit system.

What is with the "has to be cut"? No. Energy use will increase around the world. It is not the use of energy, but how, what and where. As for the government being "techno-savvy", one only needs to look at the dismal failures in IT and other areas to know the Government is incompetent at this. Why break a habit?

Awful August, the weather forecasters call this unseasonably cold, wet month, as holiday-makers huddle against intermittent monsoon downpours, reminded that global warming doesn't necessarily mean a Mediterranean Britain.

Post Hoc fallacy. By the way, Polly, environazis are now hiding behind the more general and weedle-worthy term "climate change".

Every month, reports from climatologists deliver worse predictions of the speed and tipping points for irreversible climate change.

They are paid to, dear.

A 4C temperature rise is the latest warning: it would bring unimaginable horror in its wake.

Would, if it were true. Is it? No proof.

The time to act gets shorter, but the political will to act lags ever further behind the science that tells politicians they must do so.

The time to act does not get shorter, it is just that the dire warnings are getting shriller and for good reason - the AGW game is nearly up.

Latest figures, including air travel, shipping and energy used in our goods manufactured abroad, show no cut in Britain but an 18% growth in emissions.

Goods manufactured abroad, eh? Like in China, perhaps. Go there and ask them to cut their output if you believe it is the case. No? Thought not.

If the market is the answer, soaring energy prices should drive down emissions. Road traffic figures showed a 2% drop in car use, with demand for petrol briefly 20% down - but already it is rising again as the price falls.

And? Your point is? The market is functioning correctly - you sound as if you WANT to see high energy prices.

On household energy - responsible for 27% of emissions - it's too early to know the effect of 30% price increases. But as one hour of an old-fashioned lightbulb still only costs 0.8p, energy prices may not be noticed by those who already consume most.

Now, Polly, you are joking right? If one hour of an old-fashioned light bulb only costs 0.8p, then surely the energy consumed is very small also. The reall issue is HEATING. Inside the above is a subconcious nagging to buy low energy, high mercury, flicker-on, shimmer while on "low energy" bulbs. Lead by example. I bet Chez Toynbee is not bedecked with such bulbs, or would remain so for long. Even Polly's dim-bulb brain can detect the hesitation caused by CFLs.

Those who will make serious cuts are the poorest and debt-averse pensioners. Official fuel poverty figures are expected to rise to 5 million people this winter: more deaths are expected among the old and cold. Back in Labour's optimistic can-do days in 2000, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act created a legal obligation to eliminate fuel poverty among the vulnerable by 2010, a target missed by so many light years that Friends of the Earth is seeking a judicial review to get the act enforced. Gordon Brown's plan to buy off the problem with £100 vouchers for the poor is no answer.

An unenforceable Act does not mean we spend more time trying to enforce it. It means it should be scrapped.

What does the public think the answer should be? The Institute for Public Policy Research has just conducted the most extensive consultation so far, with focus groups in Newcastle, Camden, Southwark, Bristol and rural Suffolk across all social groups, as well as a nationwide opinion poll and interviews with energy companies, climate change NGOs and consumer organisations. The results pointed in one clear direction.

Seventy-four per cent said they are "very concerned" or "fairly concerned" about climate change - so politicians can ignore the shrinking, unconcerned minority.

Climate change is not the same as AGW, Polly. I am concerned about climate change, but I do not buy into the man-made back-to-the-caves mentality of the "enviro" lobby.

Seventy-one per cent thought action was necessary to curb people's energy use.

Then where is your problem? 71% will then curb their energy use, so energy use will be down. Or do you consider them like yourself - hypocritical?

But there was pessimism about the public changing its behaviour: only one in 10 thought people would drive less or take fewer flights.

Oh, ok, so "other people" need to cut back.

Naturally, favourite choices were the painless ones - the cheaper, environmentally friendly options. Least popular was any system that taxed energy use.

Common sense at last.

They were offered three possible government actions.

A false trichotomy.

First, a carbon tax could be added to all energy not generated from renewables. Second, a cap on the amount of carbon that companies could emit in selling their energy to consumers would force them to generate more from renewables: they would pass on the extra cost to consumers. But both of these were regarded as too unfair, with the impact felt least by the wealthy who burn most energy.

Very free with your use of percentages, eh? The rich are a small number in the scheme of things. Tax will either not affect them or they will move away and THEN it will not affect them. People get rich and are determined to stay rich so people like you cannot dictate how they live.

Personal carbon trading was the most popular option: it was the fairest and it wasn't seen as a new tax.

Most popular or the least worst of an appalling shortlist? In a way it is not a tax, but a form of privatised rent-seeking, as we shall see.

Here's how it works: each year everyone gets equal carbon credits to spend on petrol, home heating or air travel. People exceeding their quota can buy more credits. People who use less can sell credits. It encourages home insulation, energy saving and less driving or flying. Since low earners use less - 20% have no car, 50% don't fly - they can profit by selling to those with big houses, foreign holidays and gas-guzzling cars. It would be a powerful but voluntary agent for redistribution.

Firstly, you gloss over a massive factor in all of this - the State will need to track EVERY purchase we make in the areas so deemed by the State to have an impact. Very soon it will cover food, clothing, technology, everything. Secondly, it is NOT "voluntary" as people are not free to step outside the scheme. It will demand that all such purchases are paid electronically, so getting more information into the hands of the State (which it can, of course, sell without our permission to marketing organisations).

Failure to pursue personal carbon trading (or any other method) joined the long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice.

I am not disputing that there is a long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice, but this load of old crock is certainly not amongst them.

At Defra, David Miliband took it up with enthusiasm and commissioned a feasibility study, but after he made a strong speech advocating it, Gordon Brown at the Treasury banned any further mention.

Yes, I recall that "carbon credit card" idea. It was barking mad authoritarian moonbattery then, and it is still authoritarian moonbattery today.

Miliband was moved away and what was called a "pre-feasibility study", limped out with the judgment that this idea was "ahead of its time".

Yes, the Police State is not quite in place yet. Wait a few years when the EU is fully in control, then it will be a doddle.

They guessed it would cost £2bn a year to run, threw up sundry obstacles, and the report disappeared.

Only £2bln? From government IT? I wonder if those "sundry obstacles" were things like "impractical", "too expensive", "massive invasion of privacy", "AGW unproven".

Odd that a government with computers thinks it can't introduce a simple credit system, when a Nectar or Oyster card shows how easily home and car fuel bills and airline tickets could be deducted.

"A government with computers"? - Jesus wept! You forget, polly that oyster and nectar are OPTIONAL. One can still pay by cash. It is not a "simple credit system", but yes, we see the plan. I have long thought Gordon Brown has lusted after the idea of eliminating cash as a means of payment and this would move further in that direction. You also gloss over the "idea" of inter-personal trading of "carbon credits". People don't trade Nectar points on the open market, do they? Even if it did work what do you think would happen, numbnuts? The "rich" would buy up points and live as before. The poor, due to, erm, poverty, will sell points to pay for the energy that they can afford. The ONLY result is that the Government invades our life and a bunch of useless, non-productive parasites and IT supplies who cannot hack it in the private sector cream off huge wedges of taxpayers cash, some of it sticking to the governments ever-outstretched hands.

By supporting a carbon credit system, you, Polly, show yet again that you have absolutely NO IDEA how a market works and cannot get your Socialism-addled noggin to think beyond the immediate and self-serving.

Historian Mark Roodhouse of York University draws comparisons with his work on wartime rationing. Back then the state provided ration books for all, covering not just fuel but coupons valuing virtually every individual item in the shops from clothes to food.

We were under siege and supply was limited, UNLIKE NOW. Even then, the black market thrived.

Have we become more administratively incompetent since then?

Absolutely, for we now have a Government chock-full of morons, product of the dumbed-down "show-and-tell" coursework generation.

Roodhouse records the wartime internal debates about whether to cut national consumption by raising prices. "They concluded rationing was the only way to achieve dramatic cuts without feeding inflation or causing social unrest," he reports. They, too, considered making ration coupons tradable but decided equality of sacrifice was essential. But Roodhouse considers tradable carbon rations "would improve on the system, preventing black markets in unused coupons".

But this does not "improve on the system" for one is comparing apples with oranges, with actual hard scarcity and one trying to be synthesized by Authoritarian Government Fiat.

The trading element makes carbon rationing feel more voluntary and less oppressive.

Only to a moron, perhaps. "Feel" is not the same as "is". This IS involuntary and it IS oppressive.

In distribution of wealth, Britain is now back to 1937 levels of inequality, regressing backwards every year:

Yes, war followed by 60 years of the Welfare State. Well done. Thanks, you spiteful creatures!

that's what makes any kind of carbon tax or reliance on high prices impossible, the burden falling too unfairly.

Ah, so if the Socialist dream of a lumpen clay was actually achieved, higher prices could have been used. Oh what joy!

Doling out ad hoc energy vouchers to the poor at the taxpayers' expense is the wrong answer, and it only adds to the poverty trap by making the step up harder to climb.

Polly, I want to you to remember that statement and when you come up with any more ideas about redistribution and welfare, replace "ad hoc energy vouchers" with the current madcap idea that is rattling around your bonce.

Will Brown at least pay for it with a windfall tax on profiteering energy companies?

No, not even if he implemented such a windfall tax, for Brown pays for NOTHING. We, the taxpayers, pay for EVERYTHING in varying degrees. It is a zero-sum game (bit like your IQ) - energy companies will sandbag again or just not bother to build infrastructure, for how could they if Grabber Gordon keeps shoving his clunking fist into their savings and stealing all the notes?

But if personal carbon trading is "ahead of its time", that is exactly where we need to be.

It is not "ahead of its time" (unless...see above re EU), but is "a head up its arse".

Cowardly political leaders dare not tell voters the plain truth that we need to cut energy use.

It is not about telling here, Polly, you are proposing that people are FORCED. Big difference. Anyhow, since when have they got all honest?

If Miliband makes his run for the leadership, plain speaking about the climate will be one of his pitches - and bravery on personal carbon trading will be a test of candidates' seriousness about both climate and social justice.

Both "climate" and "social justice" are concepts for the subjugation of people and the removal of freedoms. I think Miliband is too smart to lash carbon credits to his leadership mast. Oh no, if he is still for it, he will bring it in once he has counted all his chickens after his premiership is hatched.

Keep up my mortgage payments, says Phillips (Track Changes)

Pay my mortgage Fight class divide, says Phillips

Mr Phillips said he was people were "very keen" for change

The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be given something to do the power to fight the class divide in Britain, its rent-seeking chairman has said.

Trevor Phillips told BBC Radio 4's World at One he would launch a "new assault" on common sense inequality and wanted an excuse for extension to the organisation's existence remit.

The economic slowdown meant his people were "very keen" for something to do change.

Everyone was "happy to take some of the payment pain as long as that payment pain is shared amongst me and my mates fairly", Mr Phillips added.

'Extremely self important'

A report by the commission now says there is too much "vertical" division in Britain between social classes.

It states: "We are not just limiting our job description [of inequality] by gender or race but we are also looking at this extremely important issue of our mortgage payments class."

Mr Phillips said: "We have decided to invent tackle the causes that supposedly drive inequality in our society to suit our warped, self-serving agenda and I think, to be honest, the public is very, very easily misled keen on this at the present time.

"People can see the economic slowdown coming. Everyone but us is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly and what we want to do is to make sure that the burden doesn't fall on us unfairly on some groups rather than others."

BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton said this was "a radical departure which is likely to be criticised by some as an implicitly political policy from a statutory body that must remain independent of party ideology". No sh*t, Sherlock!

It would "mean taking on the wealthy and educated middle class who are already struggling to keep their heads above water despite the best efforts of rent-seeking parasitical self-loathers adept at playing the system to the advantage of their families", he added.

The commission was invented established in 2007, replacing the Equal Opportunities Commission as the QANGO keeping Phillips in free sandwiches and to give him a reason to put on silly glasses and shave his peanut-shaped head of a morning..

My apologies to the BBC.

Hague and Brown's EU Nightmare

I heard that Hague had a particularly good speech in the House of Commons over the EU treaty, tweaking the nose of the (absent) Prime Minister while making a series of all important points.

Well, here is a clip: It is magnificent, hilarious, beautifully constructed and tells a truth.

All Miliband can do is laugh, but the joke is, actually on US. Hague should keep this up over and over again banging on about how our Sovereignty is being taken away. Ridicule those Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking, ok, Socialist parasites.

DING! Repetition, I said "Socialist", which basically is an Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking parasite.

FencePost No.4: Food Police

They really are trying to do it. The Government are serious about controlling what we eat.

The tip of the iceberg was rumbled in DEFRA's intent, now denied, to change the buying habits of the UK away from fresh milk to UHT. The lights came on and they were found standing around a hole. They denied everything, but we knew then and we certainly know now that that act and now this, is about implanting yet more Fence Posts.

Apart from the control aspect we have people who should know better try and not just excuse it but support it, wrapping it up in the language of science and reason.

The linked article above concludes:

Whenever individuals' behaviour is controlled by habits that they should control, we are at the fulcrum of the relationship between domination and freedom. Government has been reluctant to intrude, but now it must.

The author, Anthony Giddens, is right in saying that it is at the fulcrum of domination and freedom. The issue I have is with the very last word - "must". The Government can intrude if one person harms another - in fact some can say that is a must and the very purpose of Government and should be its prime, nay, only role. Here we are talking about "saving people from themselves" not because they ask, but because self-appointed types decide for them. Instead of pursuing the line of addiction to bad foodstuffs, Anthony should take a long hard look in the mirror and see his addiction to Socialism. He has his Socialist a hammer and he considers us all nails and is quite happy for other Socialist Hammer wielders to set about us. And he is in the House of Lords. He should be utterly ashamed of himself.

As in the case of the Milk debacle, Authoritarianism, control of production remaining in the hands of private organisations but obedient to the State. It has a word: Fascism.

The Devil deals out a visceral response and expresses it better than I could and with more wit.

One can only imagine the poverty of talent that must exist and the desperation and grasping for position and career that results in people like Dawn Primarolo being in charge of anything at all. Are they so short of talent? The answer, I suspect, is yes when you decide to limit your tide talent pool to those willing to endure the indignities and moral bankruptcy of the New Labour hierarchy.

I see you, HMG. I see the Fence Post going in. We caught you doing it a day or so before and you squealed like a stuck pig in denial but this time you try again, probably because this was planned and you could not stop it. One could imagine that this was part of a coordinated "rolling thunder" of announcements by QUANGOs "Trusts" to bludgeon the population.


This Government is the longest Socialist Government the UK has had...and boy does it show.

The Milk of Human Blindness

The Times reports today (via, Tim Worstall), that faceless interfering ricebowlers at DEFRA are seriously suggesting that the milk industry shift, as they so quaintly put it "to ensure that some 90 per cent of milk on sale will not require refrigeration by 2020".

This means we will be expected to switch to that god-awful UHT. Currently 93% of our milk is fresh. We consume fresh milk despite all the inconveniences because it is infinitely better than UHT, which, to me, has one purpose, to both colour and reduce the bitterness of bad warm drinks sometimes passed off as tea or coffee. Fresh milk is better to me because it tastes good. I can drink a pint of fresh milk and sometimes get a primordial desire to do so, but I can barely tolerate 5g of UHT. However, DEFRA wish to change consumer behaviour and force us to go backwards, to accept substandard food and drink in the name of the Great Green God. No, not really, but upon the dogma of that "religion" in reducing our sin carbon footprint.

DEFRA appears to have been infested with that mind virus, the Green Religion of Unthought. This is "Global Warning" - not Global Warming, but the trend now for using the threat of some future as an excuse and cover for, basically, totalitarian, authoritarian or just plain Robber Baronetcy.

What I see, apart from the blatant social engineering, undermining, guilt, bullying, memes, insults and just plain Fascism, is a convenient way to destroy our fresh milk habit and industry. The aim, I suspect, is to turn the UK into a market for ghastly UHT from anywhere in the EU. Right now, European calcified water and fat emulsions UHT is pretty much ignored in the UK and rightly so. One reason, apart from the fact that UHT is just plain shyte, is, I suspect, tea.

The UK are tea drinkers. Unlike coffee, tea is almost always drunk with milk and that milk needs to be fresh milk unless you are a self-flagellating zealot who is happy to train your taste buds to accept mediocrity or worse in the pursuit of your punishment dietary regime.

One of the excuses for this issue is the energy used in refrigeration. I suspect this is a bit of a con, really. A refrigerator is just a mover of heat, not a creator of cold. If you chill the contents you are warming the outside. If you want to reduce the amount of pumping losses, then you create more efficient refrigerators using such wonderful devices as Stirling Engines or, duh, put DOORS ON THEM. You do NOT use the PATHETIC excuse of "carbon footprint" to try and destroy an industry which exists solely due to consumer choice (note that) so that the world can bend to fit the prejudices, plans and non-sequiturs of a bunch of imbeciles at DEFRA.

Pound to a penny there is an EU directive at the bottom of this.

UPDATE: The BBC covered this at 1PM today, but just parroted the government lie line and had no real exposure, almost like a softening up exercise. Self-loathers!

Dame Shirley Williams: Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Gordon has appointed "her" to be in charge of Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

Firstly, "in charge" in respect to our Shirl must always be used in the broadest of terms, as we are well inside Chocolate Teapot territory.

Further, I totally expect Shirl to decide that we should give up OUR weapons and programmes as a "sign of good faith" to all other nations. Yes, I do think so, and my tea-soaked brain seems to recall that was her position in the past. I will say that again: I predict Shirley Williams will move to abandon our own weaponry as a unilateral gesture to encourage others. She is a self-loather par excellance.

This then leads me to suspect that Brown really does want to abandon the UK as a national and international entity, happy for it to be a province in the European Union of Soviet Socialist Regions. Of course, France will perform the suave moves they are famous for by promising to drop their own weapons if only the UK does too (they have form). Of course, once the UK falls for it does it, then the French will magic from some chalk cave network all their old warheads and all related technology in true (French) Blue Peter, saying "this is one I prepared earlier".

Removal of the UK's nuclear capability is necessary to prevent the UK being capable of UDI form the EU. It is all part of the plan. Watch them go about it.

Sociofascist Media on the Prowl pt.2

A report from Keele University talks about petty crime and, frankly, dishonesty amongst "middle classes".

Petty theft - e.g. pens and envelopes from employers, use of cash to avoid V.A.T. and not handing back too much change - is on the rise. The body count is rising.

What do they speculate as the reason? Loss of Welfare provision and protection by the State, miss-selling of pensions and mortgages basically, is their message. What. The.

I am disappointed that they did not protest about denial of "the means of production".

No, you imbecile, people pay cash because instinctively they feel they are paying far too much to Grabber Gordon. They lift pens. As if that has never happened. It also depends on how they classify "middle class" - I do suspect they classify it as white collar and the background of the population so described has changed over the years. It is not easy sneaking out a personal fax or three on a building site, is it? As for the ridiculous assertion about withdrawl of the State teat, it is more likely that people have got used to the corrupting effect of that teat that is the reason, not the withdrawl.

The bleating about miss-selling...oh my goodness, I could hardly hear his words for the sound of axes being ground.

Thankfully there was a lady with common sense on BBC Porridge this morning (did not catch her name) who basically suggested it was a result of excessive taxation and unfairness shown by the authorities. Whoosh as that went totally over their heads as they went "la la la". She also said that there were far more important crimes to focus on. Hear hear!

Yup - Blair and Co are dishonest parasites, so they set the example to an impressionable minority who do petty theft, so lets talk about them, not our traitorous leaders, nor the real violent yobs to systematically taunt then kill people for the crime of walking to the supermarket. Keele Uni - stick your head up a dead (polar) bear's bum. It will do us all some good.

Remind me to look more closely at anyone I hire from Keele, in case they try to take back the means of production using pens and threats of inflicting a paper cut to the nethers. Oh, and to see if they to are not a COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON.