Voy Por Ustedes

I've just commissioned two small boys to clean some bird poo of the bonnet of my car, so while they're doing that I'll fill you in on the weekend's occurrences at Dusk Till Dawn.

The abbreviated version is we got pissed again and consequently our poker playing was of little consequence. Somehow though I managed to leave Nottingham with almost exactly what I arrived with, to the penny. I must have fared OK in the last cash session of Saturday night.

I was making excellent progress in the £50 freeze-out in the evening. With about 17,000 chips while the average was 7,000 the wheels came off and the car blew up. I lost three hands in succession with A-Q, A-Q and A-9. All three times I was miles ahead, in fact I was runner runner'd all three times and was left stunned and more importantly out. If one more person says "I thought you were stealing" to me this lifetime I'm afraid I can't be held responsible for my actions.

So um, from my point of view that's all she wrote. Good fun though to be fair to it. I believe the next one is being held somewhere in London. I recommend having a bash at qualifying for the main event. £10,000 to the winner this weekend, so it's worth a go.

I'm now off the sauce forever, at least when I'm playing poker. I just can't add up properly. All the shapes on the cards look fuzzy and too similar, much like the women folk - suddenly they are seem so enticing.

You think you've trapped off with a beauty and can't understand why everyone is laughing at you, then suddenly find you're actually entertaining a creature with such questionable hygiene just a few minutes of cunnilingus leaves you with a stubborn foam moustache.

That didn't happen incidentally, it was just a slight digression to serve as a warning. Don't drink and drink.

Off to the Virgin Poker Festival at DTD this weekend. What are you doing? I shall definitely be watching the cricket though while I'm there as it officially became a sport after Daniel Vettori aimed a four letter torrent of abuse at Paul Collingwood on Wednesday.

I feel Spain will win Euro 2008, Valentino Rossi will win the A-Style TT at Assen and I expect something a bit funny to occur during the Irish Derby, at this point though, I know not what.


*Update - I told you something funny was going to occur in the Irish Derby, I'm just now hearing the favourite New approach has been withdrawn. I was wrong about everything else though I think - except Spain, that hasn't happened yet. I'm going to bed now, I feel awful.

What's the big fuss about Nelson Mandela? My Dad, instead of reading me stories, used to tell me how he was essentially a South African Gerry Adams. To others he's another Ghandi. He's somewhere in between in real terms - surely leaning more towards Jerry Adams though than Ghandi, what with his bombing campaigns and the such.

He's mates with Castro too. They play chess together. Governments conveniently ignore that when they have him over for tea and medals. He's not done an awful lot by way of intervention in Zimbabwe either has he? Uuurghhh and the shirts he wears, gaaah they're awful....Lavender in the summer? Peeeee-uke.

He hates us more - that's why he hasn't had a word in Mugabe's ear. We don't like to admit it or discuss it at dinner parties, but he hates us and we're only having concerts for him out of guilt. When he's knocking about with the Queen you can see it on both their faces. It reminds me of Chris Rock's racism thingy in Bigger and Blacker.

There's no one more racist than an old black man, cause they're the dudes who really got it in the neck with the proper racism. Torture, apartheid, persecution, slavery - all of it. If you watch Mandela when he's having tea with the Queen he's the perfect gentleman, but when he stands up to walk away you can always see him mouthing the words "fuck you biatch.'

But still though, I know he spent about 17 years breaking up rocks in a labour camp and was beaten and tortured for his 27 years in prison, but so were others who fought against oppression. Alexander Solzhenitsyn for example whose name Thatcher could never pronounce fought just as valiantly against the reds, but no one every wrote a song about him that reached number 1. And what about Zammo from Grange Hill, spent his whole school years standing up to Gripper Stepson, an inspiration to thousands of bullied nerds up and down the country - except for the bit where he became a heroine addict of course.

It's not over yet anyway, the violence in South Africa. I wouldn't go and live there anyhoo...whatever violence Mandela was meant to have prevented really just seems to have been kicked into the long grass for a spell. If I was the Queen I'd have them medals back and all the free towels when it starts to kick off again down there. And you can quote me. Finally, I think it's important we understand at this point that due to a combination of dutch lager and some night nurse, nothing I say presently or for the next 12-18 hours should be taken seriously.

Amen.

So yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that any dude who isn't mental or a felon can keep a gun in the home just in case you catch a teenager breaking into your home and you need to quickly blow his head off.

IT IS in fact the inalienable right, they concluded, for the District of Columbia's citizens to bear arms cause it says so in the second amendment of the constitution. So there. 'Woooooooooooo' cried the NRA dudes who love guns more than people. 'Oh dear lord' cried everyone else.

This is exactly why constitutions are shit. Just because it's written down in a constitution doesn't mean it's inalienable. There's no such thing as inalienable. It like saying God exists because it says so in the Bible.

It's just a bit of paper, you can ignore it or repeal it. If there was a 28th amendment that stated in no uncertain terms that it was perfectly legal for men to rape women on the weekends, would that right be defended? Let's just hope not for the sake of argument.

Silly Americans, you really need to be requiring more in the way of evidence with these issues. IT'S IN THE CONSTITOOOOOOTION is no kind of case at all. Have any of these people got anything in the way of statistics that prove that home gun ownership actually saves lives? I'm pretty sure the gun control dudes can prove it doesn't.

People want to own guns for the most part because like smoking, they think it's cool. But like smoking, guns kill people. I thought both were cool in the 1980's, thanks to Sylvester Stallone, but I was 13. I wasn't a parent.

My feeling here is that allowing everyone to have a gun in order to make society safer is no more logical than teaching young boys and girls how to molest old men in case they're attacked.

Washington D.C. has taken nearly 200 years to come up with this ruling. People were coping with having their inalienable rights suspended. How many people moved to a state with more relaxed gun control laws because they felt the lives of their families were at risk by remaining in D.C.? Not many, probably about 7.

I wash my hands with them all, silly silly people. They're probably just making sure everyone has a weapon for when Obama is sworn in as President. I bet the Clinton name is somewhere at the genesis of this whole movement. Hillary will find her way into the White House one way or another. She's a sly one.

Or however you spell the baby faced assassin in foreign. Look now Barcelona and Real Madrid and any of European teams with ideas above your stations, I know you all read my blog, so just jolly well naff off.

I know Cesc is the best player ever and is only 12 and still gets all the best lasses, but he plays for Arsenal now and forever so tough, you can't have him. Stick to buying players called Ronaldo or Drogba, those sorts of dudes.

That's what I'm talking about Ma'am. That'll show him. Fuck with democracy will you Robert? Starve your own people is it? Well we'll have that medal back then; the Register of Honourary Members of the Order will manage just fine without you thank you very much.

They've managed since they stripped Prince Naseem Hamed and Lester Piggott of theirs and they'll cope without you fella. And if you think your boys are coming over here to play some cricket later in the summer, well I'm afraid you're very much mistaken.

God bless the Queen, she's not afraid to bare her teeth in the face of tyranny. If that doesn't restore order to that country, frankly, I don't know what will. I jest of course, but while this is a highly embarrassing and hollow gesture on our part; the United Kingdom, while once we presided over the greatest empire in all of yooman history - in real terms, we've done about as much as we can for the Zimbabweans on this issue.

We can't intervene, we've no one to intervene with. We could helicopter the cubs in with some sharp sticks, and maybe the St Johns Ambulance people just in case anyone sprains an ankle, but I can't really see them succeeding unless they can organise a jamboree and thrash out a deal with Mugabe over sausages and hot chocolate with marsh mallows.

See now we've been here before. Once we've occupied a land and run off when we've out stayed our welcome there's no going back. India and Palestine are the two more sorry episodes of grace falling.

It's all very well and good being completely horrified on behalf of the starving Zimbabweans, but what good does a stern letter to the Guardian do them? Unless you're prepared to smuggle yourself in there and shoot the guy, what benefit is there in being outraged. We're impotent as far as patrolling the globe is concerned. We've been reduced to stripping despots of antiquated honourary titles and ratcheting up the rhetoric.

I feel bad for them of course, but it's a shit world and I have to ration out my outrage and sympathy. I'm afraid I'm more concerned with how much my own country stinks than the plight of random global deteriorating democracies. Which is no more selfish than it is absurd to think we can have any influence whatsoever in any part of the world ever again. And you can quote me.

A classic line from Top Secret and never a truer word spoken in the field of tennis wagering. To it we can also add: Never bet on any game involving a Russian and always bet over 31.5 games in a mens singles match involving two guys who are so gay they have to use two hands to hit the ball.

I’ve just been watching Star Trek: The next generation. Why are they all French? The original Star Trek was all British names, now they’re all French. What’s that all about? Original Star Trek had a captain called James, now it’s Jean-Luc; there was a McCoy now there’s Deanna Trois; there was Scotty, now there’s La Forge; Uhura, which isn’t British per se, I mean as such, but certainly Commonwealth, now there’s Data - which of course is French for information.

What sort of board meeting was it that’s made them decide this was a good idea? It’s cause they wanted less fighting innit? Kirk was always fighting in the original Star Trek. He was always taking the Enterprise into battle. They killed more aliens in one episode than Picard in his whole career. It’s all exploration now and diplomacy, which is just French for running off - Prime directive my harris. You wouldn't have seen Kirk run off when the Romulans were spoiling for a rumble. Splitters.

I hate Wimbledon. I hate the crowds. They’re all so nice aren’t they? Tennis isn’t a sport. Darts is more of a sport than tennis. You can say what you like about sports requiring a certain degree of athleticism, but bollocks to that.

I was doing some housework like a great big girl the other day while listening to some Booker T and the MG’s, but with the TV on also to waste electricity. New Zealand were about to be robbed of victory in the last over of a one-dayer because of the ridiculous obfuscation of the Duckworth Lewis method. "Farce!" cried the gentleman English commentators. "Bullshit," cried the Kiwi’s.

They were both right. I laughed and switched over to what I assumed was an old episode of Brookside and returned to my dusting. As it turned out it was Peter Kosminsky's documentary, “Afghansti” about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, as it came to its humiliating conclusion in the late 1980’s.

What struck me was not how uncannily like scousers all the Russian soldiers looked, but how predictably bleak and futile their invasion seemed, retrospectively - predictable because every invasion of Afghanistan has ended in humiliating defeat for the invading army, as has every invasion anywhere when the intent was ideological imposition.

For a Russian officer to concede this was a disaster should have served as a warning that this was not going to be fourth time lucky for us. “Measure your cloth seven times because you can cut it only once,” he said. We’ve cut our cloth four times now. No wonder our blanket of democracy is too small.

Why are we there again? It’s not clear is it really, why are we bothering? The news dudes haven’t really told us. I doubt if they know to be fair to them. It’s got something to do with the Taliban and something to do with destroying all the terrorist training camps. That’s the jist of the campaign as far as I can tell.

That is of course bullshit. Like ending a one-dayer with one over to go, I can’t accept this as justification. I’m with the Kiwi’s on this one. The whole terrorism thing has been milked like the nipples of a mother of octuplets. And if I hear one more time from Gordon Brown how we must persevere or those soldiers who have already lost their lives will have died in vain, I shall go bandy. If you want to respect their memories and not have to remember any more of them, get them the fuck out of dodge. Perseverance is one thing, an unwinnable war is something different entirely. That's what I always say.


Terrorism then is it? The chances of being caught up and dying in a terrorist attack are million to one. This invasion of Afghanistan has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. If it is, then where are they? When you watch the news and documentaries it’s the Taliban the British Army are fighting not Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden probably lives in California now. No, I suspect this is really about the Russians. It's always about the Russians. Things go full cycle don’t they.

If it’s for preventing terrorism then this is a politcal campaign not a humanitarian one. Its means do not justify its ends. Rid Afghanistan of Al-Qaeda and then what? They’ll just go somewhere else. You can’t kill them all. This is a war on Terror not just terrorists. You can’t kill a noun. Close their training camps and they’ll just head back to Africa. Then what? We don’t like fighting there either. Will we start again? By that time they’ll have more soldiers than we will.

In cold hard figures there’s surely more lives saved from having the Taliban controlling Afghanistan that without them. I’m shooooowa the chances of any of us actually dying in a terrorist attack are next to nothing. Drugs on the other hand are a bigger problem, no? Even thirteen year olds smoke heroine these days. Turf out a teenagers pockets and you'll find an iPod, a knife, a mobile phone and a crack pipe.

The Taliban for all their beards and oppression, virtually wiped out the harvesting of opium. Most of the worlds bestest black tar heroine comes from Afghanistan. So let’s do some mathematics;

How many people die per year from a heroine over-dose? Tens of thousands, surely? How many people would not die a year if there were no heroine coming out of Afghanistan? There are figures somewhere that will tell us but I can’t be arsed to find them. Suffice it to say it's loads. People would have to make do with crappy less awesome heroine and get bored of it and get jobs instead and a Metro. Thousands of lives would be saved.

Now then, how many lives will be lost in future terrorist attacks from terrorists trained specifically in Afghanistan? Say we have a 9/11 every ten years, which is next to impossible, but let’s over-estimate. That’s 3,000 dead per ten years…plus a couple of bus bombings in the Bull Ring Shopping Centre and similar places. Say 3,500 per ten years.

It’s a no brainer.

The maths in terms of lives saved don’t justify this campaign. We can afford to look at this in such economic terms, Gordon Brown can’t, because he's morally bankrupt and saving lives in the long term is not a vote winner. By that time it'll be David Cameron's time and we can't have him taking any credit for Gordon's efforts.

He has to be a little more abstract. Ostensibly humanitarian, but in reality taking a narrow minded and election winning approach that will allow him to look powerful and awesome. He needs to be able to claim this is about stamping out oppression, extremism and violence, preventing terrorism and liberating a people and so on.

We’ve proven this is nonsense and so have the Russians. You can’t impose democracy on anyone and even if you could, why aren’t we invading Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba and blaaaaagh blaaggh.

In short it’s political. We’re there for strategic purposes. Anyone who’s every played Risk can see that. You don’t invade places to make them better. Doesn't matter how despotic the regime. You can't kill people so that they don't die.

It’s about the Russians again isn’t it people? We’ve come full circle. It’s always about the Russians. Whenever we invade Afghanistan it's always so we have someone in the slips when a totalitarian Russian President comes into bat and I see no reason why it’s any different this time.


See the last few times we were there it was about protecting Indian right? We don’t care about them no more though, so what else is going on? It certainly is not about the Taliban, we’ve figured that out. That would be astonishingly flip-floppy if it were. We armed the mujahadeen to fight the Russians after all, now we’re the ones fighting them? Why do we always do that? We never learn.

We went into Iraq cause we thought we’d conquer the place easy and then have a strategic platform from which to do over the Iranians. We’re now getting our allied asses whooped in Afghanistan cause we wanted a strong foothold there in order to execute some sort of pincer manoeuver on the reds in case Putin is planning a reverse sweep from one of those bunkers in the Kremlin. He’s a sly one. Russia is as communist now as it was during it's Bolshie heyday. It’s all beginning to make sense now.

If this is true then it’s a prudent measure to have Afghanistan in our control. Unfortunately Afghanistan is unconquerable. Only Ghengis Khan had some success and even he left cause the food made him queasy. The Russians failed to impose communism on them, we failed to impose democracy on them, Ghengis Khan failed to impose Mongolian Goulash on them, but still we try.

During the three previous Anglo-Afghan wars, the “Great Game” as they’re known, we won one, lost one and effectively tied the third. We’re so competitive we had to have one more attempt at winning the series. Ironically the Taliban might save us from another humiliating series defeat overseas.

We want to control Afghanistan, the Russians want to control Afghanistan, we’ve both had several damned good knocks against them, but they’ve bowled us out every time. We could win when it was a bunch of tribes who all hated each other. You could drive through extra cover, play down the wicket - there was reverse swing and lots of other cricketing metaphors.

A country 90% controlled by the Taliban however is a different eleven altogether though, and is proving to be our nemesis, but it may also be our saviour. The Taliban are in effect, bad light or a rain delay in this ideological one-dayer.

When the death toll gets too high and public opinion too low, the Russian and British Governments should be able to declare a winner here via what amounts to a diplomatic equivalence to the Duckworth Lewis method.

Politics will be declared the winner. There will be summits, photographs, speeches and handshakes. Détente, great game gentleman.

It’s so complicated a system that each Government will be able to declare each other the winner without any of us being able to argue to the contrary; some will cry farce, some will cry bullshit, the families of those soldiers who have died will just cry, but most of us will be too confused and just too relieved that it’s over to say anything.

boomp3.com

Stonehenge is not accessible to anyone really. Archeologists, academics and other dead clever dudes have to beg and plead for access to the inner circle elsewise they just have to hang around outside the thing like the tourists. These are people that might actually be able to figure out what the thing is, yet the heritage society vary rarely grants any access to it.

Why then, every June 20th, do they let anyone who hasn't had a shower for over a year have a piss up in the middle of it? It's not just druids anymore, it's any old fucking hippie in a stinking woolly jumper. Yeah sod what damage you can do to the place, sod the fact that we only very rarely let the most respected academics in the field of archeology and history anywhere near the place - if you smell of piss you're welcome.

They shouldn't even be letting the druids near it. Stonehenge pre-dates Druidism by yonks. It's not even a proper religion. How wank. It's really really wank that it.

But, I fancy Jerry to win tonight on penalties if I'm honest. It ought not to get that far really, but there's something within me telling me we're in for a tedious night of teutonic spoiling tactics and Mad Jens will see them through to the semi-finals.

boomp3.com

I'm bored so I'm going to discuss something at random and see what happens. You can skip all this if you're busy. I had my car serviced on Monday as you know. While I was waiting, a dude from the servicing desk and I got to chatting. He was Kenyan and was interested in what I was reading. It was Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope. From politics we then moved on to marriage somehow. It was a two year service my car was having you see, so it involved a lengthy tinkering.

"My boss said to me once," said the service desk Kenyan dude, "why buy a book when you can join a library." This was his boss's hilarious metaphor for marriage versus bachelorhood. I didn't know who his boss was, but I suspected he was the kind of chap who when asked if he has kids, always answers, "not that I know of" followed by a wink and an over-exaggerated laugh which betrays his implied promiscuity. In real terms of course the fat sweaty bastard's only real sexual experiences were either paid for or were highly regrettable encounters with some of the ugliest women in his village.


The reason I bring this up, quite literally as I feel kinda queasy now, is not because I want to discuss marriage, but I would like to discuss libraries. Why don't people join libraries anymore? How is it possible for example in my wee area that a single book shop can survive when there are two adequately stocked libraries in close proximity? It hasn't even got a coffee shop.

Why do people buy books when they can just borrow them for free? I do it and I'm not sure why. I do like giving books I've enjoyed to my chums so they can enjoy them...but I could just as easily recommend they check the book out of a library themselves.

There's only a few novels I can think of that I've read more than once. So it can only be a matter of wanting to show off. A book case full of books suggests intelligence. Or maybe it's kept as a trophy. Keeping a book reminds you you read it and there's a sense of accomplishment there? I hope not. I'm afraid this is very very silly. Are we now that dumb that reading is considered a challenge? Some books are a challenge to be fair to us all, but I hope we're not now patting ourselves on the back just for reading anything.

It's really about time I had another fish finger sandwich so I'll end here - and there's nothing sexual about that, Kenyan man's boss, if you're reading this. In the meantime let's all join a library shall we? Go on, for me.

I'm on my way home this arvo and I'm listening to a Fox FM DJ babbling on about Big Brother and something about carpets. Finally he's about to shut up and play a song. By way of an introduction he says the romantic in him would love to learn how to play this song on the guitar - presumably so he can play it to his air-headed girlfriend Mandy.

The song in question is 'More than words' by Extreme. I like the song too. But it's not a love song, which is why I like it. I'm quite sure it's about a dude who thinks it's all lovely and sweet being told who how much his woman loves him, but ultimately talk is cheap and he's choking for a fuck.

The song should actually be called, 'Anyone can tell me they love me, but only the one who truly loves me will let me enter them doggy-style.' I'm sure I'm right, have a listen. I'm right aren't I?

I'm in the Spar stoooooo* this morning buying myself a bacon and sausage sandwich and in the queue before me stands an old hippy bloke. "It's Willie Nelson," says I. Whether or not I said this out loud I'm not sure.

The devil be my witness he climbs into the passenger side of a turquoise Peugeot 206, by Gad! Driven no less, by a woman baring an uncanny resemblance to Annette Crosbie from One foot in the Grave.

"How have they got together?" says I, definitely out loud this time. "No wait," I continued. "How have they stayed together?"

They probably met at a peace march somewhere during the Vietnam war, but it was just a phase for her. She knits now and reads the Daily Mail, but he has remained true to his cause. Or, I concluded, she is his carer and he's just a mentalist.

More top secret documents have been left on trains and even more accusations of incompetence have been hurled at our secret service dudes. When will people learn to leave these documents alone?

Have people not seen spy movies? This is how spy dudes communicate with each other. They leave stuff on trains and on buses and in telephone boxes and exchange envelopes in markets as they casually peruse the antique stalls. It's the way it's always been.

If people would just mind their own damned business and leave these folders where they lie, there wouldn't be a problem. It's quite simple. If you see a man in a rain coat and a fedora leaving an envelope or a folder on a seat on a train just leave it there. Another man in a similar hat and rain coat will be along presently to pick it up.

It's OK for the Americans, they're all electronic now with their intrawebs and computrons and telephones. They have a bigger budget than us.

We still have to leave folders on trains. Perhaps once or twice these guys are leaving the folders on the wrong seats, but look, if someone sits next to you about 40 years old with a hat on and sunglasses and says the weather looks nice, but it's bad for the wheat and then leaves a brown envelope next to you, just politely whisper that you're not Russian and suggest he check the next compartment and we can avoid this media frenzy.

Let's at least bare in mind it might be some cunning ploy. It's happening too many times a week for it be just blind incompetence. Surely it's some genius strategy of misdirection to plant false information in the hands of Alan Qaeda, where ever he may be. We're in trouble if t'ain't.

Most of Saturday's papers' front pages will be dominated by obituaries and eulogies for the sadly departed obfuscated European Constitution. The document is survived by roughly 500,000 Europeans. I'd like to pay my respects through the medium of a Baywatch montage.

As we speak it looks like the most pro-European country that has involved itself in the European Union is about to reject the Lisbon Treaty. I'm cackling with laughter as we speak. If Ireland, who get absolutely cabillions of Euro's just for being a part of this Union, are rejecting it, then surely that little elite group of eurocrats, bureaucrats and douchbags-ocrats who have continued to pursue this bloody constitution, must now admit defeat, oui?

Gordon Brown of course is a cunt as we know. On the one hand he has devolved power to the Jocks, the Welsh and Norn Iron; effectively dismantling our own Union. But on the other, he wants Great Britain, which to all intents and purposes no longer exists, to become part of much bigger and much more divided European Union. A sphincter says what!

How does that work then? You see now, this EU business has gone as far as it can go. If the United Kingdom has drawn it's last breath, that really ought to be a lesson to us all. We never reconciled our differences with our Celtic neighbours. It's just not possible to ignore centuries of blood shed just so we can all sell each other cheaper apples and a select group of politicians who have seen an opportunity to make mounds and mounds of undeclared monies in various currencies can secure their financial futures and that of three or four future generations of their families. And I'm not just saying all this cause of the possibility of losing Cesc Fabregas in a few years on a Bosman.

England of course has no role to play in the global community and to that end I see that perhaps our Government is scratching around desperately searching for a new identity. But being at the heart of strong European Union is not the answer. It's not possible and no one wants it. We're going the way of Spain and Portugal; once great empires who now have fuck all to do with themselves. However, they have nice weather, so are quite content with their political impotence. They're more than happy sleeping during the day and riding around on scooters in the evening shouting hola at giggling ladies.

We must find an alternative or get some nicer weather. Once we've managed to shake off the Jocks, Welsh and Norn Irish, to be honest, I'd be quite happy seeing us become the 51st state of America. With one or two red-lines and safe guards on irony and sarcasm and a few other caveats, why not? It's no more ridiculous than embracing the Germans and French politically and literally and pretending we don't hate both of them. That's what I always say.

If there's a heaven and George Orwell and Franz Kafka are up there somewhere looking down on us, they're both probably high-fiving each other and congratulating each other on being so fucking prophetic. They'd then take a moment, kick the dirt a bit, let out a sigh and admit they'd rather have been proved wrong then go off to get pissed and beat Enid Blyton up for being racist.

Just when you thought the tedium of British politics was guaranteed for the foreseeable future something mildly amusing happens. David Davis is someone I've never trusted. There's something slightly sleazy about the man. He's made the mistake a few politicians have made in the past of thinking he's got a sense of humour. He hasn't. He has no charisma and indeed a mouth that looks like it's sucked a few cocks in it's time.


His decision to resign today though so he can force a by-election on the principle that this 42 day bollocks is indeed bollocks, is quite a clever manoeuver though I think. Nothing that happens in Westminster has anything to do with the issues anymore. It's all about making the other guy look like a twat. And I think on this occasion, David Davis has out twatted Gordon Brown, the biggest twat of them all. Our two main parties are like divorced parents promising their child presents and goodies and whatever it wants to make it happy. Only it's not really the child's happiness they're concerned about, it's just about making the other parent look shit, points scoring and so on.

There is of course no evidence anywhere from anyone in any position of authority on national security that random Asians need to be detained for almost 6 weeks before being charged. This whole tedious episode was about Gordon Brown trying to win something and grab a few headlines and restore his eroding reputation. He may have won the vote, but he will not now grab the headlines.

As an added bonus it might make David Cameron look a bit weasly too, which he is. Recently I've noticed I get very itchy when David Cameron is on TV. Possibly I'm allergic to him. He is the worst kind of political whore. His party opposes 42 day detention, yet at the same time he refuses to commit to repealing this law should the Tories win the next election. He won't commit to this because some random polls have shown that the population on the whole is quite happy to see this law passed.

David Cameron is fully aware of course that the general public haven't got a fucking clue what's actually involved in investigating terrorism, or how long it takes and consequently, their opinion on the matter is totally fucking irrelevant. MI5 and the Metropolitan police on the other hand have said many times it's completely unnecessary and never has there been a case yet where this length of time was needed. Votes however have determined David Cameron's policy. On matter of principle then, if not his over-bite, David Davis ought to be commended.

Of course it may be political suicide for Mr Davis. David Davis is in danger of becoming Mr Blobby to David Cameron's Noel Edmonds. Noel Edmonds if you recall, introduced Mr Blobby to the House Party audience because of flagging ratings. A sort of adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, just a bit scarier. The Mr Blobby stunt became so successful however, that Noel Edmonds began playing second fiddle to his pink monster and wasn't having that, so ended up killing poor Mr Blobby off. I'm laughing as I type this as this did actually happen. Poor Noel and his hyper-inflated ego.

As for the wider issue, it's really about time someone in the House of Commons stood up and admitted that enough is enough and that this whole terrorism bollocks needs to end. Using terrorism to scare people out of their civil liberties is about as criminal as political manoeuvering can get. It's on a par with Tony Blair manufacturing a reason to go to war.

Statistically, I have as much chance of getting blown to bits in a terrorist attack as being hit by lighting on my way to cashing in my jackpot winning lottery ticket. I live next to the biggest RAF base in the country, even at the height of the IRA's bombing campaigns in the 1970's and 80's, my chances of being caught up in one of these attacks were slightly less than my shitting a diamond.

I accept that we will probably be subject to another attack someday, but bollocks to it. I'll accept the risk of these attacks and being caught up in them, if it means I can have my civil liberties returned to me. Our political process is now stuck in a narrative manufactured by Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell and continued by Gordon Brown. That narrative is that there no worse fate that can be bestowed upon us than another 9/11 attack or another mini July thing that happened on some buses in London and that everything should be done to prevent further attacks and that no piece of legislation can be so invasive as to not justify it's imposition on us.

This is of course, horse shit. Even if it were possible to guarantee our safety, which it isn't...I'd rather not be safe if it means a CCTV camera on every street and compulsory ID cards and DNA databases and detention without charge for however long the security dudes feel is needed. I'd rather be left alone to take my own precautions than live in a George Orwell or Franz Kafka novel. We're trying to prevent terrorism because it denies us our right to live free in safety, but the means at which this prevention is secured denies us the rights it seeks to protect.

I'd like to see one MP just stand up say that. Admit they've had a jolly good time of it, nosing into our personal affairs and laughing at which porn sites we all look at on a morning, but concede that they can longer justify it and put it all to bed. Bring the Army dudes back from Iraq and Afghanistan, knock down all the CCTV camera's, burn all the disks and delete all the databases, send us all about £15,000 for our troubles and start again next Monday.

That's what I always say.