This is a very tangled one. Even a mustachioed Belgian detective would have trouble with it. Columbo would call it a five-cigar job. However, I think the BNP come out of it rather well, in the end. I cannot say whether it was devised or accidental but it has 'Agatha Christie' all over it.
The Guardian reports that Mark Collett, the nastier side of the BNP, has been arrested for plotting to kill Nick the Griff.
Plausible?
Well, Nick the Griff started out as a serious racist, even to the extent of saying the Holocaust was an exaggeration. I could be wrong on this but as far as I remember, he didn't deny it happened, he claimed it was far less extreme than it really was. Not that that is any excuse. What the Nazis did in those camps is beyond anything anyone would dare put into a modern horror film. Downplaying the extent of their depravity is just wrong.
However, Nick the Griff no longer 'denies the holocaust'. Naturally, the UAF won't let him off with that. I, however, would. He was wrong. He admits he was wrong, and he apologised for saying the things he said. Let it go.
Reference the previous post, and older ones on Righteous methods. One of them is 'the apology'. There are three important rules for Righteous training. One, never compromise. Two, never apologise and three, never admit you were wrong.
Compromise is seen as a weakness by the Righteous. A weakness to be exploited. Which is why I now say smokers must not attempt compromise.
Nick the Griff compromised on his membership requirements. The BNP is no longer 'white only'. Good enough? Nope. That compromise was the wedge just entering the crevice. The Righteous are going to keep hammering. Watch out for demands that the BNP have non-white candidates at the next election, a non-white leader to 'prove they are not racist' and so on. The quotas are coming.
Apology is submission. When you apologise, you set yourself below the person you apologise to. Not consciously or deliberately but by apologising, you are admitting that the other person is in a morally superior position. You are deferring to a higher member of the pack. That is why none of those officials ever apologise, no matter how idiotic their actions have been. That is why calls for 'apology' ring out as soon as anyone says or does anything that could even remotely justify such a call.
Nick the Griff apologised. He also admitted he was wrong. Admitting error means you are not infallible. The Righteous will always use that against you. You were wrong about that thing, years ago, and you confessed. Therefore you are probably wrong about this thing, now.
No Righteous ever admits error. The papers are full of examples.
What we have now is Nick the Griff going a bit soft as far as a hardline thug like Collett is concerned. He's letting the coloured people in and he's apologised for his Holocaust comments and admitted he was wrong.
Would Collett go as far as plotting to kill the Griff? Well, he's a thug, and sees the Griff as going soft, and can't win in any leadership contest, so yes he bloody well would is my conclusion. Whether he did or not, we'll have to wait and see but I do believe he would.
On the other hand, the UAF and Searchlight depend for their very existence on the BNP being run by a clone of Hitler. Nick the Griff softening his previous hardline stance does not sit well with them. They have to keep him evil because if he isn't more evil than Satan, they are out of a job.
At the same time, the Righteous have wedges tapped into crevices in the BNP. They have the reversal on the Holocaust and they now have a crack in the 'whites-only' rule. Since the BNP say they would reverse the smoking ban, they have to be subjugated into Righteousness and those wedges are the start of it.
Then we have the Griff himself. He is not stupid, despite what the UAF etc want us all to believe. He knows that the main weapon against him is his party's historic racism. So he would be happy to let the courts break his whites-only rule because he doesn't really need it any more, and because so many voters are not white these days. If he is going to get anywhere at all, he needs non-white votes. Mark Collett is a liability in every respect - thuggish, hardline, deeply racist and very definitely a Nazi reborn. Many of those initially swayed by the Griffin line would be repulsed by the Collett line. Getting rid of him would help, not hinder, the BNP's chances.
So, could the Griff have set up Collett to take this fall? He's smart enough to do it and smart enough to know that it would boost his party's chances. Did he? We'll probably never know.
Searchlight have jumped on this as proof that the 'non-violent' part of the Griffin rhetoric is a lie.
"Nick Griffin is constantly claiming he is the leader of a moderate, non-violent organisation," the Searchlight spokesman said. "It is difficult to see how he can square that assertion with his statement to the police that his own head of publicity has been plotting to kill him."
Is it difficult, Searchlight Spokesman Four of Seven? A party that claims non-violence finds that a senior member has been plotting violence and immediately expels him. None of the Labour 'well, we'll just have a bit of an inquiry to see whether we should put him on the naughty step for a while'. No, they find he has been up to bad stuff and not only is he out, he is straight in the hands of the police.
How many parties have reacted like that when they find their MPs, never mind their members, are involved in something seriously dodgy?
Searchlight are crowing, the Righteous think they can drive their wedges deeper, but this is PR gold for the BNP. And Nick the Griff knows it.
Could it all be a setup? Possibly, but who among those voters will even consider it? All they will see is that the main obstacle to them considering the BNP - Mark 'Seig heil' Collett - has been removed. They will also see that the BNP do not let their members hide behind the party when they are caught at something dodgy. No matter how senior they are - one strike and you're out. True or not, doesn't matter.
I still won't vote for you, Nick. You have too many policies I just don't like. I think, though, that this bit of news will bring a lot of votes your way if you play it right.
But then, don't forget those Righteous, Nick. They have their wedges in you and the nearer you get to an MP, the deeper they will try to drive them. Don't dismiss the Righteous as irrelevant.
They are far nastier than anything you have ever been accused of.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Sunday, 4 April 2010
War it is, then.
See that? You can't smoke in it. It has no intact windows, no electricity, partial floors and holes in the roof. If you smoke in it, you will be fined and so will whoever owns it. They'll be fined for allowing you to smoke in there even though they had no idea you were in there. Ignorance of the presence of a smoker is no excuse. The law is clear - if you own it, you are responsible for making sure nobody smokes in it.
To many of the rabid antismokers, that law makes perfect sense. These are the same people who consider smokers as unthinking, weak, inferior beasts. The same ones who are terrified of amounts of tobacco smoke so small, they are undetectable even to a sniffer dog. Those are the enemy, and they have waged war on smokers for years.
To date, we have responded with 'Okay, let them have a non-smoking carriage' and they took the whole train. We responded with 'Okay, we'll have smoking and nonsmoking areas, and even whole nonsmoking pubs' and they took every public space for themselves. They have now moved on to smoke-free outdoor areas starting, as always, with 'the cheeldren'. Banning smoking in play areas - no problem, few were smoking in there anyway - then extending the ban to entire parks and soon all outdoor areas where the feeble lungs of a nonsmoker might collapse if they so much as see a pack of cigarettes on display.
Now they are coming to your house.
We smokers have attempted compromise at every turn. We have not demanded all the pubs back, we have asked for some. We have asked for private smoker's clubs, staffed by smokers, but have been refused. The ban is total. No compromise at all. And we are called 'selfish'.
We are also called many other names, any of which, if applied to one of the government's pet groups, would get the name-caller arrested. We smokers are expected to shut up and get out of the way because we are inferior.
I say 'enough'.
The antismokers don't want any form of compromise at all. Okay, that's how they want it. We will not compromise. We must now demand every pub, every restaurant, every bus and every train, every last space available as a smoking area. The application of a 'No Smoking' sign in any premises must be treated as if it was a 'No Jews' sign.
If you are so scared of a little tube of paper filled with leaves, stay at home. Stay out of sight. Go outside if you want fresh air. Don't like it? Tough. We didn't like it either but nobody in government will listen to us and nobody is willing to allow us any space at all. Not even in our own homes.
We have weapons. We have second hand and third hand smoke, and now we have the Smoker Breath of Death. Yes, the idiots believe it. All we have to do is exhale at them and we don't even have to be smoking. Make use of those weapons, don't be shy, you and I know they are totally harmless but our enemy believes in them.
I've been considering how best to get the message across to the local chavs. Arguing with them won't work. They are deeply indoctrinated. Something simple, snappy and to the point. So here are a few prototypes.
I see no reason to pull punches. I see no reason to play fair. I see no reason not to use extreme scare tactics and I see no reason to restrict myself to proven, statistically analysed data. The enemy never have. They have crushed us with propaganda and we have tried to fight back with facts. Facts are useless against the spin and lies they use against us.
Labour. Tory. Lib Dem. SNP. Any party who regards the smoking ban as a 'done deal' will find something like this in the hands of their local constituents shortly. I'll have to dig out the appropriate pictures for those who don't have posters yet.
They will be handed around the pubs. Some ugly little guy will strike up a conversation while al-fresco smoking and say 'Hey, have you seen this?' - then hand over a printout. When they hand it back, he'll say 'Nah, you can keep it. I can print more'.
They will be left on buses and trains and in pubs and libraries and in fact, everywhere I go. They will be single sheets, multiple image leaflets and fridge magnets.
Will it make a difference? If I'm the only one doing it, no. I'll do it anyway. If there was even one person per town handing these out, especially in places where smokers congregate, then maybe there will be a noticeable dent in certain majorities.
These are prototypes. The more different ones there are the better. Kids will collect them and trade them and try to get the set. No compromise, remember, no conscience and no mercy. Our enemy has none and we will not win by being nice. Forget the 'cheeldren'. They will smoke or not smoke according to their own choices. Nothing we do can affect that. The enemy is making smoking far more attractive to children than we ever could anyway.
I'll have to think up more. I need a real killer line that will really slap those docile smokers awake. No long speech, they won't listen. One absolutely killer line.
Have a go here.
You don't need high quality printouts. It just needs to be clear whose face is on it, and it has to be legible. That's all. You don't need all that many. They'll get passed around. They'll get photocopied and scanned and reprinted.
A simple method, easily replicated, equally applicable to smoking, drinking, food... this is how they beat us down in the first place. Keep the methods simple and make them easy for untrained people to grasp. Use the Righteous methodology. It has worked throughout human history and it can work the other way too.
Remember. Offer no compromise at any stage. If you are tempted, remember what happened when we conceded one smoking carriage and think about where you can smoke on the railway system now. The Righteous methods only work when the user is unrelenting and uncompromising. One sign of weakness and you lose.
It sounds impossible. We are up against an enemy who is extremely well funded and who has the entire government on their side. Just remember where they get that funding. You are paying them to beat you up. Doesn't that annoy you at all?
We have a choice, as smokers. We can sit back and accept pariah status and complain about it or we can start to do something about it. We can come up with schemes, drop them and say 'Oh, it won't work, we're all doomed' and wait until the smoke inspectors enter our homes and we have CCTV in the garden.
Or we can try.
What's it gonna be then, eh?
Zippo!
I have several Zippo lighters. Including Cutter's Choice and Golden Virginia brass ones.
Soon I will have one of these.
Who says smokers have no sense of humour?
Soon I will have one of these.
Who says smokers have no sense of humour?
duuuuh.... (drool).
Smokers are stupid. A Study Done By People With No Vested Interest Honestly has proved it. A study in which the conclusion was certainly not forgone. Oh, heaven forbid the antismokers should stoop so low. Again.
The final scores, on average?
Smoker average IQ, 94
Nonsmoker average IQ, 101
A difference of seven points. If you've taken more than one IQ test, you'll know that your score can vary by far more than that even between days. It is not a precise test. Seven points is not a big difference and certainly not significant.
Besides:
Researchers in Israel took data from more than 20,000 healthy men before, during and after they spent time in the Israeli military.
Right. So joining the army carries no risk that needs to be assessed by an individual, but smoking does. If Israel has conscription, which seems likely since they are at perpetual war, then they have taken a normal healthy young man and put him into a situation where he can expect to be shot at. In that situation, is his assessment of the risk associated with smoking more likely to be determined by his IQ, or by the chance that he might be blown to bits tomorrow anyway?
IQ scores in a healthy population of young men fall between 84 and 116, but those who smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day averaged just 90 between them.
What? What? That is a healthy population of young dolts. A range that extends only up to 116 includes nobody who will be going on to become a doctor - I hope! I beat that when I was 16. And I am not a medic.
Look, you fuckers. We smokers know you don't like us, okay? We know you despise us and regard us as less than dogshit on your shoe. We know you think of us as subhuman freaks who should be carted off to camps and exterminated. We know we have no support among any of the main political groups. Even those who are incensed at attacks on other minority groups, even the members of those minority groups, regard smokers as a legitimate whipping boy.
Iain Dale is mightily incensed at Chris Grayling mentioning that owners of private premises should be allowed to choose what they allow on their premises. Iain Dale insists that his own minority group - gays - have rights that transcend the choices of private property owners. Read his article and you'll probably agree with it. Replace all the references to sexuality with references to smoking and see how it reads then. So some places don't let gay people do gay things inside. NO places let smokers smoke indoors. They are not allowed to allow it. They are not even allowed to allow smokers to smoke in an enclosed area outdoors even when no non-smokers are present. You want my sympathy, Iain? Forget it. Your party hates me, and you are happy to leave me legally ostracised while campaigning for yourself to be legally accepted.
In his piece on Labour's 'eighties' gaffe, Iain Dale has list after list of things that were better in the eighties. On no list do the words 'smoking allowed' appear. On no list will you find 'smokers not being continually shat on over and over again just to make some Righteous little prick enjoy a moment of smug self-satisfaction'.
Frank Davis puts it very clearly. You cannot expect the pariah to care when you, too, find yourself put upon. Especially not if you are among those who have been kicking us all along.
So am I stupid? Let me put it this way. I once looked at MENSA's website with a view to trying for membership. On the front page it said 'Did you know that only one in fifty are in the top two percent?'. Really. It said that. I thought 'These people are morons' and when I found out they expected me to pay to be let in, I thought 'No, I'm not stupid enough for that'. So now, you antismoking Nazis, you know what you are dealing with. Call me stupid. Underestimate me. Ignore me. Pretend I'm not there. It will make the next stage easier.
If you are black, female, gay, Asian, Muslim, anything, you are protected by law against discrimination. If you smoke, discrimination against you is enshrined in law. There is an election coming up and all the main parties support that discrimination. Every smoker must be made aware that the party they vote for might well be one that hates them, that regards them as filthy stupid vermin and wants them exterminated. Every smoker must be made to see this.
No compromise, no discussion. A total reversal of the smoking ban with a total elimination of all 'No smoking' signs from all public spaces. A legal requirement to allow smoking on private premises whether the owner likes it or not. Exactly the same rights as demanded by every other minority out there with no exceptions. Not one. Prosecution for refusal. There will be no permission to have 'non-smoking areas' anywhere at any time. Displaying a 'no smoking' sign will have the same penalty as displaying a 'no Gypsies' sign.
There is no evidence at all for harm caused by second hand smoke. It is lies.
The 'smoking causes cancer' meme, now that smokers have been invigorated into actually looking into it, is at best tenuous. Many things cause cancer. The smoking link is not as proven as it has been claimed.
Third hand smoke is a sick and stupid joke.
Now we are to be regarded as mentally deficient if we smoke. This is too much. We have put up with a hell of a lot here, we have put up with being banned everywhere, we have put up with being forced outside then being told we are costing money and polluting Righteous diesel-filled air by being outside, we have put up with fake coughs and snide remarks, we have even put up with businesses being allowed to say they will not employ smokers. Enough.
Smoker's groups like Freedom2Choose and Forest have been content to act on the defensive so far. It is time to go on the offensive.
No compromise. Those who oppose us offer none and accept none, so we should offer none either. A total acceptance of smoking enshrined in law is the only goal here. Total. No exceptions and no opt-outs. We are a minority, respect us or go to jail. It works for everyone else.
Fake coughing is hate crime. Snide remarks are hate speech. Claiming smokers are stupid defined only on the fact that they smoke is discrimination.
It's not just smokers, you know.
"People with lower IQs are not only prone to addictions such as smoking. These same people are more likely to have obesity, nutrition and narcotics issues.
If you drink, smoke, or are even the teeniest bit overweight, all three main parties hate you. They consider you too stupid to decide for yourself how you want to live. Are you really going to vote for someone who wants you dead?
If you live on a Labour sink estate and cope with it by dosing up on ex-legal highs or hemp or the starry powders or the booze or the fags, you are voting for a party that wants you eradicated.
If you are a Tory voter who enjoys a snort at the weekend, your party wants you exterminated. You are voting for your own transportation to the camps.
They will not stop with smokers, and nobody will help us because everyone who is not a smoker thinks like CAMRA - 'Oh, those are just the smokers. They won't come for me next'.
On one side, the Devil of government. On the other, the deep blue sea of denial.
Smokers, they will not stop and we can expect no help. We have to stop them. There is no point waiting for reinforcements. They are not coming.
Tomorrow I'll visit that Freedom2Choose forum again and see if I can't fire things up a little.
The final scores, on average?
Smoker average IQ, 94
Nonsmoker average IQ, 101
A difference of seven points. If you've taken more than one IQ test, you'll know that your score can vary by far more than that even between days. It is not a precise test. Seven points is not a big difference and certainly not significant.
Besides:
Researchers in Israel took data from more than 20,000 healthy men before, during and after they spent time in the Israeli military.
Right. So joining the army carries no risk that needs to be assessed by an individual, but smoking does. If Israel has conscription, which seems likely since they are at perpetual war, then they have taken a normal healthy young man and put him into a situation where he can expect to be shot at. In that situation, is his assessment of the risk associated with smoking more likely to be determined by his IQ, or by the chance that he might be blown to bits tomorrow anyway?
IQ scores in a healthy population of young men fall between 84 and 116, but those who smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day averaged just 90 between them.
What? What? That is a healthy population of young dolts. A range that extends only up to 116 includes nobody who will be going on to become a doctor - I hope! I beat that when I was 16. And I am not a medic.
Look, you fuckers. We smokers know you don't like us, okay? We know you despise us and regard us as less than dogshit on your shoe. We know you think of us as subhuman freaks who should be carted off to camps and exterminated. We know we have no support among any of the main political groups. Even those who are incensed at attacks on other minority groups, even the members of those minority groups, regard smokers as a legitimate whipping boy.
Iain Dale is mightily incensed at Chris Grayling mentioning that owners of private premises should be allowed to choose what they allow on their premises. Iain Dale insists that his own minority group - gays - have rights that transcend the choices of private property owners. Read his article and you'll probably agree with it. Replace all the references to sexuality with references to smoking and see how it reads then. So some places don't let gay people do gay things inside. NO places let smokers smoke indoors. They are not allowed to allow it. They are not even allowed to allow smokers to smoke in an enclosed area outdoors even when no non-smokers are present. You want my sympathy, Iain? Forget it. Your party hates me, and you are happy to leave me legally ostracised while campaigning for yourself to be legally accepted.
In his piece on Labour's 'eighties' gaffe, Iain Dale has list after list of things that were better in the eighties. On no list do the words 'smoking allowed' appear. On no list will you find 'smokers not being continually shat on over and over again just to make some Righteous little prick enjoy a moment of smug self-satisfaction'.
Frank Davis puts it very clearly. You cannot expect the pariah to care when you, too, find yourself put upon. Especially not if you are among those who have been kicking us all along.
So am I stupid? Let me put it this way. I once looked at MENSA's website with a view to trying for membership. On the front page it said 'Did you know that only one in fifty are in the top two percent?'. Really. It said that. I thought 'These people are morons' and when I found out they expected me to pay to be let in, I thought 'No, I'm not stupid enough for that'. So now, you antismoking Nazis, you know what you are dealing with. Call me stupid. Underestimate me. Ignore me. Pretend I'm not there. It will make the next stage easier.
If you are black, female, gay, Asian, Muslim, anything, you are protected by law against discrimination. If you smoke, discrimination against you is enshrined in law. There is an election coming up and all the main parties support that discrimination. Every smoker must be made aware that the party they vote for might well be one that hates them, that regards them as filthy stupid vermin and wants them exterminated. Every smoker must be made to see this.
No compromise, no discussion. A total reversal of the smoking ban with a total elimination of all 'No smoking' signs from all public spaces. A legal requirement to allow smoking on private premises whether the owner likes it or not. Exactly the same rights as demanded by every other minority out there with no exceptions. Not one. Prosecution for refusal. There will be no permission to have 'non-smoking areas' anywhere at any time. Displaying a 'no smoking' sign will have the same penalty as displaying a 'no Gypsies' sign.
There is no evidence at all for harm caused by second hand smoke. It is lies.
The 'smoking causes cancer' meme, now that smokers have been invigorated into actually looking into it, is at best tenuous. Many things cause cancer. The smoking link is not as proven as it has been claimed.
Third hand smoke is a sick and stupid joke.
Now we are to be regarded as mentally deficient if we smoke. This is too much. We have put up with a hell of a lot here, we have put up with being banned everywhere, we have put up with being forced outside then being told we are costing money and polluting Righteous diesel-filled air by being outside, we have put up with fake coughs and snide remarks, we have even put up with businesses being allowed to say they will not employ smokers. Enough.
Smoker's groups like Freedom2Choose and Forest have been content to act on the defensive so far. It is time to go on the offensive.
No compromise. Those who oppose us offer none and accept none, so we should offer none either. A total acceptance of smoking enshrined in law is the only goal here. Total. No exceptions and no opt-outs. We are a minority, respect us or go to jail. It works for everyone else.
Fake coughing is hate crime. Snide remarks are hate speech. Claiming smokers are stupid defined only on the fact that they smoke is discrimination.
It's not just smokers, you know.
"People with lower IQs are not only prone to addictions such as smoking. These same people are more likely to have obesity, nutrition and narcotics issues.
If you drink, smoke, or are even the teeniest bit overweight, all three main parties hate you. They consider you too stupid to decide for yourself how you want to live. Are you really going to vote for someone who wants you dead?
If you live on a Labour sink estate and cope with it by dosing up on ex-legal highs or hemp or the starry powders or the booze or the fags, you are voting for a party that wants you eradicated.
If you are a Tory voter who enjoys a snort at the weekend, your party wants you exterminated. You are voting for your own transportation to the camps.
They will not stop with smokers, and nobody will help us because everyone who is not a smoker thinks like CAMRA - 'Oh, those are just the smokers. They won't come for me next'.
On one side, the Devil of government. On the other, the deep blue sea of denial.
Smokers, they will not stop and we can expect no help. We have to stop them. There is no point waiting for reinforcements. They are not coming.
Tomorrow I'll visit that Freedom2Choose forum again and see if I can't fire things up a little.
The Luvvies and the Lesser Ones.
Visitors all safely tucked away for the night, traps set in case they decide to wander and all exterior doors and windows locked and wired up to the mains. Time to break out the Glenlivet and browse the news.
I see the BBC are in full 'luvvie' mode over the idea that they have to give airtime to The Lesser Ones after the Gorgon, the Cameroid and the other one have finished burbling nonsense at each other. They are particularly incensed at being required to give time to the BNP and UKIP. They seem undisturbed by the idea of giving time to the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru. No sign of any polarisation of interests there from the impartialish BBC.
Of course, it's all the fault of those evil bosses:
"The only result of this directive from Mark Byford and the rest of the overpaid detached senior management is that listeners will simply switch off in droves.
Actually I won't be switching on. Never do. I never watch the news in the morning because that's far too early to start drinking. I might watch it later on iPlayer but never first thing. It's best to enjoy at least part of the day before bumping back down to reality.
"The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."
I thought Nigel Farage stepped down as leader some time ago? But then, this is the flagship political show on the BBC. Surely they know what they're talking about.
How can their stomachs be turning? The BBC will interview murderers, rapists, and Labour MPs without turning a hair. Yet face them with someone whose ideas they don't like, and they're regurgitating breakfast before you can say 'Look out below!'
Setting up anyone who does not agree that East Germany was a good idea as some kind of right-wing loon is standard fare these days. Okay, I can see them getting all weepy at the BNP core policy on race but let's be honest here. The BNP are not going to win the election. They will do well because Labour will ensure they do well, and they might even get an MP or two, but Prime Monster Griffin? Not this time.
The BNP have legitimately-elected MEPs, and have not actually killed or even attacked anyone. I don't agree with their policies (they are pretty much old Labour policies apart from the race one, which is why 'exposing' their other policies to Labour voters only makes things worse) but if you're going to defend free speech, there's no halfway measure. As soon as you silence someone just because you don't like what they say, free speech is gone.
If you hear something on TV or radio you don't like, switch it off. If the Internet offends thee, cut thy connection. If someone is talking and you don't like what they are saying, move away. I've gone into pubs where karaoke was on the go, and left at once. I don't like karaoke. It does not occur to me to try to ban karaoke so that I can go into that pub in peace, I just go to another pub that doesn't have karaoke. The pub has the right to let its customers sound like a really dodgy pirate recording played through string and baked bean tins. I don't want to hear it so I go somewhere else. It's an inconvenience because I have to go further for a drink, but that's all it is. It won't harm me.
Likewise, if Nick Griffin is on the BBC and you don't want to hear him, either switch off or - if you want to hear the Green God Gospel or the Oily Fish or Evan 'Boyo' Evans or whatever he's called, turn the sound down until Nick the Griff is done. It's really not difficult. Silence won't kill you, although judging by the proliferation of little earphone things these days, many people think it will. I wonder how many can be convinced that someone coming into a room after being silent somewhere else will pass on deadly 'third hand silence' and give them cancer of the cochlea? Judging by this, quite a few (nabbed from Dick Puddlecote's latest link tank). It has just got to be worth a try.
So the BBC bosses have told the luvvies that they have to play with the unpopular kids as well as the Head Boy and his well-groomed mates. The luvvies are distraught, you can hear the handbags tearing from here, and they are likely to get even more upset as they realise their bosses are not going to back down. The impartiality of the BBC is already lying bloodied in the dust. The bosses want to revive it, or at least look as if they are trying. The luvvies want to kick it to death.
There is no reason for the BBC luvvies to feel sick at the thought of interviewing UKIP. Aside from the fact that they are heavily Conservative in their outlook. Left-wing bias? The BBC? Well, maybe just a little. Or maybe just a lot.
There is still a strong possibility of a Tory government at the election, especially now that Labour's propaganda machine seems to be on their side, and the bosses recognise it. The luvvies do not.
Only a month to go. Better check those CVs are up to date, luvvies.
I see the BBC are in full 'luvvie' mode over the idea that they have to give airtime to The Lesser Ones after the Gorgon, the Cameroid and the other one have finished burbling nonsense at each other. They are particularly incensed at being required to give time to the BNP and UKIP. They seem undisturbed by the idea of giving time to the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru. No sign of any polarisation of interests there from the impartialish BBC.
Of course, it's all the fault of those evil bosses:
"The only result of this directive from Mark Byford and the rest of the overpaid detached senior management is that listeners will simply switch off in droves.
Actually I won't be switching on. Never do. I never watch the news in the morning because that's far too early to start drinking. I might watch it later on iPlayer but never first thing. It's best to enjoy at least part of the day before bumping back down to reality.
"The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs."
I thought Nigel Farage stepped down as leader some time ago? But then, this is the flagship political show on the BBC. Surely they know what they're talking about.
How can their stomachs be turning? The BBC will interview murderers, rapists, and Labour MPs without turning a hair. Yet face them with someone whose ideas they don't like, and they're regurgitating breakfast before you can say 'Look out below!'
Setting up anyone who does not agree that East Germany was a good idea as some kind of right-wing loon is standard fare these days. Okay, I can see them getting all weepy at the BNP core policy on race but let's be honest here. The BNP are not going to win the election. They will do well because Labour will ensure they do well, and they might even get an MP or two, but Prime Monster Griffin? Not this time.
The BNP have legitimately-elected MEPs, and have not actually killed or even attacked anyone. I don't agree with their policies (they are pretty much old Labour policies apart from the race one, which is why 'exposing' their other policies to Labour voters only makes things worse) but if you're going to defend free speech, there's no halfway measure. As soon as you silence someone just because you don't like what they say, free speech is gone.
If you hear something on TV or radio you don't like, switch it off. If the Internet offends thee, cut thy connection. If someone is talking and you don't like what they are saying, move away. I've gone into pubs where karaoke was on the go, and left at once. I don't like karaoke. It does not occur to me to try to ban karaoke so that I can go into that pub in peace, I just go to another pub that doesn't have karaoke. The pub has the right to let its customers sound like a really dodgy pirate recording played through string and baked bean tins. I don't want to hear it so I go somewhere else. It's an inconvenience because I have to go further for a drink, but that's all it is. It won't harm me.
Likewise, if Nick Griffin is on the BBC and you don't want to hear him, either switch off or - if you want to hear the Green God Gospel or the Oily Fish or Evan 'Boyo' Evans or whatever he's called, turn the sound down until Nick the Griff is done. It's really not difficult. Silence won't kill you, although judging by the proliferation of little earphone things these days, many people think it will. I wonder how many can be convinced that someone coming into a room after being silent somewhere else will pass on deadly 'third hand silence' and give them cancer of the cochlea? Judging by this, quite a few (nabbed from Dick Puddlecote's latest link tank). It has just got to be worth a try.
So the BBC bosses have told the luvvies that they have to play with the unpopular kids as well as the Head Boy and his well-groomed mates. The luvvies are distraught, you can hear the handbags tearing from here, and they are likely to get even more upset as they realise their bosses are not going to back down. The impartiality of the BBC is already lying bloodied in the dust. The bosses want to revive it, or at least look as if they are trying. The luvvies want to kick it to death.
There is no reason for the BBC luvvies to feel sick at the thought of interviewing UKIP. Aside from the fact that they are heavily Conservative in their outlook. Left-wing bias? The BBC? Well, maybe just a little. Or maybe just a lot.
There is still a strong possibility of a Tory government at the election, especially now that Labour's propaganda machine seems to be on their side, and the bosses recognise it. The luvvies do not.
Only a month to go. Better check those CVs are up to date, luvvies.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
The Future is Past.
Labour think we'll all be scared of 'going back to the eighties'. My personal eighties weren't very good at all - it was in that decade that I hit Finance Zero for a period and I don't want to go back there. Looking at the bigger picture though, comparing the eighties to now, is something everyone who was alive then will be doing. Thanks for stirring those memories, Labour. That poster is effective but not in the way you wanted.
In the eighties, pensioners were disrespected by youth in the same way they are now, but when matters came to a head, the police would arrest the youth, not the pensioner. Pensioners could trust the police in the eighties. Now they are an easy source of target-filling.
In the eighties, nobody was arrested, fined, tagged and curfewed for selling a goldfish to anyone.
In the eighties, you could sit in the park on a sunny day with one bottle of beer and nobody minded. Heck, you could sit there and drink until your eyes melted and as long as you did it without bothering anyone else, nobody minded.
In the eighties, you could sit in a pub and smoke and nobody minded. Nobody died from it either. You could also sit in the beer garden of pubs that had them, have a beer and a smoke and nobody quivered in terror if a little bit of smoke drifted their way once in a while. Back then it was not actually illegal to smoke in a laboratory but it was rarely tolerated, because it just wasn't a sensible thing to do. It didn't need to be illegal.
Common rooms allowed smoking. I could take some work into the common room, draw graphs and smoke at the same time and there was never any question of 'smokers doing less work'. Now, we have to go outside to smoke and we're told that makes us slackers. Now we are looking forward to the time when we have to change our clothes to go outside and change out of our smoking clothes to come back in. No doubt we will face further 'you are costing us money' accusations as a result.
In the eighties, nobody was fined for having a baked bean tin in the paper bin nor for putting out their bin ten seconds too early, half an inch too far from the kerb or with the lid not quite hermetically sealed.
In the eighties, parents were not fined when their children threw bread to ducks.
In the eighties, CCTV was uncommon, and it didn't shout at you.
There is so much more to compare. Letters from a Tory has collected a handy reference list.
So if the Cameroid was really intending to take us back to the eighties, I have a feeling that the overall mood of the country would be 'Great!' Unfortunately, both for Labour's petty character-assassination campaigning and for the rest of us, the Cameroid promises nothing of the kind.
The Cameroid promises to reduce the size of government by adding to it, he promises further meddling in our everyday lives, more nannying, more rules and regulations, more prodnoses on the streets, tighter controls on all of us and most of all, he promises to listen to us no more effectively than the current goblin horde.
He is not going to take us back to the Eighties in any form. Not one.
If he did, my resolve not to vote for his party would waver. As would many others, I suspect. As Prodicus points out, the eighties were so bad that when they ended, it took another seven years for Labour to get elected and they only managed that by pretending not to be socialists.
So, a return to the eighties, selectively editing out the bad parts now that we know what they were, could be a very good thing indeed. For the Tories and for us.
How about it, Dave? Worth sparing a thought for, just for a moment? You can dispose of all those Labour petty laws and targets at a stroke, repeal all the silly bans - including the ones you pretend we like - and get rid of the target culture that has destroyed the police, the schools, the NHS and more.
As it is, Dave, you're starting to look more and more like a newer version of the same thing. You are a straight replacement, where you should be an upgrade. That's why you're not getting the votes that Labour are shedding faster than water from a cholera victim. People aren't going to drop Red Labour only to vote Blue Labour. We are looking for big changes and you are not promising them.
Ask the pensioners, smokers, drinkers, drivers and everyone else that Labour have criminalised.
Ask them if they think you're promising anything different.
It's very nice, but what's it for?
Banned left a comment on this post that set me thinking. And reminiscing.
My grandmother was a very practical woman. Well, both were really, they lived in an age where frippery and trinkets amounted to plaster ducks on the wall and fancy decorated teapots. Frippery and trinkets should be cheap and for the most part, are only there to show the neighbours that you once went somewhere and won something at the fair. Little models of Blackpool tower, things like that. I once had a platform ticket for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychyndrobwllllantisiliogogogoch (I haven't checked the spelling and I'm not going to) which cost pennies but impressed certain geeky friends immensely.
[Okay, if you're in your twenties, you'll be thinking 'Groan, the old guy is wittering again' but trust me, when you hit fifty (two more days) all the things you see now will come back to you. There is no such thing as 'progressive'. It's all a circle and it's not that big a circle either.]
Those trivia were cheap. Irrelevancies should be cheap. When I bought my first ZX-81 I remember my grandmother's thoughts on it. "Very nice. But what's it for?" If you remember the ZX-81 you'll know that's a really tough question even if you had the astounding 16 kilobyte memory expansion. Really, it didn't do all that much and the tape-deck loading and saving was slow and dodgy. It was a toy, not much more use than a pocket calculator and in fact less useful than the calculators you can now buy for under a tenner, but it put you in the 'Geek' bracket very nicely.
It wasn't seriously cheap but it was 'affordable' cheap, priced low enough for a geeky toy.
The comment Banned left concerned CCTV. We don't think of that as a trivial thing. It's watching us everywhere. Nests of them adorn the lampposts and pedestrian crossings and all manner of places in any city centre. In some places the operators can shout out of them. Some of the Aberdeen ones can do that. Invasion of privacy arguments can be countered with 'it's a public place' and with 'it helps solve crime' but as Banned pointed out, the poor imaging ability of these cameras mean that most of them are no use at all in solving anything.
They can, in many cases, prove nothing more than that a roughly human-shaped thing did something to another roughly human-shaped thing. In the dark they aren't as good as that.
Another item from Banned's comment was this:
They had been told that if they had been a few yards up the road they might have been filmed by the KFC cctvs which are "much better than the council ones".
Why are the KFC ones so much better? Individual businesses only buy a few cameras. Councils buy hundreds. Individual businesses buy a few good quality cameras to protect their businesses. Councils have a camera budget and want a certain number of cameras. What the cameras can do, well, that's important to the businesses but not to the councils. What's important to the councils is the number of cameras.
Those cameras are, for the most part, the council equivalent of plaster ducks and models of Blackpool tower. They are no use at all in fighting crime. Sure, there exist such things as face recognition cameras and infrared cameras and zoom lenses but they are expensive. Buying a city's worth would be prohibitive even for Labour budgetary madness. Councils rely on the same things as do those GATSO speed camera boxes, which don't all have cameras in them. They rely on the idea that nobody knows which is a good one and which is a dummy.
So what are they for? The sensible approach would be to buy top quality cameras for areas where crime is rife and dummy camera boxes for medium to low crime areas as a deterrent. The cameras are everywhere, in multiple groupings on every post you can see. Their pointless fuzzy images are watched by pointless people doing pointless jobs. There are no dummy boxes, and very few actually useful cameras.
They are trivia and frippery. Street furniture. Very expensive fripperies. So what are they for?
The only possible use for such expensive rubbish is to make you think you are being watched all the time, wherever you go. If you were wearing a latex mask, very few of those cameras could tell. They aren't there to stop crime. They are there to make sure you behave yourself.
I am sure they started out with the best of intentions. Just as those often-empty GATSO boxes were once intended to deter speeding rather than generate revenue, the useless CCTV cameras were once intended to deter crime. They did not. In fact, now that so many criminals have done just as they please in camera-covered areas and suffered no consequences, the cameras have been proven to be useless and the operators know it. They train them on bedroom windows and shout 'Move along' at people waiting for a bus because they know nothing important will ever interfere with their jobs.
The cameras will improve with time but the uptake of improved cameras will be slow. Councils don't need them now. They have us all under control with the junk cameras they already run. Camera evidence is immaterial when a council officer's word is already worth twice that of a council taxpayer's. Why would they upgrade those cameras? They serve their purpose.
They are trinkets. Plaster ducks on the lampposts in the street. Once billed as a deterrent to crime, they are now ostentatiously placed, as those neighbours once placed their Benidorm ashtrays, to impress and nothing more.
CCTV is there to impress upon us the superiority of those in charge. That is what it is for.
My grandmother was a very practical woman. Well, both were really, they lived in an age where frippery and trinkets amounted to plaster ducks on the wall and fancy decorated teapots. Frippery and trinkets should be cheap and for the most part, are only there to show the neighbours that you once went somewhere and won something at the fair. Little models of Blackpool tower, things like that. I once had a platform ticket for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychyndrobwllllantisiliogogogoch (I haven't checked the spelling and I'm not going to) which cost pennies but impressed certain geeky friends immensely.
[Okay, if you're in your twenties, you'll be thinking 'Groan, the old guy is wittering again' but trust me, when you hit fifty (two more days) all the things you see now will come back to you. There is no such thing as 'progressive'. It's all a circle and it's not that big a circle either.]
Those trivia were cheap. Irrelevancies should be cheap. When I bought my first ZX-81 I remember my grandmother's thoughts on it. "Very nice. But what's it for?" If you remember the ZX-81 you'll know that's a really tough question even if you had the astounding 16 kilobyte memory expansion. Really, it didn't do all that much and the tape-deck loading and saving was slow and dodgy. It was a toy, not much more use than a pocket calculator and in fact less useful than the calculators you can now buy for under a tenner, but it put you in the 'Geek' bracket very nicely.
It wasn't seriously cheap but it was 'affordable' cheap, priced low enough for a geeky toy.
The comment Banned left concerned CCTV. We don't think of that as a trivial thing. It's watching us everywhere. Nests of them adorn the lampposts and pedestrian crossings and all manner of places in any city centre. In some places the operators can shout out of them. Some of the Aberdeen ones can do that. Invasion of privacy arguments can be countered with 'it's a public place' and with 'it helps solve crime' but as Banned pointed out, the poor imaging ability of these cameras mean that most of them are no use at all in solving anything.
They can, in many cases, prove nothing more than that a roughly human-shaped thing did something to another roughly human-shaped thing. In the dark they aren't as good as that.
Another item from Banned's comment was this:
They had been told that if they had been a few yards up the road they might have been filmed by the KFC cctvs which are "much better than the council ones".
Why are the KFC ones so much better? Individual businesses only buy a few cameras. Councils buy hundreds. Individual businesses buy a few good quality cameras to protect their businesses. Councils have a camera budget and want a certain number of cameras. What the cameras can do, well, that's important to the businesses but not to the councils. What's important to the councils is the number of cameras.
Those cameras are, for the most part, the council equivalent of plaster ducks and models of Blackpool tower. They are no use at all in fighting crime. Sure, there exist such things as face recognition cameras and infrared cameras and zoom lenses but they are expensive. Buying a city's worth would be prohibitive even for Labour budgetary madness. Councils rely on the same things as do those GATSO speed camera boxes, which don't all have cameras in them. They rely on the idea that nobody knows which is a good one and which is a dummy.
So what are they for? The sensible approach would be to buy top quality cameras for areas where crime is rife and dummy camera boxes for medium to low crime areas as a deterrent. The cameras are everywhere, in multiple groupings on every post you can see. Their pointless fuzzy images are watched by pointless people doing pointless jobs. There are no dummy boxes, and very few actually useful cameras.
They are trivia and frippery. Street furniture. Very expensive fripperies. So what are they for?
The only possible use for such expensive rubbish is to make you think you are being watched all the time, wherever you go. If you were wearing a latex mask, very few of those cameras could tell. They aren't there to stop crime. They are there to make sure you behave yourself.
I am sure they started out with the best of intentions. Just as those often-empty GATSO boxes were once intended to deter speeding rather than generate revenue, the useless CCTV cameras were once intended to deter crime. They did not. In fact, now that so many criminals have done just as they please in camera-covered areas and suffered no consequences, the cameras have been proven to be useless and the operators know it. They train them on bedroom windows and shout 'Move along' at people waiting for a bus because they know nothing important will ever interfere with their jobs.
The cameras will improve with time but the uptake of improved cameras will be slow. Councils don't need them now. They have us all under control with the junk cameras they already run. Camera evidence is immaterial when a council officer's word is already worth twice that of a council taxpayer's. Why would they upgrade those cameras? They serve their purpose.
They are trinkets. Plaster ducks on the lampposts in the street. Once billed as a deterrent to crime, they are now ostentatiously placed, as those neighbours once placed their Benidorm ashtrays, to impress and nothing more.
CCTV is there to impress upon us the superiority of those in charge. That is what it is for.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Flyposting.
Not much from me tonight. Knackered, getting ready for visitors tomorrow and making sure everything that really has to be written is written before they get in the way. Everything is complete and just in time.
I did notice the Brown Gorgon has resurrected the 'Racist' shoutdown for anyone mentioning immigration. He hasn't yet realised that it stopped working a long time ago and only served to boost the BNP vote. So it's no wonder his MPSs aren't putting his name on their campaign literature. He's not campaigning for Labour. So, the trolls will no doubt be itching to visit here and here. Deep breath, and remember how it goes? That's it. 'Racist-Nazi-bigot'.
Today was April Fool's day and I was damned if I could spot the deliberate lunacy in among all the usual stuff. Pub Curmudgeon found one that I would never have taken to be a spoof. It's totally believable from this government. And the next one too. The one spotted by Mummylonglegs wasn't a spoof but just how is anyone to tell these days?
I mean, I even wondered about the Duck Separator from Firebox. Yes, it's a spoof but wouldn't you just love to have one at a duck pond? It would give the Stasi a nervous breakdown. Arrested for wrongful imprisonment of a duck. If there's not already a law against it, there will be tomorrow.
Well, that's it for the night. All the work is done so once those visitors go to sleep tomorrow, I'll be back.
I did notice the Brown Gorgon has resurrected the 'Racist' shoutdown for anyone mentioning immigration. He hasn't yet realised that it stopped working a long time ago and only served to boost the BNP vote. So it's no wonder his MPSs aren't putting his name on their campaign literature. He's not campaigning for Labour. So, the trolls will no doubt be itching to visit here and here. Deep breath, and remember how it goes? That's it. 'Racist-Nazi-bigot'.
Today was April Fool's day and I was damned if I could spot the deliberate lunacy in among all the usual stuff. Pub Curmudgeon found one that I would never have taken to be a spoof. It's totally believable from this government. And the next one too. The one spotted by Mummylonglegs wasn't a spoof but just how is anyone to tell these days?
I mean, I even wondered about the Duck Separator from Firebox. Yes, it's a spoof but wouldn't you just love to have one at a duck pond? It would give the Stasi a nervous breakdown. Arrested for wrongful imprisonment of a duck. If there's not already a law against it, there will be tomorrow.
Well, that's it for the night. All the work is done so once those visitors go to sleep tomorrow, I'll be back.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Theft and control.
"Yeah, like, any bugger can be Prime Monster these days, innit?. You don't need no brains or nuffin. You don't even need a motor, they give you one, and a house and food and booze and that and you can smoke in there an' all. If that saggy-faced git can do it, I can do it. I can be Prime Monster Chaveron, innit? But you can call me Dave. 'Cos it's me name, innit?"(Picture rehoused from here)
I have a 'dormant account' or two. One is an old savings account with less than twenty quid in it. The interest rate dropped below one percent about ten years ago and I stopped putting money in. One day it will reach twenty quid and I'll be able to get it out of the machine. Until then, I ignore it and also ignore the occasional statement saying it's gone up by a few pennies.
It's a trivial amount of money but it's my money and I would be just as incensed if it was stolen as I would if my main business account was raided. The Brown Gorgon once mentioned raiding 'dormant accounts' but I never thought to hear this:
Hundreds of millions of pounds of unclaimed assets from dormant accounts will be channelled into a "big society bank" to fund grassroots social entrepreneurs to deliver public services under a Tory government, David Cameron announced today.
The Tories are going to raid us and are going to set up a State-owned bank with that stolen money, even if Labour don't. What, exactly, is the point of voting Tory then?
The Cameroid also claims he wants a small state. To this end he says -
Outlining "incredibly ambitious" plans to reduce the role of the "big state", the Tory leader declared that the bank would help charity and voluntary groups that are "locked out" of the current system.
So to reduce the size of the State, he's going to increase the role of the State in creating and funding more fakecharities. What, exactly, is the point of voting Tory then?
A Conservative government would:
Create an army of 5,000 full-time professional community organisers – modelled on the work of Barack Obama in Chicago in the 1980s – who would encourage the creation of community groups involving every adult in Britain.
More meddlers and prodnoses. Five thousand of them. With control over every adult in Britain. Modelled on a Socialist idea. This is not something any Conservative government should even be thinking, never mind proposing. Dammit, Cameroid, you are not only going to be just as bad as the Gorgon, you are going to be worse.
There is absolutely no prospect of me voting Tory even if the local Labour candidate was on a dead heat and my vote would push them out. Why would I? There is no difference at all between them now.
Don't worry, I wouldn't vote Labour either. I'd have to cut off my hand afterwards before the contagion spread. Nor will I vote SNP or for those faceless people with the orange badges. I'd rather vote for the Pensioners for Jesus party (but I won't).
Theft and control have been hallmarks of the current government. The Cameroids propose to change that. Unfortunately they propose to change it for the worse.
More meddling, more control, more theft. All to counter the perception that the Tories are 'uncaring'.
I don't want the government to 'care' about me. I don't want them to even notice my existence.
I want them to leave me alone, to let me live my life the way I want to live it. Not force me to live in line with some mechanical lab-rat formula. Just get lost and leave me alone.
Labour have had thirteen years of 'caring' and look at what they've done. When the Cameroids propose even more of the same, is it any wonder their share of the polls is dwindling?
Dave - stop caring. Just promise to stop all the bans and the controls and the pathetic meddling in the minutiae of life and promise that once elected, we'll hardly hear about you for five years unless it's something that actually matters.
Do that and you might be surprised at the reaction.
Smile, you're on CCTV.
There was a spontaneous Smoky-Drinky this evening. Those are always the best ones. Since the wind is well above the local kilt safety limit and it's so cold the brass monkeys haven't even noticed yet, I wrapped up very well indeed. We have snow again, it's whiter than a BNP rally out there and it feels well below zero. So it was the peaked hat with the furry ear coverings, scarf over the nose, and gloves. You could just about see my eyes. CCTV would need a powerful zoom lens and iris recognition technology to identify me, and as they don't have my irises on record, that wouldn't work either. I was showing less flesh than any Muslim woman anywhere.
France has tried, and as far as I know is still trying, to ban the muslim women's veil. There is considerable support for such a move here too. I don't support it other than in banks and other places where masked people have done unsociable things in the past. On the street, in the park, in public spaces where a masked person poses no serious threat, I don't care. If you wear a cloth over your face, I'll avoid you and I won't speak to you because it makes me uncomfortable, but I would never support a total ban.
Not just because I'm a smoker and have a natural aversion to total bans, but for another reason. It was clear from the outset that the real target was not the Muslim veil. That was a convenient excuse, something the public could be persuaded to support. No, as Belgium makes clear in its moves to 'ban the veil', it's not the veil they are banning at all. It's this:
The home affairs committee of the Brussels federal parliament voted unanimously to ban the partial or total covering of faces in public places.
Not 'the veil'. Any partial or total covering of anyone's face in any public place.
My scarf, my furry hat with the peak, any hood or hat, anything that makes seeing who you are on CCTV more difficult. That's what they are in the process of banning.
Once it's done, we're all going to have blue noses all winter. For our own good.
France has tried, and as far as I know is still trying, to ban the muslim women's veil. There is considerable support for such a move here too. I don't support it other than in banks and other places where masked people have done unsociable things in the past. On the street, in the park, in public spaces where a masked person poses no serious threat, I don't care. If you wear a cloth over your face, I'll avoid you and I won't speak to you because it makes me uncomfortable, but I would never support a total ban.
Not just because I'm a smoker and have a natural aversion to total bans, but for another reason. It was clear from the outset that the real target was not the Muslim veil. That was a convenient excuse, something the public could be persuaded to support. No, as Belgium makes clear in its moves to 'ban the veil', it's not the veil they are banning at all. It's this:
The home affairs committee of the Brussels federal parliament voted unanimously to ban the partial or total covering of faces in public places.
Not 'the veil'. Any partial or total covering of anyone's face in any public place.
My scarf, my furry hat with the peak, any hood or hat, anything that makes seeing who you are on CCTV more difficult. That's what they are in the process of banning.
Once it's done, we're all going to have blue noses all winter. For our own good.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)