Over the last few weeks, there’s been a whole load of stuff talked about IS (AKA Islamic State, Isal, or ISIS) – both stuff about hostages held by IS (and the killing thereof) as well as politicians saying how people who go to fight for IS in Syria and the like are just Wrong.

Maybe I’m missing something, but surely if you don’t want people to go and fight for IS etc., there’s a few things that could be done ?

  1. Don’t keep feeding them the oxygen of publicity. The more they’re mentioned, the more they’re talked about and covered in the media, the more they’ll be seen as an attractive option by those of a certain persuasion / defective nature.
  2. If you feel they have to be publicised, you do the same as happened to the IRA, where no spokesman was allowed to be broadcast, any statement was done by an actor’s voice, so on and so forth.
  3. And make sure you don’t show anything but disgust for them. Fuck impartiality, allow presenters etc. to show what they think. Make it clear, say “The terrorist organisation IS has done this, but that’s the most we’ll say about it”.

If you take away the glamour of the organisation, stop feeding them airtime and headlines, they’ll stop being popular.

Of course, the other thing that can be done is to stop focussing on, and alienating, those sectors of the populace, making them feel that the country is against them.

As an example of that, I’ve a colleague who happens to have the surname Ahmed. He flies a lot for the company at the moment, and has been told – in no uncertain terms – “Oh, your name makes sure you’ll never be on the accelerated access programme to get back into the UK”.  That’s a completely law-abiding, tax-paying, UK-resident, UK-born person, who now feels more victimised than he has any right to.

But of course as a nation, we’re not letting terrorists win.  Riiiight.

Covering All Options

Is *anyone* really surprised at the news over the weekend that it’s “fairly likely” that allegations of paedophilia by famous people in the 70s and 80s were hidden and denied by politicians? I know I’m not surprised at all.

What did amuse me (or made me despair, I’m not quite certain which) was the quote explaining how documents had gone astray…

The Home Office’s 2013 review found 527 potentially relevant files which it had kept, but a further 114 were missing, destroyed or “not found”.

Well, “Missing, destroyed or ‘not found’” pretty much covers every eventuality, doesn’t it?

Away Again

And of course bear in mind, when I’m wanking on about reducing impact and so on, that I’m actually a hundred-and-odd miles away from home this weekend, and I’ve driven the whole way.

So yeah – trying to reduce the impact, and all that piss. And sometimes failing. But it’s worth it.

Saving The Planet

And yes, green eco-wankers who bleat on about how we’re “killing the planet” piss me off too.

The planet is [roughly] 4½ billion years old. It’s doing fine – and did so well before Homo Sapiens made its appearance, and will continue to do so well after we screw ourselves up and die out.

Whatever we do – even nuclear war – won’t destroy the planet. Sure, things might change (nuclear winter, global warming, whatever) but change is part of the planet’s life cycle. Ice ages, global tidal waves, mass extinction events. They’ve all happened before, and they’ll all happen again. The human race might be around to see them, it might not.

In typical human hubris, what we actually mean by “killing the planet” is “fucking up our chances for long-term survival”. Changing the environment won’t destroy the world, it’ll just kick off another evolutionary event, and knock our own race off the globe.

The planet itself will carry on regardless.

So fuck off telling me you’re saving the planet. You’re not – you’re actually taking part in an innately selfish human-centric piece of behaviour. That’s all.

Sweary Hypocrisy

I’ve found a new source of amusement – the “Parental Guides” for films on IMDB.

A perfect example is here, for the new Tom Cruise film “Oblivion

Why is it so amusing? For wondrous things like this…

bitch used 2 times bastard 1 time ass 4 times shit 6 times 1 use of fuck. Son-of-a-b***h is used once.

It’s the hypocrisy of it all – coupled with the tweeness.  In the example above, it’s OK to write bitch, bastard and fuck, but son-of-a-bitch gets asterisked out? Fuck me.


Yes, once again it’s that time of year.

The one where, after telling children all year that they shouldn’t talk to strangers, let along accept sweets etc. from strangers, it’s now acceptable – but only for one night (and the following weekend, of course) – to go knocking on doors and – um – accept sweets from strangers.

What could possibly go wrong?

I feel the same about Santa in the Festering Season – again, don’t talk to strangers, but oh, it’s ok this time because you’re talking to Santa and accepting presents. Hey, good move.


In short, ’tis the season to introduce your children to hypocrisy and double-standards. Enjoy.

Not guilty, yet guilty

[Disclaimer : I know fuck-all about football, and generally couldn’t care less]

I really, truly do not understand the Football Association (FA).

In today’s news, John Terry has been given a four-match suspension, and a £220,000 fine for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand during a match last year.  Fair enough, racial abuse is never right (even among footballers), and those doing these things should be punished.

Ah, but. In this case Terry had already been cleared back in July by Westminster Magistrate’s Court of the exact same offence.

So what I don’t understand is why someone can be cleared in a court of law, but punished by a player’s association?  Or have I missed something relevant?