Usefully Useless

Alright, Australia, just what the hell is wrong with you? Something bad in the water down there? I’ve been covering your shenanigans on this blog and they’re getting more and more surreal.

One such surrealist, a certain Pauline Hanson, set her political career all about anti-immigration with her party One Nation. Like certain elements over here, she claimed it wasn’t at all racist.

Let that be forever buried: She’s becoming an immigrant herself! Why? Why doesn’t it count when she’s the immigrant? Apparently because she’s white.

And that’s not racist.

Pauline, my dear, can you pick somewhere other than Britain to bring your pathetic immigrant arse? We’re getting about full of racist pondlife, we plain don’t have enough ponds. I hear Siberia is nice at this time of year.

Australians, what the hell is wrong with you people? Is this some elaborate scheme to prove that you’re incapable of self-rule so we’ll take you back?

Answer? They’re all repressive power-mad regimes and they all want to censor Google. Wait, Australia?

Oh yes. Australia continues to hurtle along the line of a government approved Internet only. Clueless Communications Minister Stephen Conroy wants mandatory ISP censorship of any content ‘refused classification’ by the government and recently set his sights on dissenters on YouTube.

Wanting Google to filter YouTube of any comments critical to the rulers, Conroy stated in the state-filtered media “Google at the moment filters an enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese government,” moments after trying to justify it with “in Australia, these are our laws and we’d like you to apply our laws” where it’s clear that Conroy admires the Great Firewall of China and wants to build his own Great Internet Barrier Reef.

Google, naturally, told the repressive regime to go screw itself. Conroy’s comments come just days after Google’s spat with the Chinese authorities and Google’s decision to stop self-censorship in China.

The idea is that the Australian govermnent wants to block anything it doesn’t like the smell of using the Australian movie, video games and entertainment ratings board. If the government gives out a “Refused Classification” notice, said content disappears from the Internet.

Australia, you are a tiny economy and a negligible player on the world stage – Any prestige you may have was inherited from us. If you want a policy of isolation, don’t be surprised when people treat you as the totalitarian hell hole without respect for basic human rights that you are. You’re already facing huge skills shortages and let’s face it, a land which is variously deadly venomous or on fire isn’t an attractive target for skilled workers. Adding a power-obsessed regime into the mix makes it not just unattractive, but a place to avoid.

Ever watched Mad Max (Road Warrior in some territories), the Mel Gibson-led movie set in Australia which won pretty much every award around? Three Kings, a glorious drama with George Clooney? What about Fight Club, the meme-spawning classic with Brad Pitt? How about Bruno, Cohen’s latest comic masterpiece? What about Blade Runner, Ridley Scott’s glorious sci-fi adventure?

You have? You’ve actually seen one of these forbidden films?

Congratulations, you’re a vile fetishist and a danger to society. According to Australian lawmakers, in a law passed to cover “violent pornographic fetishism” and to “protect children”, any movie with an R18+ rating (BBFC 18 here) cannot be promoted, advertised or displayed. Such movies must be displayed in “plain packaging”, which is defined as a blank cover with merely the name of the movie displayed.

Organisations such as the Labour Party (who have already banned “violent pornography” with a wonderfully broad definition which means the Sharon Stone movie “Basic Instinct” is now technically illegal), Conservative Party and Internet Watch Foundation seek to bring such laws to the UK. Should we support them?

Up in Scotland, the Scottish National Party has been in control of a minority government for a while now, a great laboratory for us to examine how well a populist party does when in power.

The Scottish First Minister had promised school class sizes of 18 or less and free school meals for the first three years of primary school. He also introduced a programme of non-essential medical procedures and screenings, against the advice of senior medical officers.

Populist stuff, basically. Telling the people what they want to hear without regard for how achievable or realistic it may or may not be.

The SNP government has failed to meet both commitments on education and managed to create a £100 million shortfall in health funding, and now blames the financial crisis for it. However, as far back as July 2007 (when the economy was booming), officials were on record stating that the manifesto was unrealistic and not affordable.

Democracy, sadly, is a means and method by which the people get the government they deserve. The Scottish people voted SNP in and now they’re getting what they deserve. When a single-issue bunch of incompetent whiners gets into power, is there any wonder the government they create is so bad?

Hard-line extremism seems to be everywhere. Stop them talking about who’s god is bigger than who else’s, and you’ll find the BNP and Iran have a lot to agree on. Far-right extremist parties are popping up all over the place, typically playing on the hyped-up “Islamisation” card to convince people that doing as the Muslims do is a good thing, sacrificing your own freedom for some “greater good”. It doesn’t make much sense when put like that, does it?

The latest band of gullible idiots comes to you from Switzerland. Newcomers to the extremist brigade, the Swiss have recently decided that they’re going to ban minarets. Yes, you read me right, minarets. So much for the Swiss’ muchly bragged about “direct democracy” protecting the rights of the people, how can it protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority?

The Swiss apparently agree with Iran that banning the construction of religious buildings they don’t like is the way forward. As Iran doesn’t permit the construction of Christian churches, the Swiss believe the Muslims are worth copying, so have pretty much banned the construction of Mosques.

Here’s a hint, you idiots, if you want to fight something you don’t generally accept and copy their beliefs!

So while Europe seems to be busy converting to extremism, is there really any need for external threats like the Taleban anymore? We’re quite capable of destroying ourselves, thankyou very much.

It’s just before dawn and you’re getting out of bed, ready to shower, make breakfast and go to work.

Just then, government forces with submachine guns break down your door and forcibly bundle you into a vehicle with blacked out windows. You’re taken to jail on suspicion of a crime – They think you’re a subversive, you might believe things the government says you’re not allowed to, but you’re not allowed to know what.

You’re denied bail and you still don’t know what it is you’re supposed to have done. The government considers the evidence to be secret, such that you can’t see it. Your access to a lawyer is only a few minutes a week, even if he was able to prepare a defence for you, which he’s not allowed to do.

Which country are you in? Iran? Zimbabwe? Maybe Orwell’s fictional 1984 dystopia?

No, you’re in Britain. Manchester, to be specific.

It took senior judges to point out the clear injustice and absurdity of what happened when, to two men from Manchester, this ostensibly western government turned on them.

Let’s hope this abortion never, ever becomes law. This is the Government’s beleagured response to entertainment industry lobbying. I’ll go through it point by point.

Without any evidence, without any trial, without any proof, you can be disconnected from the Internet if anyone from the entertainment industry complains.
All it takes is an accusation and it only applies to music or movies. Not photographs, not paintings, not poetry, not opera, dance, novels, etc. If you manage to accumulate three of these special accusations, you’re cut off from the Internet pretty much forever – Without any form of trial or proof. Oh, did I say “you”? I meant “anyone in your household”.

Your Internet Service Provider is legally mandated to spy on you.
Any “evidence” the movie or music industries can use to sue you, or anyone in your household, your ISP is legally obliged to collect it. This basically means they have to monitor everything and anything you do online, or they’ll be fined £250,000 per instance. Then you’ll be fined £50,000, as well as being cut off for life.

The Business Secretary gets arbitrary power to do whatever the hell he likes
This includes making up new offences, setting new penalties including jail time…and better yet, the Business Secretary (one Peter Mandelson) has stated that he’ll use private enforcers provided by the entertainment industry who will have the legal right to hack into your computer(s).

Video games will get a strict new censorship regime
This means that many titles will not be able to be sold in the UK. Rather than use the popular (it’s used across Europe) and successful PEGI system or even renovating the existing BBFC standard, they’re inventing a completely new system which appears to be among the harshest in the world.

Digital Economy?
There’s no mention of anything remotely to do with the “digital economy” other than a mandate for Ofcom to review infrastructure every two years and a 50p/month stealth tax on telephone line rental. That’s really it. No addressing of our decidedly mediocre broadband performance. No dealing with astronomically high mobile data charges.

So will it pass? Very, very unlikely. The Tories have already opposed it and the Liberal Democrats are very likely to reject it.

We’re seeing quite a lot of this in the news, but we haven’t had one recently. So what exactly is it?

To start off we need some General Election results, so I’ll use an Ipsos Mori poll, which gives 37% to the Tories, 31% to Labour and 17% to the Lib Dems. Assuming next year’s election has the same result, this would result in a hung parliament.

When parliament is “hung”, it means there is no government. A government is whichever party has control over the House of Commons and at 37%, the Tories would not have control: They could be defeated by the combined 48% of Labour and the Lib Dems.

After an election, the Queen asks the leader of the controlling party to form a government, yet no party would be in control and hence the electoral process is “hung”, it cannot proceed. By “in control”, it’s meant that a single party could unilaterally introduce and pass legislation.

The last time this happened was in 1974, where a re-election happened again in the same year. There are usually three options:

1. A coalition government can be formed. On the continent, this tends to be the norm. Two (or more) parties will agree to work together to form a majority government, subject to certain concessions. If our 2010 election is hung, the balance of power lies in the Liberal Democrats – Whoever they form a coalition with will be the government.

2. A re-election can be issued. There are no guarantees that such an election would result in a clear majority, but they often do.

3. A minority government can be formed. This is the weakest option, as the government would not have control of the House and so could be defeated at any time and an election forced. A minority government is usually the party which has more representation than any other single party, but if the opposition parties were to band together, they could defeat the incumbent, something not possible in a majority government. A minority government can have severe problems passing crucual legislation, such as The Budget and will often have to make serious concessions in order to pass such legislation.

In all likelihood, the Conservatives will win the election outright and Brown will be probably resign as Labour leader but if they don’t, then whoever Nick Clegg decides to work with will be the key question being asked.

After a lunatic who should never have been given a licence in the first place shot up a school (Hamilton, Dunblane), the knee-jerk political reaction was to ban handguns and further tighten firearm laws.

It’s resulted in this. A former soldier is now faced with 5 years in jail for handing a shotgun, which he found laying around outside, handing it in to the police.

The police immediately arrested him for possessing an unlicenced firearm and the judge has no option: The law is very clear that ANYONE, regardless of intent, holding a firearm is guilty with a minimum sentence of five years.

This man served his country as a soldier, then tried to serve his country again as a good citizen. Then they locked him up for no good reason. The Government wants to get firearms off the streets, so why is it that if you hand one in to the police, you’re guilty of a crime carrying a minimum term of five years?

We need a Government able to make laws which do not carry harsh, knee-jerk sentences in emotionally charged times. We do not have one. It’s time for democracy to work for the people rather than against them.

Two more members of the ACMD have resigned over political interference in the scientific process. Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, is increasingly in an ever more beleagured position after his blundering reaction to Prof. Nutt has disturbed a hornet’s nest.

But that’s not why this post is here. This post is for the most hilarious, backwards, reality-denying piece of “journalism” I’ve ever read. Yes, it’s the Daily Mail.

Go on, read it.

It essentially boils down to “The problem with science is that it’s based on facts”.

At no point does the Daily Mail tell us why we shouldn’t trust facts, indeed about half way down it Godwins itself by pointing out that the Nazis used facts too.

So then, Daily Mail, if we are not to use facts, then what are we to use? Hunches? Wild guesses? Chicken entrails?

Do people really fall for this blatant propoganda?