The decline of freedom of speech in the UK

This is 19-year-old Adam Swelling, who after receiving a suspended sentence for assault went onto murder a father-of-3 Gary Lovewell. He was also apparently at the time on bail for other pending crimes. 

This 21-year-old, called Liam Stacy, who was jailed for 56 days for posting drunken racist tweets after the footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed during an English F.A Cup football match. He first tweeted “LOL fuck Muamaba!! He’s dead!!” and then continued a barrage of race-related insults at the footballer and outraged members of the public as his tweets circulated. 

Around the same time, another idiot, Amzhar Ahmed, 20, was arrested for saying that all British soldiers should go to hell for sending grossly offensive communication.

Whilst insulting someone because of their “race” or career choice is indeed deplorable, it is madness that people risk prosecution, even jailed, because of the language they use on social networks because they crossed cultural taboo or cracked an insensitive joke. Frankly, society already incarcerates enough non-violent criminals. The police were not acquainted with either of the two defendants mentioned, Liam Stacy and Amzhar Ahmed, therefore, we can safely assume that they were no real threat to society. The same cannot be unfortunately said for Adam Swelling, who is one amongst an ocean of repeat violent offenders currently causing crime waves up and down the country, which the police have no real answer for. 

Words are not going to determine the result of an attempted revival after cardiac arrest, nor will words alone blow an airport into smithereens. Sometimes, in a so-called free society, we will hear views, opinions and rants that we don’t agree with or like. An affront to common decency is not sufficient to overturn freedom of speech. 

One of the interesting aspects to internet posting is the anonymity users feel because of the spatial distance technology creates in relation to their verbal target. Consequently, the false security offered through the internet encourages people to articulate nonsense which they wouldn’t usually in a shared  physical domain. The internet revolution has greatly exposed how poor freedom of speech is protected in the UK in this respect since the police decided to take it seriously whilst highlighting how easy it is for the police to initiate an investigation because vaguely written legislation that suits the state and overly sensitive complainants. It is quite unfortunate, even ironic, that the Leverson inquiry would happen around the same time of this erosion of freedom because of the News of The World scandal. It is already known that the UK suffers from the worst defamation laws in the civilised world, which has led to the phenomena of ‘libel tourism.’ Essentially, wealthy litigants worldwide can silence their critics and enforce censorship through the London courts regardless of truth. If you are rich, powerful and dislike criticism the UK will cater for you with Saudi style censorship!

The disturbing trend in which the British police arrest or investigate people because of insensitive remarks on the grounds of it being a ‘hate crime’, or by invoking some other obscure communication law in the event of a complaint, is truly disturbing. Lord Sugar was investigated recently for posting a picture of a crying Chinese child captioned with “The kid is upset because he was told off for leaving the product line of a iPhone5.” Although no action was formally taken against him, it was laughably documented officially as a hate crime

As a linguist I wonder where exactly the line needs to be drawn and what will lead to police investigations tomorrow? And how far reaching should press regulation really be? The preface to George Orwell’s Animal Farm is: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Authoritarian regimes are well known for their airbrushing and selective management of a language via state intrusion. The Soviets were specialists at this and had agencies organised to maintain the standard of Russian being published. OK, so we aren’t quite there yet. Living in a democracy there will be no blanket authoritarian laws implemented like this, instead freedom of speech will be slowly whittled away. People will be funneled into conformity succumbing to whatever the latest euphemism is to not tread on toes, and police will act purely on the volume of complaints they received which is supported by the current laws.

In my opinion, the police in this country have become more ideologically motivated as they have slowly lost control of preventing tradition crimes through traditional means of patrolling. The government says every year that crime is dropping yet most people in reality feel less safe. Official crime statistics are likely dropping because the government recategorises crime and much minor crime now passes unreported. You only need to look at the number of sentences now containing diminished responsibility or manslaughter charges that impact murder statistics (...and vast medical advancements).

Surely there is a way of maturely opposing idiocy from the likes of Liam Stacy, or any other arsehole with a big mouth, without directly opposing freedom of speech? Judges should operate sentencing on the platform of the severity of the crime committed not act wholly on the levels of public offence caused. Such cases shouldn’t really even make it to the courtroom and need to be settled through common sense: open public dismissal and ridicule or allowing its quiet passing. However, this will not happen until various groups drop the ‘Freedom of speech BUT’ mentality.

Britain set to increase support for French military operations in Mali

David Cameron today confirmed that hundreds of British troops will be sent to Mali and neighbouring countries to aid in training exercises as Britain launches itself into a greater support role for French troops.  This is set to include 40 senior military advisors, 200 British soldiers and logistical support to combat Islamic militants.

“I said I wouldn't deploy boots, therefore not to betray my political demeanour I’ve done the exact opposite.  It is a training mission, not a combat mission so we can pretend we aren't involved yet,” the Prime Minister stressed. “The lead on this will clearly be taken by the French, who have the greatest interest in rapidly training up west African forces to replace the French forces that are currently in action in Mali," he said downplaying the British role.

The decision to reinforce the French military is controversial amidst military cuts and growing poverty at home from the continuing economic downturn.  Despite the negativity David Cameron remained upbeat, “We have the military capability and the capacity even in difficult times of austerity. The budgets have been planned in advance, therefore I’ve told the Defence Secretary to book tickets for the troops to arrive in Mali via Ryan Air. Also personnel have received written letters ordering them to bring their own combat clothes that are suitable for outdoor conditions.”

The Prime Minister rubbished parallels between the militants in Libya in 2011 Western powers supported and those currently subjugating Mali. “We have a moral obligation in upholding peace and democracy worldwide. The militants we aided in Libya to topple the brutish Gaddafi were freedom-loving zealots.  However, the Islamic militants in Mali the French are embroiled in fighting with are evil fundamentalists. There is clearly a big difference.”

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, reinforced the Prime Ministers position when questioned about the absence of a British military aircraft carrier during times of unease. “There is no chance of the government blindly putting personnel in irresponsible danger.  Rapid deployment of the Royal Navy’s latest rubber dingy has been mobilised to support military operations.”

French-led forces are continuing their operations against militants in the north of the country after seizing Timbuktu yesterday securing the vital airport. 

Hot Lesbians

Outside the local shop the following conversation ensued during barely-wanted eavesdropping:

“When we was passing town at the bus shelter, uhh, the other night,” said the baseball cap clad teenager.

“After Adam’s, was that?” Replied the second overgrown mass sitting on a child’s bicycle.

“….yeh, and there was these two men…. hugging!” replied the first.

“Hugging? That’s well gay, innit,” said the second.

 “Not natural them gays,” the teenager concurred. 

“I don’t mind those lessies though,” replied the second thoughtfully.

 “I love a lesbian, especially two for my cock,” both laughed in unison at the suggestion.

Business tends to market around the parameters of social acceptability of what sells.  Lesbian erotica has been tapped terrifically into the mainstream over the past decade; From the infamous Britney-Madonna smooches, to ‘Buffy The Vampire Slayer’, and ‘The L Word’.  Katie Perry’s ‘I Kissed a Girl’ became globally the largest selling single in 2008 selling 5 million copies.  It is difficult to envision the same merchandising effect if Robert Patterson staged a passionate kiss with Tom Cruise at the Golden Globes, although negative furore would furiously be invoked.  Undoubtedly lesbian relationships, at least those involving beautiful women, have become more favourable amongst modern society.

Heterosexual attitudes towards gay men and lesbians have also broadly shown to favour lesbians in national RDD surveys; 92% believed that a female-female relationship can be committed and loving, but only 71% believed male-male ones could be.  47.1% believed that lesbian couples should be allowed adoption rights, but only 33.3% for gay male couples.  The difference is quite horrifying when it is not an orientation issue but an individual one.

The U.S Department of Justice statistics in 2008 concluded that there were 9,691 victims of hate crimes in the United States reported to law enforcement agencies.  Analysis shows that involving sexuality:  57.5% were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias, whilst 11.6%were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.  It is noteworthy that this is only the reported surface.  To delve into the unreported: The Kaiser Family foundation carried out surveys in 2012, and found that gay men were much more likely to be the target of discrimination, men reported 82% compared to lesbians 62%.

This unequal bias is not restricted to ‘The West’.  Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, there have been over 4000 executions involving homosexuality, and none are known to be female.  Iranian judges can invoke ‘prior knowledge’ where legal loopholes allow criminal convictions on the basis of little or no evidence.  Homosexuality suffers large levels of state-sponsored funding in Africa, and is still outlawed in 38 Africa countries.  Many convictions lead to lengthy prison sentences, and in some countries (Nigeria particularly) the death penalty.  Other countries, such as Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Zimbabwe are either unclear on lesbian relationships or deliberately omit it from the penal code.  Although there are no official statistics available for Africa, the obvious conclusion is that it is men that generally suffer the brunt of state-discrimination.  

Why is there such a world-wide contrasting perception on this issue?

Naturally, it would be wrong to assume that lesbians always get an easier time on the abuse barometer than gay man. The deep-seated misconception of lascivious women innately needing a man for satisfaction (even with their orientation defies it) may be marketable in the West.  However, it has sprouted a uniquely female crime.  Ndumie Funda started a petition in 2011 to lobby the South African government to fight ‘corrective rapes’ on women.  This is a terminology that describes a heinous crime 520 women report suffering yearly in South Africa, one of the few African countries that liberalises homosexuality, often involving gang rape, on a women to ‘correct’ her. 

It is easy to conclude that because men are more sexually mobile cartoonish fantasies involving multiple female partners at once is of great interest.  Also the inaccurate image of all gay men as flamboyantly feminine mortifies the masculinity of some straight men (despite it being possible to adhere to masculine gender roles and be gay).  These stereotypes likely hold some degree of truth, but it is not an acceptable shut-shop settlement. 

The dictator Mugabe once described homosexuality as a foreign import describing them as "worse than dogs and pigs" and “un-African”.  On dissection this view ignores the history of homosexuality; human experiences are not time nor place confined.  It is probable that humanity originated in Africa, and that first homosexual relationship didn’t come long after this event in same area.  Homosexuality is equally spread from East to West, through black and white, and from believer and nonbeliever.  Much of the hard ‘anti-gay’ brigade, despite gay-rights also being exported from such countries now, stems from western countries that were adhering to archaic Abrahamic values.  Christian missionaries indoctrinated communities throughout the world by exposure to the Holy Scriptures (although Islam is now becoming rampant in those countries presently overwriting any recent progress with the same medieval manacles). 

Homosexuality has a colourful history and expression stretching from classical antiquity.  In ancient Greece mature older men acceptably indulged into intercrural relationships with younger men whilst coinciding in a traditional marital marriage.  It was celebrated in art and literature in China throughout the Song, Ming and Qing dynasties stretching over a thousand years without prejudice.  In Papua New Guinea, some tribes believed homosexuality to be an integral part of culture and viewed heterosexuality as sinful but necessary.  Despite Islam and Christianity persecuting homosexuals it has been wild and widespread but wordless.  

Relationships involving women with the same sex does not have this historical depth or at least the limelight.  Femininity is not whittled by same-sex affection. This is not to say such relationships and suffering did not happen, but was not overtly recognised on the radar.  Even within the passages of Leviticus 18:22 the emphasis is on men. This lack of emphasis (or omission) could be from scriptural piety and importantly the lack of anal penetration perceived in lesbian relationships.  Either way it has not been taken as seriously and the greater punishment is on the man. Indeed, women in many societies have been sexual subordinates and the rise such open expression is a modern phenomenon.  Men with men is on our perverse minds.  However, the lighter attitude towards lesbians now that is invoked to attention has trivialised it as a playful and sexy ratings booster.

The parallel paths of both same-sex relationships fork to the same cessation; clone organs promenaded to zero productivity.  Ultimately it is unwise to stipulate that either of these relationships are disadvantageous in fulfilment compared to their heterosexual counterparts and to argue so is ignoring historical occurrences again and again regardless of current societal values. 

 Anyway, I decided to rewrite Katie Perry’s song. I await the day this becomes number one. Meanwhile, we can laugh at our hypocrisy.  

I kissed a boy and I liked it (Katie Perry Remix)

This was never the way I planned,

 Not my intention.

 I got so brave, dick in hand,

 Lost my discretion.

 It's not what, I'm used to.

 Just wanna try pink on.

 I'm curious for you,

 Caught my attention.

I kissed a boy and I liked it

 The taste of his cherry chapstick

 I kissed a boy just to try it

 I hope my daddy don’t mind it

 It felt so wrong.

 It felt so right.

 Don't mean I'm in love tonight.

 I kissed a boy and I liked it,

 I liked it.

No, I don't even know your name,

AIDS don’t matter.

You're my experimental game,

 Just human nature.

It's not what,

Good priests do,

 But it’s how they like to behave.

 My head gets so confused,

 Hard to obey.

I kissed a boy and I liked it.

 The taste of his cherry chap stick.

 I kissed a boy just to try it.

 I hope my daddy don't mind it.

 It felt so wrong.

 It felt so right.

 Don't mean I'm in love tonight.

 I kissed a boy and I liked it,

 I liked it.

Us boys we are so magical.

 Soft touch, six packs, so kissable

 Hard to resist so touchable.

 Too good to deny it.

 Ain't no big deal, it's natural.

I kissed a boy and I liked it.

 The taste of his cherry chap stick.

 I kissed a boy just to try it.

 I hope my daddy don't mind it.

 It felt so wrong,

 It felt so right.

 Don't mean I'm in love tonight.

 I kissed a boy and I liked it

 I liked it.

Suez 2013?

 

The Suez Canal was built in 1869 cutting through Egypt linking the Mediterranean Sea with the Indian Ocean.  It was instantly of vital importance to Britain as it provided a rapid trade route to the eastern segment of the imperial empire. The canal has had an eventful history.  One notable moment was during the Russo-Japanese war in 1904, the Royal Navy halted Russian entry forcing them to travel around the entire continent allowing Japanese time to organise defences.  Later in the First World War the Ottoman Empire attempted to overtake it to subjugate the Allies supply route.  Similarly it was of important strategic significance during World War Two.  Britain always committed a lot of military might and resources in protecting this highway.

 In July 1957 the President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, decided to nationalise the Suez Canal blocking British access.  He wanted Egypt to be leading the Arab world and this was not possible with British influence still strong in the Middle East with the Baghdad Pact. Britain was angered and mobilised its military as it customarily did in the past to solve disputes.  There was also cooperation with Israel and France leading to the Suez Canal being secured.  Egypt was no match against the three powers and militaristically the operations were a success.

There was uproar in the international community and huge rifts were created between allies scrambling for influence in the Middle East.  The major superpowers the USSR and America diplomatically squabbled with Britain, France and Israel.  America was determined to find a ceasefire.  The Soviets threatened to send troops that would force US involvement leading to a new world war.  Both the Soviet Union and America at time were competing for arms deals with Egypt who was cleverly playing both along.  America also disliked the Baghdad Pact, finding common ground with Egypt, and had already opted for a closer relationship with Saudi Arabia.  India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand supported the military action (although they did not directly contribute) but many other countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and South Africa did not.  Syria and Saudi Arabia embargoed Britain.  Britain vetoed America at every opportunity and frustration escalated.

Uncle Sam had an ace hiding up his sleeve.  The Second World War was a war that Britain could simply not afford in outright monetary payments.  It led to the excessive indulgence in massive loans from America knowing it could never be paid back including the loss of strategically important bases.  The lend Lend-Lease Act was passed in 1941 amid Republican isolationist opposition and $31 billion of supplies were shipped.  At its highest point a quarter of munitions, aircraft and food Britain consumed were being bought on the American credit line.  Even more debt was then taken out in postwar rebuilding of around $3 billion. Remember these figures are not in todays terms. $1 billion would equate to over $40 billion today with inflation. The debt grew to stratospheric levels and the American government consequently had gargantuan reserves in sterling.  British debt to GDP staggered back to levels not seen since the Napoleonic wars.  Eisenhower threatened to sell off all their sterling if a ceasefire was not negotiated which would lead to the downfall of the pound.  Britain would not be able to import food or energy with this financial crisis and would collapse devalued and starving.  The effect was immediate and Britain caved in and signed a ceasefire soon after.  The fast cash needed to fight Hitler led to the manacles of debt enshrouding Britain; ultimately ensuring that she’d pay it back in due course, not just with added interest, but with manipulated policies.  The great economist John Maynard Keynes, despite negotiating much of the deals with America during the war, believed that moratorium of war debts should be granted to nations otherwise they risked subjugation.

The aftermath was disastrous and embarrassing.  Russia paraded the UN as the country that stood against imperialist powers and the bullying of smaller countries.  The British Prime Minister Eden was forced to resign.  The blinds came horribly down on the great imperial power without the faintest shimmer of goodbyes.  With her no longer being able to act on a global scale independently decolonisation was rapidly forced through leading to some countries collapsing into civil war or decades of dictatorships.  This is the true story of a conquering superpower that became reduced to a shackled subordinate.  Military power is irrelevant in the midst of suffocating debt leverage and it will send the mightiest army home disgraced in defeat.  

Can history repeat itself? American debt to GDP is now crawling over the important 100% mark. Britain's was roughly 180% in 1957. Chinese owned American debt is perpetually escalating to frightening levels where they impact America's bond market. Over a trillion since 2010 and rising.

According to data released from the Teasury Department China's holding in June of last year was $1.164 trillion. With some western economies still slowing and the debt crisis in Europe it is very like that Chinese holdings will further increase.

 

In 2012, a senior editor of 'The Peoples Mail', which is a state mouthpiece for the Communist party, ran an editorial that encouraged the government to use Chinese owned debt as a political weapon against America in its support of Taiwan.

“Now is the time for China to use its ‘financial weapon’to teach the U.S. a lesson if it moves forward with additional arms sales to the island democracy", he said. China did not act on this possibility and it was not in their current interest.  China and the US have contrasting philosophies; The former being astute with the impact on trade whilst the latter is a foreign policy menace. However, if major crisis occurs in the future where it is more advantageous for China to use bonds as a political weapon and to take a reputation hit; will we see another Suez Crisis? It seems ineveitable with China's growing economic dominance that they will want a larger voice in worldly affairs once established.

Guns

I was asked to pen my opinion of guns and the controversy across the Atlantic of ownership by an American friend.

In a free society a law abiding citizens that are mentally sound should have the right of ownership with appropriate background checks.  Gun ownership is a right and it is as simple as that.  However, it should not be elevated as the flagship of freedom.  Freedom is not measured in the amount of fire power one can accumulate and it is a juvenile thought. Frankly, there are more important freedoms than having the ability to blow someone’s brains out that are suffering erosion.  An example is government’s now holding people indefinitely without evidence under antiterrorism legislation and legalised spying.  Why does this not provoke the violent reaction one sees when debating guns?

America’s obsession with guns stems from a tradition in resisting state influence and the civil war; the right has become imbibed with yokle fantasies of one day overthrowing the American government.  Ultimately this has led to a Wild West environment from paranoid thoughts of dystopian molestation where even the deranged can become dangerously armed.  There is now statistically a gun for every American citizen and the firearms industry is worth $31 billion and climbing.  The firearms industry is strongly represented in congress and continually lobbies the government.  This has led to the purchase of guns being less intrusive than pharmaceuticals and there are greater restrictions in driving a car. Guns have not acclimatised to the rest of society and lag horribly behind.  Roughly 40% of firearms sold in America require no background check.  It is quite shocking.

Despite this overt firearms culture that has been established it is laughable to think that deviantic renegades with small-arms could ever topple the American government, police or military in a standoff.  You’d need surface to air missiles, cruise missiles and tanks to achieve such an objective against such powerful opposition.  Bills rifle will be no match against a professionally trained soldier in full body armour with air support.  The argument is medieval it belongs in the past with muskets and cannonballs.  It was shown recently in Egypt that passive resistance and combined voices in peaceful solidarity still trumps firearms in removing unwanted regimes.  Contrast this with Syria where armed citizens are still dying daily.  It is too easy for a government to justify violence in the face of violence. Gun sales rocketed at the inauguration of Obama and whenever there is a mass shooting.  This behaviour is a shockingly myopic cycle that ends in more deaths.  Credible change will come through the voting booth not the false sense of security in guns.

So, what about the argument of protection? Indeed, on a personal level guns can empower people and can be used to protect people and their families.  Holding a gun in your hand can make an individual feel immensely powerful.  However, these happenings are relatively infrequent and the risk of accidents, suicide and murder rockets when a firearm is in the vicinity.  This is particularly true of urban areas.  Being attacked at home still remains the most unlikely place to be attacked.  On a societal level overall more guns do not equate to less crime, it is factually impossible and overly simplifying the issue.  America has a murder rate higher than many developing countries, i.e. Yemen, India, Pakistan and even Niger.  Hammers, knives and neither the sword is the preferred murder weapon but guns.

That is not to say that the model here in the UK is perfect. We have very strict gun laws in place, in my opinion too strict.  The problem with greater restrictions is that it inevitably leads to law abiding citizens being infringed upon and loss of rights.  This is not desirable or fair. The 1997 handgun ban in the UK did not lead to less crime; gun crime involved these weapons is up tenfold in some urban areas.  It was a catastrophic misjudgement by the public.

America is too riddled with guns for blanket banning to take place, too many will ignore it and firearms can survive generations with little maintenance. People in the US take their second amendment seriously, and I respect that.  Here in Europe we  have a hideous habit of thinking problems can be solved by politicians weilding new laws and implementing bannings. Common-sense is needed before indulging into a festival of regulation and restrictions as some are doomed to fail; Forcibly removing guns will end in utter failure.  Universal background checks and more scrutiny is needed when purchasing . The banning of absurd gun shows where they are unscrupulously sold and sexed must be taken.  Metal detectors at all schools and public buildings.  Government campaigns to deglamourise firearms and perhaps amnesties of unwanted guns should take place.  Also consideration for rural folks where the practical application of guns is greater than urban areas needs addressing.  Politician's that support such moves need to take the initiative against the pro-gun lobby whilst the momentum is there. The NRA will resist any changes even reasonable ones and people need to stand up to their bullshit. 

Corrosively trenchant television

It is not controversial to state that good television is mostly dead.  It has evaporated and dried up. The biggest audiences for television programmes in our celebrity crazed society are ones with decayed acting, bad script writing and low production.  The fiendish format is called Reality TV and producers love it because it is copiously costless.  It’s a cringe-worthy cocktail of automated cameras and reckless rabble compounded with weeks of fraudulent phone-in voting.  You cannot escape drowning in the tidal wave of shit since it's smeared on every television channel and submerges all newsfeeds.  The only thoughtful element of these shows is product placement on stage for corporate advertising.  

Most of these shows appeal to the apish impulses: the vapid voyeurism, the seedy sex and front-page celebrity gossip.  Reality TV is pitched people who have nothing better to do in their lives apart from ponder the latest horse-testicle diet craze or discuss why Britney Spears cut off her left tit at the Grammy’s.

This expertly crafted-shit tainting our screens reaches a mythical summit as the contestants are deliberately confined into a cramped compartment amidst staged provocation.  The composition of these media monstrosities are largely the dregs of decency: sleazy celebrities, camp cross-dressers, pompous politicians, and the attention seeking afflicted coupled with fizzled has-been fools.   Controversy and ignorance naturally erupts and the producers are bestowed with weeks of shrill gossip from dogmatic drama causing heightened viewing ratings and multiplying millions into their bank accounts.

I have to wonder how far we have come as a civilised society when millions of people fry their minds watching hideous programmes like ‘The Fat Fuck Makeover: Brazilian Wax Special’ and ‘Make My Putrid Girlfriend Attractive’.  You will hear about it all week if slutty Sarah slips her melon tits out on a live show, whilst honest people committed to helping others and saving lives go largely unnoticed and uncelebrated.  Instant fame is being granted to the wholly undeserving and society has lost focus on what is really important.

I can’t think of a single reason not to imperialise and export these admirable values onto the remaining uncivilised savages worldwide, as ‘advanced’ nations have largely and successfully done, converting everyone in adopting this enlightened way of life.  

I decided to create my own reality TV formats.

My first Reality television programme is called 'Gay for a Month'.  Simply take heterosexual celebrity couples and parallel each sex into new homosexual relationships decided by prior public phone-in voting.  The challenge is ultimately to become gay.  Once the pairs are chosen and bound by civil partnership they will be transported to cottages in Devon where they can adjust to their new lifestyle change and joe public can watch them on camera for 24 hours a day.  Gay personal trainers will be coaching the contestants in the fine art of carpet munching and the use of the double-ended dildo amongst other gay activities.  The winning couple will be voted by a panel consisting of Elton John, George Michaels, Graham Norton and David Beckham.

My next Reality television series will be called ‘Smackhead Travel’. This is where we gather together fame seeking anti-drugs campaigner's and make them travel the world via cheap airline tickets.  The main challenge is to see what volume of illegal drugs they can shove up their arses inside condoms. Jamaican yardie personal trainers will teach the contestants techniques on how to bribe customs officials, avoid detection and resist arrest.  As this will be a programme tailored for all ages, a dog called ‘Sniffie’ will be brought into appeal to families and youngsters.  ‘Sniffie’ will be a highly trained police dog that attempts to detect our contestants on their travels. The spectacular finale will consist of the contestants pulling condoms out of their arse with their left-hand in the centre of Heathrow Airport Terminal 3, whilst taking a heated phone-call from a drug lord and simultaneously attempting to bribe customs officials all at once. The shows panel of judges will include Russell Brand and a group of rappers to conclude the most effective drugs pusher.

The 'special relationship'.

The Obama administration has warned the UK today of the dangers of repatriating powers back from the EU. "Referendums have often turned countries inwards”, a senior figure threatened.  It is likely that the long-term maintenance of the ‘special relationship’ the countries share equates to America needing a strong influence in Europe to push its agenda.  The conclusion, at least a rational one, is that all American administrations within the two-party dualopoly now view the UK as an auxiliary tool to leverage US interests around the world.  This today stretches beyond militarisation of the Middle East and foreign policy to internal affairs that should be settled by the basic right to vote without scaremongering.  The publicly voiced comment, in my opinion, is a thinly-veiled insinuation of divorce and devaluation. 

We need to establish the context of this ‘special relationship’, and whether such boorish bullying should lead to conscription?

The relationship stemmed from WW1, and was ignited again especially in the Washington treaties in the early twentieth century as an alternative to a revival of the Anglo-Japanese alliance for peace in the Pacific and East. However, it wasn’t until 1946 after WW2 that Sir Winston Churchill invoked the idea of a ‘special relationship’.  Since then the two countries have joined an unadulterated relationship in economic activity, trade, commerce, military planning, military operations, nuclear weapons technology and intelligence sharing.  The relationship is summed up handsomely by Margaret Thatcher’s first meeting with Ronald Reagan in 1981, ‘Your problems will be our problems and when you look for friends we shall be there.’ In more recent history it is well documented that Blair and Bush shared an especially close bond.

That isn’t to say there hasn't been floppy phallicity in the love affair.  The Egyptian ‘Suez Crisis’ in 1957 led to British and French armed cooperation in securing the Suez Canal, which was condemned world-wide including by America, that ultimately led to an embarrassing withdrawal and hard frosting.  Harold Wilson's refusal to enter Vietnam was also a recession in relations.  It is said that former President Clinton and Prime Minister John Major enjoyed a particularly poor relationship with both of them refusing to talk to each other during dining.

Upholding such emotional sentiment in a rapidly evolving world is a dangerous process of non-thinking that ignores the unhealthily imbalanced relationship of the present.  Formerly it was especially spectacular and needed because there has never been such close cooperation between superpowers.  European powers had spent a millennia previously squabbling and subjugating each other into submission. Britain’s decline has been reversely mirrored by American dominance. This has undoubtedly had a profound impact on the relationship. As your worldly voice diminishes, you tend to get drowned out.  This is exactly why the ‘special relationship’ and the obscene totality of it is utterly irrelevant and stupid.  From the connotations of ‘special’ it lulls us into something that we can no longer expect.  The UK cannot influence American policies like it did in the past and it is increasingly obvious.

Even as late as 1982 when Britain was still a major power Ronald Reagan attempted to divert an imminent British victory into a ceasefire the Falklands.  The Argentinian government at the time was a despotised military junta that was fighting Communism in South America.  They had attacked a British Island and wanted to remove the democratic rights of those living there.  Margaret Thatcher told Ronald Reagan: “This is the fight for democracy, and this is our Island.  I did not mobilise my country and lose some of my finest men and ships to fail now." There are many moments of justifiable criticism of Thatcher, but this was not one, her rebuttal of American meddling was simply stunning.  It would unlikely be repeated today.  You can compare this directly to the illegal and controversial 1983 American invasion of Grenada that was under commonwealth status.

But where has the ‘special relationship’ landed us today?  Under the UK-American agreed extradition treaty the US government can forcibly request any British citizen to be deported without evidence if they see fit.  The same does not apply for American citizens being deported to Britain as they undergo an internal case and evidence review.   Not to mention two costly and unpopular wars of complete ineptitude pushed through parliament regardless of low public support.  Five hundred service lives lost. Billions wasted. Thanks, friend.

The ‘special relationship’ is dead and the terminology of the past should be avoided at all costs.  It once linked two superpowers that cooperated economically, militaristically and politically in a balanced way.  Now it is whittled to sentiment and servitude.  Britain no longer has the booming bark it had, more accurately a subordinate squeak. Furthermore, countries do not have relationships, they have interests. 

Ultimately the special relationship, not suffered cardiac arrest since Suez, should finally face a final resting and be replaced by mutually beneficial pragmatism.

The Nature of Humanity

No need for writing today.

I hate Christmas

The Christmas tree is to be torn down today, I thought with a broad smile. Like most sensible people I despise Christmas.  Christmas used to project ritualistic seasonal celebrations before being robbed and mutilated vigorously and repeatedly over the centuries.  The concept of bringing greenery indoors to decorate certainly does not stem from Christianity. It is Pagan.

Traditionally it was once a time of peasants seeing the bright light to thaw the mid-winter snow, they were food filled and imbibed; hazy celebrations, divine inspirations and thoughtful reflection on the mystic solstice. No worries of lavish gifts, nor perpetual guilt trips. With little work in the bare fields the darkest days needed warming up.

These days? Business is always seeing an opportunity to plunder of course! Christmas now starts around Halloween as corporate commerce decides to carpet bomb us with advertising and persuasion.  It’s been morphed into a putrid celebration of consumer capitalism. Shops leap-frog into hyper-drive mode and the seasonal guilt-trip is thrown onto every weary parent’s shoulders.  Broke and low income families are forced into buying over-priced presents for shrieking greedy and insatiable kids.  Largely grotesque bits of plastic that will be discarded by early January as they amble for the fashionable, the latest, and the greatest justified in the name of Christmas.  But it’s Christmas you just have to!

Three million UK families will still be paying off this Christmas by the end of the year to drive the seasonal economy.  Remember it’s the thought that counts nothing else!  Coin in! Coin in! Send hundreds of cards to people who you don't know or can’t stand just to let them know you haven’t forgotten about them during this wonderful time of year.

It’s tradition you must join in!

Society sold itself out to the new spiritual enlightenment; obsessive, damaging and glutinous consumerism.

Create a lovely story, and then mutilate the meaning so everyone doesn't feel bad wasting all of their cash.

A Merry Capitalist Christmas to you all!

More lies from Cameron

The Tories will offer voters the likelihood of ‘real change’ with the UK’s stance inside the EU at the next election, Cameron has said today. This is the same politician who penned a ‘cast iron’ guarantee of a referendum in ‘The Sun’ if he were to ever become Prime Minister, back in 2007. That pledge has been unanimously broken. When popularity is waning the Tories often sing their favourite populist anti-EU mantra to croon voters back. Indeed Labour invoked exactly the same sentiment in their manifesto in 1997. Only in the filthy gutter of mainstream politics can you express a contortedly phony prospectus and profit handsomely with little ramifications. In business you’d likely be jailed for fraud. Politician’s make a career out of being competent liars, tricksters and scoundrels. And that is some of their better qualities. They embark on their careers fresh out of university becoming researchers with no experience of anything. A vast majority of them study Law or P.P.E (Politics, Philosophy & Economics) that are notorious for their subjective argumenta. No longer are our countries leaders from backgrounds in Mathematics or Science that seek truth and reason. Nor are there successful business leaders to promote and oversee fiscal discipline and budget responsibility.   The days of electing MP's that have served their country proving loyalty and integrity have perished. Instead, they have been gradually replaced by career politician’s that will sacrifice deep-seated principles for cyclopean pensions.