Politicians | Anorak

Politicians Category

Politicans and world leaders making news and in the news, and spouting hot air

Stormy Daniels will reveal all about her candlelit romance with Trump if he returns $130,000 hush money

You know how it goes: you shag the billionaire and take his hush money. Then the billionaire becomes president of the US of And you realise you undervalued your services. And so it is that adult film star Stormy Daniels says she not longer wants the $130,000 she claims Donald Trump paid her to remain tight lipped about their affair. She thinks it best that she return the cash and place her story on the public record.


Stormy Daniels

Hush ‘n’ tell


Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford, has laid out her plan in a letter to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. She has set a deadline of Friday for the return of the cash. She will then be at liberty to “speak openly and freely about her prior relationship with the president and the attempts to silence her and use and publish and text messages, photos and videos relating to the president that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution or legal liability.”

“This has never been about the money,” Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told NBC New. It’s the principle, right? “It has always been about Ms. Clifford being allowed to tell the truth. The American people should be permitted to judge for themselves who is shooting straight with them and who is misleading them. Our offer seeks to allow this to happen.”


Generous it is, indeed. And should Trump fall into a a trap marked ‘TRAP’ with huge arrow pointing at it, we can all marvel at how a man who outlined his mating ritual as “Grab her by the pussy” really treats women he fancies.

You can read Daniels’ letter in full here.


Posted: 13th, March 2018 | In: Celebrities, Money, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Trump voters least likely to stomach smell of other people

“Get a life in which you notice the smell of salt water pushing itself on a breeze over the dunes,” said Anna Quindlen in her Short Guide to a Happy Life. In a shorter guide: if you want to smell the linen and Alpine air, avoid Lefties. They stink and don’t much mind.

Jonas Olofsson at Stockholm University, Sweden, has linked a person’s response to smell to their politics. The less tolerant you are of another’s person’s stench, the further to the right you veer. Your attitude to personal hygiene can influence which political crowd you run with.

A test group of volunteers responded to questions about how revolting they found exposure to someone else’s sweat, the urine, faeces and more. Paired with responses to such statements as “Our country needs a powerful leader, in order to destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing in society today”, Olofsson noticed that respondents most disgusted by other people’s smells tended to score more highly for authoritarian views. “Those that were most supportive of Donald Trump had the highest body odour disgust sensitivity,” says Olofsson. “People who react strongly to odours might claim to have a sensitive nose, but when we test them, they are average.”

Adding: “We think that olfaction might be at the root of the pathogen detection system, so body odour disgust might be the most primitive, most fundamental way to detect pathogen.”

The study, which can be read in full here, speaks of Trump:

Only a few studies have investigated the relationship between disgust sensitivity and voting preferences. In Study 3, we found positive evidence in favour of a weak relationship between disgust sensitivity to body odours and attitudes toward the Republican candidate Donald Trump. Importantly, this relationship is fully explained by authoritarian attitudes which were stronger among participants supporting Trump, a result that confirms the notion that in our study sample, Donald Trump was capable of attracting the sympathies of authoritarian voters.

Anyone else see a line of Trump-endorsed scent-free perfumes?

In fact, it can be argued that Trump’s firm stance against immigration, especially from groups viewed as culturally unfamiliar, might meet an implicit need of protection from pathogen threats from people perceived as either potential carriers of unfamiliar pathogens, or groups whose behaviours in disease-avoidance relevant behaviours (e.g. hygiene or food preparation) was perceived as deviant. Our findings suggest that high reactivity to pathogen threats signalled by body odours is part of an ideological disposition towards authoritarian candidates, because of the link between disease avoidance and authoritarianism.

Build a wall and stick some fans on the top of it. An ill wind blows…

Posted: 1st, March 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

North Korean leaders travelled the world on Brazilian passports

If you think the North Korean leader’s hair is an area of special scientific interest, you should see his bikini line. Reuters says Kim Jong-un and his dad, former North Korean Number 1 Kim Jong Il, each owned a Brazilian passport.

Everyone needs a break from the killing, torture and that oh-so tiresome issuing of most terrible threats. And the Kims are mostly human (source: CNN@WinterOlympics). So they used illegal documents to jet about the globe, selflessly exposing themselves to the horrors of plentiful food, back rubs and horrific US-sponsored imperialism. And, yes, I fear that includes a Brazilian.



Apparently, Jong Un was listed on one passport as Josef Pwag. Educated at an international school in Berne, Switzerland, where “he pretended to be the son of an embassy chauffeur”, Jong Un’s birthplace is given as Sao Paulo, Brazil. Big Kim was called Ijong Tchoi.



We don’t know where the Kims went, nor if they ever spent a busman’s weekend in East Glasgow. And we can’t know for certain why the Kims chose to play at being Brazilian, over, say, South Korean or German. Maybe it’s because Brazil has a rich history in giving sanctuary to murderous foreign loons (see Germans).

Anyhow, if you’ve any beach shots of the Kims getting waxed off, keep them to yourself and your nightmares.

Posted: 28th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jeremy Corbyn’s goes full Blair: for the EU not the many

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tilted his head and told us that the Labour Party will seek a customs union with the European Union. Total balls, of course. The European Union won’t go for it. To keep the country trading in cahoots with the EU stomps on the votes of 17.4 millions of us who got off our arses and voted for Brexit. But the EU won’t have an independent UK negotiating trade deals with them as equals.

Corbyn knows it’s nonsense, of course. This is all about him getting into power. If you still sue for Remain, then a vote for Corbyn is being presented as your best chance of securing it. The working class who voted Leave are getting stuffed. But with a Tory Party mired, who else do they vote for?

Meanwhile, Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) offers an insight into how the media Corbyn seeks to gag will behave and be treated under his government:

This just happened at a Jeremy Corbyn speech Q&A:
Rebecca Long-Bailey (ignoring multiple journalists’ raised hands): “Do we have any questions from non-journalists?”
Activist: “I want to say, please will you hurry up and be our Prime Minister”.

Maybe that’s the way to go: just abandon the established Press and go with citizen journalism and twitter? Everyone with an opinion and a social media account could sign up to Max Mosley’s state-approved regulator? Labour want it so that news organisations that don’t sign up to a the State’s regulator will have to pay all the costs of libel and privacy cases even if they win. Yeah, even if you lose, you win. It’s a Remainer’s paradise.

Posted: 26th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Donald Trump channels Archie Bunker on gun control


Donald Trump surveys the death at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, hears the laments of the grief stricken and then tells everyone it’d be good idea to bring more guns into school. You let the teachers have them. “You give them a little bit of a bonus, so practically for free, you have now made the school into a hardened target.”

More guns equals less crime, then?  No:

The notion [that more guns mean less crime] stems from a paper published in 1997 by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who looked at county-level crime data from 1977 to 1992 and concluded that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Of course, the study of gun crime has advanced significantly since then (no thanks to Congress). Some researchers have gone so far as to call Lott and Mustard’s original study “completely discredited.” …

Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard’s original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.

“The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates” of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011, which includes the 11,000 or so gun-related homicides.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey 2011, 467,321 people were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011, including the 11,000 or so gun-related homicides. Guns are pretty good at threatening people. Bang. Bang. You’re dead.

In 2010 the FBI recorded 12,996 homicides – 8,775 were committed with guns; 1,704 with knives; 540 with blunt objects; 11 with poison. People murder, then, with the nearest most lethal object to hand. Or they become more devious: in 1927, America’s deadliest school massacre was carried out with dynamite.

But what about guns just going off?

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people. From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

Matt Steinglass notes:

Gun-rights advocates often argue that there’s no point taking away people’s guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife.

In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn’t simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

But police having guns is good, right?

Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday — as newly released records revealed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received at least 18 calls about the troubled teen over the past decade.

Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn.

Stoneman Douglas had an armed guard who did not engage the killer.

There is no consensus over guns in the US. Maybe the focus should be on the ‘wrong kind of people’ having guns?



All the talk is of guns. But why do the State and ordinary people own them in the first place? And if anyone needs to be denied gun ownership, why shouldn’t everyone be made gun free?

Posted: 25th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

London Council bans fat children from climbing trees without a ‘reasonable excuse’

London’s Wandsworth Council wants to ban anyone from climbing a tree in the borough. Unless you have a “reasonable excuse”, climbing a tree could cost you a £500 fine. It’s all part of a range of new bylaws being proposed throughout Wandsworth to “protect the borough’s parks from criminal damage, anti-social behaviour and vandalism”.

How’s that Olympic legacy going?

The council says that’s nonsense. It says the new rules are “nothing” to do with “curtailing childrens’ enjoyment in any way and will help the council run its parks effectively as possible for the enjoyment all residents, especially children.”

Councillor Jonathan Cook, Cabinet Member for Community Services, says: “Stopping a child from flying a kite or climbing a tree, as has been suggested in some quarters this week, certainly will not be how we want to see the bylaws used.”

So the rules can be used to stop people climbing trees? The rules are open-ended and vague?

“Council set to ban ‘annoying’ tree climbing and kite flying,” says the Times. Paul Hocker, director of the charity London Play, says: “They are bolstering their huge bank reserves by fining children for climbing trees or flying a kite in the park.”

The council says Hocker et al are “misinformed”. Really?

The London Evening Standard reports:

Along with tree climbing, such traditional outdoor pursuits as kite flying or a knockabout game of cricket – along with other pursuits considered “annoying” to others – could fall foul of the regulations.

The borough’s previous 27-point list drawn up in 1924 will be replaced with 49 new diktats, including bans on metal detectors and remote control model boats on ponds…

The rules will be enforced by civilian park police – who dress like the Met officers with a kit of stab vests, handcuffs and bodycams, but lack their powers.

In the Mail, we hear from an insider:

A council spokesman told MailOnline: “A six-year-old child climbing a tree is one thing but an 18-stone rugby player who might damage the tree by breaking the branches is another.”

What about an 18-stone child? And why can’t a big lad climb a tree? Why do children get more rights than adults?

“That is the sort of behaviour we are trying to discourage. We have had people badly injury themselves in the past.”

So what? Adults knows the risks. Children find ways of working out their limits. We’ll take freedom over banning orders, thanks.

“It’s not about stopping children from playing innocent games or engaging in healthy, outdoors activities, it’s about making the spaces more enjoyable for everyone.”

The Express and Star also rehash the same Times report. But no paper lists the 47 new “diktats”. Under the heading “Wandsworth Council parks and open spaces bye-laws –  Laws governing the use of our parks, gardens and open spaces”, the council tells us what fun we can all have in the fresh-ish air (still free at the point of delivery!).


No Running in the non-running zone:


Make your babies walk! 



No Sliding – on ice?



Vagrants raus! Go to the library. Do not soil the grass:



Sod it. Safer – and cheaper – to stay in doors and watch it all on the telly. Pass the blankets, mum.


Posted: 24th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Red trolls in Purple States: how Russia defeated democracy


The Guardian has a few words on the Russian State-funded trolls accused of swinging the 2016 US Presidential election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. Russia saw in Trump, so the allegation follows, a better chance to grow and protect its monocular, illiberal interests.

The Russian regime often looks guiltier than a dog stood by a pile of poo. When the Russian PR machine talks, you’d be wise to hold your nose. It’s a steady stream of bull-made effluent. And it makes you wonder why Russia’s tosh has been imbibed with such power. Did Russian bots and spods really win it for Trump, boost Bernie Sanders and root for the Green Party’s Jill Stein? Is its propaganda so much more effective than the stuff seeping from Western regimes? And why does any of it matter?

The Cold War was won. But look out – the Ruskies have moved on from invasion and armed global socialism to a fearsome social media strategy. They might not be able to hack United States military supercomputers and trigger World War III, but they’ve got some terrific gossip about Clinton having had on-the-clock sex with Trump on a yellowy waterbed as Saddam Hussein drummed out Back in the USSR on Bono’s buttocks. (That was the rumour, right? If not, Oleg, call me, I have ideas and hashtags.) Whatever the truth, mentally-negligible Mary-Sue in a swing state bought it.

The Guardian tell us:

It was from American political activists that they [Russian trolls] received the advice to target “purple” swing states, something that was essential to the ultimate success of the campaign.

Well, quite. You target the area where you can have most effect. You know, like the, er, Guardian did:

To maximise the likelihood of your efforts making a difference, we’ve zeroed in on one of the places where this year’s election truly will be decided: Clark County, Ohio, which is balanced on a razor’s edge between Republicans and Democrats. In the 2000 election, Al Gore won Clark County by 1% – equivalent to 324 votes – but George Bush won the state as a whole by just four percentage points. This time round, Ohio is one of the most crucial swing states: Kerry and Bush have been campaigning there tire lessly – they’ve visited Clark County itself – and the most recent Ohio poll shows, once again, a 1% difference between the two of them. The voters we will target in our letter-writing initiative are all Clark County residents, and they are all registered independents, which somewhat increases the chances of their being persuadable.

Before Twitter, there was the Guardian’s interventionism. Called Operation Clark County, the paper wanted to “help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio”.

Here was one reaction from the mouth-breathing colonials:


How the modern Left loves democracy. You can intervene if is means sneaking the demos the right answer to the big question. Noble Obama telling us a vote for Brexit would put us to the back of the queue and helpful Bill Clinton backing Boris Yeltsin with $1bn of aid are great. But a Russian nerd in an out-of-town office tweeting bollocks is a threat to democracy – something so precious that its champions call everyone who voted for Trump and Brexit thick as custard.

So much for confidence in democracy. Because that’s it, no? It’s not about Russian might. It’s about us thinking our way of life is so precarious that a few rogue propagandists can destroy it with a tweet.

Posted: 20th, February 2018 | In: Broadsheets, Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Brendan Cox is publicly shamed

Who sets the news agenda that makes Israel the top story, China only newsworthy when our politicians are there for business and the allegation that Brendan Cox sexually harassed two women, a claim he denies, the lead issue on Sky and the BBC? Sky News led with Cox this morning on the telly, and the story is the second most vital on the BBC ‘s website, there after reaction to mass murder at a Florida school. And not that Cox (and, no, it’s not nominative determinism; he denies it) is the main thrust of his own story. The Beeb’s headline is: “Murdered MP’s widower Brendan Cox quits charities.”

The Telegraph pads it out, telling readers that Cox has quit two charities “set up in her memory after sexual assault allegations from his past resurfaced”.

Brendan Cox denied sexually harassing two women while he was married to the late politician, but accepted “inappropriate” behaviour, saying: “I made mistakes and behaved in a way that caused some women hurt and offence.”

Offence causing is a crime?

He has left posts at More in Common and the Jo Cox Foundation after the Mail on Sunday published accusations made by a former colleague while they both worked at charity Save the Children in 2015.

The Guardian hears from Jo Cox’s sister Kim Leadbeater, who says the family would “support Brendan as he endeavours to do the right thing by admitting mistakes he may have made in the past”. Mistakes he may have committed have been admitted to? Eh?
Well, it looks like they’ve had time to work it out because the Mail first reported the allegations in November 2015. Cox called them “untrue”:
Are they any more or less untrue now they’ve been repeated?
Labour MPs Yvette Cooper thinks some sort of justice has been served. “Hopefully we are seeing a change in climate and culture where people are recognising that those in positions of power should not abuse [those] positions,” Cooper told the Sky News programme Sunday with Niall Paterson.
And Labour MP Jess Phillips added – does she do anything other than talk to media? – “The fact of the matter is that it’s not enough just to say ‘oh, I’m sorry’. You have to show how you’re going to change the way you are in the future and I think Brendan, more so than many I’ve seen in this area, is actually trying to do that.”
One error and you need rewiring. How fair we are.
Public shaming of anyone who’s behaved “inappropriately” is a sad ambition. What happened to the rule of law and the right to defend yourself? When did the British wing of Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice start wathing us?

Posted: 18th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Sod the Green Belt: give people the right to own their own homes

The country needs more and better housing. That much is certain. Demand outstrips supply. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and more legislation rooted in it have stymied house building and skewed the market.

Around 10% of land has been built on. There’s space for housing. In expensive, congested, desirable, money-making, opportunity-rich London, more than a fifth of the land is classified as Green Belt.

And since the 1972-1973 building boom when around 300,000 new homes were constructed – the current supply is around 200,000 new homes; demand is 250,000; Chancellor Hammond says we need 300,000 – technology has improved.

What’s the problem, then? Why aren’t there enough homes?

Rowan Moore tells Guardian readers:

The problem that Britain has, partly as a result of cultural and governmental promotion of ownership, is that renting is, objectively speaking, second best. You can currently pay more in rent than an owner would in mortgage interest

Well, quite. It’s also true that the landlord doesn’t only pay a mortgage. Properties need to be maintained. Estate agencies are dedicated to overseeing property care, and ensuring a place is occupied. It’s not all profit.

But none of that explains why homes are not being built. It’s not about rented or owned; it’s about the total number of homes. We need more.

The question is why with such a pressing need for homes, so much land remains protected by legislation. If building homes is the priority, it’s time to free up the market and in so doing allow more of the less well off the opportunity to own their own homes and not be beholden to the State.


Posted: 18th, February 2018 | In: Money, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Russia meddled in US elections just as Clinton backed one Russian leader

Not done with trolling the US through Russia Today, the allegation is that Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 US election, chiefly backing Donald Trump in his against-the-odds victory over the pre-ordained Hillary Clinton. This week 13 Russians have been criminally charged with interfering in the 2016 US election. Also implicated is so-called “troll farm” the Internet Research Agency. A 37-page indictment alleges Russians were “supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J Trump … and disparaging Hillary Clinton”.

Foreign entities interfering in US elections is wrong. Barack Obama would never do that.



And neither would a Clinton:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 3— As President Clinton and President Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia began their first summit meeting today, Mr. Clinton presented the Russian leader with some $1 billion in American aid programs intended to support Russian democrats and spur the Western allies to make Russian reform their top foreign policy priority.

Among the new or expanded programs in the package were loan guarantees to build apartments for demobilized Russian soldiers; loans for Russian entrepreneurs; medical supplies, food and grain assistance; funds to help the Russian Government sell state-owned industries, and technical advisers to help repair pipelines and oil wells and begin exporting again.

Mr. Clinton said the package was intended to help promote free-market skills on a grass-roots level in both Moscow and the Russian countryside, so the movement toward democratic reform would continue no matter who governs in the Kremlin.

Is it only criminal when we don’t like the outcome? Is democracy being damaged by Russian oligarchs or helped by foreign billionaires? Do we only like the obscenely wealthy foreigners meddling with democracy when they’re on our side?

Posted: 17th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

John McDonnell will bankrupt the Tube and there’s no such thing as a free market

No sooner has John McDonnell outlined his ambition to renationalise energy, rail and water than news reaches us of a shortfall. The Guardian notes:

Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers.

Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4’s Today earlier:

“It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost.”

The assets make the profits. The profits pay the bills. What about if people alter their behaviour?

He went on:

“We aren’t going to take back control of these industries in order to put them into the hands of a remote bureaucracy, but to put them into the hands of all of you – so that they can never again be taken away.”

But bureaucrats will still run the entity, albeit ones appointed by the State, right? Who are they accountable to? How does anyone get redress for poor service? Is McDonnell seeking to serve taxpayers best or just tying to give meaning, direction and authority to the State?

“Public ownership is not just a political decision, it’s an economic necessity. We’ll move away from the failed privatisation model of the past, developing new democratic forms of ownership, joining other countries, regions and cities across the world in taking control of our essential services.”

So you take over the London Underground, and budget accordingly. And then there’s a £1bn deficit. Which means..? As Ronald Reagan put it in 1986: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”



But business has never been independent of the State. What of PPI, regulation and subsidies, which rather dampen the idea that immense profits are being made? (In 2006-7, the Government spent £6.8 billion of public money in the the privatised rail industry – around half what it cost to run the entire thing.) What of Government calls for curbs on executive pay and vows to “fix the broken housing market”? So much for the free market.

Tony Blair told us “Stability can be a sexy thing”. Theresa May wants to be “strong and stable”. They seek to maintain the status quo. Doesn’t that add up to the established businesses and their links to Government rolling on and on and not entrepreneurship, the best of which is often triggered by volatility and daring?

McDonnell’s monocular and forgetful call for re-nationalisation has not come out of the blue. It’s just an addendum to current and recent Government policy and a crisis of purpose.

Posted: 15th, February 2018 | In: Broadsheets, Key Posts, Money, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Lizards are spying for Israel says top Iranian advisor

Over the years, various countries have accused the world’s only Jewish state of using a variety of less conventional secret agents. To date, they have identified the following creatures as being Israeli spies:

A Falcon (Turkey)
A Dolphin (Hamas)
A Shark (Egypt)
A Eagle (Syria)
A Griffon Vulture (Saudi Arabia)
A Vulture (Sudan)
A Bee-eater (Turkey)
A Boar (Palestinian Authority)
A Hyena (Palestinians)
A Rat (Palestinian New Agency)
A Kestrel (Hezbollah)

Today brings news that the Israelis are in cahoots with lizards, naturally.

Hassan Firuzabadi, a former chief-of-staff of Iran’s armed forces and key advisor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says Israel is using lizards to  “attract atomic waves” and spy on his country’s nuclear program.

“Several years ago, some individuals came to Iran to collect aid for Palestine… We were suspicious of the route they chose,” he tells the ILNA news agency.

“In their possessions were a variety of reptile desert species like lizards, chameleons… We found out that their skin attracts atomic waves and that they were nuclear spies who wanted to find out where inside the Islamic Republic of Iran we have uranium mines and where we are engaged in atomic activities.”

Lizards, of course, are not spying for the Israelis. They are spying for their fellow members of the House of Windsor.

Spotter: Daniel Sugarman

Posted: 14th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Whoops! Just like Iraq WMD goes missing in Syria

The use of sarin was Barack Obama’s “red line”. You can shoot, stab, and smash them with barrel bombs, but using chemical weapons to kill Syrians is bad.

The use of chemical weapons turned Syria’s embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad’s war against the rebels into a war crime. He must be stopped because it “is not just that President Assad might start using his chemical arsenal in much greater quantities… [but also] the prospect of it falling into even less benign hands.”

It’s not about ending the war in Syria; it’s about preventing us being next. It was also a connived argument against intervention – we only go if there are people being killed by poisoned gas. Starvation and a lack of medial aid for the critically ill exacerbated by armed blockades are morally superior ways to die.



There were impassioned calls for intervention:

There are no good choices — good outcomes in Syria are impossible to imagine. But if it is proved to a certainty that Assad is trying to kill his people with chemical weapons, then Obama may have no choice but to act, not only because he has put the country’s credibility on the line (Iran and North Korea are undoubtedly watching closely), but also because the alternative — allowing human beings to be murdered by a monstrous regime using the world’s most devilish weapons, when he has the power to stop it — is not a moral option for a moral man.

As Time noted: “Rebels’ use of chemical weapons] could force Obama into the deeper engagement he has long resisted: the alarming prospect that radical Islamists could acquire Syrian chemical weapons and try to use them beyond Syria’s borders, perhaps even within the US.”

Just as Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction led us into Iraq, WMDs would pull us into action in Syria.

You might wonder if WMD gases are more potent than conventional method of mass killing, as one expert told The Register: “Far from possessing any special deadliness, chemical warheads are less potent than ordinary conventional-explosive ones. Calling them “WMD”, which suggests they are in some way equivalent to nuclear bombs, is simply ridiculous.’ He concluded: ‘So, if your aim is to kill and injure as many people as possible, you’d be a fool to use chemicals. And yet chemicals are rated as WMD, while ordinary explosives aren’t.”

But there is no time to pause and consider the facts. We are 45-minutes from certain death. We must go in now.

We never did find any WMD in Iraq. And now news reaches us that more big weapons have vanished in the Middle East.  Newsweek reports:

Lost in the hyper-politicized hullabaloo surrounding the Nunes Memorandum and the Steele Dossier was the striking statement by Secretary of Defense James Mattis that the U.S. has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people…

Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.

The bigger question is how this sectarian war in Syria came to be about America and us?

Posted: 12th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Anti-Semitism expert Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban Spurs Yid Army

spurs yids


Jeremy Corbyn is something of an expert on anti-Semitism – which given his role as leader of the Labour Party, ‘friend’ of Hamas and a former presenter on Iran’s Press TV is no great shock. Corbyn has spotted something anti-Jewish in the ranks of Tottenham Hotspur fans. No, he’s not swapping allegiances from Arsenal to Spurs. He wants Spurs fans to sing what he tells them to and stop cheering for the ‘Yid Army’.

He told the Guardian before Spurs and Arsenal played each other yesterday: “There has been racist abuse at past matches between Arsenal and Spurs – instances of antisemitism and homophobia. Yes, football fans get very passionate but that is not acceptable and not allowed.”

“Yid chants are unacceptable,” adds Corbyn. “It plays into something that’s not very good and we should be saying: ‘We’re the Spurs’ or ‘We’re the Arsenal’. Stick to your club; it’s your club that unites you. The idea of adopting a term to neutralise it doesn’t really work because it is identifying a club by an ethnic group or faith, whereas you should be identifying clubs through supporters.”

You might at this point suppose the Guardian has been duped by an arch-satirist. You’re looking for Shami Chakrabarti to pop up and say that she’s never heard a thing – and for Corbyn to nationalise Tottenham and install Dame Shami as the club’s new striker. But the real Corbyn is no fan of Yid Armies, so it is very probably him doing his bit for his core electorate.

Image: A Labour campaign slogan?

Posted: 11th, February 2018 | In: Arsenal, News, Politicians, Sports, Spurs | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Poland absolves itself of all complicity in the Holocaust

The letter from the Polish League Against Defamation informed us: “There were only camps established by Germany in German-occupied Poland. The proper reference to the German camps therefore is as follows:

– German camps in German-occupied Poland

– German Nazi camps in German-occupied Poland

– German camps in Nazi-occupied Poland

– Nazi camps in German-occupied Poland.”

It is “gravely false and highly defamatory” to call the Nazi camps in German-occupied Poland “Polish death camps”, or any variant thereof.

Poland’s president Andrzej Duda has signed-off a law that that makes it criminal to suggest his country supported Nazi war crimes during the 1939-1945 occupation. The new law, he reasons, maintains Poland’s “dignity and historical truth”. If you call Auschwitz a  “Polish death camp” you could be fined or imprisoned for three years.

“All the atrocities and all the victims, everything that happened during World War II on Polish soil, has to be attributed to Germany,” says Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. “We will never be accused of complicity in the Holocaust. This is our ‘to be or not to be’… This law is not going to limit speech, not even one iota.”

Germany is on side.

“Without directly interfering in the legislation in Poland, I would like to say the following very clearly as German chancellor: We as Germans are responsible for what happened during the Holocaust, the Shoah, under National Socialism (Nazism),” said Angela Merkel in her weekly video podcast.

German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel states: “This organized mass murder was carried out by our country and no one else. Individual collaborators change nothing about that. We are convinced that only carefully appraising our own history can bring reconciliation. That includes people who had to experience the intolerable suffering of the Holocaust being able to speak unrestrictedly about this suffering.”

But how can any law banning words and opinions enable unrestricted speech?

Peter Muchlinski, SOAS, University of London, UK, notes: “There are fears that the law would put virtually every Jewish survivor of the Holocaust in Poland at risk of prosecution. I’ve read hundreds of survivors’ testimonies, yet I do not recall a single one where the writer has not described an episode of betrayal, blackmail or denunciation on the part of their fellow Polish citizens.”

Is something more in this?

Poland’s lower house of parliament endorsed the new legislation on January 26, the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Why then?

Many Poles helped Jews during the war. They were brave and righteous. If caught, they faced execution by the Nazis.

Morawiecki was touring the Ulma Family Museum of Poles Saving Jews in Markowa when he spoke.

The Markowa museum, which opened in 2016, stands near the place where German soldiers in 1944 killed Jozef Ulma, his pregnant wife Wiktoria and their six small children, as well as eight members of the Goldman, Gruenfeld and Didner families that the Ulmas were sheltering.

Mateusz Szpytma, deputy director of the museum, said it is estimated that between 700 and 1,100 Poles were murdered by the Germans for helping Jews during the war.

At the Yad Vashem Holocaust remembrance center in Jerusalem, 6,706 Poles are honoured for their role in helping Jews.

Facts are vital. But how are they established if not through free speech and free expression? It’s a perverted sense of liberty that advances freedom in negative terms – a freedom from ideas, speech and words, rather than the pursuit of a positive freedom to speak and to challenge. From “Arbeit macht frei”, the sick message that hung over the gate to Auschwitz, the message to today’s Poles is “Gesetz macht dich frei”, the law will provide.

Arkady Rzegocki, Polish ambassador to the UK, writes to the Times:

The new law does not set a precedent. Legislation penalising, for example, Holocaust denial is also reflected in the legal systems of other European countries.

Absurd, of course. Don’t try to understand why and how? Just dip the Holocaust in aspic and serve it as an orthodoxy to be consumed. Only bigots and berks deny the Holocaust and make liars of the millions murdered and everyone who knew them. That speech is trammelled on pain of law to protect the sane and reasoned from the foolish, biased and people who prefer the other side in the war is a sadness that undermines free speech, elevates the losers to something too close to martyrdom and presents Germans, French and anyone else living where Holocaust denial is a crime as mass-murderers-in-waiting, people for whom the Holocaust is not a horror but a neatly-packaged slice of history that were it not for banning orders most would consider an experiment worth revisiting.

You wonder who it is the authorities really hate and fear?

Rzegocki continues:

According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of Holocaust denial, this is not only a denial that the Holocaust took place, but also a distortion of historical truth about its perpetrators and its circumstances. We believe that the truth about German death camps and the cruel reality of the German occupation of Poland is a part of the Holocaust’s history, and see the new law as complementary to the existing world regulation on Holocaust denial.

“World regulation on Holocaust denial”. To anyone who supports free speech, that line is chilling.

And now for some more context. The Guardian spots another landmark to Jewish persecution:

One lesser-known memorial is a small plaque on the wall of the Warszawa Gdańska railway station, a nondescript socialist-era building on the north side of the city. It was from here that many Poles of Jewish origin departed in the wake of the “anti-Zionist campaign” in March 1968, when cold war politics and a power struggle within the Polish Communist party led to an antisemitic propaganda campaign forcing thousands of Polish Jews to leave the country.

“Loyalty to socialist Poland and imperialist Israel is not possible simultaneously,” prime minister Józef Cyrankiewicz had declared in 1968. “Whoever wants to face these consequences in the form of emigration will not encounter any obstacle.” The plaque bears a tribute from the Polish-Jewish writer Henryk Grynberg: “For those who emigrated from Poland after March 1968 with a one-way ticket. They left behind more than they had possessed.”

And this:

Ruling party officials have claimed the row has been confected by Jewish advocacy groups seeking compensation for property restitution claims. An editorial on the rightwing TV Republika website described the crisis as “a big test of loyalty for the Polish Jews whose organisations are linked personally and institutionally with American Jews”, and accused them of “too rarely and too weakly defending Poland and the Poles in the international arena”.

“They want to break us – it’s about sovereignty, truth and money,” read the cover of Sieci, a weekly that has close ties to Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party.

DW adds:

Andrzej Zybertowicz, an adviser to Polish President Andrzej Duda, said Israel’s negative reaction to the law stemmed from what he called a “feeling of shame at the passivity of the Jews during the Holocaust.”

Zybertowicz called Israel’s opposition to the new law “anti-Polish” and said it shows the Mideast nation is “clearly fighting to keep the monopoly on the Holocaust.”

“Many Jews engaged in denunciation, collaboration during the war. I think Israel has still not worked it through,” Zybertowicz said in the interview in The Polska-The Times newspaper on Friday.

Two words in reply: never forget.

Posted: 11th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Me Too and the Mob: ‘sex pest MPs’ should be anonymous

“‘Sex pest’ MPs to keep anonymity while under investigation over harassment claims,” says the London Evening Standard’s front page. It’s interesting stuff. Given that false and mistaken accusations can ruin lives, might not circumspection be right and proper? Does every victim want their claim and potential victimhood publicised, something that could leave them unable to move on with their lives?

Under new proposals drawn up by a cross-party committee, MPs ruled to have harassed staff will have to write a letter of apology and undergo training, be suspended or forced to face a public vote. At the moment, MPs don’t have any formal disciplinary procedures.

Helping readers to make sense of what is a thorny and important matter is Kate Maltby, the well-connected Tory activist. Maltby is the woman who alleged Damian Green MP made inappropriate advances towards her, including “fleetingly” touching her knee in 2015. She said he sent her a “suggestive” text, which made her feel “awkward, embarrassed and professionally compromised”. He has apologised for making her feel uncomfortable.

She tells the Standard, which counts a number of her friends among the columnists:

“I am pretty concerned about anonymity for those accused, particularly of sexual harassment,” she said [sic] because what we know in all of these cases is it is almost always the case that someone accused, plausibly, of sexual harassment is a serial offender, and that when one woman makes a complaint, others are finally emboldened to do so.”

Why can’t the accusation be examined on its merits? Why do we need a group to bring the accused down? Isn’t assuming that one accusation is the thin edge of the wedge, prejudicial to a fair hearing? How does trial by media achieve justice?

Ms Maltby said: “This working group is clearly a step in the right direction. I think there is a lot still to be hammered out.”

The Standard cites more voices calling for the accused’s name to be made known.

Sophie Walker, leader of the Women’s Equality Party, says: “It’s a concern that the risk of malicious and vexatious complaints features so prominently in this report. None of the allegations that triggered the review were found to have been malicious so having this so high up as an issue to be addressed is misplaced. It triggers all those myths about hysteria and witch-hunts that have been such an unfortunate feature of this issue.”

Isn’t the risk of one innocent being wrongly convicted worth the caution?

Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom adds: “This is a big day for Parliament and our politics. It is in the context of this that the confidentiality issue is so concerning. We know that confidentiality can protect victims but it can also be used to protect the guilty and party reputations. The whole Me Too movement has shown just how important public disclosure can be to victims who are otherwise ignored and mistrusted and might not feel confident in coming forward.”

Isn’t that alleged victims, Andrea? Many people who have said #MeToo have yet to have their claims tested in court. Have we not learnt anything from ‘Nick’, the man who claimed to have witnessed MPs murdering children for sexual gratification, whose allegation were branded “credibly and true” by the police, who after such fanfare and trawling found no evidence for any offence?

Let’s stick to the facts and hold people accountable for their actions. But let’s not ruin lives and careers on the strength of an  allegation, however morally right and powerful it is.

Posted: 8th, February 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment (1) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

A police medic did not punch a man in the face and head at London’s Kurdish protest (video)

kurds rally London police


The police tell. They do not listen. They work to an agenda. Media should not be so monocular. It should exercise circumspection. The police make enough mistakes without any need to sensationalise the ordinary.

The Metro trails as story from a march in London by thousands of Kurds protesting against Turkey’s military attack on the Kurdish city of Afrin in Syria. It’s horrendous. Shame on the UK for not backing the Kurds.

This Metro’s conjures the headline: “Police medic punches man in head at Kurdish rally.” It is “shocking” says the paper of the moment a “Metropolitan Police medic repeatedly punches a man” in the head.

Only, he doesn’t. The copper is hitting the man in the shoulder in what appears to be an attempt to get him to release his grip.



The minor incident was reported earlier in the Mail, which also needs a crash course in body parts:

Met police medic punches man in the head at Kurdish rally. Met police medic punches man in the head at Kurdish rally. A man wearing a Metropolitan police medic uniform has been filmed on top of another man who he punches repeatedly in the head as he lays on the road at a Kurdish protest rally in London.


kurds rally London police

The Mail adds: “The man tries to get up, without using much force but is pushed back down by the medic, who then punches him in the face four times“. The Mail says that twice.



The face? No. That’s a shoulder.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police says: “We are aware of a video posted on social media. We are in the process of establishing the circumstances of the incident. The Directorate of Professional Standards has been informed.”

We’re aware of it, too, and it’d be stupid to rush to judgement. No context is offered by the video. Just sensationalist reporting.

Meanwhile…in Afrin…

Posted: 7th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Labour speaks with forked tongue to Welsh teens

This week it became a criminal offence for under-18s in Wales to get a pierced tongue, nipple or genitals. The Labour-run Welsh Government heard from, among others, Dr Frank Atherton, the chief medical officer for Wales, who said “a third of young people with intimate piercings have reported complications following a procedure”.  The could be “child protection issues”.

Under-18s cannot care for themselves as well as over-18s. Over-18s do not always have under-18s best interests at heart. Although the Welsh Government notes: “A study in England found that amongst individuals aged 16-24 complications were reported with around a third of all body piercings.” So adults are just as likely to report complications with body piercings as under-18s. Why not ban it for everyone, then? Maybe the Welsh Government think one age group is easier to control than the other?

This week week we also learned that the Welsh government plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in council elections. Sixteen-year-olds are too childish to wash their own tongues but smart enough to vote… well, to vote Labour, which is surely the local burghers’ forecast.

They’re not giving teens the vote because they think you’re whip smart or even want it. They’re giving you the vote because they think you don’t read the label and can’t grasp consequences.

Posted: 4th, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians, The Consumer | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Anti-free speech bigots attack Jacob Rees-Mogg (video)

When Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg arrived to speak at the University of the West of England (UWE) event organised by the university’s Politics and International Relations Society, a group of protestors burst in and started bellowing. Some of the fearless hecklers wore darks glasses and scarves over their faces. The Express calls them “masked men”.

Chloe Kaye, who posted a video of the ruckus on Twitter, wrote: “A huge amount of (physical) violence at a Jacob Rees-Mogg speech in UWE Bristol.” She tells the Express: “I went into the talk to hear about Jacob Rees-Mogg and suddenly as soon as he comes in about six masked individuals run in screaming, ‘bigot, racist, sexist’. They’re screaming, absolutely no university security to be seen. Jacob Rees-Mogg screams, ‘I believe in free speech,’ so he runs up to them and actually wants to start talking to them.”

They also called him a Nazi, which says much about their thin grasp on history and what actual Nazis are.



Only the Guardian offers some reason why the uninvited guests went for Rees-Mogg:

The Conservative MP for North East Somerset, tipped by some as his party’s next leader, is seen as a divisive figure because of his rightwing views, including hardline Euroscepticism, opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, and his belief that climate change is not worth fighting.

He’s a committed Catholic. Raus! No Catholics here. He has strong views. And he understands that holding them will attract fierce reactions. But to be slated for being a Catholic is abhorrent. And you know who else didn’t much like Catholics?


The Guardian branded Rees-Mogg a bigot on its front page, but not the Pope, nor any number of people from other religions that don’t support abortion and gay marriage, such as leaders in Iran, where homosexuals are executed – Iran’s a bigoted regime that used to hire Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn through Press TV.


The Pope – the right kind of ‘bigot’


There was a scuffle. Rees-Mogg was jostled. Although sources say he was trying to break up a fight between the “anti-fascists” who, er, don’t like free speech and those who’d got a ticket to hear him speak.

“Some people who don’t agree with me wanted to make their point, and I don’t object to this,” said the MP. “I think we live in a free society and freedom of speech is very important. And people like me, who advocate freedom of speech, support it when it’s not exactly what we want, as well as when it is what we want.”



“They shouted at me, but they weren’t going to hit me,” he adds. “They didn’t want to talk about politics, they just wanted to stop the event. I’m of the sticks-and-stones school of thought,” he said. “I wanted to stop anyone being hit because the whole thing would have degenerated. I didn’t think anyone was going to hit me so I felt quite safe intervening. I spoke afterwards; I was there for ages.”

He was speaking his mind – something we must all be free to do.

Posted: 3rd, February 2018 | In: Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Anyone who cares about freedom should look at Iran and abandon Labour

iran labvour



The Labour Party is unfit for purpose. Nora Mulready is relinquishing her Labour membership after 20 years:

In recent weeks, Labour could not make a simple statement in support of those protesting for freedom in Iran. It couldn’t give a straightforward condemnation of a regime that stones people to death for adultery, publicly hangs gay people, and forces women by threat of criminal punishment to wear headscarves in public. The hard left’s virulent anti-Americanism renders it ‘just not that simple’. No, with the influence and influx of ‘Stop The War’ ideologies, Labour has been dragged so deeply down the rabbit hole of anti-imperialist theories that they cannot condemn dictatorial, theocratic, repressive Iran in case it somehow strengthens, or implies support for, democratic, secular and free America. My Labour would see America is a necessary bulwark against Iran, yet the Labour we have sees Iran as a necessary bulwark against America. I cannot in all good conscience tell a single person to vote for that.

Read it all.

Posted: 30th, January 2018 | In: Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Protestors entertain diners at Winston Churchill themed Blighty cafe

Boris Johnson turned off his watermelon smile and demanded that Jeremy Corbyn slammed the “hard-left mob”adding a dash of righteous spite to tiffin at the Blighty café in London’s Finsbury Park. The Mail focuses on Halimo Hussein, 24, who along with eight other nicely dressed youth called Winston Churchill a “racist” and demanded that anyone with a social conscience boycott the cafe that bills itself:



Welcome to the Blighty Commonwealth of Cafes – originally founded in 1944 by RAF fighter pilot and war hero, Capt Roy Bevans. After years of decline Blighty was resurrected in 2013 by Roys [sic] grandson, Horatio Bevans.

Blighty’s mission is to make the world a closer place by celebrating and improving the relationships between the people and nations of the 52 members of the commonwealth [sic].

We celebrate these relationships via the mediums [sic – come in, Winston; are you there?] of brunch, coffee and community.

To make the world a closer place by impoving [sic] the relationships between the people and nations of the commonwealth.

All nations united under a common flag – if not a common language. The typos are what Churchill would have wanted:



Back in the Mail, then, where Halimo Hussein, a politics student and “co-president of Equality and Liberation at SOAS, University of London”, is eschewing Vera Lynn staples to chant: “We have nothing to lose but our chains.” No, not just coffee chains. Virtual and possibly actual chains.

The Sun says of Hussein: “The full-time student idolises leftie loudmouth Russell Brand.”

Once inside the cafe, which they “stormed” (Express, Sun, Mail, Russia Today, Daily Mirror) by, er, walking though the door, the group read from a prepared script:

Protestor One: “We cannot accept the unashamed colonial and gentrifying presence of this cafe’ before the group chanted ‘You will never make colonialism palatable.”

Ms Hussein: “To the owner of the cafe, apologise to the local community for their poorly thought and insensitive branding and promptly change it from the menu to the aesthetics and décor of the cafe.”

Protestor Three: ‘To the customer, we ask you that you boycott this cafe until they take the concerns of the community seriously'”



Boris Johnson took time out from his busy schedule as Foreign Secretary to opine: “Disgraceful attack on our finest ever wartime leader by hard-left mob. Jeremy Corbyn should denounce the actions of these ‘activists’ immediately.”

Jack Lopresti, the Conservative MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, tells the Mail: “This outrageous behaviour represents the hard left’s politics which is of the most puerile and ignorant kind. Without the bravery, courage and leadership of Sir Winston Churchill, we would not be living in a free country where we have the freedom to express our personal views, regardless of how, in their case, ridiculous or offensive they are.”

Michael Fabricant, Tory MP for Lichfield, adds: “It is thanks to Winston Churchill that fools like these are able to hold their childish views and not be thrown into a concentration camp. They should think about this before the next time they behave like yobs.”

No Labour MP is quoted.

If that’s not enough, the Mail says Ms Hussein, “an avid Labour supporter and Jeremy Corbyn fan” – how do you square Corbyn’s support for Iran with your anti-imperialism? –  has “left a scathing online review of the cafe which read: ‘Bland breakfasts and awful watery tasting coffee’.” Just as the British like their grub. Toss in some nylon sheets, atmospheric smog and clanking radiators, and the Blighty cafes could run a fleet of hotels. (Note to owners: call me, I have ideas; and think of about changing the French sounding ‘cafes’ to something more British, like ‘dining rooms’, ‘shed’ or ‘billet’).

Posted: 29th, January 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Stormy Daniels is ‘Making American Horny Again’

stormy daniels tou


If you want to see what Donald Trumps did or didn’t see you can catch aid to masturbation Stormy Daniels at The Trophy Club in Greenville, South Carolina, tomorrow.

The show is part of Daniels’ “Making America Horny Again Tour”, her entrepreneurial reaction to the Wall Street Journal’s claim that Trump paid her $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged shag. In 2009 In Touch magazine reported Daniel’s story about her alleged sex with Trump.

“He saw her live. You can too,” oozes the ads on The Trophy Club’s Facebook page.

What else Donald’s eyes see in the throes of passion can be only guessed at. But for the fuller experience, I suggest taking along a pack of Cheetos and a child’s mitten.

Posted: 26th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Minimum alcohol pricing is prohibition for the poor and mentally negligible

A strange burst of statistics in the Telegraph, which publishes words from a parliamentary debate on a minimum unit price on alcohol. We learn that “just 4 per cent of the population consume almost one-third of all the alcohol sold in England”.

Is that unfair – should booze be more evenly distributed; and should there be more alcohol so that we can all drink more?

Rosanna O’Connor, director of Alcohol, Drugs and Tobacco at Public Health England (PHE) aims to explain: “Around 4.4 per cent of the population are drinking just under a third of the alcohol consumed in this country. That’s around 2 million drinking just over 30 per cent of the alcohol.”

The greedy sods. More booze for everyone! No, no. This is about health. It’s also about preventing the poor from drinking as much as the wealthy by making booze more expensive. It’s prohibition for the mentally negligible.

The Scottish government thinks that by setting a minimum price for alcohol it will cut the amount consumed. The surcharge goes to the retailer. It’s not a tax. The cash will compensate the vendor for loss of sales. Here’s an example:

A lower limit of 50p per unit of alcohol would put the minimum price of a four-pack of 4% ABV lager at £3.52, while a bottle of 12.5% ABV red wine could not be sold for less than £4.69.

The middle-class drinker won’t notice the hike as much as the less well off drinker, who buys the cheap, high-strength alcohol. The poor and thirty drinkers will either have to drink less or raise more funds for their booze by, say, getting a job as a hedge fund manager, a football agent, engaging in some other nefarious activity or running a booze train to England.

Posted: 23rd, January 2018 | In: News, Politicians, The Consumer | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Stormy Daniels: what’s it’s like to have sex with Donald Trump

Ever wonder what sex with Donald Trump is like? There might be bedwetting and orange skids on the sheets. But what about the actual intercourse? Lending Trump watchers and other enthusiastic sex watchers a small moistened helping hand is Stormy Daniels, a pneumatic aid to masturbation who tells us via a 2011 edition of In Touch magazine that sex with Trump in 2006 was “textbook”.


donald trump Stormy_Daniels_2010

Stormy in a G-Cup


In most of my school textbooks, sex was depictions of gigantic breasts and squirting knobs drawn in the margins. In Stormy’s edition of York Notes, we get more words than images:. “I actually don’t even know why I did it,” says the porn star of the billionaire, “but I do remember while we were having sex I was like, ‘Please don’t try to pay me’.” Well, d’uh. For one thing, where’s she’s gonna swipe the credit card?

She says he asked her to sign a DVD of one of her skin flicks and called her a “smart businesswoman” before they parted.

Anyhow, this is news because Trump says they never shagged. And she agrees, also stating that in no way was she paid $130,000 to never mention the incident.

Which she has and hasn’t.

Posted: 18th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

UKIP leader Henry Bolton slinks back into anonymity as Jo Marney auditions for LBC

A few weeks ago, relatively few of us would have known the name of UKIP’s current leader. But then he left his third wife – the mother of his two young children, 42-year-old Tatiana Smurova – shacked up with a much younger woman, and because news media love blondes – which the lover is – the name Henry Bolton is now hard to avoid. Harder still to miss than the man who looks like a spin-dried Harry Enfield is the blonde, a “topless model” (Mirror) and UKIP member called Jo Marney.

She’s a deliciously dislikable character who after fire took the lives of so many at Grenfell Tower, opined: “Disgusting. That entire tower was a nest of illegal immigrants of all varieties. That’s why they can’t identify most of them. Meanwhile, British families wait on the council housing list for years.”

Other bon mosts include, according to the Sun: “Eastern European s****’ who would ‘f*** a mangey dog for about 10 quid and a Big Mac”. The Mail “can reveal Miss Marney has plumbed even further depths with horrific messages in which she joked with a friend about raping a baby. The Mail has chosen not to print the distressing exchange.”

Which makes us wonder what it was. But no matter if it was “taken out of context” and had been “part of an outrage competition”, which someone billed as Marney’s “friend” tells the Mail it was, what really made Marney fly were her ugly words on Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s intended:


marney bolton markle


Of course, they were private messages, a point Marney makes as she speaks to the Mail:

“I’m absolutely devastated by the messages that I’ve sent and the distress that I’ve caused anyone by those messages. They were unnecessary, they were reckless, they were overly exaggerated purely for effect. They were never intended to be put in the public domain and I’d like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere and deepest apologies to anyone I’ve hurt and for the distress and embarrassment I’ve caused my family, friends and the party.”

And news just in. Henry Bolton has dumped Jo Marney, leaving her free to pursue a carer as a shock jock on LBC.

Henry Bolton is single once more. Lock up your bigots!

Posted: 15th, January 2018 | In: News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0