Men Shall Know Nothing of This: A Space to Think

ANDY COULSON LOOKS A SCREAM, BUT LOOK: A SCANDAL! 4/9/2010

Andy Coulson!!! Just to refresh your memory, Andy Coulson’s the former editor of the fantastic News of the World, now director of communications and strategy for our fantastic Coalition Government! Why am I reminding you of Andy Coulson? Well, that mobile phone scandal involving that News of the World and Andy Coulson has just picked up steam once again, thanks to the New York Times! You should know about this, of course, if you read The Guardian or The Independent. If not, however, it may have passed you by! Both the Murdoch media machine and the Tories have been trying their utmost to can this story. If strung out, this scandal has potentially massive repercussions for our great government and the magnificent News International. Thankfully, it is one of the main stories on Google News, which will infuriate Murdoch even more: Google beware!

The main thrust of the scandal questions how much Coulson knew about the mobile phone hacking. As editor of the News of the World when the hacking was going on, surely he must have known a little bit about it? Take, for example, the News of the World story about a conversation between Prince William and Prince Harry. Didn’t Coulson have a few questions about this conversation, like how was it so accurate? And now, a former journalist for that trash mag, Sean Hoare, has reported to the New York Times that Coulson actively encouraged the hacking of phones. BUT, stop the presses! It now appears that Hoare has severe drink and drug problems, and he has a grudge because he was sacked from the paper. So how can he be trusted?

Well, it seems that both News International and the Tories are doing their utmost to keep this ‘lie’ under wraps. You’d think that a revived scandal so close to the PM would be all over the papers and news channels. Think about how fast word spread about ‘Duffygate,’ for example. The media were all over it. On Friday, however, most media outlets were strangely muted. Even the BBC kept schtum, probably fearing for their license fee. Newsnight managed to shoehorn the story in, but only granted half a minute to it. We were treated to ten minutes about sharing beds at a hotel, however. I’m still not sure what was supposed to be the point. However, as always, Sky News came up trumps on the deception factor, by failing to mention ANYTHING about the Coulson scandal! Instead, we were treated to endless shots of Baby Cameron outside No. 10, complete with flashes of Labour’s past, with Leo Blair outside No. 10. They built up the old ‘Capello’s an incompetent manager’ story, dedicating more than reasonable time to the England. qualifying match against Bulgaria. There was more unravelling of the cricket corruption case, some extended guff about broadband speeds, coverage of the New Zealand earthquake (Sky News love a disaster!), and coverage of the Blackpool Illuminations (only because Robbie Williams was switching them on). All in all, the only Andy Sky News managed to mention was Andy Murray, after he defeated another nobody.

News of the World doesn’t even have a mention of the scandal. The Sun will dedicate half of its articles to the England match, and the other half to the tragic divorce of the Coles. How terrible. Don’t you find it scary how something can be buried so deep, more than once? Don’t you find it scary (and strangely admirable) how the Murdoch media machine is so efficient at keeping things under wraps? Yes, The Guardian and The Independent will always be the guiding lights; but both are losing money rapidly. There’ll be a time when they can no longer compete with the Murdoch papers. And the plot thickens: the Metropolitan police could be in on the deal. They could have suppressed evidence to keep happy relations with the Murdoch papers. So not only does this scandal go to the heart of our government, but maybe the heart of our police force as well. Thank God for the New York Times!

(UPDATE: Sky News have finally acknowledged the revival of the phone hacking scandal! However, they were speaking to Ed Balls about it for one. And the reporter seemed more interested in what Balls thought about Blair getting agged in Dublin than a scandal that goes right to the heart of our government!)

IT’S THE END OF IRAQ AS WE KNOW IT? 1/9/2010

It’s been a long time coming for Barack Obama, but yesterday he formally announced the end of combat operations in Iraq. It’s one of the reasons his popularity exploded during the Democratic primaries all those years ago: Iraq was the festering wound on the body of US that its citizens wanted to cauterize, and Obama promised to heal the wound. Getting out of Iraq, healthcare for all, rallying against the greed of Wall Street...Obama had it all back then. But now we’re almost two years into his Presidency, and the critics are assaulting him from all sides. So, what does this Exit: Iraq Freedom actually mean for Obama, Iraq, and America?

Let’s be frank about this: this isn’t a complete exit from Iraq. A small number of troops will have combat responsibilities until the end of 2011 at least. And no matter how many Iraqi politicians say that they are a ‘sovereign and free country,’ it will not make it true. Obama may have noble intentions in altering the military mission in Iraq to a diplomatic mission, but diplomats will have difficult stopping a suicide bomber or an insurgent bent on massacring people. Even Obama admitted that the violence will not end: “Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife.” And who will look after these diplomats? How about the ‘military contractors’ provided by such esteemed companies like Blackwater? These expendables are not included in Obama’s plan for Iraq withdrawal; but they are just as vital as legitimate troops.

I became a little bit suspicious when I heard Obama say: “From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency.” So does Obama agree that there were WMDs in Iraq? Does he believe that was the reason for the invasion of Iraq? Well, pre-President Obama repeatedly called the war ‘dumb’ and ‘rash.’ He addressed the first high-profile anti-Iraq War rally in Chicage, and said: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. [...] You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.” And here’s more anti-war talk from Obama: "What I am opposed to is the attempt...to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income-to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” Surely a war to distract the people from depressing events was not a war to disarm a state?

And what of our dear George Bush? Obama was on the dog ‘n’ done to him, according to his speech. “It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” Yes, it takes a lot of love of your country to make it hated around the world. But the biggest shock was that Obama didn’t thank Bush! He really should have thanked him! Well, if you took the words of Fox News and the disgruntled House Republican Leader, John Boehner. Boehner complained that Obama and the Democrats opposed Bush’s military surge in 2007, credited with ‘gains’ in Iraq. Fox News fed off this theme, even having ‘Will Bush Get Credit’ on their ‘YOU DECIDE’ web feature. Well, Obama bloody well should have thanked Bush for getting the USA into this mess! “Thanks, Bush, for leaving me with an economic recession, two pointless wars, an unpopular country”...well, there’s just so much that Obama should thank Bush for! This is how dangerous the Murdoch media machine can be....

Of course, my criticisms of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal are nothing like the critiques of Fox News. I pose questions: Fox News gives you their own answers. In fact, they batter you with their answers. Obama is in the ultimate Catch-22 situation: damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. The right-wing media attack him relentlessly, and the liberal media are beginning to do the same. His star has faded, and he’s made so many promises, many of which are half-fulfilled. This Iraqi withdrawal is one of these half-filled promises. But, it’s very difficult to get out of a mess you didn’t create...just ask Gordon Brown. Who will ever remember that he withdrew our troops from Iraq?

MARY BALE...WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BE THE CAT? 27/8/2010

The media has been in a tizz this week. Yes, there’s been those Chilean chaps down a mine, a transsexual giving birth (sorry, I meant Samantha Cameron), the ‘pain’ of Tiger Woods going through a divorce (I feel so sorry for that billionaire), Nick Clegg being assaulted from all sides, and more titbits about the Pakistan floods (apparently, we Brits are actually giving the right amount of aid right now! But what about Pakistan’s Muslim comrades? All that oil wealth...). But once again, the media and the public have been up in arms about a silly, inane and absurd story: Mary Bale and Lola (lo-lo-lo-lo-LOLA!), the cat. Mary Bale, lest we forget, is a human being. She dropped poor Lola into a dustbin. The act was recorded on CCTV, and then broadcast to the world. And then Mary Bale became Public Enemy Number 1 (maybe she killed that MI6 agent? She’s proved that she’s a heartless person).

Cue our favourite newspapers (Daily Mail, The Sun, et al) going positively wild about Mary Bale: Catwoman. Even The Independent had a piece about her in the risible ‘Viewspaper’ (not long left, surely?), trying to psychoanalyse her! What a waste of space. There are Facebook groups dedicated to killing Mary Bale. She seemed to take the whole thing as a joke, but since people threatened to behead her, she’s apologised about the cat in the bin. She wasn’t thinking, or something like that. But no, an apology is not good enough for us Brits. We may look upon Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, who cut off people’s hand for stealing and stone unfaithful women to death, and slowly shake our head. ‘Despicable,’ we say, and then complain about big corporations, big bankers, and so on. Never mind that the cat is okay (fifteen hours inside a bin? That cat should try five minutes talking to Cherie Blair...). For the simple act of dropping a cat in a bin, Mary Bale is doomed for the rest of her life.

Okay, let’s admit it: the footage is HILARIOUS!!! I have four special breed Persian cats (taken from Iraq before the war), and I love them to bits. And sure, I’d be angry if someone dropped one of them in a bin. But I’d get over it pretty quickly, and share a Hennessy VSOP with the perpetrator over a meal at Harrods. People who are incensed by this are, let’s be honest, fairly loopy. All those cat owners who’ve talked to the media, saying things like ‘If that happened to my cat, I’d tear off the women’s head,’ need some perspective. And now Mary Bale is to lose her job! Not only did she drop a cat in the bin, but she works for a bank...the Royal Bank of Scotland! Those are two crimes worthy of The Hague. Apparently customers of the RBS branch where she works are having second thoughts about going there, now. Never mind all the various outrages about the banks charging excessive fees on overdrafts, using OUR tax money to get out of the doo-doo, and generally being evil bastards. All those offenses weren’t enough for people to rage against the banks. Lola, however, is worth fighting for.

Housewife Kim Davis, 53, said: 'I'd never be served by this despicable woman again. I have two cats myself and they're the most precious things in the world to me.' 'Hopefully bosses will do the decent thing for cat lovers everywhere and usher her quietly out of the back door.' I wish people like her would get a sense of humour, and a sense of balance. Due to one silly (and funny) mistake, Mary Bale will probably have to move abroad, to a place where they hate cats. That’s if she isn’t thrown into jail, or murdered by an animal rights lunatic (let’s be fair: most animal rights people are lunatics). I think a suitable punishment would be for George Galloway to dress up as a cat and ask her ‘Would you like me to be the cat?’ Then he dumps her into a bin. Forget that Youtube hit about a guy in a cat suit dropping a lady into a bin. Or simply for Mary Bale to spend a night with George Galloway. That’s punishment enough for anyone. But seriously people, can we not just forget about Mary Bale? There are more important things in life...

AUSTRALIA-TIME FOR MAD MAX, NOT MURDOCH? 22/8/2010

I do have a guilty pleasure in watching Mad Max. Although I don’t usually go for that kind of science fiction trash, Mad Max seems like an authentic vision of a post-apocalyptic future. That’s mainly because the Australian Outback looks like a post-apocalyptic future. And my dream of Australia becoming like the film ‘Mad Max’ is one step closer with the ‘too close to call’ election that happened yesterday! I admit, it is a peculiar dream, but what dream isn’t peculiar?

Thanks to the coverage of the Australian election by Sky News, I couldn’t escape the fact that my dreams could be reality. Remember, back when a Hung Parliament was predicted in our UK, people (most notably the reporters of Sky News and David Cameron) said that it would be Doomsday: a slice of ‘Mad Max’ in our Sceptr’d Isle. And that’s probably become a reality; I hate to venture out of my private land of 1000 acres, in case I’m assaulted by a futuristic gang of rock-loving punks. But I do read that this hasn’t happened, although with the Tories’ economic policies, Doomsday cannot be far away.

But seriously, did anyone catch the Sky News coverage of the election outcome yesterday? It’s was shamelessly biased in favour of the Liberal Party. Yes, the Labor Party (headed by the luscious Julia Gillard! She is one fine lady!) did lose its parliamentary majority. And neither party looks likely to reach the 76 seats needed for a majority in the 150 seat House of Representatives. Labor has 71 seats, and the Liberal-National Coalition has 72 seats. However, was there any need for the Sky News reporter to say that Gillard was “shamelessly sucking up” to the Independent MPs? And all this because Gillard said: “I enter these negotiations with the nation's interests as my compass - a sentiment most certainly shared by the independent and green members.” Can news reporters even use terms like “shamelessly sucking up” when reporting events?

Sky News also continued to dredge up the past; how Gillard had ousted former PM Kevin Rudd in a Labor Leadership challenge and the detrimental effects this had had on the election. Labor lost eight seats to the Liberals is Mr Rudd's home state of Queensland. And we kept hearing about Tony Abbot’s (the leader of the Liberals) amazing health, i.e. he always runs triathlons, marathons, and is generally in tip-top condition, almost superhuman. We were told that “Mr Abbott went for an early morning run near his Sydney home after a long campaign and a late, late night.” This reminds me of the massive contrast that was made between Gordon Brown and David Cameron pre-Election Doomsday. Gordon Brown was often seen walking slowly, with that half-baked smile. Cameron was often seen jogging, and smiling at the paparazzi who just happened to be there. The message is obvious: do you want an unfit ruler, or a healthy, perfectly well leader?

And, just think, if this is how the Australian election is presented by the Murdoch press here, just think how it is presented over in Australia, Murdoch’s birth place! Just click on the site of ‘The Australian,’ owned by News Limited, an asset of News Corporation. One of the headlines is “Labor delayed news of asylum boat.” Apparently, the Labor Party “delaying the announcement of an asylum boat intercepted yesterday to avoid jeopardising its chances in crucial marginal seats.” There are many pieces advocating Tony Abbot’s stronger position. Indeed, the ‘Editor-At-Large,’ Paul Kelly, said that “I think there’s no doubt at all: Tony Abbot’s position is the stronger one; for a start, he’s got a greater moral plain...[with] 400,000 [more votes than Labor]” There’s even a video of Abbot being mobbed on election night.

It’s all too familiar; yes, we had this kind of coverage in May...that was the story of how the UK died. But what really gets my goat is the incredible influence Murdoch has all over the world. The UK, the USA, Australia...how much longer can his company decide elections for the people? Think of the massive influence Fox News has in the USA: how many millions of votes will that swing in the upcoming November elections? Over here, Sky News, The Times, and The Sun must swing millions of votes again. Can’t we decide for ourselves? Or does Murdoch not trust us to make the right decision? Obviously not, because what he really fears is Mad Max becoming reality...just think about it! He must have watched it in his 30s, possibly having a mid-life crisis, and he thought: ‘I must stop this from ever becoming reality!’ But, honestly, I’d rather have a Mad-Max-esque post-apocalyptic world than be subjected to Murdoch’s media machine...

OBAMA: A MUSLIM? ONE OUT OF FIVE AMERICANS SAY...YES!!! 20/8/2010

As usual, my mornings are taken up by reading the various newspapers. Soaking up information, doing Sudoku and crosswords, it’s good to get the brain into gear. However, I came across this little gem today: apparently, one in five Americans believes that their President is a Muslim. This is from a poll taken by the Pew Research Centre, one of the top polling organisations in the USA. What’s more, this poll was taken before Obama became involved in the row over a mosque near New York’s Ground Zero. So God knows how many more Americans think that Obama is a Muslim! Sure, he has ‘Hussein’ in his name, but how many people are called Christian that aren’t actually Christian? Saying that, Yusuf Islam is a Muslim...but that’s beside the point (and, by the way, silly).

43% are unsure of Yanks are unsure of his religion. Don’t they have the internet over there? They can simply click on Wikipedia, type in Barack Obama, and search for religion in his biography. And what does it say there? Christianity! Then scroll down to ‘Family and Personal Life’; “He [Obama] was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.” And also: Obama announced in June 2009 that his primary place of worship would be the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David. Think of the number of times during the election campaign where he was seen having a tipple of alcohol; a very un-Muslim thing to do! And I’m sure I’ve seen him eat the meat of a pig...or he may have just been kissing Hillary Clinton (I’m joking, of course: Hillary is my kind of lass!). Now, I’m not a believer in any God, and I think Christianity is just as kooky and dangerous as any other religion (apart from capitalism, the only true religion!). But I remember hearing Obama saying that Jesus died for humanity’s sins. Obviously, the right-wing media, especially the O’Reillys and Becks of the sinful Fox News, have a lot to do with the fake perception of Obama. And I would not be averse to see either of those two loonies stoned (although they do provide me with moments of amusement; idiots are there to laugh at, no?). And the hatred for Muslims has been driven so hard into Americans since 9/11, that ‘Muslim’ and ‘hate’ probably overlap; those that hate Obama probably would prefer him to be a Muslim, to validate their hatred.

What wouldn’t have helped this perception is his intervention in the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy. Thanks to Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and other intelligent Republicans, this name has stuck: even thought the Mosque itself is two blocks away from the Ground Zero site. Gingrich likened this prospective place for a mosque as “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Harsh words! The November mid-terms are just round the corner, so there couldn’t be a motive for making this mosque issue into a global concern, could there? Why, people might not vote Democrat, and choose to vote Republican...clever girls! But also, the Republican bloc in Congress vetoed a bill that would have provided healthcare money for 9/11 responders who have since fallen sick having been exposed to toxic fumes in the aftermath of the disaster. This wouldn’t be stunt to look hard on Muslims and put that tricky bill behind them, would it?

However this misperception has come about, it is very dangerous for Obama in particular, and the Democrats in general. They will be hit, and hit hard in the November mid terms. And the Mosque controversy hasn’t helped. Yes, Obama did kind of, sort of defend it: “Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country,” including “in Lower Manhattan”. Then he backtracked a little. Expounding on the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero did not mean he endorsed it, apparently. This kind of dilly-dallying always comes at a cost for politicians, especially one in Obama’s position. Either you’re for it, or against it; there can be no middle! Of course he’s not a Muslim, but to get entangled in this ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy will only help to consolidate that image for that 20% of Americans...

FALL OUT BLAIR: THNKS FR TH MEMOIRS? 17/8/2010

See, he tastes like you only sweeter...Yes, I am up to date with the modern music, you see! But that’s not what I want to talk about here. Once again, the media is whipped up into frenzy about our ex-ex PM, the war criminal/Bush’s poodle/Anti-Christ Tony Blair. Can this man do any right in his homeland? He (or rather, his mysterious spokesperson) announced that he will give all of the proceeds from his forthcoming autobiography ‘My Journey’ to the British Legion. A not-too-shabby £4 million (plus the royalties from the future sales of the book) will wing its way to the British Legion, to ‘honour the sacrifice’ of our soldiers. So what’s the problem, British media machine?

It seems that they don’t stop believin’ that Blair is the Anti-Christ. Sky News, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill about the whole thing. But so have more than a few media outlets. They always have to examine motives, don’t they? Why did Raoul Moat start shooting people? And here, Blair has been accused of a guilty conscience by relatives of soldiers killed/wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. Roger Bacon, one of these relatives, said he found it hard to believe a man who was "unable to say sorry" at the Chilcot Inquiry was donating the funds "with a good heart". The numbers of the dead from the two wars are repeated again and again: More than 500 British troops were killed in wars launched by Mr Blair during his time at No 10, including 179 in Iraq and 331 in Afghanistan. There have even been critics admonishing Blair for not giving any of the proceeds from his book to charities in Afghanistan or Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been wounded.

The ethical problem of whether or not motives or consequences matter is beyond my cognitive capacity. And really, does it matter whether it is ‘guilt money’ or not? Will this affect how it is used? The British Legion hasn’t rejected it. The money would be put towards the £12m it needs to build the Battle Back Challenge Centre, a rehabilitation sports complex for wounded soldiers. The issue of whether or not Blair should have took us to war is a different kettle of fish. His appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry (is that still around?!?!?) has been brought up again, because he had “no regrets” about leading our country to war. What relevance does that have to his donation? And the snide issue of Blair’s finances have also arisen. He’s now worth anything from £15 million to £60 million. If people are willing to pay Blair hundreds of thousands of pounds to talk about formaldehyde, then who is he to refuse this money? So when he keeps the ludicrous amounts of money he earns post-PM times, that’s wrong. However, donating the ludicrous proceeds from his autobiography is also wrong. He’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t. On a side note, how silly of Random House to pay Blair £4.6 million in advance! It’s unlikely his autobiography will ever earn that much. And, on another side note, why doesn’t the media rage against those involved with the Iraq War who never donated proceeds/royalties to any charity? John Prescott (sorry, Lord Prescott!) happily called the evidence that led us into the Iraq War “tittle tattle, certainly pulled all his punches donating to charities.

 Lindsey German, convenor of ‘Stop The War Coalition,’ (is that still around?!?!), said that “no amount of money will wash their [British soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan] blood from his hands.” No amount of money or good will can ever wash the bad taste out of our collective mouths when the name ‘Tony Blair’ is uttered in Britain. He’s a pariah, the ultimate villain, the Anti-Christ. And the media know this, and feed this appetite for Blair hatred. Why can’t we just leave him alone? Of course, very few people will thank him for the memoirs, but if you don’t want them, don’t buy them! I’m sure the Brits have all the Blair memories they can handle...

23/7/10 NO BLOOD FOR OIL? YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS!

The Americans have got their knickers (or panties) well and truly in a twist over this Lockerbie Bomber release by the Scottish government. Now, in part, this is perfectly understandable. If hundreds of your citizens die in a horrific attack, and the only man ever committed of these murders is suddenly released, you have a right to be royally irked. But that being said, we can not ignore the stupid conflation that is going on here, which is actually a little insulting to the memory of the victims of Lockerbie, the anti BP sentiment rife in the US at the moment.

I am talking of course, about the push of the recent US Senate investigation into the release of Al Megrahi, which seems to be driven by efforts to get back at BP, for the recent oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico. The setting up of a commission is valid enough, the US government disagreed with the decision of the Scottish government, and wanted to find out why they released a man convicted of mass murder, who supposedly had less than three months left to live, and yet, is still alive, and maybe for a decade. So that’s fine. And the American government are not short on commissions, enquires, so its not surprising that they would have one here. But this one has been hijacked, by a conspiracy theory, there is nothing else to call it. The theory goes, that deep in the desert of Libya, the British government did a deal to release Megrahi in exchange for allowing companies like BP (boooo!) to gain the rights to exploit Libya’s untapped oil reserves.

There are a number of problems. Now, as a rich man, head of a business empire, I am not beyond a bit of lobbying myself. And I do know that it goes on. But not like this. The risk is too great, get exposed, and the damage is massive for all involved. The truth is it didn’t need to happen. The new found love for Libya and Kadafi is a little sickening, and that is driven by oil finds. But it’s a mutual love in, because the crackpot knows, that he can make a killing off of the countries oil reserves. And BP would have made a good offer, you can be sure of that, what does Kadafi need the release of this one man for? A man that is a potential fly in the ointment, an embarrassment, because we all know, the trial and conviction of the Bomber, has numerous flaws. Who wanted to expose that? Kadafi? The truth is that Lockerbie was a major tactical error for Kadafi, a failure he would be happy never come back to haunt him. It would surely upset the relationship, undermine it, so if we are playing at conspiracy theories, why not have him killed? Megrahi was already ill, so it would not have been hard. But this is a dangerous game to play, and with most conspiracy theories, they are always possible, but, where is the evidence?

And the thrust of this investigation is driven by a political indignation: ‘how dare they release him against our will!’ and a political desire to look tough on BP, and get the revenge on it that might play well with voters in the Gulf. Obama has bled and bled over the Gulf oil leak, and any attempt to get revenge, even if it gets out of hand, must be allowed to go ahead, because Obama is too weak politically, to stop it. So what was the reason that Megrahi was released? Officially, of course, on compassionate grounds, by the SCOTTISH government, not the British government, which is perfectly justifiable, you do not let the emotion nor the infamy of the crime or criminal, cloud the law, the law is blind to that.

If an error was made by the doctors, or if it was the case that the Scottish Government had a choice to keep him in prison until death, on legal grounds, then there can be criticism made here, and the Americans on behalf of the families has a right to press these issues. But it’s just ignorant to think, and highly ironic, that the British and Scottish government, along with corporate interest and a Middle East Despot conspired to sell blood of victims for oil. Then there are those that say, that the then upcoming appeal of Megrahi would have exposed serious flaws in the case against him, possibly leading to embarrassing questions asked against the British and American governments. Many have always believed that the case was weak, and more was going on. Another conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But had Megrahi been released, the old sore would have opened, and been worse than a release on compassionate grounds. That was the calculation made. But that Bleeding Megrahi didn’t do his bit, and die on schedule

20/7/10 IS THERE STILL A ‘SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?’

The special relationship. The term actually makes me sick. What’s wrong with just being an ally? Why do we feel the need to make out that the Americans and the British are the best of friends? I love America. I have several homes there, the most recent addition being an undersea lair on the old high street of New Orleans. And we British are united by a common language, culture, ideology, history. But is this the special relationship? Not really. It’s a family relation, if you think about it. And family is important, but it’s not that special, really is it? Does Mexico and Spain have a special relationship? China and Taiwan? Italy and France? No.

Our Prime Minister is to jet off to America to meet Barrack Obama today. This comes at a supposed ‘low point’ in the special relationship. After the BP oil leak, the Lockerbie Bomber’s release, some minor differences on Afghanistan, the shine has been rubbed off of this once golden relationship. So distant are the days of Blair and Bush, loving it up at Camp David. Obama, it is said, does not do special relationships. He is a broader internationalist, compared to his predecessor, favouring the emerging economies over old Europe. Poor Europe. Not in a good place these days. After centuries of dominance, and birthing a global culture, she is fading fast. Hardly surprising that Obama would look elsewhere then. Cameron too, is trying to look beyond Europe, and beyond America. He has learned the lessons of Blair and Bush. Don’t look like a poodle. Well When I see Cameron, I think of a Cocker Spaniel. Well, if you take away the ‘er’ and the spaniel away, you have to admit the resemblance is striking. So both men have no real need to seduce each other like Thatcher and Regan or Bush and Blair. This is a good thing though , no?

Yes! Lets end this bleeding special relationship. Lets have a family relationship, more down to Earth, more argumentative, but more loving. Now I am on some happy pills of late, after I fell from the poop Deck on the Sugar cube, my 60 foot Yacht, while hunting Great White Sharks with Zuma and Mandela off of the Cape last month. So maybe that’s where the ‘more loving’ comment comes from. But think about it. If The US had the same relationship with Britain that it has with France or Spain, would we see the difference? Would we care? No. The US is an ally of both countries, both work together on shared interests. And don’t give me the ‘but look at the benefits, like to security defence etc’ because there is little net benefits. Being the wing man, the Chewbacca to the US Han Solo, has little rewards, we are exposed to the risks which cancel out the benefits gained. On economic matters, the US always follows its own interests. Some say the relationship is all about ego. That we British maintain the myth because it allows us to punch above our weight. But it has nothing much to do with this. As a nation, we suffer a chronic lack of confidence, we don’t think we can do anything! We have no illusions of grandeur, as the French like to suggest we do, except maybe in football, and that is hard to maintain right now!

As for the real ties that bind, ideological, cultural, linguistic, there is nothing special about these. It’s like the shared experiences with your Brother or Sister, they are yours alone, and special in their own way, but you don’t base your existence around them. We can not ignore we have so much in common with America. But we have a lot in differences too. We are competitors after all, we have conflicting interests. These are growing, not diminishing, and while they will never undermine the ties that bind, they can not be ignored. And lets not fool ourselves into thinking the majority of the peoples of the two nations have a deep ‘special relationship’ even if the political establishment of both countries do not any longer.

Many people in the UK have a strong dislike of America. Often unfounded, and somewhat hysterical, it has got worse since Iraq of course, but there has long been a dislike, not just on grounds of foreign policy, but on cultural grounds too. And as for the Americans, well, we saw what happened after the BP oil spill! Even if this was overplayed, which I dare say it was, it was a signal of the self centred nature of America, it’s sense of superiority and over confidence that we so hate (because we once possessed it, but no longer do). And that’s if they even know who we are. We, the United Kingdom of Great Britain ad Northern Ireland that is. Not ‘England’ as they like to call us. We don’t call you ‘Maine’ so come on, America, it’s two letters, UK. You already know the first one! Just the K we need now! Special K? well no..

If the US has a special relationship, with any one nation it is with the state of Israel. Britain is a friend, a relative, a comrade in arms. And that has value. But this seedy term ‘special relationship’ is not really applicable, and it may never have been. Remember how long it took for the US to enter the two world wars? Where were they at Suez? The Falklands? We don’t really want special relationships anyway do we? they are too restrictive. I vote for Britain to become a truly global slut. We can have ‘friends’ all over the world. Why not? After all, your family will always be there for you, when or if you really need them..

6/7/10 WAD SAVE THE QUEEN?

It seems Her Majesty is hard up. Well, relatively speaking. When I lost £300 million after the financial crisis (I shouldn’t have bought all those houses of poor people in Louisiana) I felt hard up. But I still had £500 million sat in various off shore places. I have got myself back up to the famed £800 million though, don’t worry, and don’t go editing my wikipedia page! But poor Queenie has to dip into her reserves. Ever since the civil list was frozen, costs have gone up, and she has struggled to cope. Perhaps that’s why last time I popped round for a garden party, it was all Iceland bumper packs (the £5 range, 6,ooo chicken drumsticks, 3,000 burgers etc..). Now I am a vague supporter of Monarchy, having been given an OBE for services to capitalist exploitation. My title the Count, was offered up by Mandy in the early days (some six days into office, done quietly given yet another Mexican pig farmer lawsuit being upon me). But if it went tomorrow, I wouldn’t care. Hell, I might even run for President..

What annoys me though, is that whenever the cost of the Monarchy is released, it’s always accompanied by a pathetic Republican whimper wanting rid of it. As if economics is the reason to get rid of a Monarchy? In truth, the Queen and her family of weirdo’s cost every subject 62p. Now my assistants assure me that this is a very small number ( I haven’t seen currency below a bundle of £50 notes since the 80’s). But how much does the Monarchy rake in? much beyond the £6 million it costs. It’s a lot more. I am not talking about the snivelling argument that the only reason that anyone around the World does business with us because we send that idiot Andrew around to play golf etc. That’s an awful argument, still mired in the air of deference that makes me ill. British business could sell itself otherwise, and it does. Having a royal may be a plus, but its hardly a deal breaker. It’s a fancy inbred muffin basket, that’s all.

The foreigners do love the Monarchy though, and come here in droves, spending much needed money. Cutting the Monarchy (and what kind of cuts? For them this has traditionally been cutting heads from bodies) is a bad economic argument, a false economy, many millions do come here to our wonderful isle, for its culture, its history, but many also come here to gape and cackle at the gates of the Palace. And we would lose there much needed monies if the palace was occupied by some unloved Politician. The other arguments don’t add up either, that its backward, it’s elitist etc, etc. Backwardness exists in plenty of other areas. Get rid of the Monarchy? Then get rid of religion. Elitist? What like the moon faced idiot and his chums barely elected to government? No, my friends. Inequality is built into our Nation, so why not have an inequality that works for you?

One that gets you all weepy and flag wavy? I don’t go in for that, but some do, and it’s fairly harmless. One that goes around the world, and gets the crowds out far more than Cameron and co. Come on, lets get serious. We all love a soap operas, and the Royal family do not disappoint. But are they embarrassing? Maybe, but then what of Clinton, Bush? Sarkosy? Berlusconi? Mugabe? Come on, who wants a Japanese style Monarchy, boring, and half the people there still think is divine? In truth, our system is a great achievement of Republicanism. Think about it, we have a bunch of much maligned, mocked, ridiculed powerless people, having to take benefits from the Government, the Queen is a glorified Benefit scrounger. Its not as if we wouldn’t have hereditary wealth like we do elsewhere if monarchy vanished. But at least with these people, we subject them to our choice, we could be rid of them anytime, and we impose our sweet irony on them, they have the titles, but don’t have the power.

Not that the power they do couldn’t be rolled back even further, of course. Really stick the knife in. Make them drive mini’s, open up there houses as childcare facilities, take the few vestige powers left from them live on TV. But if we want rid of the Monarchy, we should do it properly, like the Russians or the French did. The fact that we never did though, never had to, is after all, the reason why we still have it. Yes I know, we killed Charlie boy. But then we just killed a man, not, permanently, an idea, the idea of Monarchy. And for better or worse, that’s why it’s here to stay, for now at least.

8/6/2010 THE US GETS ACCESS TO EU FINANCIAL DATABASE-AND WHO CARES?!?!?

Today, we unwitting Britons will have our bank accounts exposed to US counter-terrorism investigators. Those bastions of democracy, the EU MEPs, will approve a request made by President Obama to have access to a privately run database based in Belgium that records 80% of ALL financial transactions in the EU. The US will then be able to hold any requested information for five years. Apparently, this database holds vital information into al-Qa’ida operations. So, that’s okay then! Give out all our financial information to anyone who’s interested!

The US can already extradite ANYONE in Britain without the need for contestable evidence thanks to John Reid and the Extradition Act 2003. We all feel sympathy for autistic Gary McKinnon, currently awaiting extradition to the US for being the biggest hack of all time. Then there was the less popular Natwest Three (but only because they are detested bankers!). So not only our finances, but our very lives are potentially in the hands of those damned Yanks. Apparently, if the EU did not comply, then our national security would be compromised. By who, exactly? Why do we need the US to intervene on our behalf, to create a Jack Bauer to save Europe from al-Qa’ida? And surely spreading out that personal data in said database would make national security more exposed to being compromised? As I found out to my detriment in selling Hamstrands, the greater number of people that know something, the more likely it is that the ‘something’ will be made public. Poor McKinnon had a little look at the NASA database, yet when the US wants to invade the EU’s financial database, that’s fair game?

The US’ constant need to know everything is not the only problem, however. To satisfy the MEPs for this ‘request’, the EU have been allowed to have a European judge review the way the US uses the information and report to the European Commission. I’m sure that will stop the US, or even be useful! We all know judges are fairly useless (apart from when you bribe them!), and as for European judges...if European MEPs are twice as useless as British MPs, then surely the same applies for judges?!?!

And what about the EU? As a man very interested in finances, I did not know about this private database, run by a private consortium, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift), and hopefully my tax evasion efforts will place my financial transactions outside of the EU. This, along with that massive EU database cataloguing European e-mails, text messages, and phone calls, is rather worrying. How much information does the EU want about its citizens? Yes, the US may be crossing the line by ‘requesting’ (surely demanding?) access to this database, but who’s giving into this request? Mother Sucrose always told me that the meek will never inherit the earth, contrary to what that bleeding Bible said. The EU is as culpable as the US for this invasion of privacy.

Of course, as a very rich man, none of this really affects me. But surely something needs to be done about the meek EU and the demanding US? How much more are we willing to give to these behemoths of bellicosity? It’s time to rise, my pretties...

6/7/2010 OFCOM LET'S OFF SKY NEWS...BURLEY AND BOULTON KEEP BUGGERING ON

So, Sky News has been cleared by Ofcom (that bastion of justice) over its coverage of the General Election. There had been nearly 2,800 complaints about Murdoch’s Bull and Bitch team, Adam Boulton and Kay Burley. Cast your minds back to that happy time, when a Hung Parliament was music to your ears, when the Tories had been denied total victory...oh happy days, oh happy days...and now Gove cancels the school rebuilding schemes. At least I have a lot of money, and my grandchildren will go to a private school.

Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, Sky News election coverage. Remember the Sky News Leaders’ Debate, if you didn’t repress it or drown it in champagne (or Tetley’s Extra Strong Lager). If there was an example of media bias, that extravaganza was the paragon. Boulton acted terribly towards Nick Clegg (when it wasn’t okay to hate Nick Clegg!). You will probably remember Boulton’s infamous confrontation with Alastair Campbell, where Boulton blew his top (almost literally-did you see how red his face went?)? It was hilarious, to see that little worm squirm and be at a loss for words. And of course, the cream of the crop, Kay frigging Burley’s interview with electoral reformist David Babbs. ‘You’re view aren’t going to sway anyone,’ she blurted out, and continued to belittle him.

She also said that 65% of Britain voted for a Hung Parliament. Seriously, I was ready to leave my beloved country if I heard that stupid phrase. Hung Parliament wasn’t on the ballot paper! But I digress. During the Hung Parliament, Sky News was in limbo. All their efforts, painting Labour in the worst light possible, whilst elevating Cameron to a possible Nobel Peace Prize Winner, had come to nought. The Tories hadn’t won, and this sent Sky News into turmoil. They went to Defcon V, and put everything into making sure the Tories would take over from Labour. ‘Gordon Brown Shouts At Clegg,’ was one headline I remember. In that period between May 6th until the Devil became the Prime Minister, Burley and Boulton were on the edge of the abyss.

And Ofcom should have seen the complaints in this particular context. However, according to Ofcom Boulton’s blown top "does not in itself, impact on the due impartiality of the content." If Sky News had impartial content, then I’m my mother’s goose. As for Burley’s bust up with Babbs, Ofcom decided that even during the parts of the interview where Kay Burley was repeatedly interrupting David Babbs, the interviewee was still able to get some points across to a limited degree." Pardon? Excuse me? A limited degree? It seems like common sense has been used by a ‘limited degree’ by Ofcom.

Sky News is obviously one step away from Fox News. It’s geared towards the Tory machine. Nay, it is the Tory propaganda machine, more useful than a thousand Campbells. Why can’t Ofcom see this plain fact? Are they afraid of budget cuts? It’s obvious that only the people can rise against Sky News. So follow me (I’ll be right behind you) and declare war on the evil, the malignant, the poisonous, the deadly Sky News, and execute Boulton and Burley...

2/7/2010 THE CHARGE OF THE TIMES BRIGADE...WHO'D PAY FOR THE TIMES ON LINE?!?!?!?

Okay, my original title was ‘The Time They Are A-Chargin’, but bleeding Sky News got there first. Funnily enough, that is also part of the Murdoch Empire...I’m convinced they are trying to shut me down. Permanently. But I will not stop until, like the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars, I defeat the evil Murdoch Empire. Of course, I cannot face him in the arena of satellite TV or media, as he dominates both of those money makers. Any thoughts on this matter, please contact me. I could get my private army to kidnap his children/grandchildren, and hold them to ransom. Too far? Maybe...

Anyway, the reason behind this blog is to rant about the Murdoch Empire. More specifically, the £1 charge to read The Times/The Sunday Times online (or £2 for a weekly subscription), starting from today. They are following the trend of Murdoch’s own Wall Street Journal and our wonderful Financial Times (seriously, they spread horrible lies, like that one about the dramatic drop in shares of Hamstrands after swine flu...never believe the Financial Times). Now, for those particular newspapers with specific financial news, the charge makes sense. There’ll be financial news there that you cannot get anywhere else, like advice on stocks and shares, etc (but they lie I tell you!).

However, why would you spend a pound to read The Times online when you can go to news.sky.com, or any other news website...FOR FREE! The Times is now nothing more than the heavier version of ‘The Sun,’ let’s be honest. Some people might want to see the opinions of the journalists (although why anyone would like to read any opinion by Alice Thomson is beyond me), but they’re in the minority. Rebekah Wade said that “We believe the new sites offer real value and we look forward to continuing to invest and innovate for readers.” Has she seen The Times website? It is fairly awful. And it says a lot when the second most read article on the website is ‘10 Ways To Get More Out of thetimes.co.uk.’ Isn’t there only one way now, and that’s to pay?

Newspaper sales are forever dropping, so this may seem like a canny move by Murdoch to squeeze what he can out of online viewers. The Times’ circulation fell by 515,379, down nearly 13 percent on last year, while The Sunday Times stood at 1,117,749, down over six percent on last year. Newspaper sales are falling because people are searching for ‘free’ news online. So why would those people pay for The Times? There’ll be a drop in daily hits for The Times website, which will have a knock-on effect for advertising revenue. That’s simple economic logic. And I bet what profit it gathers from the subscription charge will be negated by the loss of advertising revenue, due to the decrease in hits. Of course, the opposite illogic is displayed by The Guardian, mired in heavy losses and debt. So much money is put into their free website content (with a massive archive of articles) and their iPhone/iPad apps, yet it’s all for free. Advertising revenues will offset some of the debt, but not much.

As a very rich man, I don’t care what I spend on newspapers. I have one of each main newspaper sent to my mansion daily. However, if I wanted to search for news online, I would not want to pay for it (especially the terrible Times). And I suspect the majority of common people would not want to, either. So you lose, Murdoch!

27/6/10 G8? IT’S GRRRRATING!

Sorry for the Lack of activity of late, The Wife suggested a reconciliation holiday after I discovered…certain things, about her and the… pool boy. To be honest, we have been almost everywhere on Earth, but one thing she suggested, we have yet to do, is a trip to, in her words, go ‘find ourselves’ in India. I thought, why not? I love emerging markets and she can go off and dance with the dolphins and such, leave me to what I was born to do, make profit and exploit people. Unfortunately, the winner of this year’s ‘The Assistant’ Sanjita, the best of a very bad bunch (not sure where the Beeb get these people from) had a mishap in booking the flights, and we ended up in deepest Indiana. Fearing for my life, me and the wife ran into hiding when we got there, what with all the anti capitalist, anti British stuff flying around in the States (which makes me, me, of all people, a prime target). But now I’m back, and what in the news, has caught the Count’s eye? Well what else, but the whining Prima Donna’s of the G8/G20!

Straight off, any club based on exclusivity, that gives it away so easily (it’s G20, there’s a G40, where will it end?) waters down the product, that is, basically, the group of rich white guys who used to rule the World. Ah the good old days. But there may be a point to be said, for exclusivity. It’s basically the old boys network, or the saps that the old boys network picks to lead the G8 nations, and as every business man knows, if you are going to have a club that meet to discuss areas of shared interests, then it should be as small as possible. More people, more interests, more trouble. After all, we already have a glorified talking shop, where anyone from America to Angola can chip in with their two cents worth, and it’s called the UN.

‘But Alain’ I hear you say, Mr Liberal friend: ‘the expansion is due to the rise of new economies, they need to be represented’ Ah Mr Liberal, this I know. And I agree with it, but I think it’s a recipe for reducing the power of G(n) to being just another UN style club but without the shiny blue helmets. The truth is, that the fact that the world economy is opening up, while positive for many more people (especially for me) will mean that it’s harder for any group of nations to achieve anything significant, in times where significant change is needed (think global banking reform environmental issues). Add to this, the fact that central authority is ebbing away from governments regarding economic matters anyway, and what can the G(n) leaders do? Well get together, spend money, shakes hands, and then wring them, collectively, while tutting in tandem.

It happened this week. ‘We condemn: North Korea, Iran’ etc…. Haven’t we heard this all before? Of course, they won’t do anything about those pesky rouge states, just moan about them. Nothing on solving the Israeli Palestine issue either. Or, they groan on about the need to ensure economic growth, or solving global warming, but fall down when trying to say how exactly this will be achieved, and how exactly they will implement it. The group has never been the best vehicle to bring about anything significant, we all know that. But any hopes that it could even maintain the illusion of this are fading fast. The reality is, when we hear the constant whining, about the state of the world, and see nothing happening about it, it’s horribly unbearable. In truth it kind of hurts my ears. But a trip to the Mayo clinic will sort that out. Only the finest for the Count! Now, to get Sanjita to book the bleeding plane tickets….

  ****************************************

21/6/2010 TONY HAYWARD'S PLAIN SAILING AND COROILNATION STREET

 Now, I’m getting very agitated with the media’s coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. For a kick off, it’s an OIL LEAK! Now, I didn’t get my O Level in English Language, because I was too busy dreaming up the ‘Hamstrands’ business. But I do know the difference between a spill and a leak. There was an explosion in the Deepwater Rig. This caused an OIL LEAK! NO SPILL! Come on hacks! And the other irritation is the continued focus on Tony Hayward. My estranged friend MayDay loves her films, and she would say Tony fits the typical stereotype of the English villain in your typical American film. And he’s being painted as such, by the American media and our own bloody media!

In the latest episode of this Oil Soap Opera (I am going to submit my idea for a TV series based on this oil spill: I think I will call it Coroilnation Street! Copyright Sucrose 2010), Tony Hayward has been rollocked by everyone and his/her dog for going sailing. Now, every rich man likes a sail every once in a while. I should know; I’m a very rich man. I’ve sailed the Channel a dozen times on the ‘Hammy’ yacht. I did it during the Mexico/Hamstrands investigation to relax. Now, what’s wrong with Tony watching his 52ft luxury yacht ‘Bob’sail the Isle of Wight on the ‘JP Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race’?

As far as I know, he didn’t cause the oil LEAK. And he is a public relations disaster, as evidenced by some of his recent comments. ‘I want my life back!’ he pleaded. Surely his life was never taken? Regardless, he was ill-placed to deal with such disasters. Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, have said that the sailing episode was “the latest in a long line of gaffes” for Tony. The US media accused Tony of turning his back on the oil spill when control of the oil response effort was delegated to the US BP Executive Bob Dudley (no, not the yacht). Surely this is a good thing, if Hayward is so unprepared for the task at hand? Was it really “rubbing salt into the wounds” of people being affected by the oil LEAK, as Charlie Kronick, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said? The way it’s portrayed by the media will definitely rub salt into these wounds!

It’s true, I do have sympathy for big, profitable companies (apart from Fox International), and for chief executives. But, think about it chaps, what can Tony actually do? Doesn’t he deserve a day off, even a couple of hours off, to relax after the traumatic events of the last month or so? And it’s best for the company, and the people affected by the oil LEAK, that such a gaffe-prone chap is kept out of the limelight. Helen Mirren commented that the Americans love to cast the villain as an English gentleman in films. Tony looks a little like Mr. Bean, quite weak-looking, and appears cowardly (both in actions and in speech: see his many gaffes). He’s also an easy victim, an easy target for hatred and resentment. Why? Because it’s easier to blame the foreigner...

16/6/2010 OIL ALONG THE WATCHTOWER-OBAMA vs. BP 2!!!!

The BP saga continues, as the USA try, try, and try again to slaughter ailing oil company. Now, the BP’s US Chief, Lamar McKay, have faced questions in Congress about BP’s cost-cutting mechanisms in favour of safety measures. This comes after BP was ordered to set up a $14 billion compensation fund. Now, as a successful businessman myself, I am always biased in favour of corporations (unless, of course, they’re run by Rupert Murdoch). And I don’t like this bullseye on BP’s head. And I’m not the only one who feels this way. The executives from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell will also be in attendance at the Congressional hearing. Nothing sticks like oil, it seems! Royal Dutch Shell would be seeking to take advantage of this BP fiasco, as it tried to enter into a merger with BP a while ago. However, all the oil companies are being targeted now. Any oil company is now a potential enemy of the USA. Any one of them could be at the centre of another oil-related disaster such as the oil spill.

And Barack Obama needs enemies right now, especially after his 9/11 blunder. He said the oil spill would affect how America viewed the environment and energy in the same way that 9/11 had dominated foreign policy. Now, a statement like this is very open to interpretation. It was like that statement I made on ‘The Junior Assistant,’ where I told that 15 year old girl she “had nice buns.” It was misinterpreted, there were a couple of lawsuits, but The Count defeats all, as always! But comparing anything to 9/11, even in the oblique way that Obama did, is an elevator straight to hell! The American people are already not happy with Obama’s handling of the situation; he’s damned if he does, and damned if he don’t, as Grandma Sucrose used to say about my father. To invoke 9/11 is a serious error of judgement, as was Obama’s conflation of BP and Britain. BP’s about as British as Cadburys.

In Obama’s live address tonight, he (rightfully) took a shot at ANOTHER enemy: the Republicans. He said that their mismanagement of Minerals Management Service is “emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility - a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves.” So Britain, BP, the Republicans...is there anyone Obama won’t blame? Interestingly, he also said that : “The one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet.” Maybe it is too much for Obama to handle. And it certainly is for Congress. Senators voted 35-61 against stripping big oil companies of $35bn in tax breaks they'll receive over the next 10 years. Obama’s fight for healthcare has certainly cost him in the Congressional arena. This is a loss for poor Obama, as he struggles for people/companies to blame. But what can he do? Absolutely nothing.

12/6/2010 ANGLOMANIA IS RUNNING WILD! ENG-ER-LAND!

So, it’s that time of year again folks! It’s that time of year when people forget how much they hate their country and dust down their St. George flags. Or buy new ones from the corner ship. Now, I don’t usually mingle with the common people, but I always ask my chauffeur to drive through the streets as the World Cup approaches. It’s always a grand sight to see! Cars covered with small England flags, ‘Come On England!’ banners, and houses plastered with flags (some people go too far-yesterday I saw the flag the size of a house, ON A HOUSE!). Even David Cameron has raised a St. George flag on 10 Downing Street for today’s first England game against the USA. And he’s sent a video message to the England team supporting them. Now, this may lead to their defeat, but that’s not the issue here. What do we do when Anglomania is running wild?

Now, mania cannot be reasoned with, and breaks all logic. It cannot be understand or conquered. For the majority of time, the English hate England. The phrase ‘Broken Britain’ usually refers to England, because of the media/our conception of Anglo-centric Britain. Yes, there are grand moments of enthusiasm for ‘England’ (1997 springs to mind), but soon our collective enthusiasm wears off. We complain of youth violence, great crime levels, the rich robbing the poor, teenage pregnancies, drugs, and so on. When’s the last time you heard someone say something positive about England? Now I love my country, thanks to the lax tax policies, low tax for the very rich, and the ability to avoid paying taxes thanks to Guernsey and Jersey. I also love my three estates in England, all in beautiful rural areas (where no one can find me, not even using Google Maps!). And, of course, when the World Cup arrives, I do support my native land. As Cameron said today “"I keep saying we are all in this together, and that is particularly true when cheering on the England team."

However, this Anglomania of the masses seemingly breaks the illusion of ‘hating England.’ It’s a joyous time, the time before the World Cup; people united as one, drinking as one, hating other nations as one. ‘COME ON ENGLAND’ we shout as one. However, as soon as the whistle blows and England start kicking that ball around, the reality behind Anglomania happens: complaints! Yes, we complain about how they should pass more, why they shouldn’t have shot at that time, why Rooney should have his mouth stapled together, and so on. Our enthusiasm for England is always tempered by a ‘get-out clause.’ We will support England until we’ve passed out from drinking too much Carlsberg, but this support relies on our confidence that England will lose. It’s a simple mechanism to ‘avoid’ disappointment. Yes, if England loses tonight, there will likely be several riots. But this is not an act of true disappointment, this is the culmination of that simple equation: alcohol+football=ultraviolence!

I do love my native land, and I’ll be watching England vs. USA on my cinema screen in (YES!) 3-D! It will almost be like I’m there, among those overpaid, ultra-rich footballs players who are actually a bunch of idiots. However, if they end up winning the World Cup, then I will forgive them for being overpaid. For a while. But until they win the World Cup, or get knocked out in penalties again, I will be trying to avoid Anglomania! But let’s hope we beat those stupid Americans, and show them that England is defended! BP for the world!

10/6/2010 IRAN, WHO SOLD THE WORLD?

Iran, not again! More sanctions? I wouldn’t agree, but the UN seems to think this is the only way to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Now, if I were a country (if you think about it, I am a small country: I have the wealth of a small country, a small standing army, and if you added up all my landed properties, it would be the size of a small country) plagued by sanctions, they would increase my anger towards those who imposed the sanctions. In other words, they wouldn’t make me suddenly give up producing nuclear materials or whatever. And, as the Brazilian envoy to the UN said, they “will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran.” What this FOURTH set of sanctions add to the last is actually insubstantial: Ban the supply to Iran of heavy weapons, including tanks, warships, helicopter gunships and missiles, tighten up the ban on dealings with Iranian banks and individuals (including businesses and members of the Revolutionary Guard ), and it enable states to search any suspect ship or plane.

How will these make the latest set of sanctions different from any other? They won’t soften Iran’s position towards the West, or vice versa. The longer Iran can hold out against the sanctions, the more sanctions become useless and NEW sanctions are decided on. A very vicious circle. They limit Iran’s access to nuclear materials, but Iran will get them, no matter what. That crackpot Ahmadinejad summed it up perfectly: "I gave one of the [world powers] a message that the resolutions you issue are like a used handkerchief which should be thrown in the dustbin.” And thanks to those Commie bastards (China and Russia), there are no sanctions directed at Iran’s oil or gas industries. Those type of sanctions could actually impact the government of Iran, rather than burying the poor Iranians.

Of course, my favourite politician Barack O-Bandwagon had something to say: “these are the toughest sanctions ever faced by an Iranian government.” Eighteen months ago Obama said that the US would pursue a new strategy of engagement with Iran. This tactic has been used three times before! He said that the sanctions would “not close the door on diplomacy,” but I have to disagree. Yes, I am naturally inclined to disagree with anyone (apart from Mrs. Sucrose and my shareholders), but Iran have at least tried to engage with international politics. It’s why Brazil and Turkey voted against the fourth set of sanctions: they brokered a nuclear fuel exchange agreement with Iran. Isn’t this a positive sign that Iran are willing to engage with other countries? They just don’t want to engage with hostile countries, who won’t be pleased until Iran shuts down its nuclear facilities for good. And, in effect, this is good for the Iranian government: it increases the sense of isolation from the West, and increases the hostility of the Iranian people towards the West. Bullying causes deep resentment.

Iran won't give up their desire for nuclear power any time soon, I’m afraid. So get ready for Sanctions No. 5, kind of like Mambo No. 5, but with less dancing and ladies’ names. All together now: a little bit of Monica in my life, a little bit of Erica by my side, a little bit Obama’s what I need, a little bit of Mahmud in the sun...

8/6/2010 ISRAEL-SPECIAL CASE OR BASKET CASE?

So, chaps, today we have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, for short!) saying that Iran is “a special case.” An understatement, some of you may say! Of course, my interest in foreign affairs has been largely limited to the OIL SPILL, currently wrecking my $10 million holiday home in the Florida Keys. But, unlike Barack O’Bandwagon, I don’t exclusively blame BP; I blame thirst for oil! However, that’s not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about nuclear weapons, Israel, Iran, and the IAEA.

Since the infamous Flotilla Fiasco (is that an understatement?), there has been an Arab push for Israel’s nuclear work (read: nuclear arsenal!) to receive the same scrutiny as Iran’s. Today, the IAEA has rejected this push. Why, I hear you cry? Israel is a ‘special case!’ Some people may want to call it a ‘basket case,’ but let’s not go that far. Last week, we had France calling for the “rapid adoption of a new sanctions resolution.” Iran wanted extra equipment to enrich uranium to higher levels and to stockpile nuclear material, the IAEA found. Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile had grown to 2.4 tonnes, easily enough for a nuclear weapon. And Iran proposed to enrich nuclear material to higher levels, as they feared they would not receive foreign fuel for a medical research reactor.

So, the same story again: Iran’s being naughty, and the UN want to punish it with sanctions. Now, The Count has always been against sanctions: they feed the rich while they bury the poor. Sanctions lie on a faultline. Firstly, they assume the leaders will care enough about their citizens being punished by the sanctions to do something. Secondly, the leaders are assumed to be nutjobs/megalomaniacs who don’t care for their people! The Count doesn’t understand...

But after the Flotilla Fiasco of last week, the Arab nations have questioned the West’s apathy towards Israel’s nuclear work. Specifically, their nuclear ambiguity and their refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And it’s the first time Israel and nuclear weapons have been discussed by the IAEA since 1991. 19 years is a long time in politics! Yet shouldn’t we question Israel over their nuclear ambiguity? One of the many reasons behind Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is Israel’s nuclear ambiguity! The IAEA chief said that the IAEA could not inspect presumed nuclear power Israel in the same way it does Iran until Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And Israel does not want to reveal its nuclear position as many of its geographic neighbours are hostile to the Jewish state. As a Jewish man myself, I sympathise with Israel to a great extent. But I still think it should be exposed to the same level of investigation as its neighbours. Either that or they should nuke Iran, Syria, and Palestine. Then there’d be no problem!

5/6/10 WHITE MAN HAS ARRIVED: LET THE PATRONISING BEGIN!

It’s that time again! World cup fever is on us! Let it descend upon you like warm and welcome rain. I for one love the world cup, and far be it for me to burst the bubble of enthusiasm, after all it’s never been so needed. Pretty miserable times really, for the bulk of the nation (even I have hit certain snags with certain tax individuals, don’t worry the lawyers are on it). And South Africa is a great place to have a world cup, they will do a great job. I have seen some of the spanking new stadium’s laid on. VIP tour of course, I have a suite in the upper, upper, upper tier, so far away, that a team of assistants recreate the action kick by kick on a secondary pitch built for me and my friends. I am looking forward to it! Algeria! Slovenia! Here we come! Ah, but I have just one niggling bug bear.

As great as South Africa is in many respects (nice wine, lovely diamonds for the wife, great white shark hunting off the Cape) the country has a lot of problems. Aids, poverty, drugs, crime (obscene levels of rape in particular) ah but wait, it’s ok, it’s a rainbow nation! Whoop! Sad looking shanty towns in the background? Never mind, here is Nelson Mandela! (I met Nelson once, nice enough, but pinches buffet food like no tomorrow, must be a left over from his prison days). The levels of patronizing here is in overload. So cue the happy clappy BBC documentary saw with the other Dimbleby, made to tie into the tournament. He did a great job in Russia, unearthing the odd beauty of that nation, its problems and it’s potential. But this new one (looking at Africa as a whole) will be the feel good documentary of the year, a brief mention of the problems but ‘oh look at the sense of community’ and ‘wow what wonderful music’. I bet you a hamstrand salad this is what we see, airbrushing a continent still largely in crisis.

And it’s hardly surprising. But I want to enjoy the football, I want to be enthralled in it. I want to cry into my Bollinger when we drop out to one of those countries we used to beat in wars, once more on penalties. But we will get commentators (who think they are bleeding poets, ITV I’m thinking of you!) with talk of ‘choppy waters by the cape’ ‘three lions in the land of lions’ etc, etc…. And to be fair, they did something similar in China with the Olympics, they do it most places. But this is Africa’s first world cup, and they will be chomping at the bit to shower it with praise, not simply as a host, but as a nation that ‘did good!’. South Africa is alright now, after apartheid isn’t it? Well its preferable to think that, so we will. While with China we were wary and judgemental, we are patronising and smug over south Africa. Interesting!

But to be fair, the South Africans are happy enough to play on this. If it makes money, then why not? So cue the African choirs, the token Zulu, safari animals, drum beating etc, etc. If they think it’s a laugh, and it pleases daft tourists then why not? South Africa can be a lovely country, and I know they will do well. But this is about football! Incidentally, the Count’s favourite footballer ever is South African, the one and only Lucas Radebe, the ‘Chief’ a gentleman, a great defender, and an excellent ambassador for the game and his homeland. But what I do not want to see, is this mthyologizing of a nation that is far from perfect, with patronizing Westerners turning up and patting the natives on the head. Can the poetry, and lets just watch some football?

3/610 TIGHTER GUN CONTROL? IS THAT THE ANSWER?

I don’t mean to be ghoulish, or exploitative of the horrific mass shootings of yesterday in Cumbria. One of the most beautiful regions of our country, yesterday saw among the ugliest facets of human possibility. It was truly awful. The tacit trust of the community in it’s day to day dealings shattered, by a mad man with a gun. In the days to come, we may get some understanding of why this happened in idyllic Cumbria. Until then, what can we do? It seems the answer we have chosen is to focus on something we can do, turn to the gun laws, and ask if they are tight enough.

But should we be doing this? I think it’s understandable, that we are. If this had been a terrorist attack (that is, a different kind of terror) we would know how to react, we would know why this happened. We can accept that there are people out there that want to murder as many people as they can, and we think we know the reason. It doesn’t make it easier, but it gives us focus. But these kinds of attacks such as the Cumbria killings, are different, a seemingly quiet average guy goes berserk, killing friends and loved ones, then seemingly killing random people. And while those of the community grieve, those of us a bit further back, while sympathetic, and shocked, have the distance to start asking questions. But we need focus, and we find it where we can: ‘should gun laws be tighter?’ ‘there are 600,000 shot guns out there, should they be banned?’ and so on, this is the focus that we can use.

But are these questions valid? I do not see why not, they have a place in a reasonable debate. But lets be rational about this, and remember the difference between things and people, in cases like these, the object in question, a gun, can kill, but only if there is someone behind it who wants to pull the trigger. People kill people, ultimately, and you can’t get away from that. A spade, a kitchen knife, a pair of hands can kill, these kind of situations are made far worse by the existence of guns, but that’s not a good reason to ban them. Serial killer’s, such as the recent Bradford prostitute killer, didn’t use a gun. There exists unsavoury psychologies out there. In certain situations, they can take things that are potentially dangerous and use them how they want. It’s the risk inherent in out open society, short of constant checks on the mental health of everyone every day, or making everything out of foam, it’s a risk we have to accept.

Regarding guns in general, we are also being a little unrealistic. Getting a gun legally, as Derek Bird did, is not easy. And there are stringent standards he no doubt met. But people can change quickly. Most people with weapons have them for legitimate reasons. Fatty foods can kill people, but we don’t ban them. And most people know how to use them properly, so that they do not become a health risk. A little convoluted an analogy, but I hope you get the point, if you chose to take the kitchen knife and plunge it into someone, banning the kitchen knife as ownable object for those of us who use them to cut onions, is too far a step I am sure you will agree . And let’s not forget, that gun crime is a far bigger problem, illegal gun crime, imports, converted replica’s, the extent of which, and the loss of life they cause, out way these freakish and infrequent events. If tightening the laws would help, then I see no reason why not. But blanket action will not work. And let’s not forget that people are the problem, be they sociopath, psychopath, or plain old criminal.

HAGUE, THE GAZA FLOTILLA, AND THE CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL 31/5/2010

So, the old Israel-Palestine conflict comes into play, thanks to a Rambo-like Israeli interception of a ‘Freedom Flotilla.’ When I saw the video on Sky News, I initially thought they were showing a video of that popular video game ‘Call of Duty-Modern Warfare,’ that my lazy grandson plays 24/7. He is not worthy of inheriting a penny of my vast £800 million fortune. However, that’s beside the point. The flotilla was carrying 10,000 tonnes of aid from Cyprus. Israeli commandos stormed the ship, were hit by what appeared to be hoover pipes, and unleashed hell. With 10 people dead and many wounded, you could say that it was a uneven response. People who fight with hoover pipes will always be conquered by people with guns. Especially if those people are army commandos. If you think about it, it’s no different from NATO forces opening fire on innocent Iraqi/Afghan civilians, but of course, we can’t bring that up.

Amnesty International have condemned the attacks, saying an investigation is needed. “Israeli forces appear clearly to have used excessive force,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa. And like any other blockade, the Gaza blockade doesn’t punish the Palestinian armed groups, but the civilians. Ask Iran, North Korea, or any other nation that suffers from a UN blockade. As I write this, there are protests in Turkey, with people even trying to attack the Israeli embassy in Istanbul. Turkey has withdrawn their ambassador from Israel, and Netanyahu has cancelled his trip to the US. So, Israel is at the forefront of protests once again.

But that’s not what I want to talk about. What interests me is the response of our Majesty’s Government. Would Hague condemn the Israelis, and send in the SAS to bring down the government? Of course, that’s going a bit too far, and my own private army could do that (they work closely with The Pentagon, and are all former SAS soldiers. Blackwater, eat your heart out!). So what did the terminally boring William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, have to say? "I deplore the loss of life during the interception of the Gaza flotilla. Our embassy is in urgent contact with the Israeli government.” Wow. What a condemnation. Kind of pathetic, don’t you think? Once again, along with the David Laws/Danny Alexander expenses controversy, this government of ‘new politics’ has turned to ‘old politics.’

"We have consistently advised against attempting to access Gaza in this way because of the risks involved. But at the same time, there is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations.” Is he defending the Israeli position here? It’s a pathetic attempt to appease the Israelis yet appear to condemn them at the same time. And hold on, isn’t he a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, as are many Conservative MPs? Google it if you don’t believe me! ‘CFI’ is “dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel.” And Hague is currently trying to overturn ‘Universal Jurisdiction’ legislation, where a national court can try a foreign citizen of a crime whether or not the citizen is a national of that country. This is in specific relation to Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, issued an arrest warrant by a British Court.

So it’s no wonder Hague is not condemning Israel! What a Foreign Secretary he is! I LOVE THE NEW POLITICS!

ARIZONA'S STICKY ISSUE: WHAT'S AN OBAMA TO DO? 26/5/2010

While environmentalists are crying over oil-covered birds, a crisis is happening to the west. I’ve talked about those Arizonan chaps and their 1070 Bill in a previous article yet things are speeding up. Cities are starting to boycott Arizona, and Obama has finally stepped in. He’s got rather a lot on his plate at the moment, with the oil spill and a potential Korean War II in the making. I’ve never been a lover of Obama; I loathe hype and empty words like ‘hope’ and ‘change.’ I could make a promise to my wife to ‘change’ my eating habits, but whether or not I use a knife and fork to eat my fresh African Elephant chop is a different matter (it tastes so good using the fingers! Try it, you might like it! Although at £100,000 a chop, most of your peasants won’t be able to afford it).

But anyway, Obama has pledged 1,200 National Guard troops to cover the U.S-Mexican border. He will also request from the Senate an extra $500 million for "enhanced border protection and law enforcement." John McCain calls this a “recognition of the violence on the border which has been really beyond description in some respects,” yet thinks that 6,000 troops would be an appropriate number. I assumed that the National Guard could only be called up in a state of emergency or disaster (like Hurricane Katrina), so is Obama also recognising that Arizona is in a state of emergency? Who else outside of Arizona agrees with this? Does Obama think throwing cash and troops at Arizona will shush McCain and company, while he can fly to Florida and berate BP? Unlike the oil spill, both the Arizona immigrant problem and the Korean problem are problems that Obama doesn’t want. The oil spill gives Obama the chance to be the Ideal President, and thus he can live up to his title. Everybody hates oil companies, and everybody ‘loves’ an environmental disaster (It’s a chance to show active care for the environment).

He doesn’t want to face the Korean problem because North Korea actually have (or are purported to have) a nuclear weapon; the thought of mass destruction on American soil is something no American President wants. You never invade countries that have WMDs! Or that’s how I play Risk: Iraq Edition, anyway. And the Arizona problem is something that will be a BIG ISSUE at the mid-terms, and it’s a Catch-22 for Obama. Around 60% of the Latino population voted for him in the 2008 Election; he could lose these voters no matter what action he takes. On the one hand, ‘legal’ Latinos may find the Bill okay; illegal immigrants are staining the Latino population. However, they may also find it a horrific type of racial discrimination.

To add to the problem, a number of powerful cities have boycotted Arizona for its “Nazi” Bill. Gary Pierce, the commissioner of Arizona Corporation, had threatened to stop it’s power supply to Los Angeles, one of the boycotters. A very Russian tactic! However, it turns out that the Corporation has no real power to do this, and that California owns a few Arizonan power plants. OH NO! Arizona itself stands to lose about $90 million from cancelled conferences and the like. Will Obama oversee decisions that penalise Arizona even more, in a time when many state finances are in dire straits? What’s an Obama to do? His pledges are merely stop-gaps, a ‘peace treaty’ to put off any real decisions. But soon enough, he will have to intervene, and what will happen then? Like the oil that’s polluting the Gulf of Mexico, this immigrant problem will stick to Arizona and Obama until he decides to wash it off...but what will he use?

DOCTOR FOX, DAVID BECKHAM, AND THAT BROKEN 13TH CENTURY COUNTRY 23/5/2010

Another day, another bigoted comment by a Tory MP (and member of the Cabinet) that is swept under the carpet. However, it was booted away by the arrival of David Beckham, who presumably has no other plans after losing his chance to be in the World Cup. Now, as an avid England fan (watching it on my supermassive plasma 3-D TV), I was quite upset that Beckham would miss the World Cup after his Achilles Heel tear. True, I can’t specifically think of anything positive he brings to the England team, but that’s not the point; it’s the spirit he brings to England that is far more important.

But anyway, the arrival of a multi-millionaire sports super star was enough to deflect attention from Doctor Liam Fox’s very bigoted comment. He said that our troops were not in Afghanistan for the "education policy in a broken 13th century country." Now, Afghanistan may well be a broken 13th century country, but why is that? Thanks to decades of being invaded first by the Soviet Union, then the NATO alliance. That NATO alliance included us, if you remember. And we are still there, fighting for that broken 13th century country. So is he devaluing our presence there? And I assume that education is vital in rebuilding Afghanistan. I failed all of my O-Levels, let’s get that out of the way first of all. But of course, you don’t need education to get into business. Just ask Richard Branson, one of my closest friends (he might not understand you, so speak slowly and clearly). But educating the young, backwards people of Afghanistan is surely vital to its regeneration?

Look at England, where you have to be well-educated to get involved in politics. That doesn’t mean that you’re wise, it just means that you’re well-read. Look at Cameron; an Eton Rifle if I ever saw one. Of course, ‘Doctor’ Fox should really know better; what was that education for? But what does medicine have to do with being the Defence Secretary, anyway? Surely being an expert in medicine would tell him that education is vital to medical knowledge, which in turn is vital to the survival of a nation? And why hasn’t this been picked up in the media? Apart from the Tory bias, I also lay the blame on celebrity bias. The Tory visit to Afghanistan has been completely overshadowed by Beckham’s arrival. You’d think he was the Defence Secretary, sorting out funds for our troops. But he’s not. He’s not even playing for England, for crying out loud! He left England for the glories of Madrid and Los Angeles...show’s his devotion to St. George!

So, is Fox some sort of bigoted Defence Secretary? Let’s see how his Afghanistan policies work out, although if they are based around his belief that it’s a “broken 13th century country”, let’s not hold out any hope for this bigot. According to him, we are there “so [that] the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened.” And there was me thinking that being there damaged out global interests. And how is it helping British people? As another soldier dies in Afghanistan, is this the appropriate attitude to hold?

 21/5/10

KIM Il JONG AIN’T RIGHT IN THE HEAD!

Kim Il Jong has been playing battleship. With real war ships. The man is such a nut, his anger is probably based upon the lack of response from the South Korean’s to shout ‘B4!’ really loudly across the border. Or, more likely, he just felt like he was being ignored. But this blatant act of War from North Korea was made in the full knowledge that it would never really be interpreted as such.

The media love North Korea, it’s a one of a kind, media paradise, harder than heaven to get into. Just a shame about it being a living nightmare for everyone who lives there. Its mysterious, dangerous, and, has its own bizarre media. Still not as bad as Sky News in full blown Burley and Boulton mode, but some crazy broad that presents the ‘news’ threatened war if the South Korean’s/American’s dared accuse them of sinking the ship in question. The news was likely met with befuddlement to all four people in N Korea that actually have a TV set (an untapped market, if only they had any money, I’d be in their like a bleeding shot). But the quite ridiculous, farcical happenings aside, this is quite a tragic episode. But don’t expect anything to change. The South Koreans don’t want war, they have too much to lose (getting nuked or having an extremely prosperous economy badly damaged). The American’s are to bust focusing on their own back yard, and of course IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! So a country which actually has nuclear weapons and can destroy warships at will, gets off the hook (surely strengthening the case for Iran to get the bomb?).

Meanwhile, all the bleeding heart Liberals that hope for China to become some sort of counterweight to the big bad US of A, with all its blood for oil etc, etc, are getting another sobering message in how they do things. They do nothing. They back crack pot Kim despite his war mongering, turn a blind eye to the vast human rights violation (and general horrific misery of North Koreans, with high levels of malnutrition, where teenagers have the bodies of children. Hardly surprising, given China’s own poor record on human rights, and their constant turning of a blind eye to all sorts of nasty things in Africa and South America. So nothing much is going to happen. Get used to it. We are passed the age of intervention (and what a wonderful history that had). The new global order will not see conflict between the super powers. Just blind eyes turned on those who want to do it all by themselves.

17/5/10 ‘IT WAS THE MAIL THAT LOST IT’

Is anyone surprised that the Sunday Mail tried to set up Lord Triesman? After all, he is a LABOUR pier. No not a seaside extension where women give birth, he is a Labour party politician. And the Mail is Murdoch’s most vicious Tory attack dog. Clearly, still in assault mode after the inconclusive election. But they have mistimed this one badly. If there is one thing this country loves more than scandal, its football.

Mind you, if its football and scandal, then that’s another matter. So maybe the Mail can be forgiven for this oversight. Except that the Individual in question, is not a pampered over paid Chelsea simpleton, but a bungling old man, and one at work in a vital stage in a World Cup bid that is said to be worth £3 billion in revenue for this country. Now I suggest, if the bid is lost, then we sue Mr Murdoch for the £3 billion in full. He is good for it, believe me. Then the editor of the Mail is hung, drawn, and quartered, each piece sent to a rival bid country as a sign of how serious we are about this thing. We are serious, aren’t we?

Notice, how I am not blaming Triesman. This ain’t bias, I just do not think the man has done anything THAT wrong. He was a bit stupid, but he did not rig anything, bribe anyone, he did not insult an old woman or anything as bizzare as that. Who knows, he might even have been right. Though the Russians threaten rather than bribe, in my experience. Putin has probably threatened to turn off Sepp Blatter’s gas supply, or carpet bomb FIFA headquarters. But Triesman's comments would just have been private ramblings, nothing serious, had the Mail not revealed them. We all say things in private, that we wouldn’t in public (my wife for one, is always going on about the Blacks, awful, awful woman, but its just too expensive to divorce her). It was the Mail who chose to publish this, and must take the blame ultimately. Did they think it would be harmful? Hard not to. But I bet they just thought ‘’Labour Pier? How dare he! They let Asylum seekers rape the Diana memorial fountain! Destroy! Destroy!’’ The sad fact is that the paper are blinkered by their over-arching ideology. it’s a shame, because the bid will probably fall now.

 FIFA hate English football, with its perceived sense of superiority and entitlement. This is probably deserved, but why do we always have to smooch up to and arse lick these shady people? Is football the property of the people who play it, or the people who watch it? Why is this unelected Cabal the body that decides the fate of nations? I reckon the bid will be rejected, most likely, because the comments touched on something FIFA would rather not admit…. But in the end, it will be the Mail what lost it.

14 May 2010 ‘SPARE US THE CUTTER? NOT WHEN NICK CLEGG IS ABOUT!'

I have been on holiday for a few weeks somewhere hot, my island off Dubai shaped like a pork sausage especially built for me and my unique needs. I wanted to get away. But it was not much fun, them bleeding Arab’s ain’t half party poopers. Been planning my new series of the Assistant for the BBC (scheduled for BBC Four soon) thinking up new tasks such as ‘make your own porno and pitch it to Larry Flint’. But things back home are far less fun for all of you. Because Murdoch has got his way and planted a certain moon faced toff in the office once held by the Dying Scotsman. And it seems he has teamed up with a yellow tie wearing toff, called Nick Clegg, a man with a very skinny neck (which marks him out as untrustworthy for me, his head literally ‘bends in the wind’). I am hearing a lot of student types crying in their pot noodles over this ‘betrayal’ and I sympathise with this (as much as any multi-millionaire tycoon can do). Clegg is a traitor, sold out for a few scraps at the top table. I won’t be dealing with any of these people, unless they offer me a Duchy. But I am hardly surprised…

Three great travesties of democracy were committed during this campaign, firstly, the obscene media bias, which was definitely stronger this time (trying to get their boy over the finishing line). Secondly, the conspiracy of silence over the cuts, and thirdly, the lack of discussion over what would happen in the event of a hung parliament. Oh I know, they discussed the possibility of it happening, sort of, but never highlighted the compromises that would have to be made in the event of it, or where the parties may well have gone. Electoral suicide it may well have been, but it would have been honest, and more democratic. But that’s all in the past now, but what's interesting is how number two and three fit together quite nicely. Nick Clegg said in an interview with Sky News, that he favoured cuts over tax rises. Not surprising, his voters are not as dependent on public services, but would not welcome tax rises (unless they where green) and this exposes, I think, a rather elitist streak in Nick that we should be aware of.

If the University budget for example, is hit, as it may well be, this would devastate his standing with the intellectual left and students, in a way even more harmful than tuition fees was for Blair. These people have long memories and do not forgive easily. The Tory Lib Dem overlap has to do with a dislike of the over bearing state (Clegg called the NHS a ‘national religion’) so its not surprising that he has got into bed with Minority Cameron. Clegg has his own ideological reasons to cut back public sector spending, he always has. It’s not just Minority Cameron who relishes the looming knife, its his thin necked deputy. Oh but you first time Lib Dem voters knew that right? You shall see the Lib Dems going along with the cuts as willing accomplices. And if you have a service you treasure that gets hit, don’t just blame Cameron, but the other guy, too.