Have just been pointed to a rather amusing article on cracked.com the first bit of which reminded me of a conversation OH and others had with some anarchists at the rally against debt:

8 Historic Symbols That Mean The Opposite of What You Think

“#8. Guy Fawkes

Misunderstood By:
Anarchists, 4Chan.

Despite anarchists’ general failure to unite long enough to make any meaningful progress against their ideological enemies (democracy, capitalism, communism and Internet forum moderationism), they do have a few running themes and symbols in common. One of the most prominent symbols is the 17th century English revolutionary, Guy Fawkes, whose famed exploit was his attempt to blow up Parliament in order to destabilize the British government.

The comparison is probably most recognizable to popular culture as the basis of the graphic novel/box office catastrophe V For Vendetta, in which a dude dresses up like Fawkes and brings down an evil dystopian theocracy. In recent years, through some bizarre online game of Chinese whispers, Fawkes has also come to somehow represent Internet teenagers’ struggle against Scientology.

While anarchists may be right that Fawkes was the only person ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions, they’ve forgotten what those intentions were. Fawkes wasn’t trying to destroy an evil theocracy, he was trying to install one.

Fawkes was a fighter for Spain and the Catholic Church. His goal was to end the slightly more egalitarian Protestant revolution in England by restoring Catholic domination. If the Gunpowder Plot had actually succeeded, Britain would probably look less like an anarchist commune and more like the fascist police state Alan Moore warned us about.”

The rest are worth reading as well enjoy.

 

Well it made me laugh, via Facebook:
Turn it off and back on again

 

Revolution in suburbia A recent post by Fausty reminded me that I’d written this a while back, so… enjoy.

As many people have observed one of the best ways for an individual to very quietly combat the creeping power of the state is to “starve the beast”, don’t give it any money you don’t have to. Now this doesn’t need to mean doing anything illegal, in fact you could even say you’re just following their advice. Follow the example of those early radicals pictured at the top of this article and grow your own, and if you can’t do that just spend less ask yourself:
Do I need that enough to give this government 20% of the price?

If we buy less we reduce our carbon footprints, if we grow our own we reduce our food miles, if we do our own repairs and help each other out for free we’re taking part in the big society – see we’re just doing what the Government wants. We can kill it by just following it’s own advice. Though of course they already worrying about (though not yet for tax reasons) the radical actions of picking wild berries. Really annoy them and Brew your own not only do they not get their double hit of taxes but you screw up their statistics as well. By preparing more of your own food you might even be able to avoid the fat tax if it makes it over here.

No single huge act that raises any of us from the crowd or attracts unwelcome attention, just hundred of small acts of refusal, starving the Government by a thousand cuts.

Become a dissident:

“Say no to government in any way you can, in the workplace, among friends, on the internet. There are a hundred little soapboxes to climb onto. Don’t be quite so concerned that you think left-wing bloggers are chuckleheads or right-wing bloggers are evil Tories. If you are not an apparatchik, you’re little people and you’re all the same to the ruling class, who went from being public servants to being autocrats in a remarkably small space of time.”

Become part of a clever revolution, we only need to convince 10% of the people.

 

Stop SOPA
I didn’t take part in the Internet blackout today, as I’m a lazy sod and also I’m just back at work after a very hard weeks drinking. However I would note that as many many people have observed:

  1. This is very similar to our RIPA act, but from a country with more power to break stuff
  2. It’s utterly pointless, and won’t stop serious piracy in anyway
  3. It will result in an awful lot of collateral damage
  4. It will have a chilling effect and be trivial to be misused

I’d also predict that if it did come to pass then it wouldn’t be applied in the reverse direction to take off line large companies that steal content from smaller on-line artists and content providers. As one of the fundamental shifts which big media is fighting is that anyone can now be a content provider and they’ve actually got to compete on quality*

However unless this move is protested and every move like it sooner or later this sort of censorship at the behest of large media will come to pass and we’ll all be back to the walled garden days of AOL and the internet as a creative environment, medium for the free exchange of ideas and innovative business will cease to be (in the US at least). The problem with the US proposals is the same as we had with RIPA in that it allows for the blocking and removal of content before any proof of infringement, instead the blocked site has to prove it didn’t infringe (roughly speaking).

For far better summations of what the problem is with the legislation, let me pass you over to providers of original content over on the other side of the pond where they’re proposing this stuff Wondermark:
“What’s likely to happen?

• What burglars there are, will take another route. (SOPA/PIPA do not target pirates, but rather sites that link to alleged piracy. Real pirates can easily sidestep the restrictions.)

• Law-abiding business trucks, scared of the dynamite, will ALSO take another route. (The huge legal and financial burden of compliance with the new law will discourage startups, stifling independent businesses based in the United States.)
br/>• The dynamite is likely to go off whenever the trigger person sees anybody who looks slightly suspicious — burglar or not. (Claims of “piracy” could be used as a weapon against websites to silence them for competitive or political reasons.)

Despite the fact that nobody in Congress can agree on health care, the budget, or anything else, bought-and-paid-for politicians from both sides of the aisle have lined up to defend these bills. It’s pretty disgusting. Movie piracy is simply not more important than the safety and integrity of the entire Internet, which is my whole livelihood.”

Also in case you needed more convincing even Hitler is against it!**

Actually even more convincing than Hitler the MPAA oppose the SOPA protests and support the legislation.

* lets face it look how many remakes and re-imaginings etc. there are in the mainstream media, they’re churning out the same level of rip off’s as the internet but on a bigger budget.
** That mashup could result in the whole on YouTube being taken down under the proposed SOPA/PIPA laws.

 
Quooker in the eye Ad Nauseum Private Eye 1305
Hot on the heals of forcing up the costs of DVD’s and all sorts of gadgets for the rest of us by closing a vat loophole. Private Eye proudly reports that the Quooker is a “quook of shite” thus getting egg on the face of many upmarket newspapers that advertised it (P11 Eye 1305). Sadly for reasons of space it would seem they didn’t have time to report that a certain well known satirical magazine has also been more than happy to take the advertisers shilling for the self same product (Eye passim). As the two scans above show (I can do a scan of open rag if people doubt the validity of the back cover scan). I’m sure this unfortunate oversight will be corrected in the next edition of Private Eye.
 

As the idea of the replacing the Queens 44 year old yacht as a present for her diamond jubilee seems to continue to be a matter of debate amongst my friends I find myself wondering a few things. The first is does she actually want a new yacht of any sort, or would this be like getting a very expensive knitted sweater from your granny that will never see the light of day? Though of course as the video above observes who wouldn’t want a massive yacht?

The thing I’d be more doubtful about is who’d organize the fund raising, a government quango? If the government was involved I’ll just post her a bit of sailcloth as that would probably be more likely to result in her getting a yacht than anything the government touched. The idea that it could also be used as some sort of “university of the seas” doesn’t make it much of a present either.
“here you go love, brand new boat for you – but you can only use it when we say so ‘cos we want to use it as a trendy university so no nipping off for your holidays on it – think of it as more of a time share”
So no if the Government is invovled that isn’t going to fly, but lets instead assume that the Queen does actually want a yacht, then could not Philip pull a few strings to get some of the more informed great and good to create “Prince Phillips – buy my missus a boat” fund run along charitable lines and open to public subscription? I have seen some people scoffing at the idea that public subscription might actually pay for it, but really it’s not that silly an idea – the mooted price of the erstwhile yacht is 60 million (yachts it seems are expensive), now there are estimated to be over 60 million people living in the UK, so that’s say a quid each. Now of course a lot of people wouldn’t want to chip in, but on the other hand her Maj is quite popular globally so some foreign types might throw in the odd bob or two (preferably not Euro’s we want real money here) and well Charles and Andrew etc. might perhaps throw in a bit extra. So really is buying the yacht via voluntary public subscription that strange an idea?

Finally there is a very practical fiscal upside to all of this. If the government isn’t invovled then the foundation/charity what have you can use who ever they like to build it. No mucking about with EU tendering mandates, they can just go down to bob’s boat emporium (round the back of the Neesden marina and sewage plant) chuck him some dosh and say on you go mate. So that could be 60 million pounds or private capital from around the world being pumped into British industry, as for all the talk of the decline in our industry something that we continue to do well at is luxury. A high tech state of the art luxury boat – that’s right up the street for British industry, and such a yacht would make an excellent show case for the businesses invovled. Finally of course all those businesses and workers involved will be paying tax, so the project will have deftly pilfered the pockets of foreign contributors* to swell the nations ailing coffers. What’s not to like about the plan? Given it could avoid tendering outside of the UK, it sounds a better idea than high speed rail?

* Only foreign contributors they’d have got our money sooner or later anyway so that can hardly count.

Update: First I’d like to point out I wrote this at 15:27 so before the Gaudrian article saying that some of the great and good were setting up a charity and that the Queen wouldn’t mind a yacht etc… But I do wonder why the price has gone up by 20 million between the BBC article and the Gaurdians.

 

“Mr Gove And His Amazing Minefield Clog-Dance

I’d love to be a fly on the wall at Michael Gove’s next performance appraisal. I happen to have met a few of the senior whips at the conservative party and I can imagine one in particular, sitting back, making a steeple of his fingers and asking, with terrifying nonchalance “So Michael, what have we learned about two deeply unpopular ministers exchanging stupid ideas by non-secure memo on a slow news week?”. For a slow news week it is. One capsized cruise liner, a couple of cut and dried murders and the limited schadenfreude to be extracted from the French credit downgrade were never going to be enough to keep Govey off the front pages.

Or perhaps he’s getting a pat on the back for a PR masterstroke. “Well done” they’re saying. “Rather than draw attention to the fact that the majority of the front benches of parliament are made up of lawyers and bankers with massive stocks in the UK’s besmirched financial institutions, you’ve diverted attention to a pointless side argument about whether we need a royal family or not. You’re a genius. Have a promotion”. Alright maybe not.

Whatever the Tory grandees’ response, the really special thing about the story is not that everyone thinks Michael Gove is a bit of a loose lipped pillock. That story wouldn’t make an even page nib. No, the real treat is that somewhere deep in Buckingham Palace, a certain elderly woman is reading facebook and considering a status update along the lines of “If one still had the power, one would have a certain chap’s head in basket. LOFAO (NOT)”.

I was on Facebook too and thinking “Her madge is going to get the rap for this. The weasel turncoat of fleet street is going to get away with it again!”. (Many journalists have a problem with Govey. Standing on a picket line to demand fairer conditions for hacks then becoming a Tory MP is a bit like Spartacus giving up the revolutionary life and opening a crucifixion consultancy).

This morning’s trawl of the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook confirmed my suspicions. I was half expecting to see questions like “Why is the man who said local authorities can’t have cash to plug the holes in school roofs suggesting spending outside his department?”. Or “Why do you think the Guardian’s got it in for a former leader writer and news editor of The Times?”. But no. What I got from my generally respected list of left leaning contacts was a wall of flippant, sarcastic and entirely predictable nonsense about someone they erroneously name “One of the richest people in Britain”.

I’m not suggesting her madge is struggling but the Queen doesn’t even make the top 20 of The Times’ loaded list. Messrs Abramovich and Branson peer down at The Queen from their lofty positions. At least one of them is a hot tip for president should the republicans get their way.

But the likelihood is they never will, and here’s why;

According to a recent Ipsos MORI poll 68 percent of the population are happy to keep the monarchy. The republicans only make up 22 percent of the remainder,(the shortfall presumably being made up by those who couldn’t care less). So the dear old roundheads are in a minority to start with.

The campaign for a glorious republic has gained exactly one percent on the royalists since 1969. If I were running a campaign with a success rate like that I’d be re-thinking my strategy. The problem is my liberal chums are quite happy to engage in complex and entirely rational discussions about the relative merits of the socialist agenda versus the callous cockpit of market driven capitalism. But when it comes to getting sidelined in the monarchy debate something snaps and they regress straight back to the school yard. It’s deeply depressing.

I’ll be honest, the moniker I write under is no coincidence. Other than an obsession with a certain nineties GM coupe, ‘The Wounded Cavalier’ refers to the fact that given the choice in the civil war, I’d have been wearing a nice big hat and staring at old warty face from the posh side of the lines. But even though I’m a royalist, I do like a good argument. Sadly I so very rarely see one these days. The last time was some years back. I was driving at the time and it’s hard to concentrate when you’re negotiating York’s one-way system.

So here’s a suggestion for the republicans; Instead of spouting ad hominem witticisms, and tackling the man, not the ball, come up with an argument. Actually tell me why this issue, not the economy being run by the banks’ major shareholders, not the preponderance of corporate lawyers in our house of representatives is the real thorny question to kick the week off with. Why when we’ve propped up failing institutions to the tune of hundreds of billions and then watched them pocket the profits do you quail at the thought of lending liquidity to a profit making family firm? In short, why can’t you talk like grown ups?

Incidentally I wonder if her majesty writes IOHO for “In one’s humble opinion”?”

 

Just to help confuse matters later on, Anonymong has gone all multi author. Whilst you’ll still be mainly subject to my inane window lickings, to try and lend some class and style to the old blog. I managed to persuade The Wounded Cavalier to grace this ramshackle dive with some of his fine word smithing.

 

Once again a significant “consultation” that no body new about. It would seem that to they’d like to give the police yet more power:
This three-part consultation seeks your views on the areas of police powers which the government is committed to reviewing:
– the relevance of the word ‘insulting‘ in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
– new powers to request removal of face coverings
– new powers to impose curfews

And as they’ve had a consultation, which ends tomorrow they’ll claim public support. ArchbishopCranmber and Old Holborn have more details, but if you’d like to once more be able to call me a smegging idiot without risking arrest. The powers that be, seem to currently take the stand that as long as you only get arrested, charged and suffer loss of time, money and distress with the whole process as long as you don’t actually go to court and get found guilty it’s all ok. Their test is are people actually getting found guilty unreasonably, not are people suffering from the impact of the law and likewise they have no concern over it’s chilling effects. See Olly Cromwell’s blog for a prime example of abuse of this sort of power.

I would point out that the police can already ask you to remove face coverings if they genuinely believe you intend to commit an offence, so that those rioting last summer wore face coverings is already covered by existing powers – and lets face it it’s not as if you’re going to comply with a request to uncover your face if you already rioting. The new power would let them remove face coverings at any time if they felt there was “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” – of course remember that this is the same police force that despite being told numerous times still think it’s illegal to take photographs.

Finally curfews, the police can already force people to disperse, as people who remember the rave scene at all are well aware, and they can since 2003 request a dispersal zone be designated where people won’t be allowed to gather – this apparently takes too long and has too much paper work so they’d like a new law. Of course they’re once more citing the summer looting, ignoring the option of the riot act and that there was clear criminal behaviour taking place so would the looters really have gone home because they were in a dispersal zone? What they’d like instead is:
The aim of a general police curfew power would be to give the police an operational tool to keep members of the public off the streets in a given location, for a given period, in order to prevent or address serious disorder.
Now that looks like it’s just begging for feature creep to me, and is if it could be used in very lazy and Stalinist ways. Though I do tend to take the view that if a law can be abused it probably will be. They say that being outside during a curfew wouldn’t be a criminal offence, so just how would they enforce it? A fine, or a going out door tax as it might be known?

So go have your say whilst you can!

 

Mayan calendar actually ends in 2012 due to Tory cuts in calendar development funding.

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha