This ‘Slutwalk’ thing

I’ve been watching this develop for the past week or so, ever since a Police Officer in Toronto said words to the effect; “If you don’t dress provocatively, you’re less likely to be raped.” Which isn’t strictly speaking true, as rapists have been recorded as having some very weird tastes indeed. Although his imprecation has been known to be true in certain cases.

Now it seems a whole lot of fashion victims have got their panties (Which you can almost see, literally) in a bunch over one, repeat one Canadian Coppers mistaken world view.

As a stepfather, my only remark to Eldest when she tried to dress down to that level one evening was; “Ahem. Builders cleavage dear.” Rather than go down the outraged daddy thing of “Call that a skirt? It’s more like a pelmet! You’re not going out undressed like that!” I used a little mild mockery. Needless to say, the offending outfit immediately retreated to Eldest’s wardrobe and thence Oxfam without my further intervention. Kids love parental outrage, they hate it when you gently take the piss because there’s nothing to get on their own high horse about. That and making obvious fashion faux pas in front of family. Oh the embarrassment. Which is a far more potent parental tool than the wagging finger and shouted recrimination in my book.

My problem is the sheer disproportionality of the media coverage. To be honest I was thinking that the British Media’s silly season had started early. That and ‘Naked cycle rides’ making headlines. Yes, fine, cyclists making the point “We are vulnerable”, but everybody who’s ever ridden a bicycle know this. BFD (Big fucking deal). Anybody who’s ever ridden a motorcycle knows this. You try not to hit those four wheeled tin boxes because they bloody hurt, that’s why. As does gravel, walls of all types, and anything with a prickle. The world is walls of pain if you are careless or inattentive enough to come in contact with it. Oh pur-lease.

While these events do expose a lot of lovely, (and not so lovely) flesh pruriently speaking, I’m sure there are better ways of occupying one’s time. More important ones too. Like why the UK Government might as well be wearing a rising sun headband, and shouting ‘banzai!’, economically speaking, with all the half baked ‘green’ and ‘fairness’ policies (Like giving away billions to other countries who have Space programmes FFS!) foisted on those now-sorry isles.


Aggressively apathetic

Every day it seems a new power is demanded to ‘save’ something, be it the planet, some landmark or other, or people from the consequences of their own actions.

Now I’m not just on the side of apathy here, I really, aggressively don’t give a shit. I can’t force myself to care about those who undertake ill-advised courses of action, then come a cropper. The thought is; they were told they were being an idiot, they screwed up, now they’re dead / crippled / traumatized – why am I being told to run around screaming “Isn’t it awful?” Like some attention seeking High School drama queen. It’s not my fault they made a mess of things. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Furthermore, just because said hyperactivists have their panties in a bunch over something that might happen (and no-one can control), like terrorists food poisoning the food chain, or the weather getting slightly warmer or cooler. Or even non terrorists poisoning the food chain. I have to modify my way of life to ‘fit in’ to deal with some unsubstantiated ‘threat’. No. It’s all bullshit. All of it. Fluff. Meaningless column filler. Fark and churnalism. Self aggrandizing pompous puff pieces. Pure fantasy, and I say that as a writer of fiction. Maybe if people washed food before eating and stood up for themselves a bit more without it coming to a slanging match and punch up, they’d be a whole lot happier.

Less of the left wing bullshit might be beneficial. Whiny little tossers. Always throwing Dolly out of the pram because other people don’t share their lame brained subservience.

In addition, the people being exhorted to ‘do’ something by activists have no real more power than you or I. All they are good at is making pretty speeches, looking commandingly photogenic and pissing money up the wall. When it actually comes down to doing something positive and useful, they’re rubbish. Consistent failure to do joined up thinking and the law of unforeseen consequences sees to that. The truth of the matter is that answers to all your problems begin and end exactly where you stand. They’re your responsibility, not somebody else’s.

Excuse the pejorative, but I’ve just crossed the caring event horizon. Bad things happen. Good things happen. Things happen, and you can’t change them by throwing Teddy out of the nursery. I don’t care. If stuff happens, from a wonky wheel to a tidal wave I’ll roll up my sleeves and deal with it as I’ve always done, but I don’t see why I should waste my quality time on someone else’s imaginary pet peeve? Why should I have to change my life one tiny increment on some fatuous fatheads perverse prognostications? Apart from a brief pause to point and laugh at the human freak show they represent.

Do the bedwetters want my attention? Well they’ve got it, and my sarcasm, irony and disdain. This is also directed at their pantywaist political followers, and the thieving corkscrew bastards who can smell a fast crooked buck two miles upwind in a snowstorm. The media whores and attention junkies who parade their insecurities across the idiot box like they had substance. The people who can’t deal with real life and want everyone else reduced to a blithering spineless moron suckled on the largesse of a tiny unaccountable elite. I thought we ditched all that shit with feudalism and Empire? Well obviously the wussies want daddy to make it all better den because they aren’t mature enough to live their own lives. Too busy playing wiv der shiny toys all closed into the womb of subservience to be anything but a purposeless drone.

I have this to say; Just because you can’t handle real life doesn’t mean everybody else can’t. You’re on your own, and don’t come crying to me if it all ends in tears. I’m busy.


Twister weather?

Unusual cloud formations in the sky this evening.  Spring has come all of a sudden in the last couple of days with an abrupt change in temperature.

As you can see by the Weather Radar Sceengrab, it’s raining out in the Georgia Straits between Vancouver Island and the Mainland, and the two other images are mine, taken just a few minutes before.  One shows the odd cloud formations coming in, and the one with the foggy line extending groundwards could have been a little whirlwind.  It only stayed there for a few minutes, but I wonder if there might be a headline about Global warming causing whirlwinds over the Mid Island.  Which will be a bit of ill informed media nonsense, as it’s the warmer air coming up from the Pacific meeting the still cool air from the mountains, which had a better than average snow season this winter just gone.   Warm air mass hits cold air mass + rotation = whirlwinds.

On the other hand, it might just pass us by.  Whirlwinds are not unknown around here, and according to Landlord only ever move the garbage cans around a bit.

Update: A Pacific, sunny Sunday has just lazed on by.  Whatever happened, happened elsewhere, and I’m jolly pleased it did.

How to really fight a Cyber-war

Just saw this about an Al Quaeda website being hacked by UK intelligence, and for once I heartily approve.  Now that’s how to fight a Cyber war; with a little wit and humour, not bullets and bombs.  Although if whoever did the hack really had their wits about them, they could have subtly changed the article into something the web site readers would not have readily recognised until Creme Brulee was loaded as opposed to explosive.  So instead of terrorist bomb, you have the far less dangerous terrorist comedy culinary disaster.

The whole idea of any Cyber war should be to discredit an enemy, disrupting their lines of information flow without it making obvious that anyone has done so.  A change of syntax here, the odd change of punctuation, and perhaps a pun in the right place is quite sufficient.  Before long, all the wannabe Bin thingy’s who visit the ‘terror’ site in question will have followed the detailed instructions and made complete idiots of themselves.  Swapping their Twitter feed for something more innocuous might help.  Removing the wind from someone’s sails can do more damage to a radical political movement than a team of Duke Nukems on amphetamines.

My point is that those who engage in violence as the first answer to conflict often suffer from low self esteem.   Playing head games with them in a way that they cannot respond violently to, I contend, is therefore more effective than a first nuclear strike.  It’s also a lot more fun screwing with the head of those who mean you harm than putting a bullet in their brain.  Less destructive all round, and no-one has to clean up the blood and gore afterwards.

To take a recent example; blowing someone’s head off and feeding them to the fishes may be deeply satisfying on one level, but it only creates in the mind of some followers a determination to have as ‘glorious’ a death as their beloved leader.  Not showing the body is also a mistake from a strictly Psy-Ops perspective.   Perhaps exile and ridicule would have been far better tools to dissociate a ‘leader’ from their one time followers and supporters.

Carefully applied ridicule and disinformation does not kill the person, but takes care of the really dangerous shit, and I’m talking about stuff that doesn’t go ‘bang’ here.  I’m talking about ideas, which are almost impossible to kill with bullets.  Unless of course you discredit them completely.  That requires subtlety, and is therefore a little more tricky.

There goes the City…

The best stories I find, the ones that really count I mean, are the ones found in the Business or Finance pages. It may sound dull as an average English Winter day (Overcast, drizzle and washed out) but that is where the important stuff gets reported. Everything else is well, fluff. Watch where the money is going, and you can pretty well predict what’s coming next.

Like EU plans to strip the UK banks of their regulatory powers. More EU mission creep. More top down one-size-fits-all ‘planning’ based on faulty academic-only models.

With outside forces controlling bank regulations and policy, there will be little cause for major banking institutions to remain within the City of London. They will go to where the power and influence lie. This is in the nature of banks. Then the trading hub that is the City of London will slip into terminal decline. Without the City, there will go a fair chunk of London’s, and the UK’s economy. It’ll all end in tears of course, the only question is when.

It’ll get worse before it gets better. Glad I don’t live there any more.

The decline of big Eco.

A while ago I wrote to my MP to protest the climate propaganda funded by the current UK Government, as with the previous one. The reply was a condescending “There, there ickle voter. We know better than you do, now go away there’s a good chap.” Well, not exactly in those words, but I feel that is a fair precis. Essentially they said that because the science is settled (Which is utter garbage, science is never settled) they were going to keep on ploughing money into organisations like the infamous 10:10 and their kiddie snuff eco-porn.

Now we hear, according to a Professor Lockwood in the Tellytubbygraph, that the idiocy of building Wind Turbines is going to provide even less power for the UK because lowered solar activity has meant the Jet stream has moved further south and is ‘blocking’ the usual prevailing westerlies. Confirmation in my mind that the UK is an asylum, and the inmates are in charge. The Professor says this may be part of a continuing trend for the next 40 years(!) Well, so much for the tales of the impending heat death of the world. Rather like the recent debacle over the last end of world story, looks like all the ‘warming’ stories have less credibility that a Radio Evangelist who just got it wrong, big time.

The current deepening solar minimum has been recordable fact for several years, but still the UK’s idiot politicians contend that a small increase in an atmospheric trace gas will cause ‘uncontrollable warming’. Dozy lot. We aren’t in Maunder territory just yet, but if the sun continues down this trend line, we might just see it within the next ten years, and no CO2 involved.

As an environmental aside, I’ve just seen my first Orcas. Two young males(?) sporting up the channel towards Dodd Narrows at 14:00 local time. The grin on my face is enormous. Sadly no pics, as by the time I’d got the scope and camera up they’d moved out of view.

About this Magna Carter thingy

After my peregrinations about the ticking constitutional time bomb created by the Lisbon, Maastricht, Nice, and Rome treaties with the EU, I found myself wondering what there is a dissenting private citizen can do. Within the law of course.

After a brief comment conversation over at Orphans of Liberty with the erudite legal blogger Tom Paine on a related matter, I elected to do a little digging.   In doing so, I took time out to read the full English text of the Magna Carta, a key constitutional document which Queen Elizabeth swore to uphold in her coronation speech, as have so many of her forbears.  In amongst all the anachronistic stuff about Fish Weirs, etc, and the still valid rights of widows and right to a trial by your peers (Not by what is effectively a foreign power), I came across this little gem.

(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
     The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
     If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.
    Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.
    If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.
    In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.
    The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.
   We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished.   Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

Now even though this was signed almost eight hundred years ago in 1215 (As Tom rightly pointed out) at virtual sword point; because the reigning Monarch has sworn at her coronation to uphold the document, it remains valid. As with the Common Law in force before that date.

What I get from article 61 is the following;

  1. Although ‘Parliament is sovereign’ MP’s, their staff, and the Civil Service they direct are effective officers of the Crown, having sworn an oath to the reigning Monarch, and therefore legally bound to uphold the principles enshrined in Magna Carta
  2. If any such officer does not, there are clearly outlined procedures for a private individual to obtain redress, to begin with; taking an oath of allegiance to the committee of Barons.  Funnily enough, if you don’t, then the Crown can ‘compel’ you to. Not that I’ve ever heard of this happening. Nor is it likely.
  3. Taking such a binding oath is apparently not a ‘right’ or ‘entitlement’, but a duty of everyone who doesn’t agree with an English Governments actions in respect of the rest of the document, like ceding powers to a foreign authority

Then I came across this article where a committee of Barons had actually submitted such a petition on 7th February 2001. It seems the complaint was largely ignored, as the Treaty of Nice, and the Treaty of Lisbon were later signed and ratified. Yet according to the provisions of Magna Carta, these treaty signings were not legally valid. Unless of course the document is a complete anachronism, in which case the English Monarch is no longer the Monarch, and therefore all related constitutional bets (Including Government) are off. Because all of their power is devolved from the reigning Monarch. But wait a minute, that would mean… Oh dear.

There appear to be so many paradoxes floating around the current constitutional situation underpinning the UK that it violates the rules of causality. As well as blowing the basic rule of contracts and other formal agreements out of the water. An agreement (or Oath) between ruler and ruled is only an agreement so long as no one violates the terms and conditions, of which Magna Carta forms one. If the terms and conditions are ignored, such as in any contract, any stakeholder can be said to be no longer bound by it. Rather like with a contract of employment; you break the terms and conditions, you get disciplined or fired, or your Boss violates those terms, then you walk and claim ‘constructive dismissal’.

A broken oath cannot be considered valid. No valid oath means no agreement, which means no Monarch or Sovereign, so how can the UK Parliament (Which derives devolved power from the institution of Monarchy) have any sovereignty at all? Or any of the treaties and arrangements it makes any validity? This is the can of worms the ceding of authority to the European Union has opened up, as it is a clear violation of the Monarchs oath of office, as laid out in the basic documents.

From where I stand, the only real rule seems to be “Sed quoniam inquam sic.” (Because I say so). To which the answer is; “Vos quod cuius exercitus.” (You and whose army?) Usually quickly followed by; “Ut exercitus illac.” (That Army over there). Which rather makes a nonsense of the oft repeated claims by politicians about living in a Democracy. In a real democracy, the threat of coercive force would not be an option. However, this is the real world.

I may be wrong, but on the other hand……..

Might as well say “Hang ’em all” and go do my own sweet thing.

Expatriate expostulations from Canada; a.k.a. A Sarcastic man abroad trying to stay in the middle of the road without getting run over.

%d bloggers like this: