Skunk: A person regarded as obnoxious or despicable.

Sir Fred has been shredded.

But it was done with considerable input from a political lynch mob, and as a symbol of the banksters (= banker + gangsters), and I’m left with more questions than answers.

Was it a correct decision, and was it made on a correct basis, and should it apply to Peers as well as Knights, and where should we draw the lines, if any?

Let me try a few examples.

Should Sir Richard Branson have his Knighthood quashed because he launched his career with a significant Purchase Tax fraud, for which he was never charged.

Does it make much difference that he’s raised significant charitable funds, in addition to his own profile, since, and built a major business?

Should Lord Hanningfield be expelled for having been locked up for 9 months for False Accounting?

What about Lord Paul, who overclaimed £38,000 but paid it back?

What about non-financial offenders, such as  Lord Bell, who masturbated (without any requests, it should be noted) to several women through his bathroom window in Hampstead in 1977, and was convicted of indecency?

Or Baroness Uddin, who lied about her circumstances, but was found guilty by the House of Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee, rather than by a Court of Law? Her intention was to return to the Lords, so that her fiddled expenses would be paid off from more expenses claimed from the taxpayer.

Should former Ministers, who have been found to have fiddled significant sums, be prevented from receiving the traditional Life Peerage which comes up with the rations for Cabinet  Expenses?

Jacqui Smith, for example, admitted on Question Time that she had disgraced herself with her excessive claims for £116,000, and stated that she would be unlikely to go to the Lords.

And what about more trivial offences? Should shoplifting have cost Antony Worrall-Thompson a Knighthood if he had one?

Alistair Darling that we need a process, and one outside rough and tumble politics, to the risk of this becoming a method of political assassination of opponents:

“I’m not here to defend Sir Fred… I just think we’re getting into awful trouble here if we go after people on a whim and we don’t have a clear set of principles against which we can judge people, it’s not right.”

But where do we draw the lines and how do we define the principles?

If things stay as they are in the Lords, my poster child for expulsion from the Peerage is none of the above, but Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn.

To my eye Martin’s most serious offences are not his own highly questionable expenses, nor his attacks on individual MPs, nor that he behaved as a bastard child of Captain Mainwaring and Compo.

His most serious offence was to facilitate corruption of the processes within Parliament, from his vigorous defence of the ability of MPs to hide their expenses, to his allowing officials to shred receipts for MP Expenses from 2001 to 2004 while High Court action about access to Expenses Receipts was in full swing.

Looking through the list above, I don’t care about Knighthoods, and I’m tempted to suggest a scorched earth solution to the Lords.

Or should we solve it by starting from scratch with an elected Lords, so that the whole apparatus of determining acceptability can be swept away.

Which would allow crooks can be elected to the Lords on the same basis that they can currently be elected to the Commons.

Hmmm.

Skunk as a Lord? is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Is it me, or is there more than a passing physical similarity between former MP and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and the famously evil Warden Norton in “The Shawshank Redemption”, brilliantly played by actor Bob Gunton.

I cannot believe that anyone exists who has not actually watched “The Shawshank Redemption” (which is allegedly the world’s most popular film).

But for those who have not let me just say that Norton is the hypocritical, sinister bible–bashing Warden of the Shawshank Penitentiary (video link).

Under his brutal watch, and using the administrative skills of the imprisoned hero Andy Defresne (Tim Robbins) the prisoners are used as his private labour force capable of undercutting all others and which funnel (if I remember right) “a river of corruption” and dirty money through the prison.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with Smith, who faced controversy over her £116,000 expenses claims in general, and over claiming for her husband’s use of porn movies in particular. However, I see that Smith is in the news again for having prisoners from the local nick turn up and paint her house.

I find this slightly problematical.

If I want the Abbey painted, I get down to my local B&Q and buy some white wash and a roller, or open the Yellow Pages and look under “Painters and Decorators”.

A transaction then ensues, under which I pay someone for their work. I was not aware that there was a local workforce available in return for a undisclosed payment to a local charity.

It seems that the new system has endless possibilities.

Next time I lock myself out, for example, I will not pay a local locksmith an inordinate amount to change the locks. I will pop down to the local Nick and borrow a burglar, who will show me how to get in. In return I shall make a donation to the local RSPCA.

Of course, those familiar with “The Shawshank Redemption” will recall the tapestry which adorned the wall in Warden Norton’s office: it reads “His judgment cometh, and that right soon”.

They will also recall the ultimate ironic meaning of those works, fate which awaits him.

One can but hope….

Gildas the Monk

His Judgment Cometh And That Right Soon is a post from: Anna Raccoon

There I got your attention!

I’ve delayed this post till the weekend for obvious reasons. For many it probably wouldn’t get past your workplace’s firewall so I’ll leave it for you to explain to your other half why you are reading about porn.

Actually this is more about how you use porn. Everyone thinks they know how everyone else uses porn, with Jacqui Smith’s husband’s case being thought as typical. But do you really know. Do you use it for own pleasure or to increase the pleasure with your partner? Do you read, watch or look? Why do you use porn? There are loads of questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to but there isn’t actually much in the way of actual research to clarify them.

When you have politicians creating laws such as the Extreme Porn law based purely on their subjective opinions and not based on any real facts then the country is heading in a dangerous direction where a minority’s opinions affects the majority in a negative way. It might not always be direct, but it creates a climate where those who think they know how others should live their lives get their way and have it set in stone by politicans.

These do gooders might think they are in the right because anyone who uses porn will become a rapist or pedophile or some other sexual deviant. Well that’s the general consesus because no one can prove otherwise.

So to counter this derth of facts a new research project has been setup to look into the use of porn. Please feel free to visit their site and answer a small number of questions. It should take a maximum of 20 minutes. Most of the questions are multiple choice but you are encouraged to explain your answers in more detail. No personally identifiable information other than age, sex and country are asked for.

www.pornresearch.org

SBML

Porn is a post from: Anna Raccoon

A provocative farce of unremitting horror, the finale can not come soon enough.

The script is packed with devious manoeuvres and well-honed fiddles.  646 fine actors, under the parliamentary fees office inventive direction, execute slapstick accounts and deliver receipts with near-perfect timing. But the onslaught of escalating troughing seems to grow more desperate as the intermissionless show goes on. It excites a demand for justice which is never satisfied.

With its splendid grasp of the effective pause, the Daily  Telegraph brings out something easily missed by a mere reader – the pure narrative value of loose ends left hanging.  Let moral values go hang themselves: Robert Winnett enjoys himself immensely with his tale and so do we.  Sympathy may not be stirred but interest is securely held.

This production has managed to capture the tragi-comic nature of the tax payers’ endless struggle with the thieving gits in parliament perfectly whilst emphasising the desperation of the human condition. It will undoubtedly go down as one of the “did you hear?” performances of the decade due to the spectacular performances by Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty – a showcase of two world class rip-off artistes working together in perfect harmony.

The penultimate scene of the bulimic, adulterous, croquet playing,  over-weight steward on the old Rangi line, queuing at the fees office to be recompensed for his latest shattered toilet seat was one of undignified pathos, relieved only by the thundering cloven hooves of Scotland Yard’s finest beating a path to the door – not of the thieving gits – but of the whistle blower who exposed them.

In a crowded year for Best Political Scandal direction, Heather Brooke should receive an Oscar.

Two loos, two jags, two homes, two women, two chins…… is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Andy Burnham was not talking about the disaster in Downing Street, but of the Hillsborough disaster.

Today, instead of sitting on a sofa with her husband watching a movie or two, Jacqui Smith was hard at work, trying to garner some good publicity before being grilled tomorrow in the  House of Commons over the bungled investigation into Whitehall leaks, the resignation of anti-terror police chief Bob Quick and the fiasco over student visas.

After 20 years of futile attempts by the families of the 96 who died at Hillsborough, she has finally decided to heed Andy Burnham’s call to waive the 30-year secrecy rule and allow police and public body documents on the tragedy to be published 10 years early.

Watch the main stream media carefully tomorrow.

Some will be filled with emotional claptrap detailing the anguish of 96 Liverpudlian families.

One, or perhaps two, will be detailing the truth of this incompetent government and holding its incompetent Home Secretary to account.

Naturally all the bloggers will be reporting on events in the House of Commons.

I shall be amazed if the BBC even utter Jacqui Smith’s name. If they do it will probably be in connection with her kind hearted action to release these papers.

There is a case for full disclosure by any public body of any document … which would shed light on the disaster and its aftermath. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

What other explanation can there be for his decision to download adult movies on pay-per-view cable TV, to be watched in Ms Smith’s ‘second home’ in Redditch, and then allow his wife to claim the cost back from the tax payers?

What could be more damaging to Ms Smith’s political credibility than to find that the tax payer must cough up for second rate explicit porn to keep her ‘parliamentary advisor’ – aka her husband – amused, whilst she is holed up in her sister’s back bedroom?

Ms Smith was said to be ‘mortified’ today after she was forced to offer a humiliating apology over the expenses claim.

The Home Secretary said she ‘mistakenly’ submitted an expenses claim which included five pay-per-view films, including two adult movies which were viewed at her family home in her Redditch constituency.

The relationship between Ms Smith and her husband was said by Government insiders to be ‘very difficult,’ but stressed that the couple were still together.

Still together? Just as well – we wouldn’t want the tax payer to be paying for a ‘blue movie venue’ when the Minister involved no longer even visits the house, would we?

Tory MP Mark Field said:

‘The entire Commons allowance system is now indefensible. It’s one thing to make dubious claims on the location of your second home but for the husband of a Home Secretary to be claiming for pornographic TV is completely beyond the pale.

‘It’s no good Gordon Brown promising an inquiry at some point in the future. This must be reformed now.’

Is Jacqui Smith’s husband a secret Conservative? is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Jacqui Smith’s heart must have beat a little faster this week, when news reached her of the advances in the science of Internet censorship made in Germany.

11 German detectives descended on the home of Theodor Reppe, in the name of ‘discovery of evidence of distribution of pornographic material’.

Without informing Theodor of his rights, they demanded the passwords to his web site, asked that the entire domain be disabled, and then made a false claim that he had agreed for all this to take place without witnesses.

Why, you may ask, should a purveyor of child pornography be treated any better? Why indeed.

Except that Theodor is not a purveyor of child pornography, he is the registered domain owner of wikileaks.de, the German equivalent of the well known wikeleaks.org – feared by governments across the world.

Wikileaks have recently published the list currently being used in trials of the “great Aussie firewall”. To the embarrassment of the Australian government, about half the links on the published list related to material other than child porn, and included online poker sites, fetish, satanic and Christian sites.

Not only is it now prohibited to look at certain sites in Australia, it is prohibited to know which sites are prohibited.

In Australia, during the last year, a tactic of those seeking to block the Internet was to insinuate that those who questioned such a block were soft on child porn and might have a pro-paedophile agenda.

Now that that slur has been rebutted, the next step may be to extend the definition of distribution of child porn: not merely hosting it or passing it to third parties; but merely informing other people of where it is accessible.

Telling you where you might go to find out where you might go to find out where you might go to find out where you might go……may yet see a jack-booted one kicking down my door. All in the name of protecting the kiddies of course, far be it from me to insinuate that this is a cover story to protect the government from citizens seeing anything like Dan Hannan’s video.

Putting the boot in. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Jacqui Smith has been working hard on her campaign to ‘End Violence Against Women And Girls’.

The declared Home Office strategy is to tackle attitudes that may uphold violence against women in order to help women and girls feel safer.

A key element must be to see women and girls as fellow human beings rather than merely sexual objects.

Naturally the government is spending your tax pennies (T’was ever thus),on hiring advisors to ensure that the finest academic brains are engaged in this latest piece of social engineering.

Which makes the choice of Dr Linda Papadopoulos a strange one, her contribution to BBC’s ‘My big breasts and I’ a documentary ‘which unearths the traumatic, poignant and true stories about what it’s really like to be a young woman with enormous breasts in Britain today’ sit ill at ease with her statement yesterday that  “We need to understand what impact the prevalence of sexualised images has on young people, especially what impact it has on their self-esteem and their behaviour.”

Poacher turned gamekeeper? Perhaps if Ms Papadopoulos was to engage in making a programme called ‘My big Penis and I’,  she might educate Nu-Labours current demonic target – which can only be men – without spending anyof the tax payers fragile funds.

Storm in a Double DD cup……… is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Large numbers of police forces are planning to cut thousands of officers despite the threat of a recession-driven surge in crime and disorder. Representatives from dozens of police forces contacted by The Times last night gave a grim picture of falling numbers and “significant and painful” cuts.

Who will benefit from this? Only the feckless, the workshy, the thieves, the least productive members of our society. Those with no savings will have their mortgage paid by the tax payer, those with no inclination to work will have all their expenses paid by the tax payer.

We have a Prime Minister who can find time to make ‘several’ phone calls to support the MCann’s, Chav parents who left their children alone in a hotel room whilst they went drinking; we have a Justice Secretary who finds time to concern himself with the consumption of the marriage of that arch Chav, Jade Goody; we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose initial response to the financial crisis was to encourage us to buy a new plasma TV; we have a Foreign Secretary who arranges a £160,000 Gulfstream jet to bring home a terror suspect; we have a Home Secretary whose idea of being ‘more selective about those who come into the country’ is to curb the number of highly skilled foreign workers coming to Britain;  we are governed by a Labour Party whose idea of PR is to support a ranting Chav in the form of the disingenuous Derek Draper to ‘present’ its image; we have a media so obsessed with Chav approval that the cocaine snorting Kate Moss is deified and Gail Trimble’s intellectual prowess vilified.

Everywhere you turn, it is the basest, the shabbiest, the unwholesome, the festering unproductive sores who are supported and celebrated.

The ‘Chav’ cult has eaten our culture alive, infantilised us, consumed our ability to think critically of serious matters, rewarded the feckless and demonised the productive. Those ‘baby boomers’ amongst us have been fortunate, we grew up in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I fear for the young of today.  The social disorder we will see this summer will truly be the end of society as we knew it.

The ‘Chav it all’ society…… is a post from: Anna Raccoon