curtailed words

displayed here-below is the comment i yesterday attempted to enter in reply to ms juicy biceps mp's huffington post piece entitled it's socialism jean, but not as we know it, which, at this fraught time of rapidly impending american-inspired nuclear armageddon, was completely cyber-ghosted out of existence by the cia on apparent account of a fairly mildly expressed example of the indigenous anglo-saxon vernacular appearing within a moderate proximity of the hallowed phrase 'the white house'; may i at this point officially opine that, in the blogging-world, the huffington post - ignorant and immoral neo-conservative spawn of the daily telegraph - represents, as does, in the modern world, its mother-cuntry, the united states of america, the densely dunder-headed diplodocus, whose murderous mercantile meanderings cause its high imperialness habitually to crush clumsily under-foot all lesser forms of life in its dark, domineering, global quest to root out, ravenously, the most succulent earthly vegetational varieties of privileged political preference.

the offending article reads as follows:

"what a sulky subversive whinge from someone who sadly backed the wrong strand of political sentiment for the current anti-establishment british climate.

people aren't 'offended' by your feminism, my honourable madam - they're fuming because you're a cheap cia-sell-out and neo-colonial new-labour sychophant, who, as a 'progress'-flunky, clearly must hold values as far removed from true socialism as can possibly be imagined.

"no matter what the situation you are right and being right is more important than the safety of the group. she missed out the bit that says if things don't seem to be going your way, make sure you get jobs for all your mates so your way can be had."

sorry, but the above quote describes the typical self-serving blairite almost to a tee - the sort who, on a wafer-thin humanitarian pretext, barely disguising an ultra-extremist-christian agenda, would take his country into a futile neo-colonial war, regardless of the terrible cost to others, and purely for personal and professional gain.

"in my socialism, which is steadfast and lifelong, there is no point where your own personal socialist ideals are more important than delivering a better life for people who need it."

surely the socialist ideal is absolutely founded upon helping those in need - or is your 'personal' socialism about helping another group of people altogether? you seem confused.

you're not courageously speaking out, you're joining the crowd of condescending, brow-beating, self-righteous bullies who religiously suppressed all outspoken opposition to blair and his bloody oil-wars by systematically blacklisting his critics, and then maliciously ruining their lives and careers, whether in the professional political sphere or not.

under new-labour, most people who dared stand up for their rights got a swift kick in the teeth, not a generously salaried job in the poncy palace of westminster, as you rather slyly did, so - when actually you hold a popularly appointed position of some considerable power over us, the common plebs, and right now weigh in the balance the lives of many already degraded syrian civilians, together with our own muddled, media-brainwashed british citizens - don't play the poor defenceless female victim - it just doesn't suit see man.

you suggest that jeremy corbyn may be slightly posher than you - is this why he's less prone to being bought off than you, or is that simply a matter of his upbringing?

ps:

stop wasting superjezza's bloody time - he's exceptionally busy saving the world at the moment, and can't be bothered with wet-nursing your emotional femino-brummie-centric insecurities, day-bleedin'-in day-bleedin'-out.

finally, if you still believe that everyone's equal, but that brown families deserve mega-tonnage of ordnance dropped upon them, ad infinitum, to satisfy the hardly heroic whims of the whatless wanker in the white house, le petit prat pathétique in paris, or the dutiful dachshund digging himself a hole in downing street, why not ask the royal air-force, ever so nicely loik, whether you might possibly be allowed to experience just one of those lovely ethical cruise-missiles exploding in your vicinity - but more importantly, before you vote to have angry arab and asian people assassinated, or to have non-christian civilians accidentally swept under the sandy syrian carpet into the next world, in the name of whiter-than-white western democracy, please take good deliberative time to read the following enlightened articles, in order for you all the better to appreciate the naff neo-con nursery-rhymes of our three next-to-butt-naked emperors:

counter-punch:

how the west created the islamic state


levant report:

2012 defense intelligence agency document: west will facilitate rise of islamic state "in order to isolate the syrian regime"


insurge intelligence:

pentagon report predicted west’s support for islamist rebels would create isis:
anti-isis coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to 'isolate' assad, rollback 'shia expansion'

the guardian:

west training syrian rebels in jordan

open democracy:

isis wants to destroy the 'grey zone'. here's how we defend it

levant report:

former dia chief michael flynn says rise of islamic state was "a willful decision" and defends accuracy of 2012 memo

global research:

us created the islamic state (isis) for sake of israel and military industrial complex: ex-cia contractor"

the eagle 'as landed...on 'er arse

once upon a time, in a past, unconscious, carefree life, when your blog-editor-in-chief was a humble, authority-fearing, civil-service clerk, one was bound by a personnel code, which, in lieu of a formal contract, enshrined one's terms-and-conditions of employment as a public-servant, and aside from getting caught with one's hands in the till, there then existed two sure ways in which one could seriously jeopardize one's continued career as a government-worker:

1. by falling into substantial debt, or

2. by taking part in any political or public activity which might compromise, or might be seen to compromise, one's impartial service to the government of the day or any future government.

now, on remembrance sunday, by publicly objecting to labour-leader, and long-time advocate of unilateral nuclear-disarmament, jeremy barnyard crowbar mp's personal vow never to deploy nuclear-warheads, and by further claiming that britain's policy of non-engagment in air-strikes against the islamic state in syria was "letting down" its allies, general sir john nicholas reynolds houghton gcb, cbe, adc gen, the chief of the defence-staff of the british armed-forces - or just general sir prick whore-tongue to his friends in cabinet - has in effect completely and deliberately desecrated this nation's holy day of commemoration, and ripped up the terms-and-conditions of his employment in the british armed forces, as contained within the queen's regulations for the army 1975 (amendment number 26).

indeed, through his illegitimate and ill-timed, war-mongering outburst in favour of mass-civilian-slaughter, general sir john nicholas reynolds houghton gcb, cbe, adc gen, the chief of the defence-staff of the british armed-forces - or just general sir prick whore-tongue to his friends in cabinet - who cannot be confirmed, or dismissed, as the serving army-general-source who recently threatened of "mutiny" in the british military should jeremy corbyn ever be elected prime minister, has, particularly if acting without due ministerial authorization, gravely breached the following comic constitutional catalogue of queen's regulations:

annex b to chapter 3

values and standards of the british army

total professionalism

paragraph 25:

"members of the army are not permitted to disclose service information or express views on official matters or experiences to any media organization without prior approval from the ministry of defence, sought through the chain of command; this includes leaking official information to the media. besides being contrary to regulations, it is unprofessional and can damage the reputation and interests of the ministry of defence and the armed forces and, whether intentional or not, undermines the army’s apolitical position."

chapter 5

unit command, control and administration

part 14 - political activities and electoral registration

political activities

paragraph j5.581:

clause a

"regular service personnel are not to take any active part in the affairs of any political organization, party or movement. they are not to participate in political marches or demonstrations."

clause b

"no restriction is to be placed upon the attendance at political meetings of such service personnel provided that uniform is not worn, service duties are not impeded, and no action is taken which would bring the service into disrepute." 

paragraph j5.582:

"all forms of political activity, including political meetings and speeches, are prohibited in service establishments. canvassers may visit, and motor cars used for carrying electors to the poll may call at, married quarters and families' hostels to which there is normal access direct from the public highway. where access is by service roads and there is no separate entrance, access to married quarters will be at the discretion of the commanding officer under such conditions as he may approve. information about party programmes or policies is not to be made available through service journals or information rooms; nor is any propaganda issued by or on behalf of a political party to be distributed in service institutions. no publicity is to be given in service establishments to meetings, fetes, or similar activities having a political association."

paragraph j5.583:

service facilities and speakers

"no service facilities, including service aircraft and motor transport, are to be used at, or in connection with, any function the purpose of which is to further the interests of a political party or an organization having controversial aims, nor are service bands to play at such functions. where requests are received from political groups for service speakers to lecture or give a presentation, these should be referred for action to the ministry of defence (adjutant general secretariat), who will reply direct to the group; if there is uncertainty about the nature of any organization, the ministry of defence should be consulted. (army only. see also chapter 12 annex a(j))"

candidates in local government elections

paragraph j5.586:

clause c

"serving personnel who are permitted by the ministry of defence to be nominated for election to any local authority may only stand as independent candidates. they are not to stand as candidates for any political organization, party or movement and, if elected, are not to involve themselves in any way in the affairs of any such organizations, party or movement."

trade unions

paragraph j5.588:

clause a

"regular service personnel may become members of civilian trade unions and professional associations in order to enhance their trade skills and professional knowledge and as an aid to resettlement into civilian life. they are not to participate in industrial action or in any form of political activity organized by civilian trade unions or professional associations."

chapter 5

unit command, control and administration

part 9 - dress

occasions on which the wearing of uniform is forbidden 

paragraph j5.368:

detailed instructions on occasions on which the wearing of uniform is forbidden are contained in army general administrative instruction 59. the following specific occasions on which the wearing of uniform is forbidden are to be noted:

clause b

"uniform is not to be worn by prospective or adopted parliamentary candidates at political meetings, or while canvassing, appearing in public or engaged in any other activities connected with their candidature. (see also paragraphs j5.581 – j5.583)"

clause e

"on occasions when the army’s reputation or political impartiality might be brought into question e.g. political protests, rallies, marches or demonstrations of any kind where a political, social or interest group agenda may be perceived as being pursued, or where disorder or affray might result, or appearing in the media to seek personal publicity."

chapter 5

unit command, control and administration

part 2 - personal conduct and efficiency

applications general

paragraph j5.079b:

clause d

commercial advertisements

"participation in commercial advertisements may have the potential to give the impression that the service endorse or have a view on a commercial product, service or political position. applicants must therefore provide the fullest details so that a commanding officer may consider whether:

(1) the individual would be identified as a serving member of the service.

(2) the service would be directly or indirectly associated with the advertisement.

(3) the individual’s participation might align him, or the service, with any political position."

clause f

trade dispute

"service personnel may become members of civilian trade union and professional associations in order to enhance their trade skills and professional knowledge and as an aid to resettlement into civilian life. they are not to participate in industrial action or in any form of political activity organized by civilian trade unions or professional associations where it is believed that a trade dispute is in progress, in order to safeguard the reputation of the service, commanding officers should not authorize, or should withdraw authorization given in respect of off-duty employment with that organization. where there is doubt about the existence of a trade dispute, the commanding officer should refer the matter through his chain of command, with full details and recommendations."

chapter 5

unit command, control and administration

part 15 - public and service (non public) funds

voluntary regimental subscriptions

paragraph 5.613:

clause a

"all soldiers may subscribe voluntarily to a regimental association as part of the day’s pay scheme, provided that the president and treasurer of the association are commissioned officers on the active or retired list, that the association is of a non political character and that a minimum of half the income is devoted to the benevolent assistance of reservists, ex soldiers and their families in need."

chapter 12

official information and public relations

part 2 - activities involving the use of official information or experience

(ministry of defence sponsor: director-general, media and communication)

paragraph j12.015:

general considerations

"this section sets out procedures for service personnel to seek authorization to communicate with the media. a number of considerations should be taken into account before doing so, including:

a. is it in the defence interest?

b. does the benefit justify the time, cost and effort?

c. is there a risk to operational security or of disclosure of classified information?

d. would this compromise service ethos?

e. are there any patent, copyright, collaboration security or international relations implications?" (see note 1 below)

(note 1: a politically controversial topic is one which is, has been, or is clearly about to be, a matter of controversy between political parties in this country)

paragraph j12.016:

purpose

"these regulations govern contact between all service personnel and the media, and for writing or speaking in public. these rules must be followed to ensure that operational security is upheld and standards of political impartiality and public accountability are met at all times."

paragraph j12.018:

clause b

"as in any organization, it is important that all ministry of defence personnel communicate in a manner that maintains and, where possible, enhances the reputation of the organization. all contacts with the media or public disclosure of information by members of the armed forces must be authorized in advance, where this relates to material or experiences gained in the course of official duties. engaging in such activities without obtaining authorization at the appropriate level may be a serious disciplinary or administrative matter which could ultimately lead to dismissal, as would the acceptance of payments in contravention of j12.024 below."

paragraph j12.019:

maximizing communications effect

clause a

"presentational aspects must be an integral part of all ministry of defence activity and decision-making. it is a core task of all personnel to consider how to portray their activities in an interesting and accessible way, for both the internal and external audiences, and how to support the ministry of defence's strategic communications aim - to enhance the reputation of the department and armed forces both internally and externally. everyone should look for opportunities to explain what defence is about to the public and other stakeholders. when personnel can make a contribution to knowledge on the basis of specialized information and experience obtained in the course of their official duties, in particular, professional, scientific and engineering personnel, they should be encouraged to do so, so long as policy, defence and commercial interests are protected."

clause b

"any such participation in public discussions or contribution to knowledge of this kind must, however, be such as will not:

(1) prejudice national security.

(2) put at risk collaboration security. 

(3) create the possibility of embarrassment to the government in the conduct of its policies.

(4) bring into question the impartiality of her majesty's forces."

clause c

"although these principles apply primarily to the disclosure of information and for the discussion of political issues, they apply with equal force to the public expression, in the press or elsewhere, of opinions which are or could be embarrassing to the government when given by individuals who are identified or are readily identifiable as service personnel."

clause d

"the director-general, media and communication has ultimate official authority for internal and external communications including all matters related to contact with the news media and communicating in public. members of the armed forces are to seek prior permission if they wish to write or speak or otherwise communicate in the public domain on defence or related matters, before entering into any commitment. personnel who are in any doubt about the need to obtain authorization are to take advice from the appropriate director-general, media and communication contact at j12.025 before committing to communication with the media or writing or speaking in public. director-general, media and communication has delegated some approval authority to command media operations personnel who should always be consulted before approaching director-general, media and communication.

contact details can be found at j12.025."

paragraph j12.020:

contact with the news media

clause d

"exceptionally, some service personnel will have a general authorization from d news personally to speak to the news media, which must be recorded in their agreed formal job descriptions or terms of reference. these individuals are to ensure they keep records and inform d news press office or the regional press officer of all media contacts and the information communicated. additionally, they are to avoid comment on issues of a politically controversial nature."

annex a(j) to chapter 12

procedure for seeking permission to speak in public, to lecture, or to write for publication

(paragraphs j12.016, j12.021, j12.022 and j12.023 refer)

note 1

"public speeches should be submitted for prior clearance under the procedures for lectures (para 4) if their text is likely to be published afterwards, or quoted by a broadcasting authority, newspaper or magazine, either in whole or in part if they contain scientific or technical data, or if they comment on procurement executive projects, so that they may be fully cleared in all respects, including crown copyright aspects."

note 2

"because service in the ministry of defence is likely to be regarded as conferring a special degree of authority or importance on statements made by an official speaker, ministerial approval will be sought by the director-general, media and communication in all cases concerning personnel serving in the ministry of defence."

note 3

"normally, permission to express views on politically controversial issues will be refused. for any exception to this rule, the director-general, media and communication will seek the prior approval of the secretary of state for defence."

my considered legal conclusion:

the procedure for seeking permission to speak in public, to lecture, or to write for publication, as set out in annex a(j) to chapter 12 is incredibly convoluted, but essentially, general sir john nicholas reynolds houghton gcb, cbe, adc gen, the chief of the defence-staff of the british armed-forces - or just general sir prick whore-tongue to his friends in cabinet - should have sought the prior approval of the secretary of state for defence, michael catheter-fallout mp, in order to express views on politically controversial issues.

however, general sir john nicholas reynolds houghton gcb, cbe, adc gen, the chief of the defence-staff of the british armed-forces - or just general sir prick whore-tongue to his friends in cabinet - clearly drove a ten-ton tory-tank through the historically entrenched queen's regulations, and must either resign with immediate effect or be summarily sacked by his boss, the secretary of state for defence, michael catheter-fallout mp, for bringing the british armed-forces into deeply dangerous disrepute.

moreover, if general sir john nicholas reynolds gcb, cbe, adc gen, the chief of the defence-staff of the british armed-forces - or just general sir prick whore-tongue to his friends in cabinet - did in fact seek the explicit prior approval of the secretary of state for defence, michael catheter-fallout mp, for his broadcast interview-comments, then obviously the secretary of state for defence, michael catheter-fallout mp, must also quit his cabinet-post forthwith, or be fired on-the-spot by prime-minister, david "the dachshund" cameron.

the crafty comrade, jeremy barnyard crowbar mp, has actually played a blinder here, because he has patiently waited for one of these mass-murdering, power-grabbing, mutinous generals to poke his head above the political parapet, and then pounced mercilessly, like a purring parliamentary panther; furthermore, dirty corby has cleverly inducted the majority of his labour-party enemies into his shadow-cabinet, with the rather sly result that these neo-fascist conservative-cock-sucking detractors cannot even contemplate plotting rebellion against their charming chippy chairman without appearing, to the mad massed corby-celebrating party-membership, to be treacherous beyond all democratic belief.

dirty corby has given his two-timing, traitorous colleagues enough rope with which to hang themselves, and by effectively condoning the actions of a homicidal, self-serving army-general and chief of the defence-staff, who has now criminally disrespected our british parliament by illegally intervening, in uniform, in the democratic process, in a manner tantamount to staging a totalitarian, tory-heavy military-coup, angela "double-headed" eagle, shadow secretary of state for defence, has simply been shamefully out-manœuvred by her strategically-savvy socialist leader, and will surely also be forced to resign in dictatorial disgrace, or be delivered her direct marching-orders, for showing her true, tory-turncoat colours.

oh gosh...and i really thought evil "edgy-the-eagle" angie was meant to be the ruthless razor-sharp, tactical chess-player, and comrade "corby" corblimey the dim-witted, communist dullard...

all that dry old legal tripe not much of a belly-laugh, you say?

well, i reckon it's a fucking hilarious bitta blogging...

this smarmy five-star sewer-git's broken every god-damned fucking rule in the book...

...and he's soon gonna be forced to walk the wibbly-wobbly whitehall-plank of no-return - hopefully on the über-solemn occasion he has now, thanks to his absolutely atrocious remarks, personally degraded unto armageddon day.

don't know how dave's dodgy despots in government will take it though?

security for some at the expense of insecurity for others

there was no constitutional convention broken by the house of lords in scuppering the recent bill for proposed tax-credit legislation; the salisbury convention - of not opposing the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto - does not apply in the current parliamentary instance, because:

1. in its general election manifesto, the government did not specifically state that working tax-credits would be cut.


2. due to low voter-turn-out and the winner's small share of the vote at modern general elections, governments do not now command the true national mandates which would formerly have been considered undemocratic for the lords to have blocked.

there were no procedural rules broken by the house of lords in shelving the recent bill for proposed tax-credit legislation, because, despite being named a "finance bill", this bill was not officially designated a "money bill", as defined under the parliament act, but in fact a "statutory instrument" linked to a welfare act, over which the house of lords has the full right of veto; conversely, if george nob-borne had been bothered to introduce this legislation as a public bill in the house of commons, where it would have been subject to the full heat of scrutiny and debate, the house of lords would not have been legally permitted to touch it.

to a large extent, this political move against the cameron government was simply socialist 'tit' for conservative 'tat' - for the conservatives do not care about 'freeing' the working-classes from the shackles of poverty any more than the socialists really care about making everybody in society 'equally' entitled to the ill-gotten profits of western neo-colonial mineral-wars, which it-must-be-said have cost the lives of millions of africans, arabs and asians in such places as congo, the middle-east and afghanistan. moreover, the ideological case for reducing the welfare-state has already been made and won by successive conservative and labour governments from the thatcher era right through to the contemporary times of cameron.

however, the public principle at stake in this latest tax-credit débâcle was not just one of work-ethics, nor even perhaps one of backbench members of parliament hanging onto their shitty little seats at any price, but actually the far wider one of fucking bad form and bad attitude on the part of david cameron, george osborne, iain duncan smith, jeremy hunt, and the rest of the uncouth, unchristian conservative cabinet, who care not one judicial jot for the suffering of those working far harder for a mouthful of meagre state-benefits than do cash-rich government ministers for their fat westminster salaries and unchecked, unearned expense-accounts.

the summary slapping-down, which the chancellor received at the hands of a cross-party swathe of our socially embarrassed parliament, was weighed out in return for his and his colleagues' cavalier insouciance in protecting jobs for the old-school boys in the banks and big business, whilst punching the poor in the peanuts; generous personal tax-cuts for the wealthy, a proposed cut of 2% in the corporation-tax pipeline, yet piddle-stick in-the-pocket pilfering from the plebs; a plethora of opportunity for those privileged with public-school or private education, and a door comprehensively slammed in the face of the council-house kid with the wrong colour upbringing. yessir, let's say it straight, this tax-credit bill was the domestic fiscal equivalent of bombing the wogs for political and financial ends, in accordance with the parochial, race-driven, class-co-ordinated doctrine of prime-minister cameron and company, which consistently asserts: it's all right for them, but we wouldn't want it to happen to us, now would we?

another precept imperilled by the legislative actions of the government was obviously that of honest-dealing: why sneak an unannounced, unmandated welfare-cut through parliament as a sly, run-of-the-mill statutory instrument, when correctly it should have been presented to the people's representatives as a bold-as-brass public-bill in the house of commons? why cut a low-paid worker's benefits in the disingenuous expectation of the employer raising that person's wages to plug the hole, when oftentimes the employer and government are one and the same party, pledging no less than to hold down that very public-servant's pay-deal?

as the conservatives rightly stated, this whole unseemly constitutional spat ultimately turned upon the question of finance and convention: the unwritten convention that the government represents the wishes of the people, who are duly offered a constitutional choice between financing immoral wars waged with american weapons of mass-destruction, controversial infrastructure construction-projects contracted out to friends in the conservative-club, and of course last-but-not-least, a fairly-administered, fully-functional welfare-state.

well, drawing on my vast personal experience of parliamentary procedure and party-politics, it is my considered opinion that reducing the powers of the house of lords, whilst strengthening those of the house of commons, would eventually prove extremely hazardous to democracy, and that the wishes of the people will only ever be represented, in a constitutional manner, by effecting the complete abolition of the house of lords, whilst neutering the house of commons through the introduction of a system of open-party-list proportional representation - indeed such radical parliamentary reform would appear to be the sole method by which the unaccountable cunts in the palace of westminster can practicably be compelled to concentrate properly on the important national business-at-hand.

meantime, i should add, the empty chamber of the house of lords might usefully be converted into a refrigerated repository for mummified members of the remaining legislative house who have popped their clueless clogs and thus require preservation for posterity on the padded red benches of another place - such that, paradoxically, an independent casual observer would not necessarily notice any active difference in the progressive parliamentary programme of that hallowed hall of huffed-up haughtiness.

however, whatever our adopted constitutional system and the square-peg political ideology it subsequently produces to rain over us, in royal retribution for our immoral relinquishment of individual responsibility, the extirpation of establishment corruption and its counterpart, privilege, the poisonous antagonist of opportunity, is paramount, for down the road of perverted power lies perdition, by a thousand petty and vindictive paper-cuts, of public and parliamentary souls alike.

so can we root out the cia-knotweed before we're woven irrevokably into a wicked whirlpool of world-war? thatcher's obsessive-compulsive conservatism is pushing up the daisy-cutters, major has faded away into the sleaze-sodden scene he pedantically painted as his grimly-reaped legacy, shatout mutton brown is being served up as scotch broth for a beleaguered and battered brussels pout, cameron's set on retiring to ride randy red-haired sheep 'round his ranch in the cotswolds, but the ever-evil presence, otherwise known as blair, blight of bucks, must be socially scapegoated for the serial-slaughtering sins he's blithely buck-passed to his barbaric brothers in corporate war-crime: he can choose either to move up the lane to hmp grendon underwood, or 'move on' permanently to another fucking continent.

during the second world-war, eastenders were initially forbidden by the authorities from using the london underground-system as an air-raid shelter, despite the devastating ferocity of the blitz - and ridiculously were forced to buy tube-tickets in order to circumvent war-time restrictions - whilst the sensible people of hard-targeted southampton were reportedly frowned upon by deeply-bunkered whitehall for 'trekking' out into the countryside each night in order to avoid losing their lives in the terrible bombing of that city; clearly, from recent experiences, such as the iraq war, the war on terror, together with this latest tax-credit scandal, we as british citizens must inevitably therefore conclude that our government is not only crookedly incompetent, but also completely uncaring, and that, as our lords and masters in westminster have just shown us, legally, a pinch of positive civil-disobedience, in the face of abhorrently arrogant authoritarian stupidity, is absolutely essential for the british way of life to survive.