Mr Wotsisname,, who took over at the Home Office six weeks ago, said: "In my six weeks in this job I am so reassured and so amazed at the work that is going on on our behalf by people who do not have a voice, who are not able to express their views, who work in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, torturing people."
"I have nothing but admiration for them. As I am in effect their voice I will defend them and defend what they do and it does worry me. I believe they work to the highest ethical and professional standards."
"If your postman steals your giro or credit card it is only because, like me, he is not paid enough for the sterling work he does on your behalf and you should all shut up and fuck off."
"Torture is the very foundation of our democracy and if our fine public servants have to torture wogs in order to get the mail through then so be it, string 'em up, that's what I say, they won't do it again; whilst I am home seckatry first class mail will be delivered the following day or else it won't be. "
13 comments:
Torture was abandoned in England some four hundred years ago for plenty of obvious reasons, one of those is particularly relevant to the war in Afghanistan:
During the Battle of the Bulge in the Second World War German troops massacred approximately 150 American soldiers in what is now known as the Malmedy Massacre. Up until this point the German advance had been relatively easy. However, once details of the massacre became known to the Americans they stopped surrendering and started fighting, for their lives, and the Germans lost the battle.
If you were Taliban would you surrender to Britsh or American forces believing you're going to be wired up to the mains and worse?
Thank you, mr anonymous, a point well made and my other point addressed, clumsily, the manner in which gobby careerist nobobies move seamlessly from one influential post to another, claiming transferable skills, in Wotsisname's case from posty to health secretary - and a plague of alanjohnsondiseases carrying off the vulnerable - and now to home secretary and a six-week expertise in the machinations of the so-called intelligence services and promising those worthies his unquestioning support, as though he were not the home secretary, accountable to the people, but the general secretary of the Allied Torturers Union. Man's a cunt.
OK, fair point. But why is the new Home Secretary standing next to a man with no tie?
How, and why, are they, Johnson and the other drooling basket-case fuckups that preceded him, so easily turned to 'the cause'.
Is it the plumby accents, the sense of being let in on a secret, or some kind of subliminal James Bond thing; is Johnson 'dirty', perhaps; or just very shallow.
Did they ever say what type of explosive was used on 7/7? Not as far as I know; one for Postman Twat, that is.
Shhh, we don't talk about 7/7 around here, it was all a matter of national security.
I may have mentioned before that I made a conscious decision not to watch the horror that is Johnson, on the grounds that it is bad for my mental hygeine, Mr Ishmael, I simply can't do it, it is too distressing.
I suppose one of reasons I find myself compelled to watch Brown appearing before the select committee chairpeople is my own extreme naivety. You and I have discussed this before. I still find it hard to fully and completely accept that such a foul, despicable and totally inadequate creature such as Brown can really have ascended to the high office of Prime Minister of these Disunited Kingdoms.
Silly, I know, but I still sit there, mouth hanging open in complete disbelief, appalled not so much by the fact of his deceit as by the sheer bumbling incompetence of it. This is not the sophisticated dissembling, or blinding with science, or deflecting with deprecating wit that we see so often, have become so disgracefully accustomed to, and that the likes of Blair were so good at. These are the blatant, half-witted, fumbling attempts at pathetically and patently inadequate lies that a four year old caught with jam all over his face would be ashamed of. And he does this before the select committee, and on live TV, for those of us stupid enough to watch it, and even worse, he clearly expects to be both taken and treated seriously.
Why, when he came out with his "If we have 9150 troops now, there was no request for 11150", nobody actually laughed, or got very angry indeed, or started throwing things at him, can only be taken as an extremely poor, though completely accurate, reflection of our entire, totally fucked-up system of parliamentary democracy.
Having watched key parts again, I know, glutton for punishment, I am convinced that Brown got away with this by sheer force of his perverted personality. There were several moments when the opportunity clearly existed, for anybody with the brains and guts to take it, to absolutely pin Brown to the wall, to show him not only to be a compulsive liar, without a shred of decency and honour, but also to lay bare his mental frailties in the most embarrassing manner. Brown, by a combination of bluff, bluster and fear, prevented a single member of the committee from doing their duty to the nation.
Cunts, the fucking lot of them, good for absolutely nothing.
You may now say you told me so.
Will do, Mr Ishmael. It's in good hands, our national security, after all =)
Daisy, could hardly agree more. You probably shouldn't read the quote that Subrosa is reporting (too late for me).
Morbid curiosity only, at this stage.
Dear Mr bhs,
Sorry, barred from reading Subrosy, I'm allergic to idiots.
"I may have mentioned before that I made a conscious decision not to watch the horror ..... on the grounds that it is bad for my mental hygeine... I simply can't do it, it is too distressing."
Not entirely, in fact, not at all flippant, Mr Daisy, the mental hygiene factor. I dunno for how long or how often you need to watch this stuff, as long as it takes, I suppose, for it to become as offensive to you as it is to me, an affront to everything which I understand to be decent, ok, acceptable; it doesn't even have to be agreeable to me, but it needs to be decent, otherwise I become indecent by osmosis, this, this Brown shit, is the political equivalent of child pornography, its observation corrupts all.
Murder and torture and graft and degeneracy; bribery, blackmail and deceit, these are our parliamentary fare; this is not a handful, this is six hundred of the fuckers, either fully complicit or damned by sins of omission, by the failures to challenge which you lament.
Brown's fevered, hectoring bombast as Chancellor for years delighted the press North and South of the border, delighted the bankers and the wankers, the filthy rich rendered virtually non tax liable by the son of the fucking manse as he laboured to make London the capital city of a virtual state populated by arrogant and often criminal tax refugees, no longer would the former workshop of the world make things, instead, we would provide safe houses –financial services - for organised global crime, our own property prices would rise, all would be rich, forever. This was a view shared for years, by all those Randalling and Huttoning and Broganing for all their worth, now. We told you so, they now imply. But they didn’t
Rubbish, filth and rubbish; more easy to accept from pompous, bloated shits like Lawson and Parkinson and the grubby, spiteful, whining, little turd, Tebbit, the pinstripe spivs and thugs and ponces with which Madam Thatcher, surely a bizarre megalomaniacal drag queen, surrounded herself, but to hear a Labour government and trade union leadership extolling the favouritism shown to City parasites and criminal oligarchs crossed a Rubicon which led us here. Into the shit. The fevered bombast made stammer, the veil drawn aside, the sermoniser defrocked, the tractor stats invalidated, shit everywhere, mind where you step...
More tomorrow.
I've never known you take a bit of light-hearted leg-pulling, as the opening para was, so seriously.
Sense of humour gone south for the summer? Did Buster pee on the Persian again? Or just having a bad day?
No, no offence taken, it was just a starting point, or a continuation of the original point, it is a serious thought, that, window-licking, we implicate ourselves, that to observe and do nothing grows offensive, best not observe, avert ones eyes.
If you want humourless go and look at subwotsit at The Daily Politics.
Buster is fine, thanks.
Regarding Subwotsit, I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 16:33.
Don't read subrosa myself, followed a link from somewhere else that indicated an interesting Brown quote was being reported; thought it more polite to quote the quoter, is all.
The original is in the last paragraph of this article, the "generous with my time" one, if you haven't already seen it.
Saw the comment on The Daily Politics at the time, not funny; unlike the post, which was, howlingly so.
Post a Comment