Sunday 28 September 2014


How the Sunday Mirror reporter must have laughed (or maybe cried) when she received a text of Brooks Nomark with his pants down. Seemingly the ex "Minister for Civil Society" whatever that is, thought he was going to be getting it on with some sexy young Tory activist... but was mistaken. 

Now he is spending more time with the family with which, hitherto, he clearly wished to spend less time.
It says something about the man's ego that, given that he is past his first flushes of youth, he would seriously think that a young lass would be interested in looking at texted pictures of his privates for the sheer joy of it. Did he never think.... nah... can't be... must be an ulterior motive?

Anyway, what was the minister for civil society at all? 

Answers on a post card.

In more general terms, isn't the Tory Party Conference going well... sex scandals and defections to UKIP. Even the thought of killing foreigners hasn't cheered them up this time.

Never happier than when they are killing Johnny Foreigner
Ha ha ha ha ha,... you need to ask that?
That's about it...
Bless it, where would vinegar lips be without the Daily Mail?


  1. Is that correction for real? No don't answer that what a state UK is in with journalism at that level.

    Political conference!

    1. Ye gads. How much are they paying them?

      It makes you want to vomit. They'd have to pay me in the tens of thousands even to wear the butcher's apron on a t shirt, never mind being in the same room with some of these Tory weirdos... no idea what they are doing on their phones... The mind boggles!

      Heavens no. The Daily Mail only use the phrase "utter bollocks" on their online editions, which are looked at by people under 95.

      The print version is sanitized and disapproving of...well, everything really.

  2. Brooks Nomark. Heh!

    Some of these politicians really have got their heads up their backsides - one can only imagine the laughter in the newspaper office when that text arrived.

    In terms of air strikes... Its not going to work is it... We just watched Israel fight what they called a terrorist insurgence type thing and it was was widely condemned. They use the same tech we do to bomb, why is ours any different and more importantly - as Angus Robertson pointed out - where's the exit strategy?

    ISIS (or what ever its called or even is) seems to be pretty fucking horrible - but they are partially a construct of the West's woefully terrible foreign policy in that area of the world.

    Its just another mess we just made worse.

    1. Laughter and a few wretchings as people lost their lunch.

      No. It won't work. Britain has been making things worse in the Middle East for a hundred years and more.

      The West in general seems to want to impose democracy there, but not democratic democracy...the kind of democracy that has leaders who will do what they are told by Br-America.

      Every time we intervene we leave things worse than they were.

      What is the objective? How can it reasonably be achieved? How will success be measured? What is the exit strategy? Will there be repercussions in the form of increased hatred of the west?

      I always ask myself when I see Br-America interfere: what would we do if they did this to us?

      What if they got together and said: It is disgusting what is happening in Britain. Moral decrepitude. People being starved to death, thrown out of their homes with nowhere to go, living on alcohol and drugs, and bed hopping, sleeping with different people every night... We need to do something about it. Let's bomb them.

      What would we do in return?

    2. Isn't that the official explination of why the plane bombings happened in 2001?

      So we know what we'd do in return: Br-America would go and bomb the shit out of them and encourage them to do it again.

      "We have always been at war with [...]"

    3. Sorry, Br-America would go and bomb the shit out of their neighbours, because it's as good an excuse as anything else.

    4. Well much though I abhor the violence of 2001, and the totally innocent lives wasted, it seems to me that it's an atrocity when they do it, but justified when we do it.

      Unless we are different from, superior to, better than, them, that makes no kind of sense.

    5. "We" have killed more people than "they" did. More children too.

      It only seems to be bad when the little people do it. Kill enough people and it gets declared a "War" instead of "Mass Murder" and somehow that makes it "ok".

    6. Agree completely. I can understand the outrage that comes when they do it to us. Bombing subway trains and busses in London, or trains in Spain is an atrocity, but it isn't any worse that flattening Baghdad in the search for one man who wasn't likely to be there anyway.

  3. On a separate topic, you NEED to do a blog on the Scottish polls! SLAB vote literally collapsing:

    SNP = 23 MPs, 33% share of vote
    SLAB = 30 MPs (-11) 31% share (!!!)
    ScotTory - 4 MPs, 20% share (!!!)

    What the hell is happening here?

    The end of SLAB? What levels of denial will this news send our Niko into?

    1. Interesting link Dean. Thanks for that.

      It does look a bit like that Labour is disappearing off the face of Scotland.
      I was happy to see Dundee West look as if it will fall to someone a little more worthy than McGovern.

      I'm surprised at the numbers. I expected the Liberals to lose heavily, but I didn't think Labour would go as badly as these predictions. And it's only 6 months away.

      Actually, I think I'd like to invite you to do a guest post on it.

      Are you up for it?

      You can email it to me if you like and I'll post it up with any illustrations you suggest...


      How about it?

      Then we can ask Niko to do one too... by way of reply?

    2. I am not sure I would trust a site which includes the Western Isles in East Scotland :-)

      Note that they are predicting that Labour would get 7 more MPs than the SNP on 2% less of the vote. If their prediction of seats for a given vote share is right, this illustrates yet again why the crude first past the post system should have been scrapped.

      The site seems concerned primarily with the Labour/Tory balance, and I wonder how its UK-centric viewpoint affects its accuracy with respect to Scotland. Also, the opinion poll results appear to include some from before the referendum, so it may be underestimating the gains that the SNP will make based on the (so far limited) post referendum polling. I saw somewhere figures that put the SNP about 9% ahead of Labour. I tried a prediction in which I increased the SNP share to 36% and decreased the Labour share to 28%, and the result was SNP 33 seats to Labour 20.

      A further 1% swing from Labour to the SNP gives a prediction of SNP 39, Labour 16. It will be interesting to see what the next few polls of Westminster voting intention show.

    3. I'm up for it Tris. I'll get right on it! Give me a couple of days :)

    4. Great Dean... appreciate it matey. :)

    5. Les. There is no doubt that FPTP is a terrible system.

      At some point in the past I argued on Twitter about the Tories having no place in Scotland with just `1 MP to be torn to shreds by Tories pointing out that they had a fairly sizable vote in Scotland. (16.7% = 1 mp: Liberals had 18.9% = 11 seats. SNP had more votes than Liberals and got half as many seats. Labour had 42% of the vote and got 80% of the seats.)

      Of course I was able to excuse myself by pointing out that this was the system that Cameron wanted and campaigned hard for (despite having promised Clegg he would not).

      Anyway... It's an interesting idea, even though, 6 months away it may be wildly inaccurate.

      The site seems to be quite detailed in its analysis, although as you say, it's clearly an English site (the Western Isles!!!)

  4. The words 'sexy', 'young' and 'Tory' don't really go together very well. Unless you're thinking of Murdo Fraser or Ed Miliband, of course.

    1. Well, I was thinking, in this case, that it was a female... so... I'm going for...

      Nope, I see your point. Nadine Dorries is hardly any of these things....

  5. Tris

    The current crop of shit in Westminster's three Tory parties have got to be the worst in my lifetime by far, you just can't make up how bloody rubbish these public school educated prats are. They like killing Brown people in Iraq, killing the poor and vulnerable in Bri-tan, pretending that they don't really like UKip and wish they could all join. They pull out the willy forgetting that the servants don't just go down on order now, even the pretend female Tory activists. But what the f lets vote NO so we can be governed by a bunch of wankers that you would trust your toilet paper with.

    Hear Osborne has been slashing the below poverty benefits that people receive to the point of no benefits that people receive, but if you don't know just vote NO. What will it take for a revolution in this country, also wonder how Labour will better the benefits cuts. Maybe the poor and vulnerable with have to pay an existence tax because they are a burden to us all and if they are allowed to breath the same air as the three Tory Parties then they should fucking well pay for the privilege, the money can then go to provide big tax cuts to those who have huge pensions and want to leave behind even more money to their useless wealthy children.

    Hate does not begin to describe my feelings about this feckin country.


    1. Aye, I know Bruce.

      We don't get mad though; we get even.

      They really are the worst government we have every had adn they are getting away with it.

      I expect to see rickets and head lice reappearing soon.

      I loathe it too. Can;t wait to be out of it.

      Just remember the more they do this, the more we will want away.