Justice to The Reverend

My student debt is massive. So massive I see it as a completely different financial entity to the rest of my monetary life. The figure on it is so out of proportion with every other part of my financial dealings, it feels like there is no way it can really be anything to do with me. But it is. And it continues to slowly grow like some festering tapeworm, slowly sucking up small portions of my fragile disposable income and subtly strangling me from the inside. This month I paid off £25 of it. The interest charged on it was £22. So at this rate, I will have paid off the full £10,000 in 278 years. I imagine, Rev, that yours is more or less the same.

So boo hoo for me. And boo hoo for every other graduate whose salary crawls below the 20k mark. It’s an ugly situation for sure, but incredulous murmurings from the Confederation of British Industries suggest even uglier times ahead. The crux of the CBI report is that Universities need more money and the students should pay for it. Tuition fees should rise and grants should be cut. If a university education seemed out of reach for the UK’s poorest young people now, this would expand that disenfranchised group massively.

The reasoning given by the CBI spokespeople is that there is just no other way to raise the necessary funds needed to run these institutions at the standard required. Many universities are running large deficits and will undoubtedly need more money. But I just can’t accept that the only way to save the higher education system is to raise prices; intentionally fueling the disproportionate number of middle and upper class students who are able to go to university. Not only would this be unjust, but flawed and self-defeating on so many levels. Firstly, the CBI points out that the taxpayer can’t shoulder the costs due to the current state of the nations finances. I have two problems with this. By denying so many people the opportunity to realise their full potential, the long-term impact of this can surely only lead to a diminished output in years to come. My other grievance is concerning the prioritisation of how the contents of the national kitty is used. Now, I’m not going to get into the justification of our war in Afghanistan here, I just want to look at it in regards to its prioritisation. The figure put on the cost of this war is billions. Billions and billions. I would gamble that if you asked Regular John of the streets of the UK if he would rather his tax money went into securing an education for the next generation of Britain or for funding our war in Afghanistan, there would be overwhelming support for education. If we really want our nation to progress, education must be always be right at the top of spending priority. And always, always above war. I realise that the current situation is not quite as straight forward as this; we are at war in Afghanistan and by cutting the amount we spend on it would be condemning many British soldiers to death. But it is certainly a good argument for accelerating the progress of our exit strategy. Also, there’s always Trident to look at if freeing up cold cash is on the agenda.

There are also other potential revenue streams that should be tapped before shaking students by the heels until their lunch money rattles out. The largest of these must be revenue from big businesses. It is they who benefit so hugely from the higher education system, so it seems only right if they have more responsibility in funding it. This, in fact, was brought up by the CBI in a BBC interview, but unsurprisingly in very vague and half-hearted detail.

So the future of the UK’s entire higher education system is hanging very much in the balance. Any decisions made on how this is handled will have massive consequences on many socio and economic levels in the future. Which is why I curse the empty sickness in my stomach when I hear that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives intend to release any manifesto on the topic until after the next general election.

Jayfor to The Reverenr

The relationship between the US and Russia since the collapse of Communism has been confusing to far more people than just you and me, Reverend. And I think that this is a complex a policy as any that has been made in relation to this over the last couple of decades. But is the prevention of one cold war the catalyst for another? Russia may be lauding the US President with unreserved vigour, but Barak Obama’s specific reference to Iran’s ‘ballistic missile programme’ is unlikely to do anything to douse the fires of animosity between Iran and the US (or indeed much of the Western World - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s verbal attacks on the UK during the election protests certainly didn’t go unnoticed). The Iranian President’s answer of ‘without such [nuclear] weapons, we are very much able to defend ourselves’ when questioned about said nuclear programme undoubtedly contains considerable venom. Granted, Iran holds nowhere near the power and influence Russia did in those Cold War years, but the fear and paranoia is still likely to hold considerable sway in international politics whether the Iran threat is real or not. Many outbursts from senior Republican Party figures have confirmed this.

So maybe this is a lot to risk in return for political favours on the Latin America front, which as you suggest will probably be used more for ill than for good. But other consequences, such as removing potential US military targets from European soil and improving relations with the old enemy, Russia, makes fine sense. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor Justice

Not many comments I have today, it's hard to take things in on medication, but something that was on my mind as I chewed through my mango and pancakes this morning was Obama's recent abandonment of missile defence in eastern Europe. Many in America have criticised the President for his so-called sucking-up to the Russian regime and so jeopardising US defence, however, this move, although aggregating the Polish and Czechs, clearly has much more logic than the US media machine will let on. 1) By gaining Russian support, rather than undermining it's sphere of influence around Eastern Europe by expanding defence on what was once considered Soviet soil, there is more chance for for imposing stricter sanctions on Iranian nuclear activity, measures that Russia has so far failed to reach agreement on with the west. 2) Another reason for gaining Russian support is to more closely monitor worrying movements closer to the US borders. The US has rightly or wrongly (most often wrongly) been afraid of the threat from Latin America and the US government has all too often intervened in Latin American affairs, whether supporting rebel groups to led a coup d'etat or sending in mercenaries to assassinate important political figures. The twenty first century appears to be a very different story for the US strangle-hold on Latin America, especially after the formation of greater coalition between Latin American countries (although the name of that particular coalition has disappeared from my mind just now) - without this greater solidarity between these countries, the US might have been able to bolster military presence in Columbia and wave off any concerns from Columbia's neighbouring countries by suggesting it was just a move to aid the mysterious fight against the drugs trade, but such acts are not as easy to implementt as they used to be because much of Latin America has gained the economic strength and solidarity to stand up to the stoned-cold paranoid US machine. And so it seems that America needs help from Russia, a nation that has been well respected in much of Latin America if only for its links with Communism, though, Russia has built up this sphere of influence and now controls major oil lines through Latin America. To cut to the chase, the American's are afraid of the increasing ties between Venezuela and Iran... Chavez has agreed to open more doors for increased oil output to Iran in exchange for knowledge of nuclear technology - is this another episode of US paranoia, perhaps not, as just last week Chavez visited Iran and agreed to stronger ties in trade and oil.

In the wake of Obama's victory and whilst the inevitable was looming for George Bush, the former President said of his Presidential victor: “‘this is a dangerous world…and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.’” Obama has not yet acted on many of the massive expectations he has set himself, but over the coming months we'll soon know whether his new regime of stronger ties between the US and Russia will be better for the American people than years of cold war paranoia between the two states.

Rev. to Justice

Women’s equality – inherently different between western and Islamic cultures, so hard to compare how women’s equality, as viewed in the West, is necessarily brought into question by the Burka. In terms of Islamic culture, to suggest that the Burka poses an obstacle to the equality of future generations would be to wipe away centuries of historically and religious symbolism -

So, Burka as a religious symbol, or Burka as a mode of suppression?

There is another argument here, which fights for the freedom of every country to have it’s own cultural identity:
Fully Liberated Muti-culturalism, or limited multi-culturalism? Every country has the right to exhibit their cultural and social values (in the UK we have the Queen and English tea, in Holland they have the clog and marijuana, in Brazil everyone loves football, in Russia everyone is a spy) and no country should, unless certain laws or actions amount to physical or psychological harm upon its citizens, should be held hostage by another country’s cultural, political or religious values. So, for instance, if one were to emigrate and start a family, surely they wouldn’t expect that country to have to bend over to any special demands that they may have brought from their own homeland with the exception of a flag for nostalgic reasons perhaps, and they would surely expect their children and the generations after them to live in such a way as to be acclimatised - in so much as the law is upheld - to the cultural values of the country that has adopted them.

Even if a person hasn’t emigrated, but decides to become a Muslim and decides that they must cover their face, well then it is their problem to find a society that can empathise with their religious customs and allow them to externally display their full identity. The same could be said, for example, if a person felt uncomfortable living under a the roof of particular political regime – if the politics aint changing any time soon, then perhaps that person should move to a place where they can live comfortably without feeling suppressed or antagonised by politics they fundamentally disagree with – unless, of course, there is real cause for revolutionary change. Then, every man, woman and child should stay and fight for their freedom and right to basic human rights.

When we travel to Arabic countries where girls legs on show (however hot and smooth their thighs are) are seen as a sign of disrespect, we teach our children to accept these laws, just as we might be forced to accept that some countries have stricter laws on alcohol or drugs – like in the US you can’t drink before the age of 21, so as a person under 21 you must drink alcohol where you won’t be found by the authorities, otherwise you face the consequences.
So, what I’m getting at here is, if as a person you feeling strongly that you must wear a particular type of clothing - short skirts perhaps - or even smoke dope legally, then you must choose a country that accepts yr conditions – or do it indoors where you’ll not offend others - and not expect any country to accept yr views and values.

It is a shame that certain countries have harsher views on multi-culturalism than those displayed in the UK, but I believe that these are very rare in the world and have their advantages and disadvantages within our society. But, if the French wish to have a society where people’s faces must be shown- for whatever reasons, security, equality etc - especially in classrooms, airports or shopping centres, then that is the choice of that countries democratically elected leaders and as a citizen, if yr religious values are suppressed in some way, then you must either accept the conditions within the country you live or leave –

One cannot expect other people’s cultural and social values to be blighted by religious anarchy. Either way, it’s all a show of control by the state – just as a ban on cigarettes is. Funny how they tell us we’re not allowed to smoke ANYWHERE because cigarettes are bad for everybody’s health, but we can still buy the damn cancer-sticks from the shops.

Jayfor to Rev.

Faith. And France. And fashion. And freedom…

Nicolas Sarkozy is not mincing words. When it come to an issue that divides not only the French people, but the French politicians in Versailles, he has made his position crystal clear. In his first state of the nation speech to Parliament, and indeed the first made by a French President in over 150 years, Sarkozy put forward his views that he wanted to see an end to Muslim women wearing the burka (and niqab) in France. “Not welcome on French soil” holds a very powerful tone.

In his address, the President stated that it was not objections to the garments’ religious significance, but it was an issue of women’s ‘liberty’ and ‘dignity’. This statement is a brave one. Mostly, I believe, because it is peppered with all sorts of paradoxes. The first is regarding the use of the word ‘liberty’. What Sarkozy is proposing here is upholding a woman’s liberty by removing her right to wear a certain garment of clothing. This sounds strangely like one of Orwell’s examples of doublethink. So he must have at least one of two scenarios in mind. The first I can think of is the assumption that many Muslim women are forced into wearing clothes that cover their faces by oppressive partners or peers of significant religious influence. This is certainly plausible. The problem is that there is no way of finding out what proportion of women are oppressed in this way and what proportion would feel oppressed by having to show their face in public. This brings me to ‘dignity’, which I’ll address in a moment. The second scenario that comes to mind regarding ‘liberty’ is that Sarkozy believes the general public has the right to be able to see the faces of all other citizens. I don’t see how this holds up though. Ban tinted visors on motorcycle helmets? Ban oversized sunglasses? Balaclavas? Either way, it’s there to be argued.

So, ‘dignity’ then. Aspects of dignity are undoubtedly universal, but other can definitely be seen as subjective. In Western culture, almost any woman would feel her dignity had been stripped from her if forced, or hell, even suggested that she covered her face in public. Equality between the sexes is a notion that has shaped Western culture and so it seems logical that to be denied this equality by being denied the right to show your face in public is to say that you have been rejected by your culture. And this is undignified. But, of course, the opposite is also true. A Muslim woman who strongly believes that her religion (and by extension, culture) is shaped on the subversive role of women would surely feel equally stripped of dignity if she were forced to display her face in public.

With these paradoxes tangled like a kite in a power line, the direction we need to look is forward. In what ways would this shape the future? Both the following generations of Muslim women and also the shape of our own Western culture. Do garments like the burka suggest to our future generations that the necessity for women’s equality is only an opinion? Would the banning of such garments suggest that tolerance ends at a cultural divide?
The French Council for the Muslim Religion, Mohammed Moussaoui, brought up the problem of stigmatism. And it can certainly be seen that the passing of a law that bans the wearing of burkas or niqabs is inherently suggesting that the Muslim faith need be viewed with suspicion. At a time where tension between Western and Muslim cultures is ever mounting, suspicion can be a dangerous thing.

Rev. to Jayfor Justice

Well, not having a defence against even the smallest potential threat (after all, government must have had scientists and analysts undertaking stringent risk assessments on the premise of nuclear warfare in order to sanction such a defence scheme (well, at least, we hope it wasn’t an activity sought though the caprice of bored ministers)) would be like leaving your door ajar and making a clear statement that you were vulnerable. Now, most people would be too scared to take a peek inside that door, perhaps they’d be worried that someone was at home with a baseball bat to hand - just like when we left Cardiff for a hedonistic weekend in Leeds in 2006, leaving our door not just unlocked, but swinging wildly in the bitter Welsh wind, nonetheless, we came back to a house that hadn’t been robbed – but there will always be those people – North Korean leaders - who will be more likely to have the crazy-balls to open up the door and see what they can find – or bomb.

And yes, JJ, I do agree that the potential for our little island being wiped off the map is minimal, almost non-existent, but until nuclear weapons are completely done away with (including you, America) it would be a far more shrewd bet to have a system in place that would be able to counter the minimal threat of a North Korean all-in call.

Justice to Rev

There are certainly some points there Rev. North Korea being the most prominent and terrifying. I would like to think that our best defence against them is diminishing our nuclear power; proving that we really have no intention of cracking open their isolationist shell with atomic particles. The leaders and generals of North Korea are telling their people that we (well the US in particular, but since Blair we’ll be associated with whatever they do) are planning to bomb them back to the dark ages. A policy of reducing our arms, you would hope, would make this claim seem totally unsubstantiated. There is, however, a pretty fundamental flaw in this thinking, which fertilises my indecision like three tons of cow shit. The North Korean media is controlled so heavily by the Powers That Be, that if they wanted their public to know nothing of this policy, it would be easy to cover up.

But I would like to think that a nuclear arms free world is the way of the future. It is a hell of long way off at the moment, but any kind of step towards it I believe is a brave and noble one. If we announced the scrapping of Trident today, would missiles from all over the world really come crashing down on our Green and Pleasant Lands? I’m sceptical. After all, the US would come to our defence. Wouldn’t they?

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor

Typical Lib Dems… they never really have the balls to spark any really controversial reforms and very rarely do they promote any unique or inspiring policies – usually happy to cling to the spokes of the wagon driven by the most popular party of that week. In the case of the Trident being abandoned and not renewed again – well, here’s a bloody good example of Lib Dem pointlessness – Am I wrong in suggesting that the Trident campaign just got renewed? I’ll have look into this, but I’m pretty sure Blair renewed it during his war-frenzied leadership until 2020-something. So, this is hardly a pressing issue right now!

Besides, why the hell would we want to drop this form of defence in the current climate anyway? I realise that it costs a serious amount of money – but so did going to war with Iraq, which the government was prepared to do at the drop of an invisible WMD. I also realise that the cold war is over and we no longer have to stand back and watch Britain and Russia unzip their pants and show who has the biggest. But, firstly, if Ian Fleming has thought us anything, you can’t ever trust the Russians, and secondly, as you have rightly stated JJ, those crazy South Koreans have begun testing their weapons – something that we never proved in Iraq – and have basically declared that nuclear war is a very realistic possibility for them, even recently threatening an attack on the Korean peninsular. So, I’d suggest that the trident, for now at least, is probably a very handy devise to have in our defence. And when 2020 comes around - if the world hasn’t already been shook by then by a nuclear attack from the soon-to-be-blessed new leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un – we can reassess the situation.If Nick Clegg wants to defend his house against the mounting threats of nuclear war with a barricade of flowers then let him build that house in the middle of the ocean because one thing is for sure, I wouldn’t want my country of residence to be wiped off the map because it was run by a government who dismissed the need for defence – there’s a lot of crazy people out there ready to do a lot of crazy things.

Jayfor Justice to The Reverend

Guilt. It’s a terrible thing. It seems to live in the stomach and squirm through the body relentlessly and with an uncanny ease. Trying to hide said guilt is usually a pretty futile exercise (save a few of those rotten scumbags who seem to excrete it and never get caught). Someone needs to tell this to Prime Minister Brown. Yesterday the PM announced that there would be a full, independent inquiry into the long and bloody occupation of Iraq. For many, this inquiry is long overdue and much needed. The absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq cast huge doubts over the legitimacy of the invasion, and further doubts have been cast by yesterday’s announcement. Mr Brown’s statement to the Commons detailed that the inquiry would take place in private and that it would “not apportion blame”. All I heard was “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned”.

Unsurprisingly, the outrage came like a firestorm from every direction. Tories, Lib Dems, families of victims. Even Labour back-benchers. And it’s easy to see why. Following the cesspool of lies and thievery that was the expenses scandal, Gordon Brown smugly announced that he could and would put an end to this sort of deceit. The buzz word was ‘transparency’. I’ve read the word ‘transparency’ so many times over the past few weeks, it's burnt onto my retinas. And now, in the most bizarre suicide attempt, the Prime Minister has announced that one of the most important inquiries of this decade (and surly the most of what will be his short premiership) will take place in private. This, if I’m not mistaken, is a middle finger.

Trying to fob us off with any excuse as to why this ‘must’ take place in private is surely as futile as trying to hide the guilt that radiates off the man. Cost? What, compared with the cost of the war? Nah. Guilt? Maybe. And even if the report is conducted with the upmost of scrutiny and the result does turn out to be that the war was justified and followed through in the most appropriate of ways, who is going to believe it? Not me Reverend. Not me.

Jayfor to Rev.

More than 24 hours of a Tube strike and London is still standing. I was half expecting the place to look like a ghost-town scene from an old western movie; cracked wooden buildings with saloon doors creaking at the hinges. The odd cow’s skull trampled into the dirt roads. But no. There are still G-Wizzes and Café Neros and parking metres. London still stands. But London is angry.

As British people, we often support and empathise with strike action. We love a worthy underdog. But to find any support for this strike, you would need to talk to a hell of a lot of Londoners. We hate an underdog that shits on our lawn and eats our children’s homework. The general feeling seems to be that this strike comes down to nothing but ham-fisted greed. And in troubled economic times which have been the product of greed, this goes down very, very badly. A glance at the numbers makes it pretty clear why a lot of people are very unhappy. Strikers are demanding a not insubstantial pay increase whilst the majority of Londoners take freezes, cuts or worse. The fact that there is no way it can be claimed that this pay increase is essential for securing a Tube worker’s minimum standard of living only adds fuel to the flames (a Tube driver earns almost double the UK’s average salary). The second is the call for a promise to hold all redundancies. No one wants to see anybody made redundant, but we all have over the past months and we all know that they are a part of business. The feeling that ‘I can’t be guaranteed that I won’t be made redundant. Why should they?’ seems quite natural. The final straw is the huge cost to the local economy (estimated at about £100 million) at a time when the local economy needs every penny it can get. Your job and my job depend on it. And I nearly forgot… the massive inconvenience on every single person in this city.

So I find myself wondering, what the good goddamn is Bob Crow thinking? Did he make a drunken bet that he could get face on tele within a week? Surely not. It looks like a ball of sausages. One possibility is that the strike is not about pay or redundancies or even greed at all. It could very well be political. Bob Crow’s desire for the nationalisation of the Underground is no secret. If he can cause havoc and disruption on a large enough scale he may be able to bully the government into nationalisation. The government will stop at nothing to avoid the words ‘havoc’ and ‘disruption’ being used to describe the 2012 Olympics.

But my major concern has nothing to do with the real reason behind the strike. I’m concerned with what this will do to public opinion and what will happen when the Tories eventually get elected into power. The Conservatives are not famous for their love of the Unions, and mass public disgust with one of them is a very good excuse to stamp on their power. Those Unions truly fighting for the safety and genuine wellbeing off their members could be left toothless. And this will fly under the radar. Tube strikes affect millions on a person level, whereas a strike at a local factory will cause no change to almost everybody’s regular day. Shame on you Bob Crow.

Rev. to Justice

Huh – postal workers on the march next!

This morning is frustrating and even more frustrating when I recieved an 'out of office' reply from your work email, reminding me that you're probably not 'out of bed' yet - I keep writing a sentence of thoughts and then getting rudely interrupted by some shitmunger emailing me and assuming that I'll help them – belligerent fools, don’t they know I’ve got more important words to write? I’m not a charity here, who the shitgoddamn do they think they are? They can’t have checked their calendars this morn and seen that’s it a Friday and time to shake off the grim realities of ‘work’ and seek sanctuary in the sacred layer of the guzzling beast of debate. And alcohol. I tell thee, if Pluto’s looking up on us he’d be mightily unimpressed that I aint worshipping the underworlds right now -

I’ll try have an entry by the end of day

Rev.

Jayfor Justice to Rev. O'Lution

I have to say that I entirely agree. Most of those policies are laughable. They are idealistic (spawned from the most bizarrely warped of minds, but idealistic none the less) and impossible to legislate. But before we go back to mocking their wide-eyed stupidity and condemning them to Appendix 99 of The Oxford Book of Stupids, I think that we still need to address the issues. Hitler's momentum rolled of the back of people looking to the far left/right in times of deep recession. So did Mussolini's and Stalin's and Pol Pot's and Mugabe's. And we are now in a recession. It is, like you said, the evolution of these ideas that we need to take heed of. If the centre-right of Europe needs a few big policies to raise eyebrows, start discussions and give the illusion of progression, where is it going to look for inspiration? The liberal left is almost over the horizon due to the misrepresentation of its ideals by Blair, Brown and other war criminals in red ties and second homes. It has been tarred and feathered to the extent that the stinking black goo and the borderline-comic feathers are its defining features. So they will look to the BNP and that goddamn Kaczy´nski for boat-rocking, vote buying inspiration. A hill needn't be steep to get a ball rolling. From it distance, it can look totally flat.

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor Justice

Lots of interesting comments in the press this morning – mostly jumping to the corner of caution towards the recent victory by the BNP. They say ‘this isn’t a move back to the Fascism of the 30’s’, NO, NO, NO, this is just a protest vote in times of recession, they say… I’d agree, to a certain extent, but then we shouldn’t be so distracted by the victories of the BNP as to dismiss the far right populism that is silently gathering momentum through the rest of Europe, like the beginning of a porno movie yet to reveal its full, wrinkled, unrealistic self to the audience. I’m not in the mood to cause sensationalist fear based upon limited risk assessment, however, as the remainder of the British press find comfort in slating and throwing verbal eggs at Nick Griffin et al, I think it wise to give a little mention to the far right victories in countries such as Romania, Poland, Austria and Hungary (interestingly, these are some countries that slicked-backed Cameron wants to form allies with in the near future– hm, so how many Poles reside on British soil?). With this rise in far right popularity duly noted, it should also be pointed out that we there is no need to get too hyped up about the potential eradication of liberal values (yet), but we should definitely be cautious. Of course, this isn’t Fascism - but this is also not the 1930’s; instead, it might be suggested that politics, people and nations have the ability to evolve into different beasts - and so can Fascist mentalities. You only need to look at how Marx theology evolved into a much more brutal regime under the guise of Marxism-Leninism.

The BNPs first couple of seats in the EU doesn’t make them a huge threat. When this rabble of racists do get some proper airtime, which I hope to do soon, for all of Britain to witness, to be questioned under the media spotlight they WILL fall head over arse in stupidity, feeling much like Hitler as he lifted the chamber into his mouth. Why will the British electorate suddenly become flummoxed by the elevation of the BNP? Well, simply put, because giving the BNP a press conference to expose the full and filthy and frightening extent of their manifesto – i.e. revealing those policies no currently lit by the media spotlight - will inform the electorate of their error in loosening the reins of the beast. Let’s just have a peak at a couple of those flabbergasting policies: local apartheid, removing all ethnic minorities from the NHS (despite the fact that ethnic minorities make up about 60% of the staff), a social frown (and eventual ban) on mixed race relationships, corporal punishment for petty crimes, land ownership stripped from the non-British and returned to the British (hasn’t a similar policy happened somewhere in Africa recently and with disastrous consequences?) – hmm… so, “how are you going to provide a free health service without staff, Mr Griffin”… “You want to offer packages to immigrants to encourage them to move out of Britain – to, in your words ‘restore the white make-up of Britain’ – however, this will surely cost Billions. So, how would you and your party solve the current recession with such expensive long-term policies in mind?”… “And lastly, for now, because the chilling air around you is starting to disturb me, ‘riffles for all households’ – please, Mr. Griffin, explain to us how presenting a gun to any old wolly, crook and granny might aid a safer society.”

With absurd policies like this (and many more), I have faith in the British people to repel such immature politics, and when the initial panic-dust of the BNP’s victory has settled upon the soil of our Britain, these thieves of freedom will surely recoil back into the dimly-lit, soul-destroying, human-suffering corners of civic centres in Burnley and hell, and will never muster enough fervour to cause any real harm to our social freedoms.

A more harmful issue, which surely demands more of our attention right now, is that we are edging ever-closer to the return of a Conservative government – a regime that has already begun forming allies with the centre-right and far-right bloc in Eastern Europe…

Jayfor Justice to Rev. O'Lution

You talk of the role of the media and, for me, it is the media who have failed us and allowed these rotten slime-balls to fester long enough to produce some kind of rancid, mutant fruit. The media’s portrayal of the BNP has been as immature and irresponsible as the party itself. Snide put-downs, aloof commentaries and venomous personal attacks are not the foundations for rational political debate. In fact, I would argue that this can only aid their cause. What better way to articulate your feelings of disenfranchisement from mainstream politics than vote for the whipping boys of the popular press. For some reason, when it comes to the BNP, the press seems to assume that it has the right, and even duty, to think for you. And no-one likes this. We are told day after day that the party is full of crack-pots, racists and crazed delusionals. But this the problem. We could very easily work this out for ourselves. Have you ever seen the BNP’s manifesto, partial or otherwise, printed in a national newspaper? Broadsheet or otherwise? No. And this is as comforting for the BNP as pure mink briefs. ‘Tough on immigration’ and ‘British jobs for British workers’ are how many people see them. And these are perhaps two useful ideas. The rest, the BNP voters will assume, is nothing but media hype. It’s not until they see the words from the horse’s mouth that they can see the greasy, wart-riddled scales of the party for what they really are. I wonder how many BNP voters know about their localised apartheid policy and in what detail.

The press need to stop treating both the BNP and the British public like they are morons. They are not morons and we are not morons. A balanced debate on their policies would see them crumble like a Rich Tea in a tsunami. It would be easy. I read a good point today from a blogger who questioned why a party with an isolationist framework and an objection to multiculturalism would stand for European parliament at all. And this is just the smallest hole in the world’s most vile-smelling Swiss cheese.

Their mask hides the most ugly and horrifying features, but it’s time we stopped mocking the crudeness of this mask and actually take it off.

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor Justice

That European election result makes for grim reading. But at least now the mainstream press will be forced to make it their duty to expose the reasons why the Nationalists are no more worthy to a vote than Hitler – these one dimensional racists will now be under the constant spotlight of the media, their every move will be cast into public attention, their activities scrutinised at every sleazy street corner where they go about plotting their fascist regime… basically, Captain, the Nationalists will be shown for what they really are – nothing more that filthy, immature human beings, so scared of the shit-stains on their own pants that they’ve to find others to blame. There will no longer be anywhere to hide for these immoral anti-human rights anarchists, they are Satan’s rejects and it is the media’s responsibility to hunt down all those fanatical morons hiding under the wings of the BNP and tear them to shreds like blood thirsty rats that have escaped from the sewers – the BNP now have elected members who must be put on the stocks and exposed for their heinous crimes against the freedom of all. We must urge our media to fulfil their side of the bargain – it has been too long now that these fascists have benefited from the media’s portrayal of them as anti-establishment, and although they are a mob of simpletons to roll ones eyes at in disbelief and mockery, they have now proved that they must be taken more seriously as threat to societies freedom. They must not be allowed to weasel their way into the political hole any further, we, the true British people - proud of our diverse society, proud of our rights to liberal freedom, proud to say we value every human life on the same scales - owe it to ourselves to protect one another from such barbarians. We protected each other from the Vikings and Hitler and terrorists, and now we must protects ourselves from this mob of fascists – protection against authoritarian rule, social interventionalism and prejudice against our own people, prejudice that is so often based merely on the unintelligent grounds of skin colour or ethnicity. This is a party that should never be considered as actually having the credentials to be involved in politics (even Dr No. would have been ashamed of having such a thick turd like Nick Griffin as an elected MEP). We should be ashamed of what we, the voting public, have done in letting these animals have seats in parliament, but we should not spend any more time dwelling on the BNPs recent victories, for we must act immediately and, refraining from the jokes, jibes and gesture politics, we must use our freedom of speech more wisely and blow this brainless bunch of racists, rapists and psychos out from the hole that they have been hiding in –

It’s time to expose and dispose of the BNP fascists once and for all…

Jayfor Justice to Rev. O'Lution

Today, our revolution must be a different one. Like you say, our bubble is too warm and comfortable for the kind of revolution that sleeps in our history books. Victory today will be a change in people’s perceptions of what is right and what is moral and what is fair, especially in regards to the distribution of wealth. A coup d’état and new political system is not the answer here. It must become accepted in our nation’s consciousness that rules for the rich must apply to the poor. And that rules for the powerful must also apply to the powerless. This is about accountability. Wages, expenses, power. These must all be justified, and it is only in the bleak aftermath of a crisis that justification can stand trial. Rewarding failure is not justified. The buying and selling of power is not justified. The exploitation of loopholes by our politicians is not justified. The gaping gap between the pin-stripes and the paroles is not justified.

Greed has been the motivating factor (and, in fact, policy) in our economy for over thirty years now. Progress for progress’ sake. More is more and bigger is bigger. We have been building a great pyramid with the point at the bottom. And now it has collapsed. This great pyramid, of course, needs to be rebuilt, but this time we have the gift of hindsight. We know that we need the most bricks at the bottom and new regulations and policies must be introduced to ensure that this happens. Greed will not go away, but the way it is monitored and regulated can still evolve.

So today shouldn’t be about hate and violence, but hope and change. That’s not an easy ticket to buy, but I have a good feeling. Prof Chris Knight seems to be the ideal figurehead to lead a protest like this and push the notion that change is not only a whim of the violent or only a right of the oppressed. It can happen here with pens and handshakes and not swords and hand-grenades

Rev. O'Lution to Jayfor Justice

There certainly will be a revolutionary air on the streets, but I hope the people are not too hungry, for people that are too hungry act irrationally and without the composed thought that can bring about real change. They will take out all their grievances on the governments and forget that they are manipulated just as much by the media – why is it that the media often slip silently through the net of deceit? For these lying bastard journalists, only looking to sell the next issue, seem to have far too much power and with just a click of a button they can dictate how our world is perceived and how the masses judge and react – Angry and hungry, the demonstrators today could be easily tempted to consume anything; they will forget about what there appetite was actually yearning and they could very easily disgrace themselves and what they are trying to represent ‘the people’ 

Unfortunately, Jayfor, I don’t trust the people of the UK one bit. I believe they are over-indulged, ungrateful and lack the real sense of purpose to be able to cultivate change – after all, it is the people that choose the government (though there is limited of choice) and ‘we’ do live in a liberal world where we have no dictator who controls us and where we can generally live with wild abandon to do as we please; ‘we’ are free in most walks of life – more so than a lot of other countries out there, where a person’s right to freedom only comes with death…

If we want change then we must install power back to people – not only through protesting, but through political change… if we’re unhappy with those in power then we should make more of a collective effort to elect more worthy MPs, or oust out the arrogant parties –  

But, toppling the government in some form of wild revolution – at present - cannot happen here because the shackles on the people of the UK are not omnipresent – yes, we have an over-arching government that has the power to make policies we don’t always agree with, but these same powers allow us to live in general freedom - until something happens to destroy the civilisation of our daily lives and routines, we’d be better off fighting for freedom for the Burmese, or joining arms to spurn the evils of terrorism…

I hope that something comes out of today - that the governments take off their stupid caps for a moment and make a concerted effort to mop up the mess that has stained the economy - they must punish those that have taken greed to the extremes, blatantly ignoring the consequences of their actions…

Anyway, I guess I sound a little hypocritical because I don’t exactly see myself on the streets with my placard – but, if I were unemployed I’d be out there like a shot… and this is what’s so worrying for those in power right now. Because they do have over 3million people unemployed and bored, and if Che and Castro started a revolution with 20 men, hopefully 3million might just be enough to wean out the corrupt MPs and knock down those greedy, money-hungry banker wan*kers… and then, down with terrorism?!

Jayfor Justice to Rev. O'Lution

D’you smell that, Reverend? It’s pungent and it’s everywhere and it’s revolution. The air’s thick with it. Things could actually change tomorrow. The Angry Mob has changed its clothes and washed its hair and could even be mistaken for you or me. And that’s putting the willys up those in the bowler hats and those clutching their expenses forms. Violence. Riots. Terror. That’s what we’ve told to expect over the next two days. You better be nimble on your feet, Reverend. You won’t be able to walk down a single London street without having to dodge strung up bankers swinging by the throat from lamp-posts. Stay indoors. Dress down. These people that want equality, fairness and change may look like us but really they’re children-guzzling monsters in jeans and T-shirts. Stay away. Don’t even look at them. And definitely, under no circumstance, listen to what they have to say.

Do they really expect us to swallow that rotten spunk? This time their foul play is a little harder to cover up. Now you can see it on Kensington High Street and on Clapham Common, not just on a remote highway outside Basra. They’ve numbed us into forgiving their crimes overseas and their contempt for public opinion on such issues. We were angry, but our stomachs were full, and, because of this, they could always call our bluff. Even the march of 5 million back when the invasion of Iraq was in its infancy could be shrugged off. But now we’re hungry. And those in power should fear nothing more than a discontent public with a growling belly. No amount of lies and spin can convince any of us that we are no longer hungry. And they know this. And that’s why we will win.