subtitle

...a blog by Richard Flowers
Showing posts with label naked people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label naked people. Show all posts

Friday, May 09, 2014

Day 4876: The Day Labour Admitted They Have Lost

Thursday:

Wednesday night's Partly Political Broadside from Hard Labour seems to have got a lot of people talking.

Dan Hodges thinks Hard Labour have gone insane.

Owen Jones thinks it's lacking in hope.

(and it takes some doing for Mr Milipede to look like a less mature grown-up than my fellow Stopfordian!)

While the New Statesman thinks it means Labour are going all out for a majority.

Personally, I think that that last analysis is 100% wrong.

Because self-indulgently playing to their CORE VOTE prejudices is a sure sign that Labour are now falling back on a CORE VOTE STRATEGY.

Sure, Hard Labour supporters may all be very tickled with the "LOLS". But guess what – they were going to vote Hard Labour anyway!

EVERYONE ELSE is going "Well, that's a bit SHI—, er, negative!" And if you want to ensure a majority, then it's EVERYONE ELSE you should be talking to.

You need to be reaching out to floating voters and your rivals' supporters. You know, like that thing that Captain Clegg has been doing with his "we're the Party of IN", building a – dare I say – coalition of people because they support our actual POLICY on Europe, even if they've made up their mind to blame the Captain for not having given him a majority Liberal Democrat government in 2010.

Of course, to do that you do have to have some actual POLICIES to sell them. And it turns out that Hard Labour are coming up empty. Sort of a Hard Up Labour, in fact.

OK, Mr Milipede did have ONE policy – that "energy price freeze" lark that touched the media's sweet spot last year. But that is looking SO 2013, now that the energy companies have hiked their prices and announced their own eighteen month "price freezes" – just like Mr Ed and everyone else said they would – and the meeja have decided La Farage is their new darling.

And – in an obvious effort to strike it lucky with the same card twice – they have now announced they're in favour of rent controls as part of a continuing effort to try to REINTRODUCE THE CORN LAWS: i.e. to artificially depress prices thus cutting off SUPPLY making everyone worse off, rather than trying to address the real need which is increases in DEMAND.

To underline their paucity of ideas we have Mr John Crude Ass Cruddas (trying to get the silly names right…) – Mr Milipede's "policy co-ordinator"; an easy job when they've only got two policies, I suspect – writing in the Grauniad that: "Labour will pioneer the post-industrial economy" off the back of a new "Digital Revolution". So that's "post-industrial" in the sense of no one having any jobs? Do they really believe we'll all be e-commerce entrepreneurs and app-store millionaires? That's quite an upskilling they're promising. Or is it just an acid flashback to the dot-com bubble of 1997? And how did that work out, can anyone remember?

But it's all very thin stuff, dressed up with an anti-Farrago fringe of "No we ARE against the Kippers REALLY!" I guess it's because Cap'n Clegg's been questioning why their leader is not standing up for Europe against UKIP. Not so much "Where's Wally?" as "Where's Milly?". It must have really hit a nerve.

Vague promises of "devolution to our cities and regions" and "renewing the bonds of trust" and "new ways of doing politics" though will give anyone with even a passing familiarity with Lib Dem policy a profound sense of déjà vu.

It seems WILFULLY PERVERSE to depict Nick Clegg as NAKED just as you are trying to steal his clothes!

Oh yes, back to the barely-coherent "plot" of that election broadcast that sees a not-very-Clegg-alike "shrinking" as his promises are undermined by a nasty pseudo-Mr Balloon. It attacks Nick with all the usual old catalogue of allegations while simultaneously depicting him as being forced to do it all by the evil Tories. Well, make your mind up, boys: is he victim or villain?

I even feel some sympathy for the Conservatories in this. Absolutely they've made some pretty poor choices and there has been much pain, often falling on people who should NOT have been let down. But the Tories – and we – didn't do it for "teh Evils"! It was because Labour left behind a situation that was damn near IMPOSSIBLE.

The sort of Cameron-caricature depicted in Hard Labour's ad is the sort of thing you expect from Tweenie Trots in fashionable student debating clubs. But it's not proper politics, is it.

If you want to reduce some really complicated economic factors and impossibly hard decisions to Dr Evil stereotyping, then expect to see LABOUR BROKE THE ECONOMY coming right back at you. That's what everyone believes anyway, no matter how many times you trot out "No, it was like that when we found it, it was the bankers, it's not FAIR!"

In some ways the worst of all is the sheer ARROGANCE of the ad's conclusion that the British people will just drop a Happy Ending into Hard Labour's lap without the Milipedes, Ballses or Crude-asses having to DO any actual "labour" at all.

And in a way, they might. Because Labour's core vote strategy is to try and leverage the unfairness of the electoral system and scrape a majority out of the bare 35% of people who voted them in last time they were "elected", back under the old war-criminal Lord Blarimort.

Because it's quite clear now that they don't expect anyone else to vote for them. And why would they? There were no reasons to vote Labour here, no reaching out to the electorate, no "vision".

Their cartoon-Clegg might be naked on screen, but it's Hard Labour who look like the Emperor with No Clothes.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Day 4252: Success! Prince Harry Plays Pool Without Wearing Nazi Uniform!

Wednesday:

Short version:

Makes you Proud to be British, as Mr Winston Churchill once said.

Slightly longer version:

Why is it supposed to be a scandal that a fit, healthy young man wants to get naked with ladies? Or even gentlemen?

Thinking about it, delete the qualifiers "fit" "healthy" "young" and "man". Consenting adults should be allowed to get naked - and yes even "sexy" - without it being a scandal!

Friday, July 20, 2012

Day 4219: The Law is a (Naked) Ass. Again.

Friday:

For a minute, it looked like flash of hope, maybe even SANITY, was creeping into things.

Sure, there's been military coup in the nation's capital that has transformed homes into missile launch pads and sees Apache helicopters buzzing our flat on an hourly basis...

And yes, that pie-faced cretin Mr Balloon is planning on using VOODOO to tell who is and isn't a dangerous child-offender...

But at least the Kafka-esque nightmare of the Naked Rambler was over, and he'd been allowed to walk away from prison. Naked.

Only now they've locked him up again.

In so many ways: BUM!

As a FLUFFY ELEPHANT I am USUALLY naked too. Unless I put on a NICE TIE for special occasions like getting nonimated for Blogger of the Year. (Yes, I am ELIGIBLE again this year. Do not forget!)

Nobody is shocked by MY fluffy bottom. So I really don't see the problem. Honestly, the only people making a fuss are the ones ARRESTING him in case he "offends" someone. And you do not have a "right" to take offence at what other people are not doing. Not believing the same things, not saying the same things, not WEARING the same things, it's all much the same.

And yet one minute there's one bunch of folks demanding people burn their burqas. Next there's another wanting them swaddled up again lest they frighten the horses. Just let people wear – or indeed NOT wear – whatever they want!

(And for people who say you can't let people see WILLIES, WILLIES are FRIGHTENING, I say go and watch ALIEN and you will soon see that the GIANT EVIL WILLY is ONLY frightening when it STAYS HIDDEN!)

I realise, in the grand scheme of things (especially today) that the plight of this slightly odd-seeming beardy bloke does not seem very important at all.

But he's not actually done anything WRONG

Eccentric, I'll grant you. Weird, I wouldn't disagree. You might even go as far as to think he's a bit peculiar. But not CRIMINAL. Because where's the crime in wandering about in his own skin doing no harm to anyone? And yet the full might of the state has been brought to bear/bare (hoho) and seen him locked up, mostly in solitary, for SIX YEARS.

If there's any CRIME here, it's the one that the STATE has committed against HIM.

NOBODY benefits from bullying this man to conform. In fact, a bit less diversity means we're all just that little bit worse off.

This country has already been HUMILIATED by an Olympic Five-Ring Circus that has proved that it puts the CORPORATE GREED of "official sponsors" ahead of the entrepreneur spirit of anyone who might have boosted the economy with some local initiative (and the UNIONS have nothing to be proud of either); that it puts the privileges of the elite in their Zil lanes ahead of the ordinary people of this city whose taxes have paid for those roads; that it puts SECURITY THEATRE ahead of FREEDOM or FUN.

Great Britain is SUPPOSED to be a Nation that celebrates ECCENTRICS and INDIVIDUALS and supports the UNDERDOG.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Day 3305: the Naked Truth – How Scottish Justice wastes HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of POUNDS on LITERALLY NOTHING!

Monday:


So it's 2010 and the VICTORIAN ERA is still well and truly in full complete-lack-of-swing here in ye Olde Grande Britannia, as Mr Stephen Gough, aka the Naked Rambler, is released from Prison only to be re-arrested six paces later. Again. Because he's still NUDE!

Apparently he could spend the rest of his LIFE in and out of jail (well, "out-for-a-matter-of-minutes") as this cycle goes on forever!

And it COSTS a bleedin' FORTUNE to keep him (in the buff) in chokey.

Yet the Sherriff has the NAKED CHUTZPAH to accuse HIM of having no concern for the public purse!

Murderers, terrorists, MPs even… we don't send them to the Big House for the whole of their natural lives. And yet this man seems to be a worse criminal than ANY of them! What COULD he have DONE?

Well, Mr Rambler first became famous for his naked hike from Land's End to John O'Groats in 2003.

He was arrested several times over the course of his odyssey.

Nevertheless he completed his journey in 2004 and hailed it as a success!

In 2005, he announced his intention to repeat the epic voyage.

And got arrested again.

In 2006, he flew back to Scotland to appeal against the charge of indecency. Stripping off while on the plane in order to appear in court naked.

He was sent to prison for four months.

The following April, he successfully defended himself against the accusation of breaching the peace on the grounds, get this, that no one had ACTUALLY been alarmed or disturbed.

Yes that's: "naked man in NOT ACTUALLY FRIGHTENING shocker"!

But he remained in jail awaiting further contempt hearing… because he wouldn't get dressed to appear in the dock.

By November 2007, after nineteen months in jail already, he was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to another three months in jail.

January 2008 and – still naked – he is released from prison. He gets SIX PACES before he is re-arrested and banged up again.

December 2008 and it's the same story. He's taken back to court, appears naked – quelle surprise – and is charged with another breach of the peace.


Are our court officials REALLY so easily startled? Goodness knows how they cope with a REAL crime; they must just SWOON a lot.

Six months later and it's not so much déjà vu (with it ALL still on vu of course) as a revolving door policy at the court.

Sherriff Richard McFarlane, presiding, even pathetically claimed he had "no choice" but to send Mr Rambler back into clink. Yeah, because you should ALWAYS go for the Nuremburg Defence when quashing a man's liberties.

And then the good Sherriff starts on about MONEY! As though Mr Rambler had a penny in his pockets. Or even had pockets for that matter.
"Would you like to estimate how much it has cost as a drain on the public purse to keep you in prison?

"You don't care about the public purse or the public generally."
Message for you your worship: YOU are the one pouring the public's money down the toilet by insisting that it be spent on keeping a man in prison when he is NO THREAT to anyone.

Keeping him in prison for wearing nothing, that's literally keeping him there for nothing, has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds already.

But never mind THAT because actually there's something more important than JUST wasting public funds because you're scared of his gentleman's area.

SERIOUSLY, what is more offensive: a glimpse of WINKEY or a MAN'S LIFE in CHAINS?


And in fact, we are ALL in chains. Because this farcical law applies to us ALL.

Equating NAKEDNESS with BADNESS harms every single one of us.

We have SERIOUS intimacy issues in this country because we are always being told to cover up, put up barriers between each other. We have SERIOUS body dismorphia hang ups in this country too, with people OBSESSING over being too fat or too thin or too the wrong colour or too airbrushed (er)…

Some even go so far as to assert that a naked people must be a "threat to the children". ("Oh won't somebody think of the children!") Because OBVIOUSLY naked people MUST be exactly the same as PAEDOPHILES. And as soon as you can make THAT connection then WHOAH! anything goes! So long as it STAYS ON, obviously!

That is why it is USUAL at this point to wave a big surrender-flag of disclaimer and say something like "but being naked isn't about the SEX! (shock! horror! cover the fluffy elephant's eyes!)".

But I'm NOT going to say that because I'm not willing to surrender!

I have had a "TALK" with my Daddies.

Sometime being naked IS about being "sexy". Whatever THAT is. And we can't go around saying "the sexy sort of naked is the bad sort", because that just gets us into even MORE of a fuddle. For hundreds of years society and the church used that sort of brainwashing as their best means of CONTROL – 'cos controlling the most INTIMATE aspect of people's lives makes it SOOOO much easier to control the rest.

Sometime being naked IS about being sexy. And that's got to be all right. And sometimes it's NOT. And that's got to be all right too. And sometimes DRESSING UP is about being sexy. Apparently.

(And I'm only TEN so that's as far as "THE TALK" with Daddy has got, so far!)

What I'm saying is that it all seems MUCH TOO COMPLICATED to just say "you've got nothing on so you're BAD!"

The Law is locked up in a PURITAN CHASTITY BELT because it was written by people so SCARED, so AFRAID, so buttoned-up TERRIFIED of their sexuality that they made their PIANOS wear DRESSES! Is it any wonder, this country is SERIOUSLY warped!


So here is the test. If you are a Liberal Democrat, it says on the front of your membership card:
"we exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society… where no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."
This man is enslaved by conformity.

We EXIST to save him.

SO WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE JUST STOP THESE MANIACS SENDING HIM TO PRISON!


PS:
In New Zealand, naked bicyclists get off with a safety warning. Isn't that better all round?



.