If privacy is for paedos, then transparency is for voyeurs

In the grand scheme of things, there isn't much that ranks below a tabloid journalist - aside perhaps from a tabloid editor. Paul McMullan surely rates as one of the prize cunts of the newspaper age, a fact compounded by his appearance yesterday at the Leveson enquiry.


There is coverage enough on what he said and did - my beef is with the specific point that privacy only ever seems to apply to those matters of which we are ashamed. To an extent, I think he has a point - but what I can't fathom is what right he thinks the public has in knowing the ins and outs of someone's affairs.




What this prick and his associates have done is to give the public what they want - an exceedingly idiotic manoeuvre given the public are invariably fickle, judgemental, hypocritical and stupid - under false pretences. This wasn't altruism, it was a cynical ploy to prize cash from its readers in exchange for salacious gossip. It's fuckers like McMullan that give capitalism a worse name than it deserves.


Even if it were genuine, this hypothetical example shows why the 'public interest' debate is weak:


Politician A is a successful minister who's reigned in spending and improved his department's efficiency. Out of the office he's been having an affair with a neighbour, which is subsequently leaked to hacks. Society's (entirely hypocritical) view on the virtues of monogamy may well cost him his job - no matter how well he excels at it. No crime has been committed, no-one hurt outside of the immediate parties - yet the man, and potentially the country, will suffer as a result. And it doesn't have to be an affair - just something that makes the public go "Hmm. I didn't think he was like that."  (And if you think 'being gay' is above that, think again.)


We're not talking about law breaking - that's handled in the court thank goodness - but someone's right to go about their business without dealing with society's judgement.


McMullan went on to say "in 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never found anybody doing any good". One might reasonably argue that, given the News of the Screws wasn't falling over itself to reveal its phone tapping activities, he speaks the absolute truth. 


We live in an age where everyone seems desperate to spill the ins and outs of their affairs - not only is it  improper, it's dangerous. Even if you trust the government (which many, for good reason, don't) there are domestic and foreign criminals able to exploit your details, your hobbies and your tastes. Claiming that nothing should be off-limits is an invitation to... well, something awful.


McMullan and his kind are nasty little voyeurs - and the public should pull its collective head out of its collective ass and kick 'em into touch.

And the winner of "most irrelevant article" goes to...

The Independent! Congratulations!

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/pan-am-glam-you-must-be-off-your-trolley-6262752.html


To save anyone (i.e. no one) reading it, the gist is as follows:

'Working for an airline is shit now that poor people can afford to fly.'

No fucking shit, Sherlock. Anyone who's been to an airport in the last twenty years knows that flying is about as glamorous as a bottle of WKD Blue.

But guess what? A lot's changed over the past 50 years - architecture, cars, healthcare, education - so what was the point of writing the damn thing in the first place? It has to be the second most pointless thing on the internet - this blog entry being the first.

The secret of men

I have to hand it to Paulina Gretsky, she knows how to make the most of her assets.

Despite having a petite bust and a face like a bag of spanners, she's somehow managed to convince the world that she's a hottie. As the nations' masturbators come together to bemoan the loss of her partially-clothed Twitter account, there's a lesson for ladies to learn:

Men don't give a damn what you look like if you're prepared to take your clothes off.

Seriously. Chances are, we'll still fuck you even if we don't like you.

I love to see Guardian readers cry

Not only are they invariably easily-riled but their arguments are usually fatuous, hypercritical nonsense. Once again, someone had the temerity to mention Thatcher on the Guardian website and within moments the ranting had begun.

Now, though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, I'm not Thatcher's biggest fan. She did some things right, she did some things wrong - whatever. She's actually superfluous to my argument. What's funny is that the left are under this bizarre illusion that the world was full of daisies and snow flakes before May 1979. Which I suppose it was if you ignore the three-day-week, loan from the IMF, widespread union corruption and a prevalence of bad, bad clothing.

In a word, it was Shit - shit being British, shit owning a business, shit trying to get anything the fuck done. So many of the left's movers are shakers  - especially the bastion of cuntdom that's sprung up round Whoreditch - are in the fortunate position where they do not remember the 1970s. Fuck, a lot of them have trouble remembering the first CD players. It's just rubbish, recycled musings of knackered unionists who didn't know what they fuck they were talking about thirty years ago, let alone now.

Now, as I said earlier, I'm hardly Thatcher's biggest fan, but one indisputable point stands out. It's the profligacy of the left in the 70s that led to the rise of radical conservatism: the left, in short, are responsible for Thatcher.

In the same way, the tories are also responsible for Blair in 97 - and so the crass merry-go-round of human existence continues.

God, I hate humans.

Anti-social media

It's hard to say what I hate most about social media, since there are so many potential things that irritate the living  fucking shit out of me.

First are the people that tend to use it. Bright, perky young things with over-indulgent parents who like to spread messages of hope and equality. They're the kind of people who wept when Steve Jobs died of ego cancer, or strike up conversations with beggars.

Second is the shit that they invariably spout. A great example I saw on Shitter lately was:

"Everyone is beautiful"

Er... not technically true, is it? If everyone is beautiful, then by definition beautiful is ordinary and therefore by extension, everyone is ordinary. Good observation, cuntchops. Maybe you should stand for mayor so the nutters can have someone to shoot at. If they'd said:

"Everyone is a massive cunt"

then they'd be a lot more on the money. [At least it's true: Islamic fundamentalists hate everyone who's not an Islamic fundamentalist; Christian fundamentalists work by the same logic. Ergo, someone, somewhere, thinks you're a cunt.]

Finally is the fact that they think anyone cares. ("Ahhhh!" I hear you cry. "But what about your indulgent, profane rants?" Well, here's the rub, fucker: I'm probably the only one reading this - and I don't give a sparrow's pissflap.)
I've done a comprehensive survey and nearly all social media is utter bollocks. The remaining 1% are hot teens making out, which I find is nearly (but not quite) worth putting up with the remaining 99%.

If I still haven't convinced you, here's my final argument:

Do you really believe this guy ever had enough friends to bother starting Facebook?

What a cunt.

Love the gays...

But hate their sloganeering. Take this piece of pointless posturing:

Very right on. Very in-your-face. Very we're-here-we're-queer - but what's the fucking point? If you like homosexuals then you won't care. If you hate homosexuals then you'll just be irritated more. If, like me, you don't give a damn who or what someone fucks, then you'll just be left bewildered. It's nothing but a "Ha ha, the law is on our side, we won!" statement. To be honest, I thought stonewall would have had better things on which to spend their money.


Not surprisingly, Facefuck is also getting in on the act. One group I've seen, called Wipeout Homophobia on Facebook <sic> delights in removing so-called Hate pages from the site. Maybe I move in the wrong circles, but I've never seen homophobic pages on Facebook - and if I was the kind of person to go looking for them, would I be put off by a bunch of homos calling me a meanie? Doubtful, very doubtful.
I should explain now that I am wholeheartedly pro-equality - I don't give a rat's ass if you're gay, straight, transgender, transvestite, transatlantic, black, white, asian, inuit, aboriginal. What I do care about is someone telling joe public that it should be more tolerant. 
Fuck you. Who are you to tell me what prejudices I may or may not have? If you have the right to express your sexuality, then other people have the right to express their opposition - freedom of speech works two ways, fucker. 


As always, it's the vocal ones that make life difficult for others. I have no documentary evidence, but I'm willing to bet that there are millions of homosexuals out there who are sick of being defined by their sexuality. They want to go to work, go home again and fuck who they want without being labelled. By ramming your sexuality down people's throats - no pun intended - all you're doing is alienating the moderates. Do that at your fucking peril.


The one good thing to have come out of all this is this phrase:

I WAS BORN GAY.

WERE YOU BORN HATEFUL?

Er... Yeah, as it happens.

Can't say I'm surprised

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15606278

It's a well known fact that most people from the south west drive like absolute cunts.