Politics

  • Council seizes fly-tipper’s van

    There was a rare item on the Bristol Live website today. Bristol City Council decided to publicise an element of its enforcement activities against fly-tippers and other environmental criminals.

    Normally a shy and retiring organisation where its enforcement activities are concerned, the council is very publicity-shy about the number of people it deals with for environmental crimes, preferring quietly to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) of up to £1,000 a time. However, the council has this time taken firmer than normal action against an alleged fly-tipper by seizing the alleged offender’s vehicle in the city’s Hartcliffe are and towing it away, as well as the more unusual step of publicising its operation.

    Image courtesy of Bristol City Council Neighbourhood Enforcement

    The council was acting under section 34b of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act – the right to search or seize vehicles if a fly-tipping offence has been committed, the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence and proceedings for that offence have not yet been brought, or if the vehicle is about to be used or is being used in a fly-tipping offence.

    Having repeatedly pleaded with the council to publicise its actions – if only for their deterrent effect – your ‘umble scribe is very pleased to see this welcome change and only has a further five words of advice to those in waste management and enforcement down the Counts Louse*: keep up the good work!

    * = The traditional spelling for and pronunciation of the local authority’s headquarters within the city.

  • Two cities, two cuisines, one politics

    All cultures, countries and regions around the world have their own local cuisines, some indigenous, some introduced by incomers and yet others a mixture of the two.

    Also termed food cultures, your correspondent notes that food is often inextricably linked to politics as well as identity, as has been apparent in two separate examples from the cities of Bristol and Chicago.

    In your ‘umble scribe’s sixty-something years of existence, food in the Untied Kingdom (mis-spelling deliberate. Ed.) has changed beyond all recognition with dishes and tastes from right around the world become increasingly available. I well remember the curiosity and excitement when the first Chinese takeaway opened in my home town of Market Drayton in North Shropshire all those decades ago.

    Since those long gone days, takeaway food has become a staple in the British diet; and with the advent of delivery services such as JustEat and Deliveroo, customers can now order takeaways without having to rise from their sofas.

    In this post, your correspondent notes that in two separate cites – Bristol and Chicago.

    Bristol

    First Bristol and a comment on the ephemeral nature of catering establishments despite everyone’s need for food and delivery services. The subvertising in the following photograph was spotted on the city’s Fishponds Road yesterday afternoon.

    Note how the subvertising has got the background colour of the original JustEat sign almost right, as well as matching the original font faithfully.

    Subvertised sign on disused takeaway now reading Just Eat The Rich

    As regards the phrase ‘Eat The Rich, your ‘umble scribe thought it was a modern phrase arising out of anarchist political thought in response to ever-increasing increasing wealth inequality and food insecurity. However, it actually goes back rather further.

    That rather further back takes us to the days of the Terror which followed the French revolution. On 17th October 1793, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, President of the Paris Commune, gave a speech to the city in which he apocryphally remarked that the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau said the following:

    Quand le peuple n’aura plus rien à manger, il mangera le riche.

    In English this translates to the following:

    When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.
    Chicago

    Next to Chicago and more specifically The Wieners Circle, which describes itself as an ‘iconic hotdog stand on the north side of Chicago serving up high quality street food with a side of insults‘ [sic].

    The Chicago eatery has responded in feisty fashion to the unfounded assertion made by the disgraced former president, insurrectionist, convicted felon, adjudicated sexual predator, business fraudster, congenital liar and golf cheat, one Donald John Trump, that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating residents’ pets during his recent televised debate with the Democrats presidential election candidate, Kamala Harris, as shown below.

    Illuminated sign for The Wieners Circle withe the addendum Immigrants eat our dogs

    Politics and food also have a long relationship. Back in 1798, Cartoonist James Gillray published ‘John Bull taking a Luncheon: – or – British Cooks, cramming Old Grumble-Gizzard, with Bonne-Chere‘ shortly after Nelson’s victory over the French at the Battle of the Nile. The strong link continues today as shown not only by these examples from Bristol and Chicago, but also by American Republicans renaming French fries ‘freedom fries‘ after French opposition to the 2003 Iraq war (cheese-eating surrender monkeys anyone? Ed.).

    Update 15/09/24: Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims about immigrants in Springfield to such an extent that his cult-like followers have targeted the Springfield’s city Hall and other buildings with bomb threats and a side serving of racial hatred.

  • The ‘little list’ man returns

    'Lord' Peter 'Little List' Lilley in 2022One of the more interesting aspects of the current Nasty Party (© Theresa May) leadership competition is the number of old Tory politicians sticking their heads back above the parapet to endorse various Conservative leadership contenders. In addition, it serves as a reminder to the rest of us just how awful those candidates are, as well as how dreadful the endorsers were when in office and still are today.

    Yesterday’s Guardian reminds us that in an article in The Times (paywalled) that ‘Lord’ Peter Lilley, who was Secretary of State for Social Security under John Major, as well as occupying other ministerial and party positions under other party leaders, announced his endorsement of leadership contender Kemi Badenoch (a person so unpleasant Guardian political sketch writer John Crace has described her as being able to “start a fight with her own reflection. Ed.), drawing attention to her engineering background and aligning it with the scientific background of the sainted Thatcher, as follows:

    Since Margaret Thatcher, a science graduate, nearly every prime minister and party leader of both the Tories and Labour has been a wordsmith. They mostly studied politics, philosophy and economics, or law. They were good at using words, all too often twisting words to explain away failure and rationalise broken promises, or finding out what people want then telling them what they want to hear. But they lacked the mindset to organise and plan the deployment of resources and people.

    Lilley may have denounced the law and Oxbridge PPE graduates who tend to dominate modern politics and their twisted use of words, but he himself has not been immune in his time from twisting words for political effect, as was more than apparent in his 1992 speech to the Conservative Party conference, in which he referred to his notorious ‘Little List‘ which demonised those unfortunate enough to have to claim social security benefits under a Tory government – usually demonised as fraudsters and scroungers.


    The transcript of Lilley’s parody from Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado reads as follows:

    I’ve got a little list / Of benefit offenders who I’ll soon be rooting out / And who never would be missed / They never would be missed. /
    There’s those who make up bogus claims / In half a dozen names / And councillors who draw the dole / To run left-wing campaigns / They never would be missed / They never would be missed. /
    There’s young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue / And dads who won’t support the kids / of ladies they have … kissed / And I haven’t even mentioned all those sponging socialists / I’ve got them on my list / And they’ll none of them be missed / They’ll none of them be missed.

    Do you remember what is said about people who live in glass houses, Mr Lilley? 😀

  • CMA objects to Google’s anti-competitive ad tech practices

    Google logoThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has announced today its provisional finding provisionally that Google has abused its dominant positions through the operation of both its publisher ad server and buying tools to restrict competition in the UK.

    The provisional findings relate to how Google gives precedence to its own ad exchange – harming competition and, as a result, advertisers and publishers.

    This action in the UK parallels the actions of US and EU agencies which are also investigating similar concerns in respect of the search behemoth.

    As set out in a statement of objections issued to Google on Friday 6th September, the CMA has provisionally found that when placing digital ads on websites, the vast majority of publishers and advertisers use Google’s ad tech services in order to bid for and sell advertising space.

    The CMA is concerned that Google is actively using its dominance in this sector to give precedence its own services. In so doing, Google disadvantages competitors and prevents them competing on a level playing field to provide publishers and advertisers with a better, more competitive service that supports growth in their business.

    In its 2019 market study of digital advertising, the CMA found that advertisers were spending around £1.8 billion annually on open display ads, marketing goods and services via apps and websites to UK consumers.

    The CMA has found provisionally that, since at least 2015, Google has abused its dominant positions through the operation of both its buying tools and publisher ad server in order to strengthen AdX’s market position and to protect its AdX advertising exchange from competition from other exchanges. Moreover, due to the highly integrated nature of Google’s ad tech business, the CMA has provisionally found that Google’s conduct has also prevented rival publisher ad servers from being able to compete effectively with DFP, harming competition in this market.

    Online advertising process
    Overview of the ad tech stack, key intermediaries and Google’s ad tech products

    This practice is still continuing, according to the CMA. The Authority is therefore considering what may be required to ensure that Google ceases these anti-competitive practices and do not do the same or similar in the future.

    The CMA may impose a financial penalty on any business found to have infringed the Chapter II prohibition of up to 10% of its annual worldwide group turnover.

  • America does irony

    A common misconception about US citizens is that Americans en bloc cannot do irony.

    This is known as stereotyping, i.e. people attributing a set idea they have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong.

    The stereotyping was misproved (yet again!) earlier this week by the post below on the former social media site now known as X (mostly for the rating of its content. Ed.) in relation to the disgraced 45th President of the United States, adjudicated sexual predator, condemned business fraudster, convicted felon and compulsive liar, one Donald John Trump.

    Post reads Sorry, but I have to agree with Trump. Crime is out of control. Just look at New York. There is a dude who was convicted of 34 felonies there, and he's still walking the streets.

    In the dictionary irony is defined as follows:

    a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result.

    Anyone who does come out with the ‘Americans can’t do irony‘ phrase needs to look up what a national or ethnic stereotype is. 😀

  • Ambushed by donkeys and a lettuce

    Today’s Guardian reports that Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister, one Mary Elizabeth Truss, stormed off the stage at a book promotion event after being upstaged by a lettuce banner which dropped from the flies.

    The banner bore the phrase “I crashed the economy” below a picture of a lettuce.

    Truss was at Beccles Hall in Suffolk promoting her memoir, Ten Years to Save The West, once described as “the work of a failed politician whose historical legacy will be the unprecedented shortness of her premiership“, when the incident happened.

    Campaign group Led By Donkeys had arranged the stunt and publicised it via its account on the Muskrat’s X-rated social media platform.

    Post reads We just dropped in on Liz Truss’s pro-Trump speaking tour with a remote-controlled lettuce banner. She didn’t find it funny.

    And here’s the video footage in all its (ahem) glory.


    For once, Truss had no difficulty finding how to get off the stage; this has not always been the case.

    In response to the stunt, Truss reportedly remarked:

    What happened last night was not funny. Far-left activists disrupted the event, which then had to be stopped for security reasons. This is done to intimidate people and suppress free speech.

    I won’t stand for it.

    According to The Independent, Conservative political commentator Tim Montgomerie advised: “Liz Truss would be well advised to learn to laugh at herself”.

  • FSFE intervenes in Apple vs. EU Commission

    A green apple with an internal wormThe Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is intervening in litigation brought by Apple against the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Apple is seeking to avoid Digital Markets Act obligations related to its App Store and the interoperability of its operating system. The FSFE’s mission is to protect free Ssoftware against monopolistic corporate control.

    The CJEU has officially allowed the FSFE to intervene in the litigation brought by Apple against the European Commission to avoid being designated as a ‘gatekeeper’ under the Digital Markets Act. The company has pursued an aggressive policy against software freedom and interoperability, seeking to deter enforcement of the DMA – a law designed to increase fairness and competitiveness in digital markets by regulating the economic behaviour of very large tech companies.

    Dr. Martin Husovec, the FSFE’s counsel, remarked, “Becoming an intervener in this case is crucial as the FSFE is representing the civil society perspective, which enriches the judicial proceedings. This allows the court to make fully informed decisions”.

    The FSFE’s intervention aims to uphold the application of the DMA to Apple, voicing the concerns of the free software community against the Apple’s unfair practices. Free software projects are disproportionately affected by the company’s monopolistic practices. fee policies, strict vendor lock-in, prohibition on side-loading and the restriction on alternative app stores on Apple devices.

    By admitting the FSFE to the proceedings, the court stated that “the case is likely to have a significant impact on […] the supply of free software, free exchange of information and equal chances in accessing software”. Besides, the court recognised that if the EU Commission’s designation decision were to be annulled, […] “such a result would have an impact on the ability of the developers of applications or free software to interconnect their applications free of charge with Apple’s operating system iOS, which, in turn, would affect [the] FSFE’s ability to further and distribute such software to as wide a public as possible”.

    The next step for the FSFE is to submit its arguments by mid-September.

  • Cat educates thick rich man

    The social media account of Larry the Cat, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, is no stranger to this blog (posts passim).

    Larry has now taken to his keyboard yet again to educate an ignorant, insulting rich man who owns a social media platform to educate the latter on the letter of the law in connection with the recent fascist riots in the Untied Kingdom*.

    In recent days Elon Musk, (yes, him! Ed.) has waded into the debate about rioting thugs, claiming the disturbances to be a matter of free speech, not violence and racism against vulnerable people who have sought asylum in the country.

    Post reads: Support freedom of speech in the UK

    Amongst the many replies to Musk came one from the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, a canny political operator who has so far survived the premierships of six prime ministers – David ‘Call Me Dave’ Cameron, Theresa May, disgraced former alleged party-time PM Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, one Mary Elizabeth Truss and Rishi Sunak.

    Although he started out life as a stray, Larry quickly became acclimatised to the political climate in Whitehall, famously being one of those resignations which led to the downfall of Johnson, a man unfit to clean a public lavatory, let alone occupy the highest elected public office in the land (posts passim).

    Larry has posted the following response to Musk’s bland and blissfully ignorant exhortation.

    Post reads We have freedom of speech in the UK; it's written into our law in the 1998 Human Rights Act. But rights come with responsibilities (I appreciate that's a concept you're not familiar with); there's a requirement not to incite criminality or spread hatred online. We find society works better that way.
Attachment to post reads Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of tiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the lensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    Ouch!

    * = Mis-spelling is deliberate.

  • Bristol says no to hate

    It was a tense day in Bristol yesterday. There were reports that fascist thugs were planning to ‘demonstrate’ against a legal practice specialising in immigration cases in the Old Market area. Lots of local businesses saw no alternative but to shut up shop early and board up their windows.

    Fortunately, things turned out differently: 2,000 lovely Bristolians packed West and Old Market Streets; the fascists stayed away and a party atmosphere prevailed.

    Even away from the focus of the demonstration there was some tension in the air, particularly where your ‘umble scribe lives in Easton, one of Bristol’s most diverse (in all senses) areas. Local shops in St Mark’s Road and the local community centre shut up early in anticipation of possible trouble, particularly as it was suspected the fascists were planning to march along Stapleton Road.

    As it happened, no march occurred either. Even if it had, there were lots of small knots of local residents keeping an eye out for trouble on the streets, especially in the vicinity of the mosque in St Mark’s Road.

    Also outside the mosque, your correspondent spotted two elderly white people sitting quietly on chairs, one holding a placard reading Bristol says no to hate. By the manner of their protest, your correspondent reckons they might have been Quakers.

    Placard on door to women's entrance to St Mark's Road mosque. It reads Bristol says no to hate

    When they left, they abandoned their placard on the women’s entrance to the mosque.

    Bristol, you should be proud of your citizens today,

  • Auntie aids fascist rioters

    On Monday an horrific attack took place in Southport at a children’s dance class in which three young girls were deprived of life.

    The victims had been attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance and yoga class for children aged up to 11. Taylor Swift herself responded as follows to the news.

    Post reads: The horror of yesterday's attack in Southport is washing over me continuously and I'm just completely in shock. The loss of life and innocence, and the horrendous trauma inflicted on everyone who was there, the families, and first responders. These were just little kids at a dance class. I am at a complete loss for how to ever convey my sympathies to these families.

    A seventeen year-old youth was arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted murder, although his motives remain unclear.

    The BBC went to the trouble of reporting the suspect’s ethnicity.

    The BBC can report that the teenage suspect, whose parents are from Rwanda, was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013.

    It is at this point that questions arise as to why did the BBC point out that although the suspect is a British citizen, he is of African heritage, a fact that was sure to inflame the extreme right.

    A vigil was planned near the scene of the attack on Tuesday evening. At about 19.45 hrs, it was followed by violent disorder in which those involved set alight cars, threw bricks at a local mosque, damaged a local convenience store and set wheelie bins on fire. The rioters are believed to have been members of the English Defence League (EDL).

    After the riot, questions were asked including the one below by tax campaigner and top-flight accountant Richard Murphy.

    Post reads: A simple question. Why did the BBC ever think it appropriate to report that the suspect in the Southport killings was born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda?  If he'd been born in Surrey to parents from Yorkshire, I am certain that they would not have pointed that out. Are they trying to create, or even imply that there are, second-class. British citizens? This feels horribly like racism from the BBC, with the implication being that this group is made up of people who could be deported from the UK because they might have a claim to citizenship elsewhere. If that is what is happening, the BBC is supporting the far-right playbook. An explanation is needed. Why is this apparent racism allowed from our state broadcaster?

    Meanwhile in Scotland, The National reports that SNP leader Hamza Yousef has written to the Home Secretary demanding that the EDL be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, as well as posting the following on X/Twitter this morning.

    Violence targeting police officers, the public, and mosques, all to drive forward the far-right’s hateful ideology.

    Rhetoric is not enough.

    We need to take action against the far-right. I have asked the Home Secretary to use her powers to proscribe the English Defence League.
Posts navigation