Introduction
Each month this blog will choose one person or an organisation to be our Super Twat of the Month. Our STOTM will normally be a public figure who is an anti-smoker activist and/or someone who is trashing (or attempting to trash) our civil liberties in support of a Nanny or Surveillance State. If this blog had to have only one motto, it would be "Educate, Don't Legislate." STOTMs want to legislate your lifestyles away. The people we choose to be STOTMs often claim to be in support of civil liberties, but in reality they only want liberties to be applied to the causes or groups of people they identify with. Here we call them out for their hypocrisy. We are not so naive that we believe this blog will have any impact on their decisions, but we can hope.Super Twat of the Month - May 2012
May's Super Twat of the Month is Theresa May MP - Home Secretary, representing |
| Home Secretary Theresa May - STOTM for May 2012 |
The Good
- Mrs May voted against the smoking ban, and she voted for an exemption for pubs and clubs. Unfortunately for Theresa, that was six years ago and before she completely lost her mind as Home Secretary.
- She voted against ID cards and later helped abolish Labour's National Identity Card scheme.
- Her expenses claims as an MP are very low, generally among the lowest in Parliament.
We nearly disqualified Theresa May as a STOTM simply for voting against the smoking ban. We do not yet know where she stands on the plain packs issue. Our gut feeling is that she will vote against it, but then again it wouldn't surprise us at all to see her vote for it to "protect the children." We do not believe she is evil or particularly duplicitous, although she is a politician and that does not work in her favour. Abolishing the ID card scheme is perhaps the best thing she has been involved in since becoming Home Secretary. She is also somewhat likeable, in a sort of motherly / grandmotherly kind of way. One gets the feeling that she is completely unaware that her party is using her to promote both a nanny and surveillance state whilst the rest of the party hides behind her back and sniggers uncontrollably at their own cleverness. It's almost kind of endearing.
The Bad
- She wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act because it got in the way of deportations.
- She has allowed several British citizens to be extradited to the U.S.
- Mrs May's views and votes on equal rights for gay and lesbian people are dubious, despite recent U-turns.
- She would like for the government to be able to monitor all of your electronic communications on the Internet via the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP).
- Mrs May wants to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol and electronic monitoring sobriety bracelets for alcohol-related offences.
- She has overseen the effective gutting of staff at UKBA, whilst increasing the security checks to absurdity, which in turn has lead to unacceptably long queues at airports' passport control centres.
Human Rights? Pish.
No doubt the EU's directives on human rights are a nightmare for governments. It's a problem mainly due interpretation and its subsequent implementation by nannying busybodies who fear being sued, and clearly barristers find it easy to exploit the legal system by invoking the UK Human Rights Act, which enshrined the EU's directives into UK law. Nevertheless, when Theresa May said she wanted to scrap the act because it got in the way of her deporting terrorists, she crossed a line. Frustrations aside, one cannot simply suspend the rights of all law-abiding citizens in order to deal with a few troublesome individuals in support of any cause. Could the Act stand a little amending? Sure. It's unwieldy and a blunt instrument, but that doesn't mean it should be scrapped in favour of a British Bill of Rights that has not even been written or agreed upon. Perhaps May's statements about the act were paper tigers, a deliberate political attempt to incite the bleating masses to support the war against terrorists. Perhaps she honestly believes it. Regardless, her comments are inappropriate and misguided. We also believe she was given the role of Minister for Women and Equality as a punishment for her past views on gay parents adoptions and such. Looks it like it worked.Extradite Me
The case of Richard O'Dwyer illustrates everything that is wrong the Extradition Act 2003. He is not a danger to anyone. He is not a terrorist. He has not murdered or raped or even hurt any children, nor does he intend to do any of these things. He's a 23-year-old alleged copyright infringer. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, it's not worthy of extradition. Ever. He could be tried here in the UK, but no, Theresa May has capitulated to the MPAA and the RIAA and authorised O'Dwyer's extradition to the U.S. This is completely unforgivable. We hope O'Dwyer's appeal succeeds, because if it doesn't, we are all at risk of being at the mercy of the American injustice system.CCDP = CCCP
Almost everyone is aware that Theresa May wants to give the government the right to monitor and possibly read all of your e-mails and other electronic correspondence sent over the interwebs. The 1st of May saw the hilarious activism of "CC All of Your E-Mails to Theresa May Day." It was a nice gesture, but it doesn't really address the problem that people in government fear the free flow of information amongst its citizens. Your ability to communicate freely and privately is a threat to governmental control of your life. Mrs May is openly advocating that the government has a natural right to read your correspondence should it wish to do so for any reason, absent any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is an egregious affront to civil liberties and freedom. Let's be honest, only the really stupid terrorists are going to use unencrypted communications to organise an attack. Chances are they aren't even using the Internet to do so. Theresa May suffers from the same affliction that all politicians do in that they want to be seen as doing something to protect you, even if it means taking away all of your rights in the process.Bring On The Nanny State
Could someone please explain to us why Home Secretary Theresa May came out in defence of minimum pricing for alcohol? Is it because of the over-hyped drunken louts ruining every little village and town centre in Britain? Is it a serious crime issue? Did the Tories use her as a sweet-natured patsy? We don't get it. That said, when questioned, she was utterly unable to answer the question about how much she drinks, even though she keeps an eye on her units. In point of fact, according to the UK guide on alcohol units, two glasses of wine could very well exceed a woman's daily limit of drink -- not exactly binge drinking. Here's a short video of Mrs May that is worth watching, and sums up everything you need to know about her and every politician who seeks to control your lifestyles:Drink for me, but not for thee. The worst part about her comments defending minimum pricing is the term "pre-loading." I have never heard anyone use that term to refer to drinking before you head out to town. It smacks of the PCP scare in the late 70s -- if you smoke pot, it could be laced with PCP and then you'll throw yourself off a building and land on an unsuspecting litter of harmless kittens.
When I was much younger, we didn't go out until very late, because we couldn't afford to spend all night in town having fun. It's an economics issue. We weren't "pre-loading" for the sake of getting as drunk as possible before we went out. We were only trying to save a few quid, because going out is expensive, particularly if you want to eat a meal or go to the cinema, or a play. And when you're young, living in a two or three-bed flat with 5 other people, and barely making ends meet, you need to budget accordingly. If kids are drinking cheaper booze at home before going out, this is sensible! I'm not suggesting that everyone should get completely hammered before going out and making a complete arse out of themselves in town. But that is what some kids do anyway, and it has always happened, and it always will happen. You cannot legislate against it save for prohibition (which won't work anyway), and you cannot change human nature.
Minimum pricing, at its heart, is a class issue. It is a blatant attack on the poorest people in society who clearly have no right to drink themselves into oblivion if they choose to do so. Minimum pricing will have no effect on the wealthy and political classes, all of whom can easily afford the most expensive wines and liquor. It will not curb binge drinking at all. It will not solve any alcohol-related issues. It will not save one life. It will only make people spend more for their drink, in much the same way the smokers who buy their tobacco legally in the UK spend an enormous amount of money on tax. Minimum pricing is intended to make the poor even poorer, to further divide the people into those who can afford to enjoy life and those who cannot. There is no other reason for it, despite it being dressed up as a health initiative by the nannies. There are already more than enough laws in place to deal with drunken disorder in towns; we do not need a price increase on alcohol to combat it because it won't work. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of government to enforce a lifestyle change through taxes. In return for this nanny state money grab, the government will have yet another mandate to badger us about our lifestyle choices. Food will be next, of course.
Anyway, since Theresa May came out publicly in support of minimum pricing, whether she truly believes it or is just doing as she is told, and for numerous other offences to our civil liberties in Britain this past year, she has earned the right to be named as Super Twat of the Month. Congrats to you, madam.
