Politics in the time of Facebook

BBC Coverage of the British Barrister Strike: Shambolic or Servantile?

Today the BBC news twice regurgitated obviously disingenuous government statistics on the criminal barristers strike without comment or context. Moreover, upon inspection these "mistakes" seem difficult to reconcile with either neutrality or journalistic integrity.

"The government says that at around 2billion per year the UK has one of the highest legal aid bills in the world" ran the BBC 6 o'clock news today solemnly.

Of course it bloody does does! The UK is one of the biggest economies in the world, it would be a miracle if it wasn't near the top of the list for total legal fees. Without a direct comparison to a similarly wealthy countries' costs, specifically average salaries or the average cost of prosecuting similar cases, the statistic is meaningless except in its propaganda value. The journalists that work on the BBC news must surely know this.

Moreover, when the BBC finally gave figures pertaining to the yearly rate, they once again failed in the government's favour. The 7am news cited the barristers average income at £36,000 and then the government spokesperson gave a figure of £86,000. That is a gap of £50,000, yet this difference was left unexplained and unexamined. But the £86k figure ultimately stood uncontested because the government spokesperson was the only interviewee, no spokesperson for the barrister was (I think it is fair to presume) invited.

Later, on the 6pm news the government cited a figure of 1,200 barristers making 100k from legal fees, and contrasted it with the barristers argument that 50% of barristers earn 27k or less. Again the BBC offers no context and analysis of these figures. Leaving it up to the viewer to make sense of the government's smokes and mirrors.

The obvious question that figure begs is: What proportion of the total number of barristers does 1,200 constitute? Turns out the answer is 10%, which incidentally is almost exactly the number who are QCs (the highest rank of criminal barrister), a group that usually double or triple the rest. It is not difficult to see that the government has cherry picked the highest paid to slander the rest. Thus the government's statistic is extremely misleading and its logic obviously faulty: it is basically analogous to claiming that because bosses earn a lot of money, all workers deserve a pay cut. 1 minute on Google to find this out, why couldn't the BBC do it?

Now, I think it is a fair assumption that most people working at the BBC are a) smart b) qualified and c) experienced journalists. Is it it possible to strike this reporting down to incompetence? Is refusing to  contest misinformation what we call balance? Or is it a systematic and calculated lack of analysis? I think there is only one answer.


Note: I am an Englishman and a teacher, living in Norway, I have no affiliation to the striking barristers. Nonetheless I would be lying if I did not have an agenda: I believe that showing solidarity with  all those employed by the state when they are being scapegoated by the Tories is essential if we are going to be able to maintain decent living standards in the UK.

To read more about the Barristers strike visit here. To show support for the strikers and get involved visit their Facebook page here.

Tony Blair’s Nuclear Legacy: Janus-faced multilateralism

Does Ed have the balls to lift the ominous nuclear shadow left by Blair's government?

It is widely assumed that Tony Blair will be remembered as the leader who achieved unprecedented electoral success for Labour but led Britain into two disastrous wars. Yet if the UK’s current trajectory holds, Tony Blair’s most enduring legacy looks likely to be his decisive determination to maintain Britain's nuclear weapons for the next half century. Tony Blair forced through parliament the bill that underpins the legitimacy of the current government's nuclear policy. It was Tony Blair that engineered the current dogma among “progressive” parties that multilateralism is the only way, while unilateral disarmament is politically impossible and dangerous. Consequently, it is Tony Blair and New Labour’s legacy that all three major parties are reduced to squabbling over the specifications of Britain’s weapons of mass destruction rather than questioning whether we need them at all.

 Labour and the Liberal Democrat supporters are overwhelmingly against renewing British nuclear weapons, yet both parties’ leadership take every opportunity to categorically insist that they will not pursue this policy. In a recent interview with the Guardian the Lib Dems second in command, Danny Alexander, questioned at great length the need for renewing Trident, yet made sure to point out that he is “not a unilateralist”. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband’s most recent speech on nuclear weapons began with the same proclamation; “I am a multilateralist, not a unilateralist”. Intuitively, this sounds winning; doing things together in most regards is better than doing things alone. Unfortunately in the case of British nuclear weapons it means committing to 87 billion worth of WMD for the next 50 years. WMDs that the majority of the world considers abhorrent, the UK has no security need for and that the majority British public does not want. How did the UK nuclear discourse get reduced to this?

 The traditional notion that multilateralism is always necessary in nuclear disarmament stems from the deeply embedded belief that any unilateral action will dangerously destabilise the geopolitical balance. In the worst case this provides your antagonists with the opportunity for a surprise attack by which you will either occupied or obliterated.  However, this logic is predicated upon the existence of an enemy that is willing and able to exploit your weakness, and that is not a very precise description of the world we live in – and especially not for the UK. In the 2006 White Paper that lays out the plans for renewing Britain’s aging nuclear arsenal (Trident), Tony Blair’s last government openly admitted that the UK faces no existential threats. There is no Red Army loitering over the horizon - quite the opposite - it is NATO that has a large conventional force advantage these days. The White Paper also stated that there was no evidence that the UK’s decision to disarm unilaterally would influence any other states’ decision either to acquire nuclear weapons or to follow suite.  It makes explicitly clear that UK’s decision to have nuclear weapons is irrelevant to the geopolitical stability and security. If one accepts these assertions, as the Blair government clearly did (it was the main basis for Blair's decision to renew Trident), then the apparent security necessity for the UK to stick to its multilateral mantra doesn’t make much sense.

 The explanation for this apparent contradiction between ends and means seems to lie not in security logic, but instead in the Labour party’s contemporary political history. The Labour Party suffered two humiliating and resounding defeats in the 1983 and 1987 general elections.  In both elections, unilateral disarmament was central plank in the manifesto and widely considered to be a large contributing factor to their defeats. Since the New Labour revolution, led by Blair in the 1990s the Labour party has sought to distance itself from the policies of the 1980s, among them the notion of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Even though the world and the security outlook have changed beyond all recognition since those policies failed and those defeats were the result of much more than the stance on nuclear policy, the Labour party leadership still considers the question electorally toxic. Neil Kinnock contentiously dropped Labour’s anti-nuclear stance in 1991, curiously, since the Cold War was in fact fizzling out. But it wasn’t until Tony Blair was elected leader that Labour started generating a real vim for the bomb.  One can understand how this made short-term political sense, but at the same time it produced a long-term policy predicament: How can you tie yourself to nuclear weapons and still appear to be progressive?

 With a brand new Trident fleet under his command, Tony Blair’s government dedicated itself to traditional piecemeal multilateral disarmament initiatives but critically did nothing that would have any significant effect on British nuclear weapons doctrine. Under Blair’s leadership, UK became a self declared “disarmament laboratory” and never missed a chance to talk loftily about its dream of a nuclear weapon free world. If anyone doubted this, they needed only look at the UK’s comparatively small nuclear arsenal as proof of its claim to be the most progressive of the nuclear weapon states.  Never mind that everybody knows the UK’s minimum deterrence doctrine is a function of economic limitations rather than humanitarian zeal. Nonetheless, the message was clear; with our peaceful credentials ensured, it was up to the rest of the nuclear-armed states to do their part. By repeating that the UK nuclear disarmament was dependent the Russia and the US’s disarmament, New Labour constructed a narrative under which they could look progressive while simultaneously maintaining that the British’s nuclear weapons were  “necessary” – in other words: Janus-faced multilateralism.

 This story is not unproblematic, as is evident in our current predicament. Painting ourselves as champions of disarmament is incompatible with committing to nuclear weapons for another 50 years. If the UK happens to get its wish and multilateral disarmament quickens, then the UK might just end up having to retire its multi billion nuclear submarines before they have even been built. They would become a 30 billion pound monument in homage of Britain’s dedication to weapons of mass destruction.

 A more likely scenario, however, is that Trident becomes an obstacle to disarmament, handcuffing the UK to WMDs – rhetorically, economically and physically – and further undermining the UK’s frantic attempts to prevent other states from acquiring the same weapons we believe constitute our “ultimate insurance”.  The world cannot be expected to keep a straight face when we claim to be a disarmament laboratory after just committing to spend billions of pounds on extending our nuclear weapons system for 50 more years. Indeed, the UK as a ‘proliferation laboratory’ would be closer to the truth; we provide a full and complete model for any mid ranking country looking to justify their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

 The UK policy may appear progressive when it is compared to the policies of the other nuclear-armed states, but this is a false comparison. Nobody believes the UK security needs are the same as those of China or the US, nor do we want them to be. Our needs are much more similar to those of Germany, Italy, Japan, France and other mid ranking powers.  Yes, France has nuclear weapons too, but like the UK, the rationale for France’s continued obsession with nuclear weapons has its explanation in history and perceived political prestige – not security.  The UK’s rationale is that it needs nuclear weapons in case a nuclear threat re-emerges. This smacks of nostalgic longing for the days when the UK was great and actually had enemies to deter. Blair’s happy relationship with nuclear weapons is reflective of his own fantasies of Britain as a great power “punching above its weight” and as a guardian of international peace and security – whether the locals want their security maintained for them or not.  This is not a dream the public shares; Blair’s militarism is a chapter in contemporary British history that most of us would like to forget. In this light it, it is hard to see why the decision to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent for another half-a century, which the same man bullied through parliament, should be left unquestioned.

 More than 40 countries could build nuclear weapons if they wanted to. David Cameron recently described British Nuclear weapons as our “ultimate insurance policy”; if this were even halfway true then most if not all countries with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons would already have done so by now. Unilateral disarmament does not mean jeopardizing British security, it means accepting that the security doctrine of a country like Germany is also a viable strategy for Britain in the 21st century.

The final decision on the Trident renewal has been postponed until the next parliament, which means that the next government will have a last chance to reverse Britain’s proliferatory WMD-policy. But a reversal of the 2007 decision cannot be done without addressing the unilateral taboo. It is worth remembering that Britain actually has a long history of progressive unilateralism. We abolished slavery seemingly against our interests; we relinquished the empire while the French scoffed. Now we have an incredible opportunity to be on the right side of history again by becoming the first recognized nuclear weapon state to relinquish nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband’s willingness to deal with his own party’s history appears limited to bold words. He has so far been either unable or unwilling to actually do something about it. Miliband may claim that New Labour is dead, but Blair’s nuclear legacy is very much alive.


My video of a Naive Panda and Bespectacled Bear discussing the wisdom of the UK's nuclear weapons spending during austerity.



Dominique Strauss-Kahn enters... The Dictionary

Michelle, like most beautiful women can't control herself around DSK and is getting ready to pounce. That's why Obama looks so peeved.

Dominique Strauss Kahn, everyone’s favourite rapey French politician is in the news again this week after being charged with “aggravated pimping” in France.  He stands accused of organising and attending parties where young beautiful women were paid to proffer their bodies  to a circling pack of politicians with pockets full of money, viagra and talcum powder.

Much of the recent  headlines have focussed on some text messages in which DSK refers the women at the parties as “luggage” and “gifts”.  While this exhibits a special kind of  of obnoxiousness, it is neither illegal nor the most ridiculous aspect to this story -  which is of course his excuse.

He claims he did not know that the women were paid to be there.  Say that one more time - he claims that he did not know the prostitutes at these sex parties were paid to be there. No, one more time - this 63 year old porky politician pygmy did not know, these young beautiful women were paid to have sex with him and his grey ear-haired semi-senile friends.  That supposes that he genuinely believes that young women these days like to hang around in groups shagging old men.  Lets put this in context, DSK is an international lawyer, politician and economist; this is not just an implausible defense  it is so implausible that it demands new language.  Ladies and gentlemen, presenting "to DSK":

To DSK (v)- pronounced: DEE-ESS-KAY,

To use an excuse in a court of law so formidably implausible that should it succeed, it undermines the entire concept of justice, insults humanity at large while simultaneously hinting at the poor mental health of the defendant.

Example usages:  My son is DSKing me over the biscuits, he still maintains he didn’t take them, even after I found them stuck in his beard.

Or a better example, courtesy of Andrew White: "Apparently there is a regular supply of patients coming into A&E units across the UK (and no doubt the rest of the world) with the infamous injury transcribed in the medical records as "F[oreign] B[ody] in rectum". Tradition dictates that patients should DSK it when questioned: "I was just hoovering the carpet, and I tripped on the power lead, and my trousers came down, and I fell and landed in the worst possible way on this snooker ball. You needn't tell my wife."

More submissions are welcome, if you want to submit, tweet them to me or post them in the comments below...


A homage words inspired by politicians

Santorum (n): Named after the homophobe’s homophobe Republican presidential candidate Rick Santurum this refers to “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” Google has now bowed to pressure and artificially removed it from the top of the rankings in Google searches, so it’s especially important to keep it in use.

E.g.  What’s that on your collar Rick?! It looks like Santorum!

To do a Clegg (v): to Clegg, get Clegged or to do a Clegg” is to make a faustian and utterly destructive pact with a more powerful force.”

E.g After he got busted for spying on his mates he was totally clegged when the headmaster didn’t make him a prefect

The Righteousness of Doing Nothing; Kony 2012's Critics Assessed

Unless you live in a hole or in the depths of Central Africa, chances are you have at least heard of the Kony 2012 viral video . It aims to make warlord Joseph Kony famous and place his arrest firmly on the agenda of Western Governments. Now, if you’ve heard of the campaign and seen the video then its almost certain that you have seen or read of the backlash.

If a discourse involving 30m people (at the time of writing at least that number have viewed the video on youtube) could be viewed as micro in any regard, then this issue is a public microcosm of the possibilities and problems facing Western activism in the 21st century.   The potential to promote a cause to tens of millions within 24hrs would seem to be ideal until you realise its coupled with the problem of facing down the millions more critics willing to give wide and varied rallying cries explaining why your cause is a waste of time and you are an idiot for believing it.  Yes the Kony 2012 campaign has a lot of faults but most of the arguments leveled in opposition to it don’t bear scrutiny. It is not cool to stick up for the Kony 2012 campaign but hearing the lazy old arguments rolled out again and again against the Kony 2012 campaign here (but also Western activism in general) need to be debunked.

Critique 1 Invisible Children is run by indie hipster do gooder middle class pompous douches with white man messianic complex syndrome.

The video is produced in a  twatty Juno style that like that film makes you want to cringe, vomit and eventually murder the irritating gimp-o-hero star of the show. This is all fair and makes it ideal for satire and sneering (There are literally hundreds now online here is Righting Wrongs Kony drinking game for an amusing example) but it isn’t a credible reason for being against the campaign. What film on this topic would please this crowd artistically? Earnest old fashioned activism and a serious documentary about the plight of Africans facing the Lords Resistance Army (Kony’s rebel group)? No way, even if they liked it a  film shot in this way wouldn’t have gone viral and therefore wouldn’t make it onto their meta-nobhead radars.  When in the business of pouring scorn on popular culture something must first be popular to be worthy of scorn.

Being a real social activist requires long hours training on monkey bars and photoshop.

Ultimately, this wouldn’t be a problem but it’s a significant contributing factor to the general lethargy surrounding global issues.  Activism on anything from the environment to human rights and particularly development is considered lame by people who in the 1960s would have been on the front line.   One of the reasons is the school yard derision that is angled at anyone fighting earnestly for a cause.  Most of the barbs come from the purported left, characterised by inertia and hyper cynicism towards everything except the Colbert Report. The new educated lefts idea of direct action is eating organic food.  Read about something, agree its bad, make an absurdist comment and finally mock for their naiveté any person or group who tries to do anything. End result – nothing except a few cheap laughs and slightly bigger houses for 10% of the world's chickens.

Critique 2:  expert disgruntlement that it doesn't tell the whole story

From the opposite side of the left sits the uber-activist who loathe Kony 2012 for its simplification (and success).

But it’s so much more complicated than that! They scream.

Well yes of course it is; potatoes are more complicated than any half hour video would do justice to according to potato farmers.  Ideally, 30m people would read NGO reports, which are obviously much more balanced, detailed, nuanced etc but its virtually impossible to get 30m apolitical people to read a magazine all the way through let alone an NGO report. The point of Kony 2012, as I understand is to put the issue on the agenda, initiate public discourse and bring the problems of central Africa into mainstream along side Justin Bieber. Sadly, to do that required the dumbing down that is ever present in the video, but the ends justify the means.  Now the issue is in the public eye, its up to the other NGO’s  to fill in the gaps, add the detail correct any misinformation.   Hopefully this will lead to concrete improvement  maybe not, but 30m more people now are finding out for themselves about Kony (I don’t think anyone just watches the video in isolation) cannot be a bad thing.  Only a fool can’t see that Kony 2012 campaign has done NGOs working in Central Africa a massive favour.

Critique 3 (and probably the dumbest): the financial argument.

Vice magazine in a surprisingly halfhearted sneer took this up as their first point. So the guys who run Invisible Children pay themselves 80,000 $ (more or less) each for their work.  Do you know what Nike, Al Quada or Oxfam would pay someone to get 30million people to willingly view a 30minute long video promoting them.  I’ll give you a clue – it’s a lot more than 80 000 $.

At the root of this criticism is the general public’s idiot-logic that all activist work should be done for free and/or at the very least be done for well below the market rate. This is counterproductive and one of the many reasons why NGO’s work in general has not been as successful as it might have. Opposing Kony campaign on this account leaves you logically in a place where virtually every major Charity going is not for you, which is fine, but let’s be honest, you probably planned it that way.

4th prong. The West interfering in Africa is always- we only make it worse, etc (so do nothing)

Part of why the educated left find the film so excruciating (and mockable) is because the narrative of the West  “saving” Africa is awkward and embarrassing.  We need to get over this embarrassment. It`s essentially an intellectual sounding justification for shirking responsibility. I will agree some of the academic theory supporting it is quite sound.  For example Post developmentalism asserts that all development is wrong because it homogenises diverse cultures that need to find their own distinct path to development, specifically  not one dictated by western marketisation. So far so good, the trouble is that central Africa is a region not untouched by the west.  Post colonisation during the cold war can be summarised as the drawing of arbitrary lines on a map, then arming all sides with advanced weaponry and wondering why there seemed to be perpetual conflict ever after. Just because its our fault and we fucked up before does not justify refusal to help rectify it now.

Western Intervention in Africa is obviously a sensitive topic and the subsequant call for African empowerment and independent solutions  is compelling and difficult to refute (especially from my lap top in Norway). But while it might be uncomfortable to disagree, disagree we must.  The reality is, a partnership with the West is essential if the problems of Central African region are going to be solved soon.  Again, there is no time here for a long discussion, but more often than not, the permissive cause of civil wars is a combination of poverty (making joining a rebel gang more desirable), lack of efficacy of security forces of the government (caused the poverty) and the availability of weapons that make waging civil war as easy as gathering together 100 men.  I have simplified it here but if you want more detail read David Keen’s excellent article on the topic.  It’s a basic chicken and egg problem; without security you can’t have development and without development you can’t pay for security. Outside assistance is necessary, even if it feels wrong.

Critique 5, Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Those that point to crimes committed by government troops say that this means that the West shouldn’t work with them. Well, using that logic would leave us in a world without any co-operation.  Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils, the clichéd example being working with Stalin to defeat Hitler (yes throw  Godwins Law at me at your leisure); both sides in this case are simply not as bad as each other.  It’s worth remembering, Kony 2012 doesn’t call for giving weapons Ugandan Military, it calls explicitly for maintaining the 100 advisers not an Iraq style invasion.  These advisers are there to help train and organise the government forces with the intention of making them better trained and organised (and therefore less likely to loot, torture and arrest arbitrarily) .  If the very reason advisers should not be sent is the reason they are going then the argument against sending advisers thus becomes a circular justification for again doing nothing ever.

Critique 6 The solution proposed is not ideal (so do nothing)l

Yes obviously, as  ForeignAffairs.com  points out “Seriously addressing the suffering of central Africans would require engagement of a much larger order. A huge deployment of peacekeeping troops with a clearly recognized legal mandate would have to be part of it”. But the Kony campaign is a step in this direction, for this to happen it needs to be on the agenda. Kony 2012 puts it there even if the solution proposed is in no way entirely satisfactory

Critique 7: Raising awareness, bracelets and social media are just a means for westerners assuage there conscience while exerting minimum effort and achieving even less

How does buying a 1 dollar bracelet or watching a video achieve anything?  The implication being that unless you physically dig a well one may as well not bother.  In the case of Koni and the LRA the there is very little an individual or an NGO can do, they are a criminal military organization. Unless you want to form your own militia then one must rely on governments (those with a monopoly on coercive means) to attempt to combat them. The way one tries to influence governments is through public advocacy, raising awareness and putting it on mainstream public agenda. The idea being is to gather enough support to make it politically appealing to bother to try to solve it. That’s how advocacy works.  Social media now makes it far easier to reach far more people than ever before. Just because it’s easier than more traditional methods of advocacy, and in the Koni 2012 case extremely successful, doesn’t devalue its value as worthwhile enterprise.  A test of its value, as of all advocacy campaigns,  is in its ability to gain attention,  spark discussion of the issue in  mainstream discourse and hopefully gain political traction and eventually prompt some form of physical action.  It should not be discredited on how easy it is for an individual to express their support for it. I would argue that the Koni Campaign has achieved the first two in a shorter time and with less money than almost any advocacy campaign ever.  It’s worth noting  how the signing of a petition never comes under the same ferocity of attack as bracelet wearing or viral video posting even though the exertion required for the  is more or less identical.


Correction 13/03/2012.  I wrongly stated in the first version of this post that Invisible Children had deleted a video my friend had posted on their website challenging their campaign.  I then argued that this was the opposite of what Koni 2012 should be about. Well happily it seems they agree.  It turns out they hadn't, it was my friend incompetence in navigating their site rather than censorship on behalf of IC.  The general comment remains true though, the Koni 2012 video cannot be viewed in isolation and it must be the start of a debate about what exactly the problem in the Central Africa region is comprised of, what action is should be taken and by whom. Failure to listen to criticism and  opposing views in the discourse can will only hurt the chances of reaching the best possible outcome.

Note For Invisible Children's defence of themselves click here, for those that  want to read  in more depth, read boring old traditional videoless International Crises group's 29 page report on the LRA.  Btw, these experts come to the same conclusion as Invisible Children, namely that military co-operation with the US (and EU) is required if LRA is to be defeated and the tri-border region  is to be stabilised.

Lets Go Marching, We'll Get A Placard And Some Hummus; It'll Be Fun

A beautiful woman sits picking her nose on the subway.  Absentmindedly she sprinkles what she found there on the floor.  Nearby a young gentleman gives up his seat for a fat woman he mistakes for Pregnant.  The Police meanwhile are advertising for volunteers.

Just show me where to sign up yeah

The absurdity however was lost this Sunday.  Bjorn, who was feeling decidedly humourless,  considered  this better:

Last night I woke up with a massive headache and found I'd been beaten over the head by someone who  at an unspecified period in their life had decided they didn't like ethnics, students, gays, books and fun but instead preferred  facial hair, misanthropy and the Royal family.  Could that be you?

The belief that the police were pricks was a widespread and a highly unoriginal view but neither was it untrue.  Bjorn had gone to school with two people who later went on to join the police.  One had  organised the Pro Iraq march at his college (he thought it  unfair for fucking hippies to be allowed to skip school without the same luxury being afforded to the rest), printing placards with:


The pro war march had been a storming success and outnumbered the anti-war demonstrators.  Damien had joined the Conservative party and had the intention going into politics but for the time being at least, law enforcement was his vocation

The other, Simon, had been temporarily suspended from college because even at 16 he had been adamant that the Holocaust never happened.

Graham, was doing well in the force, always wearing his costume immaculately;  he was tall, well-built and handsome,  striding everywhere with purpose.   He was a swift thinker in that he gave orders firmly without thinking.  If you asked him to fix a broken door, he would kick down the nearest door and attach it to where the broken once was.   Never late in his life, he rose at 7 sharp every day with a breakfast of all bran and Lucozade.   Wishing he’d gone to private school he could be heard occasionally telling Americans he had gone to Eton and very occasionally Oxford

Tom Selleck has nothing to do with the police

Their paths crossed once before the protests.  Graham farted on the tube and their eyes met; they both pretended they didn’t know the other.   Graham was considering the pro’s and cons of buying a fridge with an ice making machine, Bjorn was trying to think of a way to blame his stinging urethra on his girlfriend.  They looked away at once.

They saw each other again during a protest against the proposed rise in student fees.

Bjorn was there because a girl he wanted to fuck thought she was political.   Bjorn  and her had never paid anything themselves for their education and in her case for anything at all.  She had strong views: Israel was bad; similarly the Tories and racism. She talked passionately about the new student unrest bringing about a revolution. Bjorn had his doubts but was sure she had a well-kept and symmetrical vagina so didn’t mention it.

The protest itself was an outrage, the students were “kettled” and when they shouted abuse at the nearest man in uniform they were hit.  People videoed the whole affair on their Iphone’s; the pictures a clearly showed that every time a student shouted in the face of a policeman that he was a “capitalist cunt” that they got beaten over the head with a baton.

This is what might have happened, its also the first picture you get when you type "police brutality" into Google.

Bjorn had bought enough rolling tobacco and had taken a suitable amount of MDMA the day previous and consequently did not have hunger. Relatively content and eager to impress he stayed a row from the front and joined in the abuse with enthusiasm for a while.  After 45 minutes he began to tire so he and Jessica decamped to the middle where they kissed and groped until eventually the crowd dissipated around 7pm and the protest came to an end.

They went back to Bjorns flat and after sex spent nearly 10 minutes agreeing with each other how barbaric the police brutality they hadn't suffered was.

Keeping the world safe

Graham meanwhile went home and had a wank to rape porn still thinking a little bit about the fridge he hadn't bought yet.

Nothing in the world changed that day or would be changed, content though ; Graham, Jessica and Bjorn all slept happily that night.

Dedicated to direct action anarchy and to the protection of the public