Not my ‘Digital Champion’

Where do you fucking start?

Well, here or here might be a good place.

Olympic aim to get Britons online

Speaking to BBC Business Editor Robert Peston, Ms Lane Fox said she wanted a “virtual race” to coincide with preparations for the 2012 Olympics.

As the government’s new Digital Champion she has been charged with getting millions online who are not yet connected to the internet.

The race is on to get as many British people online as possible by 2012, Martha Lane Fox has told the BBC.

So, Martha Lane Fox is our ‘Digital Champion’.

Digital Champion?

Who the fuck thinks these ‘job’ titles up?

Yet another focus group of drones paid for by the taxpayer at the behest of some Nu Labour cunt of a politician who doesn’t understand that this country is fucked economically speaking, I’d imagine.

It’s adding insult to the injury already announced that those of us with fixed phone lines will have to pay a levy of 50p a month to fund nationwide broadband internet access.

But, more significantly and inevitably, the devil is in the detail here:

Some 17 million Britons are currently not online, either out of choice or because they cannot afford internet connectivity.

Ms Lane Fox has indicated that she wants to concentrate on the six million poorest “nonliners” first.

For starters let’s just forget about those 11 million who couldn’t give a fuck about the internet and just hope that access isn’t made compulsory by this ‘inclusive’ government.

It’s that six million “nonliners” that worries me.

(“Nonliners”…give me a motherfucking break you soundbitten cuntwafts…)

These would presumably be the same six million that the taxpayer is supporting.

Now, don’t get me wrong here; I don’t wish to see anyone starve, be homeless or lack the other basic human comforts, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to fund luxuries for people.

I also have no wish to condemn anyone who’s been buttfucked out of a job and onto the breadline by this sorry bunch of tractor-counting cuntsocks that we call a government.

But…

Internet access is a luxury.

Ms Lane Fox doesn’t think so, however.

But she’s wrong – not to mention intellectually-challenged.

Those on the wrong side of the digital divide were disadvantaged in many ways, said Ms Lane Fox. Studies showed, she said, that those familiar with the web earned more, performed better in job interviews, could save money by shopping online and had an easy route to keeping their skills fresh.

Among those 17 million Britons not online was a group of six million who were “the most socially and economically disadvantaged people we have in this country”, she said.

“We are really going to focus, I hope, on the six million that are at the bottom of the pile. Partly because that’s the right thing to do and partly because we know quite a lot about these people – who they are and where they live.

“I am sure we can put our arms around the problem,” she said.

(Slight pause whilst I vomit due to that last sentence)

Studies showed, she said, that those familiar with the web earned more

What studies? And maybe because they earn more they can afford broadband and thus be more familiar with it.

performed better in job interviews

Er…how does that work then?

could save money by shopping online

You need a debit or credit card to shop online. Possession of such a card hinges on some assessment of credit worthiness. This is something that the poor do not have very much of.

And why is it

the right thing to do (?)

We already have a section of society that is welfare-dependent and  that I’m helping to support. Why should I be expected to fund a luxury for them? Why is it always right to give to those who give nothing in return?

Let’s get this straight…

I’m expected to fund broadband access (something I pay for myself already and am also taxed on via VAT) for people I’m already helping to support?

Where’s the fairness in that?

Yes, it would be great if everyone who wanted it had broadband access, but where do you draw the line?

If we’re going to fund luxuries then why not go the whole cunting hog and give this 6 million what everyone else pays for out of their own pocket?

I’m sorry, but if we give internet access to that section of the ‘poor’ who are benefit-dependent by choice then we’re going to be subsidising a fair few people whacking off to internet porn or watching YouTube videos of what happens when you microwave a frog.

Both very laudable things to do if they can afford it.

If they can’t then why the fuck should I pay them to do it?

Along with buying their cans of Stella and fucking Lotto scratch cards.

You want all this stuff?

Well fucking pay for it yourselves.

As the Devil would say – fucking hellski…

PS

Many libraries offer free internet access and membership is free.

These places also contain things called ‘books’ which more people ought to read. Maybe being literate might have more to do with getting a better job than whether you have broadband or not.

Just a thought…

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Aside from all this, ‘Digital Champion’ is a pretty badass title. I’m considering a name change.

  2. I always thought that MLF (that looks slightly familiar..) ‘s claim to fame was raising a load of dosh from her dim friends in the City, floating a company that had never made a profit under her stewardship at the height of the “dot com boom” and making her shares worth a shit load thanks to the idiots prepared to buy the other shares (see above dim friends..etc) and fucking off laughing.

    Or was that some other socially responsible little rich girl?

  3. Agreed. The state has no fucking business pulling stunts like this.

    As far as daft cunty job titles, go, I recently heard that Phil Woolas was ‘North West Regional Minister’.

    Sorry, what? Exactly what does a minister for that do? Why are there ministers for absolutely everything now? Thatcher had about a dozen ministers in total, and quite happily ran the country. I don’t see what the point or use is in all these extra ministers.

    Something that annoys the fuck out of me – probably because the uselessness of government happens to be in perfect correlation to the growth of government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: