The mole, the MoD and the maggot

Need a piss?…get in the fucking queue…

Being a cynical cunt sort of chap I’ve never thought that the Daily Telegraph was motivated by anything other than the prospect of boosting its circulation figures when it broke and covered the story of MPs’ expenses earlier this year.

But the paper’s cluster wanking isn’t over yet.

No, the journalistic jizz lobbers are still flinging it about.

There’s a new book published today by the journalists who helped to break the story and Andrew Pierce – the Telegraph’s assistant editor – has been out doing interviews and whetting the public’s appetite for this tome with an insight into where the whole series of revelations began – the original source…

The mole in the Ministry.

(You really can’t make this shit up, can you?)

According to the Telegraph:

The mole who leaked details of MPs’ expenses says he was partly motivated by anger at inadequate equipment for UK troops, the Daily Telegraph reported.

It says staff sorting through MPs’ receipts were guarded by servicemen on leave moonlighting to earn extra money.

The mole said their stories “helped tip the balance” in the decision to leak details – the Telegraph has confirmed it paid £110,000 for the information.

So, we have a group of civil servants working on the redaction of MPs’ expenses claims who hear their guards’ stories, contrast these with the outlandish claims for things like duck houses and moat cleaning and then one of them feels such outrage that he decides to make the whole thing public.

As Pierce says:

…servicemen had overheard staff working on MPs’ receipts: “As civil servants were redacting, or censoring, or covering up, or Tippexing out up the difficult details, they were exclaiming out loud to each other… ‘Oh my god, can you see what they’ve claimed for?'”

Fair enough, but that £110 000 niggles a bit.

So, this shitweasel Pierce has to dress it up a little by calling the payment of a considerable sum of money, in return for possibly the biggest scoop of the present century, an ‘insurance’ policy.

(He) told the BBC the payment to the source of the leak was an “insurance policy” for the mole, as that person would lose their job if the government discovered their identity. He also said it was “cheap at the price” as MPs had already repaid hundreds of thousands of pounds.

He said: “We paid £110,000 to the source. And let me just say, so far the taxpayer has been reimbursed by MPs £500,000, and there will be more; we have got a much better Commons as a result of it.”

As I said above, I’m a cynical sort and whilst I don’t question the right of the mole to feel outrage, leak the information and then cover his own pinstriped arse financially, it’s just as much chequebook journalism as Jordan’s gynaecologist getting paid by the News of the World for revealing what sort of furniture and decor she has up her lady crack.

Pierce then goes on to try and make the £110K sound insignificant by contrasting it with the paltry £500 000 the MPs have paid back so far.

Then he completely fucking loses it and tells us we have a better Commons.

We do?

Well, I didn’t fucking notice it.

When the cunting fuck did that happen?

I’m not saying that the Telegraph didn’t ultimately do us all a favour by exposing the MPs’ troughing, but the way that Pierce talks, you’d think his paper did it out of some sense of altruism.

Increased circulation figures…higher advertising revenues…money, cash, dosh, moolah, readies, folding.

That’s all the Telegraph as a player in the MSM fucking cares about.

And as for that cash-in book…Constantly Furious expresses my opinions precisely.

But the story doesn’t end here.

The other ‘interested parties’ get to have their say.

The MoD itself:

Sources at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have cast doubt on whether serving soldiers would be allowed, or have the time, to moonlight as security guards. But Mr Pierce said the newspaper had “clear evidence” some were doing extra work to buy equipment.


The MoD says its top priority is to get the “best equipment” for troops.

OK, maybe the MoD are right (who knows? It could happen) and servicemen haven’t been moonlighting to buy extra vital equipment, but it’s a fact that servicemen have had to buy their own equipment due to a combination of MoD inefficiency, negligence and downright incompetence.

Of course, our dear Prime Minister Gordon Brown now gets a chance to answer questions about this affair.

Asked on Sky News if he understood the motivation for the expenses leak, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: “I don’t think so.”

What the fuck?

Firm, decisive, unequivocal, isn’t he?


He added: “MPs have got to live in two places at once – that is a big problem.

Yes, Gordon, it’s a big problem because those of us who pay tax have to pay for these useless troughers’ two homes and we’re fucking sick of being used like some sort of cash cow for the cunts to repeatedly yank at our money teats and cash udders.

“As far as the troops in Afghanistan are concerned, right throughout the period I have been chancellor and then prime minister, I have been determined to make sure that the troops that are serving our country are properly paid, that we make proper allowance for them, that we give them the best equipment, that we help them in every way possible.”

Which is just – and there’s really no other way to put this – a total fucking lie.

Then the MoD gets in on the act again.

The MoD said: “Since 2006, we have delivered equipment valued at more than £10bn to the armed forces. “Every soldier who deploys to Afghanistan receives Osprey body armour and a Mark 6a helmet.

“They also receive a black bag containing all their operational requirements. Valued at £3,500, it contains everything a soldier will need from boots and socks to camel backs.”

Camel backs…how appropriate…anyone got a fucking straw?

And black bags?

No shortage of those leaving Afghanistan, is there?

So, what do we have at the end of this rather tawdry and sordid bout of mutual masturbation by the Telegraph, the MoD and Gordon Brown?

Looks like everyone’s a winner at first glance…

  • The Telegraph maintains its image of crusading MSM seeker after truth and justice.
  • The mole trousers £110 000 and gets to keep his no doubt grossly-distended salary and his taxpayer-subsidised, inflation-proof, final salary pension.
  • The authors of the new book will probably sell shitloads rehashing old news – although we can always hope for their books to appear in the remainder bin in some discount book shop sometime next January.
  • The MoD gets to trot out its lies and false reassurances that our troops are properly equipped and again remains unchallenged.
  • Gordon Brown gets to wriggle off the hook again like the lying and dysfunctional fucking maggot that he is.

Yes, everyone manages to emerge from this stinking pile of shit smelling like fucking roses.

Everyone except the troops and the British public, that is…

They‘ still don’t get it, do they?

The cunts.

The utter fucking cunts.


is a lying twat.

Or so it would appear…

MPs expenses…the stench still lingers…

After the Telegraph’s protracted publication of MPs’ expenses, the redacted details released by Parliament today seem somewhat of an anti-climax.

Someone, somewhere must have been appointed ‘Marker Monitor’ and then told to black out almost every useful piece of information that was likely to be a potential embarrassment to  any MP.

Now, that’s not merely a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, that’s letting the horse bolt, and then deciding after a few months to build a fucking stable in the first place!

I read on the Telegraph iPhone app that it is going to publish a special MPs’ expenses supplement this coming Saturday.

I know what I’ll be reading in the name of government transparency, and it won’t be the fucking mockery I’m looking at on the web…

Quote of the week?

Yesterday the Telegraph reported that a special panel was being set up by the Met to assess allegations against MPs.

A police source said: “We had to act as it has moved from snouts in the trough to fingers in the till.”

More shitheads!

In some vain attempt to either prove that two heads are better than one – although in the case of Iain Martin’s recent blog article about this matter a head that is fitted with a brain is worth trying before doubling the heads – or to admit that someone at the Torygraph should start writing some decent shit for a change, we now have two ‘journalists’* writing about Baroness Thatcher’s recent treatment at the hands of QI and the BBC.

*I learned that – the old sarcastic inverted commas trick – from that top journo Iain Martin.

They even get a quote out of our Norm, or Lord Tebbit as he is sometimes known:

“It is another depressing episode. Lady Thatcher has been treated like this by the BBC for the past 30 years. It’s no good asking them for an apology. It’s like trying to stop a dog from barking.

“If we have a Conservative government then we can do something about it. The BBC is another part of the destruction of Great Britain.

“The truth is that the BBC doesn’t know that it is biased. It thinks that Guardian reading champagne socialists are the norm.”

Chilling stuff, and at least one really fucking good reason why the Conservative Party should never govern again, no matter what.

The BBC part of the destruction of Great Britain?

After the buttfucking that the Tories gave it whilst in office it’s a wonder that there was anything left for Tony and Co to start raping in 1997.

And talk about out of touch…

The geriatric old fart doesn’t seem to be aware that ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ and ‘Eastenders’ are the BBC’s top TV shows – hardly the staple viewing fodder of champagne quaffing Guardian readers one would have thought.

Now, fuck off Norm – your bag needs emptying.

The article then goes on to quote Disgusted of Kensington:

“Ms Brand’s comments about Lady Thatcher were astounding. Does she really think that it is perfectly fine to talk about Thatcher, an elderly, largely defenceless and somewhat unwell lady, in that particularly disgusting manner? Doubtless she would speak of her own mother that way.”

Well, you blinkered cockwit, yes, I’d speak about my mother that way if she’d been responsible for the damage the Sainted Margaret did to this nation’s manufacturing base and its workers.

Thatcher made no allowances for the vulnerability of people, so why should Jo Brand, or anyone else come to that, give a flying fuck about Thatcher’s?

You’d think that the air would get clearer with altitude but all this moral high ground stinks to high heaven.

Must be all the shitheads around…

Shithead alert!

Much as it grieves me to say this, but it isn’t only the Daily Mail that has shitheads on its payroll.

I’ve recently discovered Iain Martin who blogs on the Daily Telegraph site.

After some cursory research I’ve discovered that he is in fact the Deputy Editor of the Tory broadsheet, with almost zero journalistic experience.

He’s also a favourite of the Barclay Brothers – a fact that I’d fucking keep to myself if it was me.

After all, you wouldn’t go round boasting that you had genital warts, would you?

I see little difference…

Anyway, what’s Iain blogged about recently that’s attracted my attention?


Martin’s blog entry is reproduced here in full and interspersed with my comments…

It is right that Jeremy Clarkson should be forced to apologise for his crass and offensive insult aimed at the Prime Minister.

It is?

And who’s going to force him?

He has apologised, in fact, and later qualified this apology.

Basically, Clarkson thinks Brown is an idiot.

If he has to apologise for that opinion that he has a perfect right to hold and express then we’re all totally fucked…

But watching that supremely annoying show, QI, on BBC 1 last night,

How is it annoying?

Don’t you get the jokes?

Too intellectual for you, are they?

Or is it just that it’s one of the few TV shows left that actually has some sort of  teeth to its humour and appeals to those people left that can still think for themselves without people like you telling them what to laugh at?

Not to your taste?

Rather watch ‘Deal or No Deal’ because it has a banker in it – you know, one of your City friends?

Those same friends who got us into the biggest financial mess of the past 50 years…

Turn over then!

and unable to summon up the energy to change channels,

Ah…well…serves you right for being such a lazy cunt, then.

You have no-one but yourself to blame for being offended by what you saw.

And, assuming you have a remote control, how much effort would changing channels really require?

Not only a lazy cunt, but a pathetically lazy one, too…

I was one of millions treated to Jo Brand’s remarks on Baroness Thatcher.


And your point is?

I am often one of millions who get treated to opinions and remarks I don’t want to see or hear from the media.

However, I realise that it’s all in the interests of freedom of speech and I can exercise my right to turn it off or turn over to something else.

But if I can’t be bothered to stir a finger and apply some gentle pressure to a small button on the remote then that’s my problem.

Not the program makers’.

But we’ve already covered your total inability to lift even a finger when you want to.

I won’t repeat them here: they had something to do with pubic hair.

Ooh…you obviously listened carefully, didn’t you?

Amazingly, the Mail hasn’t said anything about Brand’s remarks – only you.

However, being in a minority of one doesn’t make you any less entitled to express your opinion, does it?

It’s that old ‘freedom of speech’ thing again – you know, that right you seem to resent other people exercising.

The audience roared and Stephen Fry chortled, even repeating the remarks I think.

You think?

Oh, you’re really at the cunting cutting edge of journalism, aren’t you?

I’m sure you appreciate your reporters adding ‘I think’ to their articles from time to time…

Also on the panel was a gentleman called Phil Jupitus. Hitherto, I have only been dimly aware of his work as a “comedian”.

Ah…the sarcastic inverted commas…a useful tool for the ‘journalist’ that you are…

If I were joining in with this fashion for being offensive, which I’m not, then I would call him fat and unfunny.

Ooh…see what you did there?

Said you weren’t going to do something and then you did it anyway?

Can I have a go please?

Let’s see…


I’ll talk about a certain deputy editor of a Tory broadsheet:

If I were joining in with this fashion for being offensive, which I’m not, then I would call him smug, overprivileged, underqualified, overpaid and a really crappy journalist.

See what I did there?

Oh, and he looks a bit ginger, too.

And a bit chubby…

And he’s a pathetically lazy cunt…

When a picture of Thatcher was flashed up on screen I’m certain I heard Jupitus shout: “witch!”

Yes, you did – congratulations for actually paying attention this time.

Why, as a licence fee holder, do I have to pay for this?

For the same reason I have to pay for shit like ‘Strictly Come Dancing’.

And if you can’t see why then you’re a fucking retard.

If he wants to book a hall and sell tickets to people daft enough to pay him that’s his business, but why should a penny of my money go into his bank account?

So…if you go and see Phil Jupitus you’re daft?

I’ll say one thing, you really know how to win people over to your point of view, don’t you?

In large parts of the BBC many of those involved have never met anyone who thinks Thatcher an admirable person and a great British leader.

Well, maybe that’s because she isn’t and she wasn’t.

She totally fucked the manufacturing base of this country leaving us with the pathetic remnants that we’re now looking to to save us now that the financial sector has gone tits up.

She was a cold, unfeeling  bitch who won’t deserve the waste of good urine that will be metaphorically pissed all over her grave by the millions she harmed after she carks it.

Good fucking riddance.

So when Jupitus or Brand say such things they are not so much being “edgy”, they are simply reflecting the views of “everyone”. But they are not;

I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that such people reflect the views of everyone.

Any more than the Daily Telegraph does.

Or this blog.

Or your blog.

there are many millions forced to pay for the BBC who do not go in for ultra-liberal leftist group-think.

And many millions who don’t go in for ultra-right wing repression of individual freedoms.

And we are rapidly approaching the point at which they will refuse to pay any longer for being insulted.

In which case, they’ll get heavily fined.

So…inciting people to commit an offence are we?

That makes having a poke at Thatcher seem very small beer indeed.

(Timely pause)

You know, this bloke really can’t fucking write, can he?

I’m not saying I write well, but Martin is really crap at it.

It all sounds a bit Young Conservative to me – all shrill (possibly because his balls haven’t dropped yet) and strident and lacking all credibility and cohesion.

And what clueless moron put Martin in charge of the online section of the Telegraph group, including blogs?

He can’t write well enough to blog.

Enough of all this, though.

What do we have here, essentially?

It’s one bloke able to express his opinion from a position of privilege, power and influence – that opinion being that other people with whom he disagrees should have no right to express theirs.

Such people are very dangerous.

Watch out for this one – he’s ambitious, has powerful friends and wants to tell you what you should think.