Sippenhaft

The authority announced on Friday that the first eviction notice had been served – to the mother of an 18-year-old boy accused of violent disorder and attempted theft. (Guardian; Saturday 13 August 2011)

The shameful idea of punishing families for crimes committed by family members has been applied occasionally throughout history. However, the idea is so absurd and so unjust that until recently, it had been codified in law in only one place and in one era: Nazi Germany at the end of WW2, in the form of Sippenhaft ("kin liability"). Now, thanks to Tory maniacs trying to use the riots for political gain, there is a second example.

Anyone with a shred of decency should be deeply ashamed to see this country sliding back to the England described by Charles Dickens, when one could receive capital punishment for stealing a loaf of bread.

"But excessively harsh punishment means that no one will commit crimes anymore." No, it doesn't. It didn't in the 19th century and it won't in the 21st.

I feel truly sorry for everyone whose property has been damaged in the riots of the past days. But if a young man without prior convictions is put in jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water from a looted shop, I am beginning to find it morally objectionable to help the police identify rioters.

Bill of No Rights

Statement on sex offenders' register (Home Office, Wed Feb 16 12:14:14 GMT 2011)

The sex offenders' register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes.

Where is the evidence that the sex offenders' register protects anyone against anything?

Does anyone realise that 'sex offences' include such things as brothel keeping (read 'two prostitutes sharing a flat so that they can protect one another if a client becomes violent')? (Sex workers put in danger by British policing, Melon Farmers, 13th February 2011.) How about people convicted of having sex with inanimate objects? (Bike sex case sparks legal debate, BBC News, Friday, 16 November 2007.) A wide range of other victimless crimes could be listed such as the truly moronic Dangerous Pictures Act. (UK prosecutors drop 'tiger' sex video case, Register, 6th January 2010.) So Theresa May considers these to be the 'most horrific of crimes'? And in the case of sex with bicycles and cartoon tigers, where exactly does protecting the public come into it?

This is Britain all right. Any mention of sex and all fuses blow, and Home Secretaries with puny brains start reciting well rehearsed, but meaningless phrases such as "most horrific" and "protecting the public".

the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending

The risk of re-offending is never zero. The risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime, any crime, is never zero either. In the case of certain 'sex crimes', the risk of re-offending is smaller than the risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime some time in the future.

The risk of crypto-fascist Home Secretaries in sheep's clothes tomorrow turning into chain-saw murderers is never zero. So we'd better lock her up, shouldn't we?

The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police

And we know how concerned the police is with our rights, don't we, boys and girls? Letting the British police decide matters involving individual freedom is the best guarantee that citizens' rights will be trampled upon until it is an unrecognisable goo mashed through the cracks in the floor.

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

For those who have been hoping for the creation of a British Bill of Rights to safeguard human rights in the UK, let it be a sobering thought that if this crowd of right-wing loonies gets its way, that Bill of Rights will codify the status quo with the public (a euphemism for the state as an abstract entity) having all the rights and the criminal (meaning any individual who steps out of line) having none.

It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts;

And a populist mob law it will be.

that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals;

Let's not forget that by definition anyone is a criminal who has been convicted of a crime, and crimes are defined by law makers. Once homosexuality and sodomy were crimes. Women resorting to civil disobedience in the late-19th and early-20th century, in order to demand the right to vote, were breaking the laws of that time. The brave people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fighting against tyrany and oppression today are committing acts labelled by various repressive regimes as crimes.

and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

If moving against insanity were the objective, our first step should be locking people like Theresa May away for good.

There is the usual blatant government propaganda from the BBC, dressed up as scientific fact:

Who, what, why: When is a sex offender not a risk? (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Often these offenders are incredibly furtive," Prof Wilson says.
"They may have committed many, many offences before being caught - their conviction is only the tip of the iceberg."

"furtive"? Does he want to say that the crimes are so hidden that no one notices. Are we, by any chance, talking about victimless crimes again?

Sex offender registration appeals to go ahead (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Adults who sexually abuse children should stay on the offenders register for life as we can never be sure their behaviour will change."

If sex offences were distinguished into different categories, such as sex with inanimate objects, indecent exposure, possession of videos with cartoon tiger sex, brothel keeping, and child abuse, then we, the poor readership, would find ourselves intellectually challenged beyond our limited capacities. Therefore the BBC simplifies the discussion by equating sex offence to child abuse. How thoughtful of them. And utterly misleading.

rape

Background information least likely to be found on BBC News:

When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along (Crikey, Thursday, 2 December 2010)

The obsession with prosecuting sex crimes has come to a point where, just like in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the victims of rape are put in jail:

I accused my husband of rape. I was locked up – and he was set free (Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010)

Fitwatch

Met closes down anti-police blog (Guardian, Tuesday 16 November 2010)

[...] the blog was "being used to undertake criminal activities". [...] The Fitwatch blogpost, which last night had reappeared on several other websites, recommended that students "get rid" of clothes they wore at the demonstration and change their appearance.

"If you don't want to get convicted, then don't get caught!" Here, free advice to "undertake criminal activies". Will this blog be closed now, by friendly request from officers of the Met, elected by no one, answerable to no one, following no written law or due process involving judges or magistrates?

And Cameron dares criticise China on matters of free speech:

David Cameron tells China: embrace freedom and the rule of law (Guardian, Wednesday 10 November 2010)

A small reminder of the kind of police thuggery that motivates groups like Fit Watch:

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number (Guardian, Sunday 21 June 2009)

Update:

FITWatch: We're Back... (Melon Farmers, 17th November, 2010)

When the law is unjust, civil disobedience becomes a moral imperative.

unaccountability

Call to elect local police chiefs (BBC News, Saturday, 7 November 2009)

Only 0.18% of all complaints against riot squad officers over the last four years were upheld (Guardian, Friday 6 November 2009). This is not a typo! If you're bad at maths, let me explain that 0.18% amounts to about 1 out of 556.

Does that mean that 99.82% of all people who filed complaints were doing so just for the fun of it? I would lean towards believing instead that a culture of unaccountability has pervaded every echelon of law enforcement.

So what do we do about it? Do we organise mass demonstrations to demand punishment of officers who have abused police powers, or to demand punishment of those in government who have entrusted those powers to a fruity club unworthy of them? Do we start an armed revolt against the state perhaps?

No, the cunning plan is to have elected police chiefs. If anything, this will add to the illusion that police have a mandate from the people to fuck up the way they have done in the past. One may also expect an increase in police brutality against "pervs", "social deviants" and other minorities, to please the tabloid-reading, self-righteous masses.

If the voters are stupid, then the easiest way to achieve repression is through a pretence of democracy. This is demonstrated in Britain more than anywhere else (save the US of course).

More repression is on the way:

Her Majesty's Pleasure: How England "Safeguards" Sexuality, by John Ozimek (Carnal Nation, via Melon Farmers 7th November 2009)

comparisons

Iran protesters hijack 30th anniversary of US embassy seizure (Guardian, Wednesday 4 November 2009)

Iran may aspire to have nuclear weapons. Britain has nuclear weapons.

At the head of Iran's government there are nutcases who might one day start a war against Israel motivated by religious beliefs. Britain got involved in the war in Iraq thanks to Tony Blair's divine revelations. Our next PM doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, to put it mildly.

Misogyny is widespread among Iran's political elite. The same can be said of Britain.

Iran has the Basij militia, who are answerable to no one. In Britain, MI5, MI6, special "anti-terror" forces, and even the regular police appear to be answerable to no one. (See here and here and here and here.)

Many judges in Iran are also clergy, passing sentences while firmly believing in fairy tales from the Arabian peninsula. In Britain, the legal system is dominated by bigotted clown in wigs, and juries who believe anything they read in the Daily Fail.

In Iran there are show trials against the leaders of the opposition. In Britain, people can be held in custody for 28 days without even being charged.

Speaking out against Islam can get one seriously in trouble in Iran. Speaking out against quacks damaging the health of patients can get one seriously in trouble in Britain.

There are reports of torture in Iranian prisons, Britain mostly outsources torture to third-world countries.

The Iranian authorities ban some films for vague reasons. (One such film is Crimson Gold, which I much recommend.) Similarly, cinemas in the UK are receiving "free advice" from police not to show certain films.

The Iranian government reveals its authoritarian nature by implementing software to monitor and filter internet traffic. This corresponds to mandatory data retention and IWF block lists in Britain. And more is to come.

Iran has a democracy in principle, but the government does not reflect the will of the people. The British government is currently supported by perhaps one fifth of the electorate, and will continue to give democracy the finger until the summer of 2010, when another political party will take over that doesn't care a jot about democracy, justice or common decency.

The people of Iran are showing exceptional bravery and dignity, becoming of the Persian culture, with its recorded history going back 5000 years. This may in the end break them free from tyrany. The people of Britain...

Ah, forget it! What's on the telly tonight?

Labour in La La Land

Chief drug adviser David Nutt sacked over cannabis stance (Guardian, Friday 30 October 2009)

Last time scientists were told to lie in order to support government policy, on penalty of dismissal, was under Ceauşescu.

Science is no longer wanted, nor critical thinking, nor common sense, nor human rights, nor common decency. But who needs all that when we have New Labour ideology.

the new lepers

One in 10 inmates is sex offender (BBC News, Monday, 26 October 2009)

Most repressive regimes invent a term to refer to people who stand in the way of whatever the regime wants to achieve. The term is given a strong negative connotation, and subsequently the populace tends to treat those branded with the term as less deserving of life and happiness.

Examples of such terms are "infidel", "unbeliever", "sodomite", "social deviant", "subversive", "Untermensch", "asbo", and lately "sex offender", which is another concoction of New Labour's mass criminalisation programme, making clever use of Britons' innate pathological fear of sex. The term includes those who have been convicted of rape or child molestation. But it also includes a policewoman who moonlighted as a prostitute, a man who gave a woman a lift from the train station to a nearby brothel (so called domesting trafficking; yes, people have been sent to jail for that), a father owning a holiday photo of his 17 year old daughter in a bikini, people who read explicit Japanese comic books or watched videos with "extreme pornography", as well as many dozens of innocent people (innocent in every respect except that of British law) whose credit card information was stolen by paedophiles.

Responsible journalists would not use a crude term like "sex offender" for such a wide spectrum of individuals, many of whom don't deserve to be treated as criminals in the first place. But of course, we are not talking about responsible journalism here, we are talking about BBC News.

Police target hip-hop nightclubs

Police target hip-hop nightclubs (BBC News, Friday, 16 October 2009)

"Detailed research identified which events are most likely to attract crime and disorder," a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police told BBC News.

"At the end of the day, you've got to say that certain events attract more trouble than others.

We're shifting the focus away from live music. Originally the definition of what Form 696 applied to was extremely broad so by narrowing it down, it's thought that we can better tailor it to our requirements."

Detailed research identified that Muslims are the most likely ethnicity to blow up subways, so by narrowing down security checks, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

Detailed research identified that men between 30 and 35 are most likely to possess child pornography, so by narrowing down pre-dawn raids to houses of randomly selected men in that age group, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

Detailed research identified that opposition MPs are most likely to leak information embarrassing to the Labour government, so by narrowing down our unlawful arrests, search warrants and intimidation, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

extremely cruel

First prison sentence for extreme porn (Register, 29th September 2009)

"Nothing will be gained by sending you into custody, because you wouldn’t survive because you would be vulnerable. Support and assistance is needed."

Does the judge perchance admit that jail is a nasty place where strong men rape not-so-strong men? If so, this means that the first individual mentioned in the article has been sent to jail for six months for possessing images of a horse being sexually abused, so that he in turn may be abused. But whereas the horse may not even have noticed, he will, every time he reaches down for the soap, for six long months.

I thought the Hammurabi code (ca. 1790 BC) had put an end to such disproportional punishment.

Childcare help 'could be illegal'

Childcare help 'could be illegal' (BBC News, Sunday, 27 September 2009)

The warning comes after Ofsted told two policewomen to end an arrangement to care for each other's children.

This must be the first country in the world that doesn't even trust policewomen to care for children without abusing them.

According to the newspaper, the Thames Valley officer is believed to have been reported by a neighbour.

Thank you, New Labour, for having turned this country into a hysterical hell hole, dominated by fear, distrust and snitching. It may take a generation or more to undo the damage you maniacs have done to this society.

Teacher jailed for sex with pupil

Teacher jailed for sex with pupil (BBC News, Monday, 21 September 2009)

It is highly unethical for a teacher to continue teaching someone or to be in any way involved in their grading, after they have started a relationship. The teacher ought to have been disciplined for this, and possibly dismissed.

There is no mention however of paedophilia in the clinical sense being a factor here, nor that the relationship was very different from a normal romance between two young people, one somewhat younger than the other. The state then has no business interfering in one of the few things that make life worth living, and the long jail sentence cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than a perverse application of a crude law.

An impact statement from the girl's parents said the teacher went "out of her way" to befriend them and their "vulnerable" daughter.

Note that "impact statement" includes considerations about the parents. Often in such cases, parents choose to see themselves as victims. Their hurt pride means more to them than the best interests of their children.

"It is, of course, against the law to engage in sexual activity with a person under 16, even with her consent."

As a rule, statements of judges are full of self-righteous moralising bullshit, suggesting they have the private phone number of God™, whom they consult to distinguish right and wrong. In this case however, there is no mention of "wrong", but just of "against the law". This country has sunk so low that we don't even pretend any more that the law is a reflection of any kind of natural justice.

If the law is out of synch with reality, then reality will have to adapt to the law. This harsh sentencing will miraculously alter the genes of Britons, and from now on, no one will fall in love with anyone on the opposite side of the 16th birthday.

The judge added: "The relationship involved a fair degree of deception not only in respect of the school but also to the girl's parents."

How strange that lovers would try to keep such a relationship secret, when bringing it in the open would only get one of the two in jail for a long time.

The school was made aware of the affair through an anonymous e-mail tip-off, the court heard.

Nice to have such friends and colleagues. I wonder how they can bear the guilt for the rest of their lives.

The judge, who was told the girl and the teacher were genuinely in love, did not uphold the prosecution's request for a sexual offences prevention order as it would be "draconian and unnecessarily cruel" to the girl as well.

How kind of the judge to consider the girl's interests. No doubt she will be delighted that she can see her lover in jail for the next 15 months.

The original BBC News article also included the following (which has since been edited out, but it is still found in the Guardian article, which seems to have been derived from it):

Officers raided the teacher's maisonette in Greenwich, south-east London, and arrested the 26-year-old. They seized sex toys from the house.

What do these "sex toys" prove, other than that BBC News journalists are pathetic little weasels who are all too eager to harm people's privacy far beyond the call of duty?

See also:

Blurred boundaries for teachers (Guardian, Wednesday 23 September 2009)

Some of the comments are noteworthy. Whereas Guardian readers tend to be open-minded and critical of the nanny state, as soon as sex is involved even they turn into hysterical bigotted monsters, calling for even harsher penalties for "pervs".

What is it with Britons and sex?

Policewoman who worked as a prostitute is jailed

Policewoman who worked as a prostitute is jailed (Guardian, Thursday 10 September 2009)

Policemen who shot an innocent commuter in the head (seven times, with hollow-point bullets) never spent one minute in jail. The policeman who found pleasure in clubbing an innocent passerby to death at the G20 will most likely never receive a jail sentence either. But making love (with remuneration) apparently shakes the very foundations of this society and so warrants the harshest punishments.

The convicted woman might have served society well as a police officer who, for a change, was not clubbing innocent people to death or shooting them in the head (seven times, with hollow-point bullets), regardless of whether she was moonlighting as a private math tutor or as anything else. Instead, her life has been devastated and she has been turned into a burden on society, at least for the next 15 months, when we will all be paying room and board for her.

Update (2009-10-21)

I'm still puzzled why the establishment came down so hard on this woman. Was it perhaps because her very existence was an embarrassment to Jacqui Smith's claim that all prostitutes are helpless women who are forced into it by ruthless pimps?

For more ideology-driven 'fact' finding, and New Labour creating statistics to suit its purpose, in concert with a police force that is out of control, see:

Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution (Guardian, Tuesday 20 October 2009)

PM apology after Turing petition

PM apology after Turing petition (BBC News, Friday, 11 September 2009)

The intelligentsia in Turing's time were deploring eras when women didn't have the right to vote and were otherwise oppressed. But in the 1950s it was not fashionable to defend the rights of gays. Alan Turing was a genius and his contributions to code-breaking were vital to the war effort. But after the war he was simply a perv, and standing up for that sort of people was not salonfähig.

Today, complacent intellectuals condemn persecution of gays (or to be exact, persecution of one famous gay man) in the 1950s. How courageous to criticise law makers most of whom have been dead for decades! Will the same intellectuals stand up for the rights of consenting adults in the BDSM community who are persecuted by today's government for enjoying non-vanilla sexual activities and images thereof? Defending pervs? No way!

Tackling the film piracy problem

Tackling the film piracy problem (BBC News, Tuesday, 28 July 2009)

"They'll clamp the camera to a seat or use a tripod obscured by a coat. They'll often use microphones, placing them three of them four seats either side to get a stereo effect."

The movie industry is trying to shove the cursed Blu-ray format down our throats, with the justification that the public is demanding higher quality video and audio. That same industry also claims that 90% of "pirated" films are obtained by crummy recording devices hidden in coats of cinema-goers.

As always, BBC News is willing to help industry spread such propaganda, unhindered by any form of critical thinking. The objective is political correctness, not accuracy.

Two more recent cases of BBC News twisting the facts, presumably with ideological intentions:

Windfarm Britain means (very) expensive electricity (Register, 22nd July 2009)

BBC erroneously reports first charges under Extreme Porn Act (Melonfarmers, 25th July 2009)

secret agents

BBC 'news':

Rare 007 car to go under the hammer (BBC News, Wednesday, 8 July 2009)

Real news:

The truth about torture (Guardian, Wednesday 8 July 2009)

I'm so confused! Isn't being a secret agent all about driving fast cars, seducing beautiful women with foreign accents, and sipping martinis (shaken not stirred)? Or is it about ripping out fingernails having Pakistani officers rip out fingernails and cutting up penises having Moroccan officers cut up penises?

New Labour has long since managed to pervert each and every section of the state, even more than the Tories ever did. For the secret services, they being secret and all that, it has merely taken a little longer for the veil to be lifted. Is the populace in shock now? Certainly. At the death of Wacko Jacko. Once we're over that, we'll be looking forward to the next James Bond film, and we'll feel as proud to be British as always.

Can children be criminals?

Can children be criminals? (BBC News, Monday, 15 June 2009)

"We have to tell children 'you have done wrong', and if that means going through the court system that's what we have to do."

The flaw in the reasoning is that in this country being convicted and being wrong couldn't be further apart, and the idea of British law as a moral compass has been thoroughly discredited. Only a few bigoted special-interest groups, such as Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA), still believe in this myth. If punishment makes good behaviour, we must be the best-behaved nation in the world.

Especially under New Labour, laws have been introduced with the sole purpose of being able to put more people in jail for longer, for 'crimes' that cause little or no harm to anyone. A person a few days past their 16th birthday can be jailed for having consensual relations with a person a few days before their 16th birthday. Someone can be jailed for possessing "extreme porn" involving consenting adults. A computer user can be jailed for forgetting the password to encrypted files. A scientist can be convicted of libel if he justly, and in the best interests of the public, criticises the quackery of chiroquacks.

Conversely, the police can end the lives of innocent people without being prosecuted. Police can harass people and hold them in custody for several days even if very clearly no offense has been committed. They can do this without risk of receiving a reprimand from their superiors, and in fact it seems harassment and arrest have now become standard tools for dealing with any kind of dissent, encouraged by the highest echelons of the state. (See for example: Video shows surveillance protesters bundled to ground by police; Guardian, Sunday 21 June 2009.) Big companies such as BT can snoop on internet users without bearing the consequences. One PM and one former PM who are both guilty of deceiving the public and leading the country into a disastrous war will likely never be prosecuted.

If one gives a 12 year old boy a criminal record for calling a girl a 'paki' one doesn't teach him that it is wrong to call a girl a 'paki'. Instead one teaches him that the state is ruthless in how it treats transgressions of mostly arbitrary norms. One should not be surprised if such a boy then grows up to be a banker or MP, robbing people's money in ways that happen to be legal, but abject nonetheless.

Jacqui's legacy

Jacqui Smith's marriage 'strong' (BBC News, Sunday, 5 April 2009)

I think I should be very open about my expenses, but there are bits of my private life that I don't think should be open to public scrutiny.

If what happens between consenting adults is exposed to public scrutiny, then that's quite awkward. Isn't it, Mrs. Smith? This is quite unlike your Extreme Porn Law (see Backlash), which doesn't interfere at all with what happens between consenting adults. Does it, Mrs. Smith?

As you sow...

Update

Recommended reading:

Comment: Good riddance to a bad home secretary (politic.co.uk, Tuesday, 02, Jun 2009)

It fails to mention a few fuckups, but then again, there were so many. See also:

Rule nothing out with these Home Office farceurs – except competence (Guardian, Friday 8 May 2009)

For now, let's not rely on the next home secretary being less of a wackjob.

Gordon's unshakable truths

800 Britons on waiting list for Swiss suicide clinic (Guardian, Sunday 31 May 2009)

To value life is as much part of our nature as to have compassion with suffering fellow human beings. As we're all going to die, and many of us as the result of a painful illness, no one can escape the conflict between the will to live and the will to end suffering. No set of laws could offer a perfect legal framework to resolve that conflict for individual people in individual circumstances, but anyone who thinks they are entitled to an absolute judgement on this issue are either stark raving mad, the Pope, or Gordon Brown.

Brown against assisted dying law (BBC News, Tuesday, 30 December 2008)

He replied: "Well I'm totally against laws on that.

Physicians who spend their entire careers dealing with life and death, and the illnesses and suffering that separate them, would never use the word "totally" when they have to decide whether to administer pain relief to a patient at the expense of bringing them closer to the end of their lives. Terminally ill patients who consider active suicide have to make an even more difficult choice. But Gordon Brown is "totally against", so that settles it.

To a man who possesses absolute truths, I wouldn't entrust my bicycle, let alone the job of running the country.

it's not really for us to create any legislation that would put pressure on people to feel that they had to offer themselves because they were causing trouble to a relative or anything else.

So it is all about people getting rid of burdensome parents, siblings or children, is it? And what the hell is "anything else" meant to imply? Do you suggest that children want to treat their parents to euthanasia so they can get their hands on the inheritance? Or what? Come on, tell us what is in your sick mind!

Dear Gordon, step down now. There is not a soul in Britain who takes you seriously anymore, if anyone ever did. And take the rest of those loony-tunes with you!

Update

People who want Gordon Brown to stay do this for all the wrong reasons, e.g. fear of losing their own jobs.

Call to back PM as unrest grows (BBC News, Sunday, 7 June 2009)

We're now less than a year away from the election. We have no more chances left. We either pull ourselves together, stake out what we stand for, or we will be gone.

Where does the well-being of the country come in? Or restoring the people's trust in democracy? We have entered the cynical phase of clinging to power for the sake of clinging to power.

file sharing

Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed (Guardian Friday 29 May 2009)

In my blog on music, I frequently mention budget CDs with the most amazing music, much of which has never appealed to wide audiences and will never appeal to wide audiences. How come such commercially unattractive releases exist? Who is making money selling 17-CD sets with new recordings of organ works by Olivier Messiaen, going for less than 2 pounds per CD? It is a mystery to me.

Two things are clear. First, file sharing has never been so widespread. Second, never before have so many interesting recordings been available for so little money, including historical recordings, recordings of contemporary music, and new recordings of older music. If there is the slightest causal relation between the two, then please let everyone keep doing whatever they are doing, because the impact on art seems to be positive.

As to less money flowing into the pockets of imbeciles shouting their unschooled lungs out and recording mind-numbing noise in dad's garage, screw them!