Shortarse
@shortarse.bsky.social
He/him. Generally a bit of an arse.
Here in case the South African trashes twitter still further.
Here in case the South African trashes twitter still further.
Yes, yes we are
In less than 24hrs, with no mass publicity campaign behind it unlike with the Brexit ones, and as best I can tell, just an outpouring of disgust.
In less than 24hrs, with no mass publicity campaign behind it unlike with the Brexit ones, and as best I can tell, just an outpouring of disgust.
September 26, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Yes, yes we are
In less than 24hrs, with no mass publicity campaign behind it unlike with the Brexit ones, and as best I can tell, just an outpouring of disgust.
In less than 24hrs, with no mass publicity campaign behind it unlike with the Brexit ones, and as best I can tell, just an outpouring of disgust.
Are we nearly there yet?
September 26, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Are we nearly there yet?
Wesley, you're aware this is your government, in which you have wholeheartedly participated, yes?
But don't worry, it gets much worse.
Because this is his commentary on his own fucking actions, which apparently *just happened* as though he's a 5 year old beside a broken cup
But don't worry, it gets much worse.
Because this is his commentary on his own fucking actions, which apparently *just happened* as though he's a 5 year old beside a broken cup
September 16, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Wesley, you're aware this is your government, in which you have wholeheartedly participated, yes?
But don't worry, it gets much worse.
Because this is his commentary on his own fucking actions, which apparently *just happened* as though he's a 5 year old beside a broken cup
But don't worry, it gets much worse.
Because this is his commentary on his own fucking actions, which apparently *just happened* as though he's a 5 year old beside a broken cup
Jesus fucking Christ, possibly the worst cabinet member appears to have just announced his campaign to replace Starmer has started, and it is the most hideous hypocrisy I have seen, even from someone as appalling as him.
It's bad.
It's bad.
September 16, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Jesus fucking Christ, possibly the worst cabinet member appears to have just announced his campaign to replace Starmer has started, and it is the most hideous hypocrisy I have seen, even from someone as appalling as him.
It's bad.
It's bad.
If, as is widely hinted at, Mandelson's power comes from a deep archive of dirty secrets and mutual complicity, the response from him will be both devastating & absolutely fascinating.
He isn't a happy man right now.
He isn't a happy man right now.
September 12, 2025 at 10:44 AM
If, as is widely hinted at, Mandelson's power comes from a deep archive of dirty secrets and mutual complicity, the response from him will be both devastating & absolutely fascinating.
He isn't a happy man right now.
He isn't a happy man right now.
We do understand that Mandelson gets to return fire, right? He's already made clear that he is furious, having been fired after point blank refusing to resign.
September 12, 2025 at 10:43 AM
We do understand that Mandelson gets to return fire, right? He's already made clear that he is furious, having been fired after point blank refusing to resign.
That first example is so very clearly and obviously a controlled demolition.
Very obviously, you're not doing that while in combat.
Which makes this specific evidence of the breach of part 3, here.
Very obviously, you're not doing that while in combat.
Which makes this specific evidence of the breach of part 3, here.
September 12, 2025 at 10:19 AM
That first example is so very clearly and obviously a controlled demolition.
Very obviously, you're not doing that while in combat.
Which makes this specific evidence of the breach of part 3, here.
Very obviously, you're not doing that while in combat.
Which makes this specific evidence of the breach of part 3, here.
Do you think we can get him to promise?
September 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Do you think we can get him to promise?
No they don't. And when this guy is a prominent speaker and face of their movement, why would you.
If an open Nazi is a welcome speaker at your rally, it's a Nazi rally.
If an open Nazi is a welcome speaker at your rally, it's a Nazi rally.
August 29, 2025 at 4:41 PM
No they don't. And when this guy is a prominent speaker and face of their movement, why would you.
If an open Nazi is a welcome speaker at your rally, it's a Nazi rally.
If an open Nazi is a welcome speaker at your rally, it's a Nazi rally.
It couldn't be clearer in the BBC report on it.
It's also very under reported that at least 1 in 8 of those arrests were unrelated to anything that happened at the carnival, and were people flagged up by facial recognition.
It's also very under reported that at least 1 in 8 of those arrests were unrelated to anything that happened at the carnival, and were people flagged up by facial recognition.
August 26, 2025 at 11:15 AM
It couldn't be clearer in the BBC report on it.
It's also very under reported that at least 1 in 8 of those arrests were unrelated to anything that happened at the carnival, and were people flagged up by facial recognition.
It's also very under reported that at least 1 in 8 of those arrests were unrelated to anything that happened at the carnival, and were people flagged up by facial recognition.
What I'd actually like to see is the journalists in question being ever so slightly enquiring. Maybe asking about their former jobs.
From publicly available information, available through a single Google search each, they were both what you might call political generals, with a hand in procurement
From publicly available information, available through a single Google search each, they were both what you might call political generals, with a hand in procurement
August 21, 2025 at 3:25 PM
What I'd actually like to see is the journalists in question being ever so slightly enquiring. Maybe asking about their former jobs.
From publicly available information, available through a single Google search each, they were both what you might call political generals, with a hand in procurement
From publicly available information, available through a single Google search each, they were both what you might call political generals, with a hand in procurement
Looking around at politics just now, this covers, well, actually quite a lot.
The membership of the Labour Party and their relationship to the party springs to mind. The British relationship to the USA is another obvious one, given its cheerful descent into fascism.
The membership of the Labour Party and their relationship to the party springs to mind. The British relationship to the USA is another obvious one, given its cheerful descent into fascism.
August 15, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Looking around at politics just now, this covers, well, actually quite a lot.
The membership of the Labour Party and their relationship to the party springs to mind. The British relationship to the USA is another obvious one, given its cheerful descent into fascism.
The membership of the Labour Party and their relationship to the party springs to mind. The British relationship to the USA is another obvious one, given its cheerful descent into fascism.
Clive was considered a piece ofof shit *at the time*. He was a very effective piece of shit, but even by the standards of the time, he was an absolute piece of shit.
His defence of his corruption was "I stand astonished at my own moderation"
His defence of his corruption was "I stand astonished at my own moderation"
August 14, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Clive was considered a piece ofof shit *at the time*. He was a very effective piece of shit, but even by the standards of the time, he was an absolute piece of shit.
His defence of his corruption was "I stand astonished at my own moderation"
His defence of his corruption was "I stand astonished at my own moderation"
This works very well indeed, *as long as the choice is between Starmer and Farage* - it completely fails as soon as the choice is perceived as being between Sultana and Farage. It also relies on Starmer being seen as better than Farage, and oh brother, do I have some news for you.
July 26, 2025 at 5:11 PM
This works very well indeed, *as long as the choice is between Starmer and Farage* - it completely fails as soon as the choice is perceived as being between Sultana and Farage. It also relies on Starmer being seen as better than Farage, and oh brother, do I have some news for you.
This works very well indeed, *as long as the choice is between Starmer and Farage* - it completely fails as soon as the choice is perceived as being between Sultana and Farage. It also relies on Starmer being seen as better than Farage, and oh brother, do I have some news for you.
July 26, 2025 at 5:01 PM
This works very well indeed, *as long as the choice is between Starmer and Farage* - it completely fails as soon as the choice is perceived as being between Sultana and Farage. It also relies on Starmer being seen as better than Farage, and oh brother, do I have some news for you.
And yes, the far right looks set to kick off. Are the public going to have to mobilise to slap them down and put them in their place again, like we did last year? Are we going to be giving the mail the chance to save money, and reprint this with just the date changed?
July 26, 2025 at 9:00 AM
And yes, the far right looks set to kick off. Are the public going to have to mobilise to slap them down and put them in their place again, like we did last year? Are we going to be giving the mail the chance to save money, and reprint this with just the date changed?
You are literally reacting to someone comparing the far right mustering a few hundred to the marches in the hundreds of thousands and implying that the hundreds are going to be in the driving seat. Can you explain why this, repeated every month, does not hold the same power as this?
July 26, 2025 at 9:00 AM
You are literally reacting to someone comparing the far right mustering a few hundred to the marches in the hundreds of thousands and implying that the hundreds are going to be in the driving seat. Can you explain why this, repeated every month, does not hold the same power as this?
As a comparison, people are being convicted for slow marching in a road under a law that was introduced specifically in response to a non violent form of protest.
It's fairly safe to say these Epping riots are causing "more than minor disruption", yet obviously 2/
juststopoil.org/2025/02/17/t...
It's fairly safe to say these Epping riots are causing "more than minor disruption", yet obviously 2/
juststopoil.org/2025/02/17/t...
July 24, 2025 at 10:20 AM
As a comparison, people are being convicted for slow marching in a road under a law that was introduced specifically in response to a non violent form of protest.
It's fairly safe to say these Epping riots are causing "more than minor disruption", yet obviously 2/
juststopoil.org/2025/02/17/t...
It's fairly safe to say these Epping riots are causing "more than minor disruption", yet obviously 2/
juststopoil.org/2025/02/17/t...
Always interesting how the far right have "legitimate reasons" for their actions, over and over, according to both Tories and Labour.
When the left protests peacefully, legitimate reasons are never mentioned, and new laws are brought in to make those peaceful protests illegal. 1/
When the left protests peacefully, legitimate reasons are never mentioned, and new laws are brought in to make those peaceful protests illegal. 1/
July 24, 2025 at 10:20 AM
Always interesting how the far right have "legitimate reasons" for their actions, over and over, according to both Tories and Labour.
When the left protests peacefully, legitimate reasons are never mentioned, and new laws are brought in to make those peaceful protests illegal. 1/
When the left protests peacefully, legitimate reasons are never mentioned, and new laws are brought in to make those peaceful protests illegal. 1/
Yeah - this is *exactly* why you need a jury. Juries can and regularly do refuse to convict, when they feel the penalties outweigh the actions involved, or when the law is out of step with public morality.
This is their right under the law, as established under Bushel's Case, back in 1670.
This is their right under the law, as established under Bushel's Case, back in 1670.
July 9, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Yeah - this is *exactly* why you need a jury. Juries can and regularly do refuse to convict, when they feel the penalties outweigh the actions involved, or when the law is out of step with public morality.
This is their right under the law, as established under Bushel's Case, back in 1670.
This is their right under the law, as established under Bushel's Case, back in 1670.
Head of a force with serious and ongoing misconduct and abuse of power problem, along with serious failures in tackling crime, wants to grow, and cut the oversight that might try to fix that.
Remember this?
Remember this?
July 6, 2025 at 10:36 AM
Head of a force with serious and ongoing misconduct and abuse of power problem, along with serious failures in tackling crime, wants to grow, and cut the oversight that might try to fix that.
Remember this?
Remember this?
That society of strangers showed up in numbers, specifically to protect their community against those ICE officers & their violent, organised attack, a group so courageous that with the power of the state behind them they're unwilling to show their faces, cos they understand they're in the wrong.
June 11, 2025 at 3:15 PM
That society of strangers showed up in numbers, specifically to protect their community against those ICE officers & their violent, organised attack, a group so courageous that with the power of the state behind them they're unwilling to show their faces, cos they understand they're in the wrong.
It will be a disastrous blow to the morale and standing of the forces - but failing to act will be worse. It's not like there's a lack of prior evidence either - remember the Gibraltar killings? More should do. It's worth noting the officer whose name is spared here is a known general
May 24, 2025 at 11:45 AM
It will be a disastrous blow to the morale and standing of the forces - but failing to act will be worse. It's not like there's a lack of prior evidence either - remember the Gibraltar killings? More should do. It's worth noting the officer whose name is spared here is a known general
I've said before, in the other place, the Canadians had the right model for this, and we should copy them if this is anywhere near as bad as it appears.
They disbanded their Airborne Regiment entirely. If the SAS and SBS are as rotten as this implies, they're probably beyond redemption. 1/
They disbanded their Airborne Regiment entirely. If the SAS and SBS are as rotten as this implies, they're probably beyond redemption. 1/
May 24, 2025 at 11:45 AM
I've said before, in the other place, the Canadians had the right model for this, and we should copy them if this is anywhere near as bad as it appears.
They disbanded their Airborne Regiment entirely. If the SAS and SBS are as rotten as this implies, they're probably beyond redemption. 1/
They disbanded their Airborne Regiment entirely. If the SAS and SBS are as rotten as this implies, they're probably beyond redemption. 1/