Perhaps:

“Politicians == Society’s Cancer”

They sure don’t, can’t get suspected terrorists on a damn plane to the  US, but Richard O Dwyer, who’s committed no damn crime here in the UK, is still being targeted for extradition to the  US on copyright offences, despite only hosting links to TV show torrents.

If I was as cynical as I actually am, I’d suggest that terrorism just murders and injures people, and destroys people and families, therefore it’s not really that important, whereas copyright infringement MIGHT cost a corporation ten bucks somewhere along the line therefore we need to call in a special forces team to take that guy down!

As above, prostitutes provide a needed service and really earn their money, so it’s a terrible slander to compare them to politicians, because usually they are the ones f***ing us, and then still taking our money anyway.

A bit misogynistic.  But more thought provoking than the equally correct “All politicians are assholes.”

I went on writing Reading, Royal Berks on letters long after  it wasn’t ‘correct’, because I liked it. Whatever. Everything  still got delivered.

Oh, and I checked the Guardian style guide. It says:

“Surprising as it may be to some London-based journalists, most of our readers do not work or live in the capital (or, indeed, the UK). So give location, not just name: ie King’s Cross, north London, not just King’s Cross; there is a Victoria station in Manchester as well as in London, so make clear which one you mean”

So London, England is fine (and accurate!).

There IS no “right” or “wrong” here.  There are no police to whisk you off in the night if you qualify a location with the wrong “region”, whatever the hell that means.  Even in London.  

Even if it *were* a postal address, the only test of “right” would be whether the letter got delivered.   Do you seriously think that a letter to an address ending “London, England” would go somewhere else?

London’s official website describes it as “London, England.” 

http://www.visitlondon.com/

“London, England” is widely used on both sides of the Atlantic. The British will simply be cognizant of the constitutional appropriateness of any given use, whereas Americans will not.

There’s probably a couple who will do it for free because they like the attention.

And because of the Citizens United decision, this video is definitely legal.   Otherwise, it might violate campaign finance laws just as much as a whiny right-wing movie about how EEEVVVILLLL Hillary Clinton is, or a whiny liberal movie by Michael Moore about how evil the Bush family are, or as much as the unapologetically biased MSNBC and Fox News opinion shows do.  (Only one of those got challenged in court, but the laws that they were charged under don’t realistically distinguish between them and the other targets.  I’d rather have seen liberals get charged and win, because it would be obvious to the liberals that it was a good decision, instead of them perceiving it as Bad Guys Winning, especially because, yeah, Citizens United were bad guys making a bad movie with bad intent.)

And as far as the “money isn’t speech” argument goes, the First Amendment also protects freedom of the press, and while you can occasionally speak without money, you sure can’t run a press without it.

That’s plenty scary for me, without the threat of armed arrest.

http://youtu.be/pMas0tWc0sg