A New Labour landmine detonates

startledcod

Repeal the damned law now.

HD2

I agree - Repeal the Act asap (which, in any case, does not come into force until October)

There is not, and never can be, any useful purpose for any Equality legislation and the entire Equality Commission quango should be scrapped too.
We have anti-racism (etc) Acts, we have equal pay Acts - both dating back 30+ years.
End of.

Hattie Hateman is now shown as one of the most truly viciously nasty and hate-fuelled human beings who ever disgraced public office.
Can she be publicly tarred and feathered?

Richard of York

"New law to trap reforming govts" you say.
Others would say a new Law protecting progessive govt.
Anything about having to ensure all new measures are carefully considered for impact and its demographics before implimentation is wrong?
What is wrong about making the impact of all measures that change our relationship with the state public and accountable?
Why do Tories believe that they can get away with anything they want as long as they package it as Policy?

Pot Head

Fraser, spin it how you like, but any reasonable person would say that Hoban had a car crash interview not because of Labour laws, but because Hoban was totally under prepared and the IFS have rumbled Osborne's "progressive Budget" BS.

I await the first post rubbishing the IFS on CH!

jay mason

A good reason to start the great repeal act, and chuck out at least 90% of Labours laws

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage: When it comes to ethnic minorities it seems odd that they should generally be considered as a sensitive group concerning special needs. A lack of spoken or written English seems no handicap in the procurement of housing and benefits, indeed it becomes a positive advantage. Extra points to be chalked up for urgent help. It is interesting to note taht many (if not most) of the really big benefit cheats are not born here, whilst identity fraud is a definite import from the 'Third World'.

Liz Brown

Simples. Repeal this ridiculous harmthenation law immediately

normanc

Good job the Great Repeal Bill hasn't passed yet.

R

Point 1 - this fatuous law ought to be repealed

Point 2 - shouldn't the civil service have made sure that, if required by law, this silly 'study' was carried out? Note that the law doesn't prevent governments from implementing whatever policy they want, they just need to consider the impact on various groups, not change the policy.

Alexander Meercat

Repeal the piece of rubbish immediately and then toss the rest of New Labour's crap laws on the bonfire.

Simples!

mongoose

The Fawcett Society, a feminist pressure group, seems to have easy entry into the BBC and acts as Harman's outrider. It launched its legal challenge to the Budget on the more narrow point of equality between men and women on 1st August. But the Today programme was happy to widen the issue to embrace the IFS assessment on income distribution.

General Zod

The Harman Act is a ridiculous law and the answer to such questions should be that it is to be repealed in order to avoid pointless money wasting.

ajs

Needs either to be repealed (would Lib Dems go with that?) or a clause inserted which requires that the position of all other minorities must not be worsened by any action taken in regard to any minority. Or somesuch. Must be clever lawyers out there who can work this out. And if it means that the existing law is a nonsense, so much more reason to repeal it.

Vulture

Just goes to show that the first Act of the new Govt. should have been to pass an Enabling Act repealking all precvious legiuslationb passed during the last 13 years of Liebour misrule.

Also goes to show that the BBC are the Liebore party at the microphone.

Incidentally Fraser its 'sowed' as in corn, rather than 'sewed' as in thread.

strapworld

Simple. The Conservatives promised a bonfire of legislation. So with the Liberal democrats agreement within the coalition. Scrap this insidious and undemocratic act.

The Lods can argue all they wish BUT as the culling of legislation was promised by the Conservatives it is an election promise that the Lords must adhere to!

Jez

I'm confused.

How can cuts effect ethnic minorities?

Ethnic minorites are the backbone of the economy, work harder that us mortals and are needed in numbers no less than 'hundreds of thousands a year' to stop that system crashing into the English Channel.

That's what you say.... you know, all the time.

You've been saying this for the last 20 years and now you're stating that they are major benifactors of government assistance?

You must be mistaken.

er, 'headshake' maybe?

TrevorsDen

Insane.

But just how big does the law say the back of the envelope has to be upon which this review is conducted?

Mycroft

This is typical Labour humbug, effectively it just requires the govenment to go through the motions of having the formal review. Even in this crazy world, I cannot believe that a court would ever try to order a government to change its budget measures; if it did, the law would be amended pretty damn quick, and rightly too. The main trouble with this is that public money may have to be wasted on legal expenses.

TrevorsDen

PS I think you sow landmines not sew them, and having sowed move on..

But labour have done their best to stitch us up.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Richard of York

Define 'Progressive'.

TrevorsDen

Mr Dale in is diary points out that the IFS report was commissioned by the Child Poverty Action Group. So err ... really should we be surprised? Reports tell the paymaster what they want to hear. Totally discredited.

And as Mr Dale again points out the IFS had previously said the VAT increase would hit the poorest relatively least.

Chuck Unsworth

Of course it's also a manifestation of the close, some might say unhealthy, relationship between the BBC and the Labour Party.

This legislation is entirely unreasonable. What is the point of MPs, if thy are not to hold governments to account? The effect of transferring scrutiny to the courts is to deny elected representatives the right to scrutinise, amend and vote down (or for) any Act of Parliament. The British people have been disenfranchised.

TrevorsDen

Furthermore I have just heard the man from the IFS say that their figures are based on measures which only come in to effect in 2012 - 2014.

Crazy -- how can we judge that far ahead when other measures may well come into play by then?

A clear case of fiddling to give the commissioner the result they want. But do not expect the TV news to take this into account. Or anyone just plain looking for any old stick to beat their own drum.

Robert Taggart

Repeal Harpersons Equalities act... fast !
With the exception of the National Minimum Wage, Celtic Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement... could this ConDem government end up repealing all other legislation of the previous NuLiebour government ? If so, would this be unprecedented in British political history ?
NuLiebour = thirteen wasted years... hopefully !

Cameo Parkway Kid

its no good the barking-mad right roaring repeal now. The cats out of the bag and the regressive, back of a fag-packet, slash and burn, shaft the poor, budget is bcoming increasingly apparent. Shameron best get them baby pics now to Coulson so they can spin this one into the dust

George Lees

You are right about the Cameroons and detail. This is evident in all departments, but particularly in areas such as EU legislation and immigration which are detail heavy. They have not come up with ways to tackle this in opposition and in Government are happily signing into irreversible EU justice measures without knowing what will come out their final form will take.

Dig for Victory

Richard of York, your inference that NuLabour was progressive is entirely correct, ask any MS sufferer

andrew

What happened to the great repeal bill? Can't they do a great repeal bill MK II and put a bunch of these in it? Maybe on the 6 month or 12 month anniversary?

Naomi Muse

Maybe the BBC needs to be purged of party political animals and people?

Maybe it should start advertising its jobs in other shop windows than the Graun?

Harriet's bills should all be repealed in the Great Repeal Bill. I know that she will smack her cousin about that but all of her bills could just be guidelines rather than making the judiciary bloated with work.

alex

Just repeal the law and any other landmines that Labour has laid.

There'll be bad headlines about dumping something titled "equalities", but that'll just have to be taken on the chin. Indeed Ministers should explain how cynical Labour has been about trying to remove power from the people's representatives...

davidk

How the %$&! can a Minister be so lacking in preparation?

I take it he'll be gone in the next reshuffle?

Walsingham's Ghost

Repeal this nonsense!

Pot Head

"much respected independent insitute." George Osbourne April 6 2005

"damning and independent report by the respected IFS" George Osbourne 31 January 2008

"I am waiting for the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis." Osbourne 26 March 2010

alexsandr

Someone needs to debunk the IFS. I am not sure is is entirely neutral.

AF

All that AWK1 said.
plus what about the squillions spent on translators and endless publications in a multitude of languages,hardly an ignored underclass.
Furthermore who's to say that all immigration is benieficial to this country,
Labour has been accused of importing a client vote,was it not the biggest challenge they had on the doorstep at the last election.
I remind you all of the Neather report.

JB

I'm guessing I might be the only contributor to this debate thus far who has actually read the entire Equalities Act and who practises in areas of law (employment) in which discrimination issues raise their head.

The Act itself has many good points about it. It is fundamentally sensible to consolidate all of the many and various discrimination acts into one piece of legislation. However, that doesn't mean I disagree with other correspondents about the shocking potential consequences of the ill-drafted section 1 with its implications that reduction of socio-economic disadvantage must be the priority consideration in public authority decision-making.

Verityred

Ladies and gentlemen, little Dickie 'the troll' Dork's personality has finally split in two,

May I introduce the latest cyber Goebbels...

Cameo Parkway Kid.

Their fat controller at Labour HQ is said to be delighted at the nasty new arrival..

CB

"where the lefty judiciary reign supreme"

What are you smoking Fraser?

Salopian

Hoban really should have known better. He's been around the treasury was Cameron's shadow FS since2005).

He made things worse by blustering over and over again. of course it ain't going to go away. Will the Gov't have the guts to start a bonfire of the legal vanities? One can almost hear Simon Hughes on the radiowaves refusing to support any attempt to repeal thie "fair" law.

Richard of York

Verityred
You are seriously Upton Park.
In case you don't know thats two stops away from Barking.

jambo

The treasury minister was caught out because he knows as well as everyone else that the budget was regressive and not progressive. They should admit it rather than try to cover it up. We know from past experience that it is what the Tories stand for, it is only the Liberals that we find hard to understand.

Re the equality law - it seems that the govt have simply just ignored this, despite T. May's warning, hence the lack of an answer. Are there any other laws that they are just going to ignore becasue they don't like them or are too much work. If so, can I do that too with laws that I don't particularly like?
Also if I were a single mum and was, for example, going to be hit harder by a budget than a single father I would like the idea of the govt having to examine this and if need be correct it.
I'm not saying it is a perfect law by any means but I'm not sure it is as bad as some comments suggest.

AF

Verityred prey tell more.

HairyNoddy

More proof of what a pathetic opposition Cameron and his posh boy idiot cronies provided to the activities of the New Traitor government.

denis cooper

The law is the law, and if the law requires the government to take certain steps prior to finalising its policy or introducing legislation in Parliament then it should bloody well do as the law requires rather than acting as though it was above the law. If the government deems that law to be a bad law, then it should ask Parliament to amend or repeal it.

We went through a lot of this about three weeks ago regarding the Fawcett Society's legal challenge to the budget, and this is the same thing.

Thank God, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW MADE BY PARLIAMENT, whether it's a Labour government, a Tory government, or the present coalition government.

Framer

The BBC interviewer Justin Webb who thought he had a killer question was as misinformed as Mark Hoban was unknowledged.

The Equality Act will not be commenced until October 2010 except for a few minor or paving sections. Therefore the audit Webb was pressing Hoban about is not law.

We pay these BBC interviewers hundreds of thousands of pounds, literally, and they can't even do 10 minutes research.

People like him rely instead on their barely concealed prejudices.

The Conservatives in opposition made it clear which sections it would not commence. Let us hope, despite the Minister being Lynne Featherstone, they stick to that promise at least.

The Act does read like a piece of Soviet legislation.

alexsandr

Surely one of the points about the budget being progressive or regressive was the impact of VAT?

Surely the better off pay more VAT, and as much of expenditure is not subject to VAT (Housing/food) then as your marginal income rises, then you pay more VAT.

Cant see the poor buying flat screen tellies and meals at the savoy grill can you?

I am on a reasonable whack, but i found Darlings cut had hardly any effect on me.

paulg

I said months ago that this bill should have been repealed as soon as the coalition came into power: but no one pays any attention.

You only need to read it and see it is full of pitfalls, boobytraps and litigation for any inheriting Parliament.

Its an enabling Bill that will take on a life of its own once you start getting judicial rulings; fundamentally underming democratic government and the rule of law as we know it.

an ex-tory voter

"repeal the act"
Don't hold your breath, despite today's good news indicating to the contrary, nothing he has achieved so far indicates DC has either the cojones or even the political will necessary to repeal anything enacted by either Liebore or the EUSSR

Mike

What you've quote doesn't actually say that the government can't enact regressive measures if it wants.

It just has to acknowledge that their measures are regressive and make sure it knows as well as it can what the effects will be.

So if the government had said from the beginning, "this budget will hit the poorest hardest", as is the case, rather than pretending it was progressive, then they will have shown themselves to have considered the effect on disadvantaged groups.

AndyPandy

OMG, Richard of York is still alive. After telling us he was off for 'a highly-paid job in the USA'. No such job would leave you time to bore us here in rainy Blighty. Guess things didn't work out. Our loss. Lol

denis cooper

@ paulg - "... fundamentally underming democratic government and the rule of law as we know it."

I don't think that it undermines the rule of law; rather it modifies the law to restrict the freedom of action of the government, which is not above the law made by our sovereign British Parliament.

If the government was allowed to ignore the restrictions the law now imposes, then that would undermine the rule of law.

This is why my reaction to the case being brought by the Fawcett Society was:

"Oddly enough I rather applaud their decision to bring this case, as it seems that they are at least attempting to uphold the rule of law."

Colin

Totally agree with Framer, implementation of the act begins 1st October 2010 so therefore was not law when the budget was passed. Hoban should have been briefed better, he made a dick of himself and Webb thought he had the smoking gun.

Man With a Very Hot Bladder

"it sewed several landmines"

Stitch-up?

Augustus

What's more important: Harriet Harman, or Britain's Triple-A credit rating?

Benjohn Barnes

Isn't this a great thing? Sounds like decentralising power out from central government, to me. Surely a great thing.

Praxis Juncture

Surely the principles of the Coalition document state that the government should be one of openess and accountability?

What kind of accountability is it when the government chooses its own tests and recourses?

Here we have government who claim that they are progressives in the service of fairness for the vulnerable and poor. They specifically proposed that their budget was progressive.

The equalities act offers a test of this this claim and recourse for the citizenry if they think the government has failed to consider the impacts of their policy against their own stated aim.

Auto-petard, perhaps?

David Bouvier

As I commented on the post from Peter Hoskins referenced above - this can be dealt with simply by the government taking a little time out at a cabinent meeting to discuss the national emergency and the dreadful effects that economic collapse and currency crisis will have on the poor - leading to a thoughtful and well-documented cabinet decision that the facts are such that measures that are part of the governments econonomic strategy are fundamentally important to the well-being of those who are most at risk from further economic woes, that the cabinet feels that [insert precise wording of act] that due consideration has been given.

A politically astute solution to the problem longer term would be to ammend the act to add many other duties rather than delete one (must consider justice, fairness, efficiency, growth, dependency, moral hazard and any other issue or matter of national interest.) - and that a clear policy decision by cabinet or a minister that includes a clear ministerial statement that it is believed to pass the criteria is immune from judicial review.

Barry Bilge

"When Labour retreated, it sewed several landmines in the political territory it was about to cede. One of them was Harman's Equalities Act, which - as Pete blogged a while ago - mandates government "to consider how decisions might help to reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage".

What might this mean? Crucially, it means all government decisions - including Budgets - are now open to judicial review if someone can argue that anything hits the poor. Which the IFS have just accused the government of doing in their budget (of which, more later)."

The legislation does not require decisions to be progressive, just that an impact assessment be done before a decision is taken. A judicial review would be appropriate if the impact assessment has not been done. It does not mean a judicial review is appropriate if the assessment has been done, found to be regressive and still enacted.

It *is* an effort to game the political thinking - get an impact assessment done and politicians will tend to pick the least contentious option. Where a contentious decision is the only realistic option Ministers with spines and good briefings should not be troubled by this at all.

Richard of York

@Andy Pandy
Moved and settled in thanks.
weather is great and I am off to buy a sail boat this afternoon.....will keep posting and make sure you get regular updates. Oh and that silly hat and stripey outfit is a bit dated now don't you think?

RichardH

Richard of York:

I think you're a stop nearer to Barking.
You're a Dagenham Dock

Cogito Ergosum

Surely all that is needed is a standard memo as follows.

It could be argued that these measures will be bad for coloured people, women, or those with handicaps. It could also be argued that these measures will be good for ... Finally, it could be argued that all these arguments are fatuous.

EyeSee

Ah, government by the clinically insane -how we will miss it. It is Absolutism I tell ye and we should deal with it in the same way we did when James II tried it (although skip the Dutchman bit).

Chuck Unsworth

@ RoY

"will keep posting and make sure you get regular updates."

Is that really necessary? I guess most here will get along just fine without you - it'll be plain sailing, but whatever floats your boat. Try sailing Due East - out past Nassau.

AF

Dick of Dork.
Mirror dinghy?

H

You are mistaken in saying that the Equalities Act covers the budget. At least to the extant that the budget is implemented via the Finance Act, it cannot be subject to judicial review; the courts have no jurisdiction over proceedings in parliament. The Equalities Act does apply, however, to decisions made by ministers, officials and public officials and, to the extent that the budget is implemented via ministerial fiat rather than legislation, it could be caught.

John McEvoy

Who sewed (sic) the landmines, Fraser? The W.I.?

John Richardson

Good point 'H' @ 5:42pm,
but aren't you eventually suggesting the Courts CAN actually challenge Parliament on this issue ?

--------------------------------------------

I blogged ages ago on 'The Wall' that the UCHR would make real 'Welfare Reform' impossible. That there was actually no intention of honestly reforming wealth redistribution via welfare anyway....
...but they don't listen to me...nobody ever listens...

Richard of York

@AF
no it's an Ocean 54 Bermudan sloop going cheap $300,000 bargain.

Richard of York

@Chuck
Well I guess geography is not your strong point....due West I think you mean.

paulg

Denis c, this Bill represents politically motivated impositions on the law, it does not represent natural justice as we understand it.

It is unethical.

Harriet half wittesen is imposing her on conceptual interpretation of rights, on a sovereign institution, right that can fundamentally undermine the rights of other citizens. This is fundamentally wrong in a liberal democracy.

This is one conservative who is absolutely opposed to this and the main reason why we supported a conservative government: is to scrap it in entirety.

Hugo Guthrie

The duty on public bodies, including ministers, to carry out equality impact assessments for race, gender and disability equalities had been in law for several years.

The Equalities Act 2010 merely simplifies the system. There is loads of good practice and experience about this. The process is meant to ensure that when a policy or service is being proposed, there has been a study of its likely impact on people covered by the legislation. It isn't hard to do or costly, and it often brings up useful information that can lead to better policy making and more effective and efficient services - in other words, better value for money.

It is incredible that the Treasury civil servants did not advise the Chancellor about this, or that they did and he didn't take them seriously.

There is plenty of guidance about all this on the website of the Equality & Human Rights Commission.

tb

Wow, that sounds like an impressive boat.

Maybe mastercard should do an advert about your flash internet life?

Marcher Baron

I thought we were promised a bonfire of the inanities? Time to use the Equality Act as a firelighter.

TGF UKIP

The Cameron Tories shouldn't be afforded an ounce of sympathy on this. So jealous were Dave & Co of their "progressive" PC credentials that no proper parliamentary and media fight was mounted against this nonsense and similarly so fearful are they still of taking on Labour/Guardian/BBC that one of May's early pronouncements was that she would be proceeding with the implementation of the Act.

Now by failing to act early and decisively they will be on the back foot and be viewed as reacting negatively and defensively.

So much for all your hero worship, Fraser.

Paul Macey

Mr Nelson, your misleading article displays a shameful lack of knowledge about the Equalities Act. Truly lazy journalism. The Act and the public duty to impact assess services/policies as a tool to tackle discrimination has been in existence for over a decade ..in part a response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Your call to have it repealed is shameful and the Government's failure to carry out its legal duty and displays its real position regarding fairness for all and respect for the law.

cssmith

I am really pleased with this new law as it might serve to remind politicians of all hues that it is their duty to consider their policies with more rigour.

Ubique and don't you bloody forget it

As an ex Sapper please let me conclude this futile argument once and for all. The verb generally used by military professionals to describe the tactical emplacement of landmines is to lay; not sow or sew.
Say after me:
I lay a mine
You lay a mine
She lays a mine
We lay mines
You lay mines
They lay mines
(Anti-Vehicle of course - Anti-Personnel mines, like pistols in Britain, are only allowed to be used by the enemy).

And who the hell is this IFS bloke, is he related to IDS? Politics is so confusing.

AndyLeeds

The Act ought to be repealed. But until it is there is a simple solution. Merely add a clause to every bill that the Equalities Act does not apply to any provision contained within the bill. What Parliament granted, it can ungrant.

St Bruno

While searching for my ancestors on the following link I came across some slang which I found amusing, only three are put here. Then I did my daily round of the blogs and found the reference to land mines again, hence, slightly off topic.

http://www.cwgc.org/northafrica/default.asp
1. Debollicker: a small British anti-personnel mine which fired a bullet upwards when trodden upon
2. Fatarsing around: driving aimlessly around or lost in the desert
And last but meant in the best possible taste:
3. Burkha: a brothel. The Sharia el Burka was a notorious street at the center of Cairo’s red-light district. Non-PC for today’s sensitive minority I admit but the troops and my ancestors in the North African desert had a war to fight and slang was the order of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
One juicy quote to be going on with: Polly Toynbee, 'Harman's law is Labour's biggest idea for 11 years-Guardian. Wow, that’s alright then! If that’s the best they can do, number two above should apply!

Just my two penny-worth.
I think the all powerful Mr Cameron will have some difficulty binning this piece of proposed legislation. When I first read the blog and read the Wikipedia article I could smell the EU coming across quite strongly. If this is correct will we have the first conflict of interest between the British Coalition Government and the EU law makers? I do hope so. I fear the binning will end up as only slight tinkering to save face when it all becomes far too taxing. Number one above should do nicely!
One would hope that the end of the Equalities Act 2010 would see the demise of the Equality & Human Rights Commission, that should save a few bob.

daniel maris

I'd query the constitutionality of this law.

What if the Tories responded with a law that said "all future government actions must be reviewed to show that increase business efficiency and hence the total sum of wealth within the country". It would be as ridiculous an attempt to bind a future parliament as was this legislation. It should simply be ignored as unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, just as a law requiring people to be disloyal to the monarch would be unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Verity

Vulture, way far above, is correct.

Davie Dimīs FIRST ACT should have been the Grand Repeal Act. But he couldn't do it because, by standing up for our democracy and democratic way of life, he'd have soiled himself in his home ... the socialist party. The party of Bertrand Russell, Cherie Blair and all the other traitors.

All he had to do to bring the Tory voters back in and assure his majority in the next election, was to destroy every single fascist piece of legislation brought in by his hero Blair, and Brown, and the slithy toves slithering around their ankles.

He didn't do it.

That he has been sailing under phony colours should be evident by now to even really stupid people, many of whom have the vote. He backs the party of welfare and "feelings", not the party of self-help and industriousness.

As an aside, I wonder how many OEs found themselves able to put an x after his name. And how many didn't go to the polling station...

AF

Dick of Dork,
l imagine there's only one thing you could do single handed,and sailing a 54ft sloop is not one of them,and l fail to see how you would muster a crew.

Clear Memories

If there's one quango that should have gone already, it's Phillips' HREC and if Cameron doesn't scrap these anti-white bigots, then he deserves everything he gets.

Phillips is using our tax money to persecute us. We don't need him, we don't need his opinions. Scrap his power base and then sling his bigotted arse out of the UK. I'm sure the Obamomarxist muslim could find a home for this nasty Anglo-Saxon hating racist.

Officialview

A point of information. The Equality Act 2010 has not yet come into force, so (a) you can't repeal it, you can simply stop it taking effect and (b) if you do stop it taking effect this doesn't change anything in the context of the Budget row, because the equality assessments all exist under earlier legislation (Disability Discrimination Act, Race Relations Act etc). So all that would have to come out as well.

Chuck Unsworth

Richard of York

My navigation is just fine - you really haven't got it, have you? You're going to find it quite hard to sail West from the Florida Atlantic coast. But perhaps you intended to sail from the West Coast across the Gulf to visit Verity.

Look at the map. Set sail out of Miami, past Nassau like I said, due East. Maybe we'll hear from you in due course.

Richard of York

Chuckie boy
There is no possible reason on this earth I would want to visit Verity not without a full set of vacinations and a tame rat catcher in tow.
And East is still wrong but hey I could do the full circle.

Frederick Lind

Dear editors,
Please learn the difference between "sew" and "sow." It may well be the case that, metaphorically speaking, Labour "sowed" many land mines into the political terrain. Even metaphorically, it would be odd to say they "sewed" them there.

Major Plonquer 1

'You are seriously Upton Park.
In case you don't know thats two stops away from Barking.'

Richard of York, please stop plagiarising my posts.

Like all Socialists you rely on someone else to be your benefactor. In economic terms that means you destroy the wealth created by the entrepreneur. In comedic terms you rip off the Major.

Cut it out.