Friday, December 31, 2004
One thing I'm continuinaly struck by is the extent to which modern Liberalism exists in the abstract. Large numbers of L3 seem unable to process information at anything other than the most detatched level. They're the type of people who when they heard about the Harold Shipman case, their first thought was worry that it would strengthen the case against the NHS. Or, in the case of the tsunami, they worry that US aid may be weakening the UN. Yes, that's the first thing everyone thinks of when they hear about a tidal wave deverstating large parts of south-east Asia - the risk to the UN.
The Cracker Barrell Philosoper is all over this, with a good link explaining just what the UN offers the victims. Now that's moral authority in action!
Excellent article in the Spectator about Nazi Nick's Yorkshire misadventures. The whole thing is well worth reading, but there are a couple of issues Rod Liddle touches on in passing that I think are well worth expanding on. First up there's this:
This programme was shown in July last year and, in a statement following the arrests, West Yorkshire police proudly announced that it had deployed a team of officers on the case ‘five days a week, ten hours a day’ ever since. Now at this point in the article, a really good journalist would tell you how big that team of policemen was. And how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer. And also cross-referenced it with how many burglaries, muggings, etc., had been carried out in the West Yorkshire area from July to 12 December. Especially unsolved ones. But I haven’t been able to find that stuff out: the police won’t tell me.This is increasingly true these days - public bodies telling the public to shove it. Given the pressure on business to be more transparent, we may know more about how BP operates than the average police force. Yet journalists, with honourable exceptions such as the above, raise nary a peep. They'll go to court to assert their right to tell the public about bonking goalies, while passing on verbatim Islamic propagancda is apparently a vital function of a free press, but reporting what public servants do with all that money ? Pssss... they've got shagging strikers to cover.
Of course, the press never were big on principle, but check this out:
Curious to find out a little more about the mechanics behind the arrest of Mr Griffin, I spoke to the magistrate who signed the warrant for his arrest. That’s Mrs Valerie Parnham, who lives near Bradford.Their Lordships can't hardly get out of bed without giving a long speech about the sanctity of the judicary. Well, here's a judge who admits to feeling under pressure following a decision. Can we be sure that this pressure only occured after the decision was made ? How does judical independance stand now with a judge admitting to feeling intimidated ?
A man answered the telephone. I told him I was a journalist and wanted to speak to Mrs Parnham. He shouted down the hallway: ‘Valerie? VALERIE? I told you this would happen!’
Then a timorous Mrs Parnham came on the telephone. ‘I can’t say anything about this. I could get into trouble.’
Well, I just wanted to know if you were happy to sign the arrest warrant, I said, as plaintively as possible.
‘(Long pause) I can’t say anything about this. I’m sorry.’
Similarly, what of the old cliche about justice needing not only to be done, but seen to be done ? An arrest warrant has been produced with even the woman who signed it refusing to discuss it, so where are their Lordships now ?
It's only a couple of weeks since Lord Hoffman became the toast of the chattering classes for claiming that the government's refusal to grant Access All Areas passes to members of the Islamic Popular Front of Egypt was more of a threat than Islamic terrorism. Well, if the principles of British law are so precious as to require that we allow Khalal D'infidels to enter the country, score full welfare benefits and a taxpayer-rented house next to a synagogue, they surely must have something to say about people being arrested on nonsensical charges. Where are the ringing declarations in this case ? Or, if judges don't have a problem with government steamrollering through cases against people who aren't PC enough, why exactly should we take them seriously on any question of principle ?
I don't know what's most characteristic of the Nu Police in the latest goings on at Canning Place, as pointed out by PC DC. Is it the fact that Merseyside Police ("Cops for hire or rent") have had the bright idea of forming a specialist squad to target criminals (as opposed to who ? Mimes ?), or is it that this idea appears to be such a hot potato that they've got to try and hide it under some truly Sir Humphreyesque English ?
As for the name, well, it's as good a metaphor as any for modern policing.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
December 25, 2004. An earthquake measuring 9.0 on the richter scale strikes deep in the Indian ocean, moving the entire island of Sumatra 100 feet southwest and sending 50' tidal waves crashing into Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Thousands of muslims die in Indonesia alone, saving Bush the trouble of bombing them. Thousands more perish as waves hit the poor fishing villages of Tamil, where dwell the peaceloving Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In the wake of the disaster, thousands of Christian missionaries posing as "relief workers" descend upon South Asia to convert the survivors. Bush and his cronies, in a thinly-veiled effort to hide their involvement in the catastrophe, pledge over $15,000,000 in aid.
The always interesting Majority Rights brings us news of the latest developments in the culture wars. Schools are being 'encouraged' - as a precursor to 'the voluntary option has failed' no doubt - to promote Gay Pride. Incidentally, that's all schools - so now nursery schools will be forced to promote the gay agenda. Hey - is it just me, or does it imply a certain self-awareness amongst the L3 of how awful their doctrines are, when they seem obsessed with trying to indoctrinate people earlier and earlier. Bad enough though it is that six year olds are being taught about felching, rimming and golden showers, note too that special schools have also been targeted. Don't these people think that the staff have better things to do ?
No, they don't. It is entirely characteristic of both the narcissism and the arrogance of these loons that they really don't believe that even people dealing with seriously disabled kids should be allowed to get on with their jobs without having to prostrate themselves at the altar of gay self-aggrandisement.
Needless to say, the excuse is what it always is - yep, 'homophobia'. Speaking personally, I remember back in the day when you often couldn't get across the playground for all the bodies of dead La-Las, cruelly murdered on the way to Maths. As ever though, the Pink Posse is too busy goose-stepping around to get their story straight. In fact, the feline exits the bag spectacularly at one point. Recall that gay activists have always tried to portray their situation as being roughly equivalent to that of blacks in Alabama in the 1950s (funnily enough, never while blacks are around) with their critics being equivalent to the KKK, mindless bigots persecuting the innocent merely because they're different. The implication is that homosexuality is a mere quirk, part of life's rich tapestry and the Gay Right's agenda is just an unobjectionable attempt to clamp down on stupid prejudice, to which those of us on the Right reply 'come off it!'. From the start, the Gay Rights mafia has had an agenda to both promote a very specific lifestyle and to delegitimise criticism of that lifestyle. To return to their own metaphor, it's as if someone tried to claim critics of the Yardies must be motivated by racism. These people have been quite successful pushing that line, so it may be over-confidence that led them to include in these new guidelines the suggestion that schools should invite in gay visitors and speakers to act as ‘sexual minority role models’. Ah, huh. Sure sounds like a matter of lifestyle to me. After all, to take their own rhetoric at face value, a bloke may be born gay but it's just a quirk so why does he need role models, if not to give him something to, well, model himself on ?
Gay Rights activists were only transiently, if ever, concerned with lynch mobs prowling the streets in search of hairdressers. From the start, the idea was to promote a specific lifestyle. Never mind that this lifestyle is at odds not only with that of the vast majority of the population, but also that of a good many of the people they claim to represent. Could anyone, outside the Pink Wedge, find common ground between Freddie Mercury and Nigel Hawthorne ? More to the point, there's no doubt who's lifestyle these people aspire too. Yet, despite promoting a way of life which most people reject, these people have managed to infiltrate themselves into the education system to such a degree that not only do they get public money to try and indoctrinate kids barely out of nappies, but they are allowed to harass those who don't drink the Kool Aid.
You'd think someone would have said something. Wait….now I remember. We did say something., in fact there was even a law passed to prevent this very issue. When clause 28 was repealed, Social Conservatives across the country predicted exactly this sort of thing, and were told at great length what a bunch of brain dead Nazi morons we were. Our alleged intellectual betters amongst both Tory modernisers and Libertarians rolled their eyes and told us that government couldn't dictate morality, they wanted government out of the bedroom and people had to be free to live their own lives and blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before, no doubt. Well, here we are today. Those naughty old Social Cons turned out to be bang on, after all.
So, here's where we are today. Youngsters whose parents are attempting to bring them up in accordance with any of the major religions are now to be subject to disciplinary measures in school. Money is being coercively extracted from nurses in Nottingham and security guards in Scunthorpe to pay for activists to talk dirty to six year olds. . Teachers are to record the names of pupils expressing the wrong opinions. This is freedom ? Where stands the supposed Libertarian objective of limited government now ? What form of Conservatism is it which supports the overt harassment of the religious and forced endorsement of particular ideologies ?
Doubtless, we'll soon be hearing from Libertarians why promoting leather biker wear is a core government activity, just as Tory modernisers will be telling us all that there is no freedom more basic than freedom from dissenting views. Still, it's to be hoped some of them have absorbed the more general lesson: the L3 mean what they say, they have set out their agenda and the Social Conservatives have set out ours, choose whichever you want, but don't try claiming that you didn't know that Kool Aid can give you one Hell of a hangover..
Monday, December 27, 2004
Ah yes, Christmas: traditional season of goodwill and bad news burying:
THE Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine “family friendly” representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran.Well, let's not go over the top with that last little bit. The breakthrough was when the Government decided not to prosecute these bigamists in the first place. After all, given that the DSS pays out welfare benefits to them on the basis of marriage, it can't hardly be argued that the government doesn't know what's going on. So this latest outrage is just another attempt to chip away at the secular basis of British law.
Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. The Revenue has been asked to relax this so that a husband’s estate can be divided tax-free between several wives.
The move is bound to create controversy if it leads to a change in the rules. It is seen as a breakthrough by Muslim leaders who have been campaigning to incorporate sharia into British domestic law.
Sadiq Khan, a leading Muslim politician, said: “I am pleased to see the Inland Revenue applying common sense to the application of Islamic law on uncontroversial matters such as inheritance.No, it's getting pretty thick right now, so I'm hope the exploding classes won't be offended if I take their assurances about not aiming at full sharia with a large pinch of salt.
“There are some other uncontroversial areas of Islam law which could easily be applied to the legal system we have in the UK.”
He insisted there was no question of pressing for the introduction of sharia’s criminal code “where people are flogged or have their hands chopped off”. He said: “This is not the thin edge of the wedge.”
Here's the bottom line: the idea of incorporating sharia into British law makes about as much sense as Kosher black pudding. There are the obvious diffrences, for example the concept of equality under the law is central to our legal system, while sharia overtly discriminates against women and infidels. Equally, British law is passed by a democratically elected parliament and refined by the judicary, while sharia - supposedly - sprung fully formed from the mouth of Allah, perfect and immutable, about 1400 years ago, and so on... But this all avoids the central issue. Islamic law can't be incorporated into British law because Islam doesn't recognise British law. Islam is the law. Secular law is a factor to be worked around or with on a purely tactical basis until sharia can be imposed on Britain.
There it is right there in the article. This is just another step towards bringing Britain into the Dar Al Islam. No doubt, some L3 will regard this latest move as a fair attempt to meet Islam's 'last territorial demand', to coin a phrase. Well, this is about as likely to be successful as Munich, and for the same reasons.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
You can always rely on Channel Four. These people really are the poster boys for Liberal Tourette's Syndrome. Other folk - the Beeb for one - can at least simulate normality when tactically necessary, but with C4 they just can't help themselves. Take the question of Christianity. Everyone knows the Left hates it, but try getting them to admit it. OTOH, you just know C4 can't let Christmas pass without unleashing its inner Linda Blair. Yes indeed - at 20:30 on Dec 25 itself, C4 will screen a program called 'Who really wrote the Bible' ? I mean, really. Yes, the exact provenance of the Bible is a subject worth discussing, but choosing that date to air the show is just an delibrate attempt to offend.
As it happens, the revelations themselves are asinine. Not for the first time, C4's revelations turn out to include nothing that anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the field in question didn't know anyway. C4 expects us to be shocked by the idea that the New Testament isn't a contemporaneous report. So the gospels aren't admissible in court ? Also, Church doctrine doesn't necessarily always reflect the contents of the Bible - although if people making bizarre interpretations of original texts offends Liberals so much, why aren't they protesting outside the High Court ?
Based on the trailers, there's little reason to suspect that C4 will actually be offering anything particularly enlightening - all of which just supports the suspicion that this program is being produced for no better reason than that Liberals enjoy beasting Christians. No surprise there, but the real question d'jour is this: if some nutball decides to cap a C4 scheduler, will Fiona Mactaggart be sure to point out that it's actually a good thing in the long-term ?
Or, to put it another way, how to go from a rag-tag bunch of unhinged idiots to a sinister conspiracy to pervert democracy. But, for now, sit back and enjoy the idea of Nu Lab's house journal coming out against excessive marketing in politics.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
JohnJo has set us his 1952 Committee - bloggers who refuse to vote Conservative because of the Party's support for Walking Licences. I can well understand that, but what I can't understand is why anyone would see this as a reason for voting Lib Dem.
About the only evidence in favour of ID cards as a weapon against terrorism is that the Treason Party opposes them. Nevertheless, as Lib Dem Watch reminds us, t'was not always so. I'm sure the Lib Dems actually support the principle of ID cards, it's just that they're uncomfortable with the idea of trying to defeat terrorists and criminals. If the cards were being brought in to nail Christians or entrepreneurs, then I'm sure the Lib Dems would be all for them.
As it is, Lib Dem opposition is something of a mixed blessing. The Lib Dems think we don't need ID cards to win the war ? Well, yeah, but they don't think we need to fight in the first place. A party whose policy boils down to 'Surrender Now!' is not necessarily the best ally for those who seek to prove that you can win the war on terror without beasting old ladies who pop out for cat food without carrying their Walking Licence.
Meanwhile, if you really are teed off with the Conservatives support of ID cards, there is a party which opposes them and really is serious about national defence. So if you want to remind the Conservative Party that freedom covers more than mere economics, without giving aid and comfort to the residents of Moonbatia, you know what to do.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
To paraphrase St Ann, it must be great being Liberal. Whereas those of us on the Right wake up in the morning able to predict 90% of the day's event in advance, for the L3 every day is a journey into the unknown. Take the knuckle-dragging Marxist thugs at Searchlight: they've recently made a shocking discovery - the BNP is doing best in traditional Labour areas. What ? You mean Burnley isn't a Conservative stronghold ?
Of course, the Yin to the Yang of Liberal's goldfish memory is their gold star inability to learn from experience. The self-same article accuses Conservative voters of voting BNP as an 'anti-Asian protest vote'. Anti-Asian ? Conservatives have a downer on the Druze ? We terrorise Taoists ? Or possibly - and I know this is a stretch - it's not actual Asians per se that we oppose, it's just that minority of them who are members of a certain Religion of Peace. But the L3 won't admit that. They won't admit that there are legitimate grounds for anyone to oppose the death cult (y'know trivia like murder, slavery and the like). That's your answer right there, the doctrine of the modern Left: people who fly planes into buildings need to be understood while people who vote the wrong way need to be exterminated. Gosh, anyone know why people aren't buying into the L3 version of equality ?
The Left's support for overt discrimination against native Britons is just a symptom of a wider change in the modern Left . Compare and contrast the differing treatment of concerns about phone masts and paedophiles. A bunch of middle-class ecoloons decide to take against phone masts - without, in the technical sense, any actual evidence - but we're all supposed to take it seriously. Meanwhile, the chattering classes are outraged that folk on the council estate don't like the way their alleged betters have not only conspired to allow child molesters to infiltrate their estates, but they then deny parents the right to know if the bloke next door is a convicted killer. There's no junk science required here. WARNING! - 100% of child molestation is carried out by paedophiles. Even the psychodrivelers - the blokes who make a life and a living out of the alleged rehabilitation industry - will admit two things: paedophiles usually offend again, and when they do they usually escalate the severity of the offence.
What is true of paedophilia is true of crime generally. The Left is unable to process crime as anything other than a purely abstract phenomenon. That real people are having their lives destroyed by crime - both literally and figuratively - doesn't feature on their radar. Ditto education. Bright kids with massive potential are being screwed over almost from birth because the local schools are awful. The Left's response is to strangle school choice even further - while actual Leftists pull strings for their kids, hire tutors or go private. Und so weiter….
A man from Mars would conclude that, quite simply, modern Liberals hate the working man. The non-working man they love. Provided he's prepared to be a good Underclasser, they'll go the extra mile for him, but woe betide any bloke from Burnley who wants something better for himself. For proof of that look no further than Nu Lab's enemies list: farmers (of course), gun owners (always), truckers…..Truckers ? No matter how much Kool Aid you've drank, there's no way a guy who works sixty hours a week driving from Glasgow to Milan and back counts as a bloated plutocrat, yet the mere thought of men with HGV licences turns the L3 purple with rage.
So ordinary, decent working folk are abandoning the party of scumbag lawyers, prancing thespians, thuggish union bosses and lardarsed bureaucrats. Kein scheisse, Herr Einstein. People are starting to realise that if they want to get anywhere in life, they're not going to get any help from a group of people who think everywhere outside the M25 is the Cursed Earth. That's a failure of Nu Lab - albeit a failure of their ability to keep fooling folk. But it's also a failure for the Conservative Party. There was a time when people didn't have to flock to a bunch of Neanderthals to protest L3 scumbaggery, when the Conservative Party provided a natural home for those who wanted to escape socialism's big plantation. Of course, that was under the woman who got fired because she was an embarrasment.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
In a stunning rebuttal to those who suggest near-monopoly control of Britain's institutions is having a negative effect on Liberal debating skill, Charles Falconer warned that the people who oppose the Human Rights Act support "the legal values of the dark ages". So that's us Conservatives - no longer just Nazis, but also Vikings. Viking Nazis, like in the well-known Wolfgang Peterson film Das Langboot.
Not that anyone would support going back to the dark ages. Just think what that would mean - we'd have a King appointing barely-competent cronies to top jobs and wasting public money on huge vanity projects. Let's hope that never happens. Then again, of all the many things wrong with the dark ages, the lack of town cryers shouting 'Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Hast thou been injured by means of witchcraft ? Call upon Jack D'Weasel and partners this very morn for no win, no levy legal advice!' probably wasn't one of them.
In actuality, the main objection to the Human Rights Act was illustrated perfectly by the self-same conference Fatty was attending in the first place:
A research fellow from the thinktank Frances Butler said: "It's hardly known that the Human Rights Act can be applied outside the courtroom to help vulnerable and socially excluded people. Voluntary organisations are well placed to seek changes from public authorities on behalf of vulnerable people without necessarily having to go to court.
The Human Rights Act is a misnomer - it should be the Human Entitlements Act. You might be entitled to something, under some arrangement or other, but to assert a fundamental 'right' to coerce someone else into buying you something is to destroy the whole meaning of the word. Or to put it another way, the right to press freedom doesn't mean the newsagent has to pay for your newspaper.
The HRA is an attempt to outflank democracy. There are a whole raft of policies the L3 support but know they would never be able to achieve via the ballot box. By asserting these things as rights, the Left manages to move the issue under the aegis of, reliably Liberal, judges. PC victim groups get to assert their supply of free money as a right, while those less favoured get to pay for it.
Of course, this sort of thing is hardly limited to the HRA. There is a whole raft of laws which would be radioactive at the ballot box, yet have been foisted on Joe Public by activist judges. Which brings me onto self-defence.
Liberals can have no illusions about public support for the current law, otherwise why else have such Liberal face cards as Sir John 'Sock Puppet' Stevens at the Met and the DPP claimed to have had road to Damascus conversions on this issue. Gosh! The Liberal Establishment aren't a bunch of effete snobs after all.
But wait…. What's this ? Attorney General Goldsmith must not have got the memo. Here he is frankly admitting that HMG's review of the law is a farce:
Goldsmith, the Prime Minister's chief legal adviser, said he was obliged to carry out the review, but remained unconvinced of the need for new legislation.
Newsflash! - member of Liberal Establishment finds that Liberal Establishment approach to home invasions is perfect already. There's a certain irony here, of course. The slightest suggestion that the courts may like to restrict their rulings to stuff that's actually on the statute books, rather than what they think should be, provokes the lawyers into a hissy fit about the sanctity of judicial independence. Similarly, these weasels justify the ever-expanding reach of the courts with a load of sub-Marxian drivel about 'standing up for the little guy', 'protecting people from big corporations' and other emetic phrases. The courts, they scream, provide an independent tribunal where justice can be pursued free of vested interests. Well, there are few corporations or bodies which are richer or more powerful than the legal establishment, yet when questions are raised about whether they are truly serving the public interest their response is to appoint one of their own to oversee the review.
That's the bottom line. Our system of checks and balances is broken. Our hyperactive courts are supposedly checking the power of Parliament, but who checks them ? No one. The power of the courts is growing like turvy and with less oversight than is required for an ordinary citizen to obtain a shotgun licence. We can't do anything about the judges, but we can do something about the people who acted as a deaf-blind watchman while the judges carted away the store. Why do we pay for 650+ MPs when they just sit there like lemons ? Actually, it's because most of them are all in favour of outsourcing imposition of the Liberal agenda, but what of the Conservatives ? Do they really intend that a future Conservative government should acquiesce in a situation in which it is, once again, in office but not in power ? And why exactly would anyone want to vote for them if they did ?
The issue of judicial activism is a perfect litmus test for the modern Conservative Party. As long as they refuse to address this issue, they refuse to seriously confront one of the major - even the major ? - issue which a future Conservative government would face. The Conservatives can babble on all they like about policy, but the refusal to take on these people betrays either a chronic lack of vision or a lack of courage. Either explanation speaks badly of the modern Party.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
The BBC's political bias is proverbial, but equally annoying is the ubiquitous cultural bias, the unthinking regurgitation of the attitudes and prejudices of north London as though they constituted the laws of physics. As far as this form of bias goes, there is no greater exemplar than Jeremy Vine's eponymous show on Radio Two. Five days a week, poor, dumb country bumpkins from small villages such as Leeds and Glasgow have the chance to learn from their betters how to make their hamlets every bit as civilised as Islington.
Take Friday for example: there was a debate on jury service. On one side there was a barrister who, staggeringly enough, thought that allowing him and his fellow cultural Marxoids the right to seize formerly free citizens and coerce them into to taking part in bizarre State worship ceremonials was just ducky. On the other side was…. Well, no one actually. Then again, to judge by Jeremy Vine's opening comments, there was nothing worth discussing after all. Apparently, jury service is 'our most important civic duty'. Also, forced labour in the service of the State is a 'vital role'.
Given that opening, you may wonder what they managed to talk about for nearly a hour. Indeed, even Auntie appears to recognised the essential difficulty in holding a debate where all the main points are ruled off limits. While occasional comments from actual, real citizens were allowed into the bubble, the main momentum to the piece was provided by - I kid thee not - an actress reading out what opponents of forced labour might say. Needless to say, a convention of scarecrows features less straw men, but that wasn't the worst part of it. Nope - what really grated was that each straw man was introduced by means of the actress saying 'Why do I have to do jury service [when I might get abducted by killer dwarfs or some such nonsense] ? in such a whiny, teenage brat kind of voice as to suggest that those of us opposed to slavery were only against it because we think that forced adoration of the State is, y'know, kind of a drag, and like we were hoping to go and get our nails done, and it's soooooo boring, dude…… That there is a moral case against the right of the State to seize individuals and force them to take part in ceremonial worship of its own power is apparently inconceivable at the Beeb.
The Beeb might not have allowed dissenting voices, but at least Jegsy was prepared to go for the throat with questions such as 'do you think it is a good system or is it a little cumbersome' ? Can you imagine a Conservative getting that kind of question ? Scratch that - can you imagine an adult getting that question ? Nevertheless, under the pressure of no opposition at all, our barrister friend still managed to collapse into a heap of absurdities.
We were told that the jury system was the 'last protection against an authoritarian state'. Really ? Does Cromwell know that ? To say nothing of Ghandi and George Washington.
Also, forced labour is justifiable because it's important to have a complete 'cross-section of society'. As it happens, in 1987 Lady T won by a landslide. What proportion of judges voted for her ? The legal establishment ain't saying. Apparently, the need for a complete cross-section justifies slavery, but there's no need to go as far as hiring anybody to the right of Tony Blair.
But surely some people just aren't suited for the job ? Ah yes, but a 'jury is often greater than the sum of its parts'. But if that's true of a group of twelve, how much more so for a group of forty million, so how come the legal profession isn't clamouring for more democratic oversight ? How about confirmation hearings for High Court judges, mandatory sentences and the like ? Hey - it would mark a great improvement if these people could just stop with their whining every time the press exposes their latest insane decision. Apparently, random people seized off the street is a fine way to staff a jury, but laws passed by the democratically elected tribunes of the people are mere suggestions. There is no greater proof of the ineffectual nature of the jury system than that this bunch of elitist snobs support it.
The essential snobbery of these people was shown by the truly Antoinettesque approach of said barrister to the question of people who simply can't take time off to take part in their little pantomimes. A dental technician phoned in, he was part of a two man practice that would be unable to operate while he was being forced to attend these stupid ceremonies. Of course, he and his partner would not earn any money during this time - that's bad. Equally, the public would be deprived of the services of a vitally needed dentist - or to put it another way, people in pain were being refused treatment merely to satisfy the megalomania and arrogance of our legal system. Ratboy's answer to that was to claim the victim could apply to defer his service so he could do jury service instead of taking a holiday - the sort of suggestion which when uttered by a CEO to an employee usually results in one of ratboy's colleagues ramming in a £10 million lawsuit. Another listener pointed out that her husband had been forced into bankruptcy by being enslaved by the State. The barrister in question responded that this was 'a tough one' - you are invited to consider the media reaction if a Conservative MP had come out with something so blindingly insensitive.
As ever, the S-Switch was in full operation - the deliberate confusion of the State with society, such that anything which the State needs - or claims to - is by definition good for society at large. History suggests the opposite is more likely to be true. Then again, what can be said about people who can state without any apparent shame that jury service is the 'most important civic duty'. For these people, the Battle of Britain was kind of important, but only in the sense that it offered opportunities for suing on behalf of Luftwaffe pilots shot down without due process.
Then again, let's take these fiends at their word. They claim forced labour is the price of a free society - much as chain smoking is the price of health. Let's go the whole way and adopt the Starship Troopers model: two years military service as the price of citizenship. After all that pious rambling about 'our (ie other peoples) duty to society', doubtless the lawyers will be first into the recruiting office, no ? Or at least, given that lawyers find nothing strange even in members of our volunteer military suddenly claiming to be pacifists when the shooting starts, allow those of us who think the courts need reforming with a flame-thrower to register for our own form of conscientious objector status.
The reason why these people feel the need to babble on about 'service' - even while bending over backwards to shaft those who really do serve - is to distract from the threadbare nature of the arguments for jury service. Hypocritical moralising drivel aside, there are really only two excuses for it. One is the belief that a representative sample of slaves will serve better than a group made up of volunteers. Or to put it another way, the State believes that no one, on an island of sixty million, with an IQ above fifty, would ever want to support our court system - which clearly means that there's a problem with everyone else in the country. Funnily enough, there is an organisation that is staffed entirely by volunteers, and socialists do indeed claim that it's full of the dregs of society, so that's what we're risking: a court system that only works as well as the British Army. Quelle horror!
The other argument is even stranger. The idea is that the jury acts as a brake on bad laws. Jurors supposedly refuse to convict and the law is subsequently overturned. The obvious flaw in this cunning plan is that juries can just as easily strengthen bad laws by convicting as vice versa (see Martin, Anthony for further details). Leaving aside that, isn't there something fundamentally bizarre about all this ? Some of the most elitist trash in the country go all misty-eyed at the thought of Joe Public striking down laws ? No, the whole thing is profoundly undemocratic. The best defence against bad law is an alert and active legislature - the very thing the legal establishment fears most. Bad laws should be ruthlessly enforced - let the error of those laws be seen clearly and unequivocally.
Still, the idea of jurors ignoring the law of the land does hint at one of the real reasons why lawyers really support the jury system, it's the random element. Try this little thought experiment: the Truthomatic 2010 system is invented, providing 100% accurate judgements - in this scenario, what role is there for lawyers ? Nada - the whole point of hiring a lawyer is to tilt the system your way. As long as the jury stem exists, they'll be hope for even the most blatant of felons (and fear for the most honest of citizens).
The other reason though is even more sinister. Quite simply, the coercion of individual citizens into performing roles in legal ceremonies is a blatant exercise in judicial supremacism. The seizure of innocent citizens to serve at the behest of the judiciary is an exercise in ramming home the point as to who really runs Britain. Judges will whine about terrorists being held in Gitmo while waxing lyrical of their own ability to seize citizens for their own needs, with no appeal, accountability or anything else these people claim to find so vital when dealing with paedophiles.
To return to an earlier point, what of the Army ? One of the arguments for a volunteer army is that it acts as a brake on the excesses of foreign policy. A ready supply of slave soldiers would make it all too easy for government to ignore the consequences of fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons (e.g. Viet Nam). The analogy is obvious. Is it any surprise that the arm of government that jealously protects it's ability to abduct members of the public is also the one that is the most corrupt, the most worthless and the most conspicuously contemptible of the self-same public ?
At best, the jury system is an inadequate and untrustworthy safeguard against the excesses of government. More commonly, the jurors simply act to conceal just how little input the public has into the judicial system. The Hell with it all. There's plenty wrong with the judicial system (in much the same way that the Sun is somewhat hot), but the first step to fixing it is easy enough. Let's not pretend that the jury system is anything other than a farce. Let these scum know they can - for now - seize citizens, but the citizens themselves at least have no illusions about what's happening. We should be prepared to say it out loud: if you're an ordinary, decent member of the public, then the courts are the enemy.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
The annoying thing about Liberals is…
No, wait, everything's annoying about the L3. Nevertheless, one of the most annoying things is their habit of tormenting kittens while loudly proclaiming that they're taming lions - perfectly exemplified by Sock Puppet's latest effusion.
The Filth are under pressure. For some reason, the yuppie scum have stopped proclaiming that crime is an invention of the tabloids. Meanwhile, the Bill are under pressure for their own, unique, interpretation of reasonable force. There's an election coming up and Nu Lab's strategy is to pretend to be 'tough on crime' - to coin a phrase. Against this background, Sir John Stevens calling for the law to give more rights to householders is about as daring as criticising Dubya at the Guardian Winterval Party - and that's even without taking into account the fact he's retiring anyway.
It is the perfect metaphor for Sock Puppet's career that even while attempting such a blatantly tactical manoeuvre as this, the changes he advocates are so limited as to be pointless. Here's the nub of it:
My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.'Necessary' rather than 'reasonable'. Not exactly the latter day equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. Even Sock Puppet can't hide the basic problem with that approach:
The test at the moment is that you use reasonable force in the circumstances. You do not use excessiveness."Indeed. 'reasonable force' wouldn't be so bad if it was interpreted, well, reasonably. On the contrary, since virtually the day the statute passed, the legal establishment has been tightening the ratchet until now where we've reached the point that failure to offer intruders a range of beverages and a light snack constitutes a criminal offence.
He said that was too imprecise for people to consider in extreme circumstances, when they needed to be clear about their legal rights.
Yes, it would be a good thing if an incoming Conservative government restored the right of citizens to defend themselves against members of the Criminal Community, but it would be little more than a gesture without a determined effort to root out the type of Neo-Marxist culture warriors perfectly exemplified by Sock Puppet.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
The prohibitionists have won a significant victory recently. Not only that but it's a textbook example of how these people argue. What's happened is best summed up in the quote below:
Local councils take responsibility for licensing from February and are keen to introduce "saturation zones" in areas that are already packed with bars and blighted by trouble...Yes, indeed. One objection. It's a fanatics charter. But even if it were not so ludicrously unbalanced, it would still be objectionable, both practically and morally. If we believe in the free market, then we believe people have the right to trade. To announce that this right exists at the whim of politicians is to announce that it's no kind of right at all.
Within a saturation zone, no licence will be granted unless the applicant can prove that they will not contribute to the violence blighting many city centres.
One objection, from the public or the police, would be enough for a refusal.
As for the practical objections, this kind of system exists in Sydney and it has produced all the effects basic theory would lead you to expect. Artificially restricting the supply of something far below demand simply means two things: the price will shoot up and consequently, once obtained, the resource must be ruthlessly exploited. So expect to see the landlord of the Red Lion sell out to the big pub chains. Or to put it another way, this legislation will see the market tilt even further towards exactly those 'drinking factory' establishments where trouble is most likely.
But that's not what really annoys me. Look at the headline and text of the story that quote came from. The word 'implied' is not strong enough to describe the suggestion here that drinking and violence are inevitably linked, as though it's an outrageous demand for people to be expected to have more than two drinks in the same week without glassing someone.
No wonder the prohibs are in the ascendancy right now. Their rantings mesh perfectly with modern Liberalism: the demon drink climbs out of the bottle, hurls itself down someone's throat and forces - forces! - them to give someone a good kicking. The L3 were never big ones for personal responsibility anyway, even without considering the embarrassing fact that many more plausible causes for the current wave of urban chaos trace back to policies vigorously advocated by the L3.
Not only does the demon drink make a good scapegoat for personal failings, it also takes the rap for corporate ones. As if to prove the hypothesis of a direct correlation between how awful a public service is at its real job, and the readiness of its top brass to pontificate on side-issues, here's Steve 'Gunsmoke' Green, the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire and the chief member on licensing for the Association of Chief Police Officers:
We are in favour of saturation zones as I am not satisfied that the industry will restrain itself, because its intention is to make a profit.Is there no end to this evil ? The brewers are giving the public what they want and getting paid for it. How do they sleep at night ? Ol' Gunsmoke may not be able to do anything about Nottingham's high-velocity lead pollution, but he's sure got whining about the demon drink off to a fine art.
But this is the genius of the prohibs position. On the one hand, just as the anti-smoking fanatics - many of them the same people, of course - had to pull a passively-smoking rabbit out of the hat, so the prohibs have realised that they can't lead the public on a witch hunt against boozers without convincing the sane majority that some blokes down the White Lion constitute a grave threat to all right-thinking people. It works - consider that the article above is from the Telegraph, supposedly a Conservative paper, yet the terminology used seems to border on the hysterical. Too many G & Ts down the nineteenth hole and your family GP will be roaming the streets torching cars.
Yet, amongst the hysteria, there's something fundamentally reassuring about the prohib's position. Let's not worry that our society really is becoming more violent, let's not worry that increasingly large parts of the public think it's OK to behave like animals. Nope - it's all the fault of Scottish & Newcastle and the rest of their fellow low-lifes. They make people put shop windows through. Let's not blame the criminals. They're victims too. They need lurrrrve, and a big hug, and a ….
No, enough already. Let's hear no more about the epidemic of 'binge drinking'. Contrary to enemy propaganda, there was never a time when working men went out for a night and returned home after two lager shandys. The story of Britain is a story of collective drunkenness. We could have stayed sober, we could have built the kind of exemplary society now to be found in Iran, but we didn't. We got hammered, but never in their most drunken moments did our ancestors think that downing a few pints was a reasonable excuse for getting together with six mates and kicking some guy to death. Now, it appears, we increasingly do. Yet, staggeringly, violence has gone through the roof. Who'd have thunk it ?
Monday, November 29, 2004
School Exam:This guy was forced out and branded a nutball by the educational establshment. Let's see if Joe Public feels the same way (and if he does make a bundle, are any of his critics going to lose their jobs ?).
Classy:There's a natural tendency to feel sympatheric to those who've lost children - but some don't half push it.
Obvious:Our alleged intellectual elite are surprised to find that detailing a geologist to talk to a candidate for thirty minutes is a lousy way to spot talent. To which I'd only add that it also gives an advantage to those whose backgrounds has equipped them with an excess of confidence and social skills over those from more humble origins, who may well be more talented.
If only there was some kind of objective measure of ability....
Outrageous:Labour MP Chris Bryant claims there were racist and homophobic taunts at a pro-hunting demonstration even though no one else supports his claim. You might think unsubstansiated claims from a partisan hack might be taken with a pinch of salt, but the World's Greatest Broadcaster thinks differently.
Predictable:Nu Lab celebrate the upcoming Freedom of Information Act as only they know how.
So, it's official: even the NYT can't hide the fact that Oliver Stone's Alexander is the worst film ever made. It's still a shock to the system for those of us who recall how big Oliver Stone was in the 80s, to see how utterly he's self-destructed. Of course, where Oliver Stone is concerned, the 90s onwards were just one big death spiral. Nevertheless, it is something of a shock to see how badly he's handled a project potentially replete with important themes: the clash of civilisations, the border between firm leadership and despotism, the attempts by the Greeks to remake the Middle East..... Yet, Stone passes them all by in favour of so radical gay posturing.
Who does he think he is ? The Conservative Party ?
How's this for a war cry ?
The Tories would not push ahead with introducing identity cards if elected, the shadow home secretary has suggested.
"England really hopes every man will give it a go."
David Davis said it was unlikely ID cards would feature on his party's manifesto if an election was called before government plans became law.
"I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I'm quite a bit stronger than you think."
On the day before the ID card bill is published, Mr Davis told Sky News he had serious misgivings about the plans and would scrutinise them carefully.
"They have sowed the wind, and they will be in for quite a bit of bad weather themselves."
The state wants to stamp free citizens like cattle, making free movement dependant on the whim of the state, and the Conservatives won't push ahead with it.
Gosh, Dave, do you think you're going a little too far ? You won't be able to go for a walk in the park without being interrogated by some knuckle-dragging government thugs, and David Davies has serious misgivings. Wait until they reveal the 'Summary Execution Act (2006)' - we might even get a 'deeply concerned'.
Honestly, they are quite useless. So that's really the question d'jour. What reason does anyone have to support the Conservative Party ? I mean, positive reasons to really support the party - 'the other lot are worse' doesn't count. I'm talking real, 100%, 'that's a great idea' policies.
Are there any ?
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Conservative bloggers are often accused of being obsessed with a certain Shepherd's Bush pro-terrorist lobbying group. Liberals put on their oh-so-reasonable act and enquire why one media organisation sends us so reliably ballistic. One answer is simply this: The Indie might be horrible, but at least you can read a copy of Right-Wing Maniac Monthly without having to give Robert Fisk a fiver. So yes, the licence fee does grate. But even that's not all of it.
In an excellent article in the American Spectator, Lawrence Henry points out that even in America - home of Rush, Fox et al - the news agenda is still massively influenced by the legacy media. That's why the BBC matters. If journalism is the first draft of history, then the BBC's output sets the frame of reference. It's no exaggeration to say that the Beeb acts as a gatekeeper, determining which stories are the scandal d'jour and which are left by the wayside. That's why BBC bias matters - not only the outright distortions the BBC airs, but also the way it can hype a non-story that suits its agenda (Jenin!) or strangle one that doesn't (Ivory Coast). As long as we have a government-coddled elephantine media organisation in existence, it will be able to distort the news agenda to suit its own ideology.
In a stunning rebuttal to the image of Conservative intellectuals as a bunch of out-of-touch, Metropolitan elitists, the Speccie exclusively reveals that the Polizei are pondscum. See ? All that time spent at Oxford was worthwhile after all. The Speccie is as yet undecided on the question of whether the Pope really is Catholic, but at least they've got something right.
Not to blow my own trumpet, but some of us have been saying this for years. Meanwhile, it was the Spectator that ran a leader article last month ridiculing S******* for complaining about police misconduct at Hillsborough. Hey - at least Nicky Samengo-Turner is still alive.
You will note, of course, that the Hillsborough Creative Writing and Evidence BBQ Society first convened under You-Know-Who. That's one reason why I'm sceptical about the attempt to lay all the blame on Princess Tony. Yes, Nu Lab has undoubtedly helped to screw things up further, but there are other forces at work.
Equally, the proposed cure for the Police sounds like more of the same. Samengo-Turner, ex-Guards officer that he is, proposes that the Police really need to organised more like the Guards. It's a tempting thought, but it misses the point that the Police have already been developing their own 'officer class' over the past decades, with systems such as the accelerated promotion scheme for graduates and the like. If anything, the development of an managerial elite has been one of the main factors in getting where we are today.
What's happened to the Police is what's happened to Britain writ large. Take the question of morality. Liberals hate the idea of the law being based on morals, yet without that vital compass, what is the law ? Just a set of arbitrary rules. Is it any wonder that we live in an era both of lawlessness and ever-expanding legislation ? Once the law has been hijacked by pressure groups and posturing politicians, who really cares ? Once a police officer could take pride in his job - he understood that there was anarchy and there was the Law. The lawman stood between the predators and the vulnerable, holding the line between the forces of chaos and those of order. Now ? They're just a bunch of hired guns, offering their loyalty to whosoever holds the whip hand today. When an organisation has no morals, why expect moral behaviour from its members ?
Of course, there are plenty of other factors. Take, for example, the politics of envy and petty spite that Labour has done so much to promote. Add in the dumbing down of the education system, with the parallel obsession with building self-esteem even in those with every right to feel like trash. You can even factor in the 1980s obsession with managerialism and efficiency. To the point: if Blair dropped dead tomorrow, that wouldn't be enough to fix the Police.
Yet, saying that the Police are merely an extreme product of our society, does not mean that there are not special problems which affect how we should deal with them. Here's the truth: governments (of whatever stripe) like the idea of well-armed, amoral thugs at their beck and call. So don't expect Michael Howard to save you. Fortunately, being a Conservative, the answer is obvious to me. We don't need government, we can rely on social pressures - in short, we need to bring back the idea of shunning.
What we do need - to coin a phrase - is to 'understand less and condemn more' (if only that guy had become Conservative leader!). Yes, I'm aware that (say) the Chief Superintendent will manage to strong-arm his way into the golf club with a few threats, but that doesn't mean he should be able to find partners. Und so weiter.
So, I suppose I do have to give some credit to The Spectator after all. The more people who know how the Police operate, the closer we are to the day when it is as unacceptable to be a police officer as it is to be a filthographer (As unacceptable ? At least when you order some 'artistic' material, it actually arrives). Or to put it another way - if you're quite happy to associate with a man who arrests people on bogus grounds, then beats them senseless in the back of the van, you can't really complain when you eat a baton.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
So, things are so bad that we need this, so we don't get one of these, except that at the same time the government is doing this.
It's a crisis, a huge crisis. Take a blow torch to the constitution, erect gallows in the town square, send off our elite police anti-terrorist officers to beast the Tristans... no, wait, that's not right. They can't be that s t o o p i d. Really ? Even them ? Admittedly, someone may nuke Leeds, but the real enemy are the toffs.
Is this not the perfect barometer of Nu Lab's unfitness for government ? A single issue which exposes both their obsessive desire to reduce the citizenry to neo-serfdom combined with the myopic inability to consider anything more profound than their own petty hatreds and obsessions. Here, after all, was the party which evaluated the world's worst terrorist attack as a good day to bury bad news. Labour will not make Britain more secure, on the contrary, their inability to consider security as anything other than a useful alibi for the acquisition of ever more power means Britain will continue to be virtually undefended. For all Blair's fancy rhectoric, the reality remains that in time of war, he's sending the terrorist hunters to hide outside Otis Ferry's door.
Monday, November 22, 2004
What did I tell you ? The rewards for those who have mastered the art of drinking are so obvious that even slavering prohibs can no longer deny them:
Alcohol misuse is also 'upmarket' - nearly 50% of upper-middle class and upper-class adults are frequent drinkers, compared to 30% of the rest of the population.
Yes, indeed - you can drink yourself richer. Or to put it another way, failure to plan and implement a personal drinking program means playing Russian roulette with you and your family's finances. Remember - barcadi beats bankruptcy.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
The Spanish have become the latest people to find out that it's easy enough to get the L3 to whisper sweet nothings into your ear, but they won't respect you in the morning. The bull botherors were the toast of Islington when they heroically capitulated to Al-Quaida, to say nothing of their ongoing campaign to free Gibraltar from the Gibraltarians. Suddenly, times have changed - to listen to their current rhetoric, the L3 might not have wanted to invade Iraq, but they're sure up for bombing Barcelona.
A section of the crowd at the Spain-England game abused black players, and that means everyone called Jose is a Nazi ? The Left is so transparent. Every position is based simply on the desire to stick it to western civilisation. When the Spanish bravely surrendered, they became lefty pin-ups. Now, the Spanish find themselves on the side of the vast white, male, hegemony thingy, all bets are off.
The Left always enjoys an opportunity to get giddily self-righteous, and this particular incident fulfils all the standard criteria, namely it allows the L3 to indulge their lynch mob mentality, all the while slapping themselves on the back for bravely coming out against something no one agrees with anyway.
As with all the best Lefty posturing, there's a distinct air of humbuggery about it. Of course, it goes without saying that the Left's exquisite sensitivity for slights to some groups, coexists with near catatonia when even the gravest offences are committed against those groups judged to enemies of the progress. Ditto, only a total fascist would point out a certain contradiction between the Lefty demands that the England team should protest/walk off the pitch/machine gun the Spanish manager etc - combined with the not so subtle implication that failure to do so means they were also guilty - and the Left's raging at anyone who suggests that the Vast Majority of Peace-Loving Muslims might say a few words against the head-choppers. Those are totally different cases.
Nope - the humbuggery is a particularly fine vintage this of all weeks as the Left has spent it getting in touch with its inner Klansman. The BBC don't need a passport to go and hunt racists - they have plenty in house.
I was going to resist commenting on Boris Johnson's descent - gloating is hard to do well - but it so happens that at the self-same time Johnson was going down, across town something else was happening which shows better than Bill from Stratford could, why the Conservative Party deserves to go down the U-bend. Recall that Boris Johnson became a hero to a large part of the Conservative Party for telling blokes like this that they could shove it.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
War has a way of ruthlessly exposing the posturing and pretensions of peacetime, but not everyone recognises that fact. The L3 media are still trying to float the meme that this is 'George W Bush's War on Terror'. Really ? Robert Spencer decided to analyse just where the war was being fought and, wouldch'believe it, it turns out that large parts of the battlefield involve neither Yanks or Zionists. Maybe it something other than the Vast Jewish World Government Conspiracy or American imperialism which is driving the war ?
Monday, November 15, 2004
Laban Tall gives a pointer to another excellent slice of Theodore Dalrymple. By now, everyone knows what to expect. Still, I think he misses an important point in his analysis. Dr Ted rightly blames our alleged cultural elite for its role in the disintegration of British culture. Too true. To take an example at random - suppose you have a guy who cheats on his wife, marries his mistress, cheats on her with a subordinate, pressures the girl to have an abortion, then lies about it to his boss - Tory MP or chav ? Who knows, but he hates Scousers 'cause they ain't got no class.
The thing is though, Hollywood is no paragon of virtue. The US elite is full of examples of sleazy low-life. Who'd have thought that the most significant legacy of the Clinton years would turn out to be changing forever the way we look at cigars ? But large parts of the US remain manifestly unaffected by Liberal lunacy. How so ?
In the US there remains a significant divide between Red Staters and Blue - brilliantly parodied here by Iowahawk. The elites in Manhattan are free to blather about obtaining self-actualisation through abortion, but real Americans ain't listening - they've got their own culture. In Britain, it sometimes seems that if the government did manage to push through a North East Assembly, it would set it up in Chelsea.
As long as government persists in trying to run the country from inside the M25, the elite will be able to impose their views on normal people. Equally, nothing would improve the quality of journalism in this country like a Guardian journalist being sent alone onto a Leeds council estate to explain that smackheads are really just exploring an alternative lifestyle.
That's the challenge for the Conservative Party. Forget the Liberal babblings about social exclusion and poverty. The people most disenfranchised these days are the people who hoover their own floors. If you're a scrote, who cares ? If you're Cherie Blair, you have people to do that for you. But if you're just an ordinary, working bloke, you're getting it both ends up. You got scum breaking in to steal your TV, while Her Majesty's Government explains why you can clearly afford to pay yet more tax. If the Conservatives are to win the culture war, or even elections, then they need to mobilise these people.
But don't expect anyone in the modern Conservative Party to see it that way. In fact, they're going the other way.
The Conservatives are thinking of reducing the role of party members in selecting a leader, reports suggest.
A Tory spokesman has confirmed the party's board has been consulting about changes to its constitution.
But the decision would rest with senior Tory volunteers and would not be taken before a general election, he said.
The fate of Iain Duncan Smith, dumped as Tory leader after a no confidence vote from MPs, prompted many to question the current system.
Some would say that's a chicken and egg situation. Did the MPs turn against IDS because of the lack of public support or was the lack of public support at least in part down to the parliamentary party's tantrum about serving under a leader who was (gasp!) selected by the ordinaries ? Whatever - but if we're supposed to be impressed by the contrast between loser IDS and Michael "not necessarily" Howard, I'll have what they're drinking.
It needs to be emphasised that the people they're talking about are party members, the envelope stuffers, doorstepers and phone bashers that the Party relies on. If Tory MPs are prepared to shaft these people, there's nowt down for Joe Public.
That's what's wrong with the Conservative Party. Not only that's it's disengaged from the culture wars, it's disengaged from the actual culture. There was, and is, a certain breed of Conservative who thinks it's a scream how Lady T was supported by so many taxi drivers. Funnily enough, the time the Party moved on from appealing to taxi drivers was also the time it moved on from winning elections.
Given that the Conservative Party shows such contempt for actual conservatives, why shouldn't the public reciprocate ?
Ginger McBlackout has a cunning plan. He calls it 'tough liberalism'. Yep - the Treason Party is going to ruthlessly grovel to criminals, it'll be an all-out surrender with no holds barred appeasement.
"The real, effective solutions to crime are liberal solutions - punishment and rehabilitation," he will continue.
"But action to tackle re-offending, or to guide those headed for a life of crime into lawful productive lives, is certainly not a soft option, in fact it is not an option at all.
"It is essential if we are going to reduce crime. That is tough liberalism."
As ever, check the dog that doesn't bark. After all, if the Treason Party really thinks crime can be defeated by love power and community healing sessions, won't they be looking to extend the program to City fraud and tax evasion ? Let's address the underlying causes of insider dealing.
But, no. You will never see share fiddlers being turned over to City community justice panels. All this talk of root causes, long-term plans and the like goes out the window when the question of tax skimming comes up. It's all just a front. It's not that the Left is being 'non-judgemental' in its dealings with scum, on the contrary, it has judged them and decided that mugging old ladies is nothing worth getting hot under the collar about, smackheads are just loveable scamps and joyriding is just the modern equivalent to scrumping apples.
That's the reality of what the Treason Party is proposing. It's a natural progression, of course. Once you've got through justifying their foreign policy, with Saddam being no worse than Bush who's as bad as Osama who's no worse than Blair, then explaining how child molesters are really just confused must be a cinch.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
There is, rightly, at lot of attention paid to what the Beeb passes off as news. But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that BBC bias is pervasive. The Beeb's own version of Tourettes means that it can't hardly give out the weather forecast without trying to insert a political message.
Take like night's program, Space Odyssey: Voyage To The Planets, a member of that most accursed of genres, the drama documentary. This featured a space ship exploring the solar system, and first stop was Venus, which apparently suffers what the V/O inevitably informed us was a runaway greenhouse effect, thereby offering a 'warning for our planet'. See ? That's what's going to happen to us now the BushChimpler has been reelected.
Really ? Where the Venusians a little too heavy on the accelerator ? Should they have invested more in wave power ? Nope - the self-same documentary informed us that the CO2 was expelled into the atmosphere by massive amounts of volcanic activity. Funnily enough, volcanoes have not previously been considered to be either man-made or covered by Kyoto. Let's leave aside the fact that the L3 has always previously used the term 'greenhouse effect' as a synonym for anthrogenic global warming, and ask if there's any other reasons why Venus is hotter than Earth. Hmmmmm…y'know, there could just be one.
So there you have it. Venus is a warning to us. It's a warning not to have huge amount of volcanic activity and not to move the Earth any closer to the enormous fusion reactor at the centre of the system. It might just be me, but I can't help but think these two things may be beyond even Halliburton's ability. Until then, we'll just have to work out why the Beeb thinks this all means we should ban 4x4s.
Hmmmmm...sounds like Blunkett's been at the Gimmickomatic again. He's going to give out the mobile number for Mr Plod so he can spend two hours a day fielding calls asking why it takes so long for the Police to respond to crimes. PC DC will be pleased.
Mr Blunkett said he wanted "to go back to a time when I was very young, when you expected the police to be part of the community and the community to be part of policing and where people were joined together in partnership making it work".
Now, is that concentrated BS or what ? The whole thrust of Nu Lab policy has been to disengage the Police from the communities they serve. That's how we got landed with a current crop of police top brass who commute to work from a nearby universe. The whole concept of using policing as a form of social engineering, by definition, is based on the idea that the police exist to remake the community, that the police exist effectively as a colonial power, civilising these savages. It's a bit late for Nu Lab to start citing Dixon of Dock Green.
In passing, it needs to be noted that idea of a partnership between Police and community would tend to work a whole lot better if the Police didn't start yapping about vigilantism everytime someone successfully protects their family.
This being a Nu Lab policy, it's always best to look for the sting in the tail. Yep - here it is:
The plans also include the idea of allowing people join police forces at different levels rather than the traditional way of making everybody spend specific amounts of time as a constable before being promoted.
At least the current system means officers will have had to spend at least some time on Earth. Now, all bets are off. Of course, with Nu Lab no policy is complete without the obligatory race hustling:
There will also be "specific exercises" to encourage black and Asian people to join the police at senior ranks.
Yes, indeed. It's Chief Constable Abu Hamza, with Winston Silcott as his deputy. Splendid.
Excellent reflexive dhimmitude on show at the 'hideously white' BBC Six O'Clock News yesterday. There was a segment featuring a BBC reporter wandering around Tower Hamlets, reporting on life in the big city. At one point our man is walking down the road when he is stopped by a mob of Muslims who tell him he's entering 'Bangladesh' and there are no whites allowed down their road. Breaths were held across the country as viewers contemplated the possibility that the Beeb may actually be caught telling the truth about the Small Minority of Extremists setting up Islamic enclaves in British cities. Fortunatly, the reporter in question made sure to tell us on his V/O that he 'didn't feel threatened' by the mob. Doubtless, the Beeb will be similarly supportive of any small towns which object to Muslims moving in, providing they do it in a non-threatening way.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Monday, November 08, 2004
PC DC compares the doctrines of Sir Robert Peel, founder of modern British Policing, with those of Sir John Stevens, Nu Lab sock puppet. It ain't pretty, but someones got to do it.
Meanwhile, approproatly enough, Merseyside Police (cops for sale or rent)reveal that they've identified the real enemy. Let no man say that the Police have a warped sense of priorities.
Something I've said before, but is the media trying to have its cake and eat it over Iraq or what ? On the one hand, we have industrial size quantities of hand wringing over the possibility that during the expected-for-several-months assault on Fallujah some civilians might be killed. True, the 'insurgents' may dress in civilian clothes and deliberately set up in civilian occupied areas, but all civilian casualties are the Coalition's fault. All this insanity would be bad enough, but check out the media's reaction to this sort of thing. Huge bomb attack, many civilian casualties, must be the fault of the Coalition for not providing security.
Hey, it's bad enough to hear the Jihadis referred to as insurgents or militants but when the self-same twenty-first century Robin Hoods blow up a bus load of civilians, you start to detect a double-standard at work here. The media claims that when US forces fire on a sniper and kill a bloke in the next room, why, it proves the US Army is just the same as the Waffen SS. Yet, no amount of exploded school buses will result in the media using the T-word to describe the 'insurgents'. Why no bleeding heart soliloquies from the media class on whether the insurgents are doing enough to avoid civilian casualties ? Then again, to accuse the media of merely spinning for the terrorists is to let them off to lightly.
Terrorists set up a fire position in a densely-populated area. US forces return fire and civilians are killed. The media gives the terrorists a propaganda coup by citing another example of US thuggery. Does that make it more or less likely that the terrorists will try again, that more civilians will be killed ? And does the fact that no one in the mainstream media will allow this to deter them not indicate that the media needs no lessons from the Pentagon in contempt for the lives of civilians ?
Few things in life are more certain than that when Liberals talk of uniting the country and healing division, it means they've just been whupped in an election. Hearing this garbage from US Liberals is be bad enough, but hearing it from Britain's L3 community is enough to make a dog throw.
True, saith the L3, Dubya won the popular vote, the electoral college, an outright majority and the highest number of votes ever, but one can hardly call that a mandate. Like, hello ? Nu Lab have never come anywhere near that kind of dominance, but if Smirking Sebastian had stood in Downing St on the second of May 97 and announced that now was the Year Zero, who would really have been surprised (although, in fairness, it must be said that in the case of Nu Lab they're far more likely to force people out of the country and into the cities) ?
Blair it was who promised to destroy the forces of Conservatism - can you imagine if Dubya pledged to smash Liberalism ? Heads would be popping all over Islington. Consider that the flagship policy for Nu Lab this term has not been NHS reform, a welfare shake-up or a Concorde-type project. Nope - it's been waging war on the countryside. Say what you like about Republicans, but you'd struggle to find an incident of the type of foaming at the mouth lunacy that infects Nu Lab MPs when they talk about county folk, all of which, incidentally, is usually accompanied by some pious dribblings about democracy. Find me a right-wing equivalent of PC ? Or a right-wing opposite number to the 'No Conservatives Need Apply' Beeb ?
Nope - if scoring a massive 25% of the vote is enough to justify Blair's Kulture Kampf against anywhere with cows in it, then the L3 can STFU about Bush doing what he was elected to do.
But I bet they don't.
Another side-effect of Dubya's win was a sighting of a favourite Liberal bogeyman, the alleged antipathy of the religious right in America to homosexuals, now supposedly reified in the form of opposition to gay 'marriage'. After all, say the L3, these naughty Christians want to deprive gay people of their right to marry.
We'll leave aside the question of how you can be deprived of a right you don't have in the first place, and 'move on' - as the L3 would no doubt say - to consider the question of what rights it is that gays are being deprived of. After all, a marriage is a complex thing so it's worth setting out exactly what is required. First of all, there's a need for a Priest. Fortunately, there are a fair number of Liberal (in every sense) Christian denominations which support gay 'marriage'. Also, you need to book somewhere for a reception. Again, there are many of these available. Flowers are always useful, and here many gays are particularly well served, quite possibly with the chance to get them at trade prices. Then there is the question of the honeymoon which…..
Wait, you mean that wasn't what you were talking about ? The Christians aren't actually firebombing shops which sell wedding rings to gay couples ? You mean what they want isn't the marriage per se, it's….
What it is that gay rights activists want is not the right to hold a wedding reception without crazed theocrats storming the place, no - it's the legal right to coerce the aforementioned Christians (and everyone else) to recognise them as married. You may think this is all perfectly reasonable - but it's not an argument based on freedom. On the contrary, the end result is to use the power of the state to force people to acknowledge gay couples as 'married' even if they themselves think the whole thing is ludicrous.
Again, you may think there are legitimate grievances, as far as issues such as taxation and the like go. This may be true, but that is not the argument these people have chosen to have. On the contrary, a movement designed to oppose iniquities in (eg) inheritance tax would have forged an alliance with carers while gay rights activists have very definitely chosen to not to address any individual anomalies - no, when they say gay marriage, they mean just that: the ability to coerce third parties into supporting their lifestyle. This debate is just further proof of what has been blindingly obvious since the 1990s. The gay rights movement is no longer concerned with protecting the rights of its members to follow their own lifestyle as it is with curtailing the rights of those whose lifestyles gays do not approve of.
As a social conservative myself, I'd love to believe that the US election marks the first signs of the backlash against Liberalism. Of course, it's not just us who feels that way. Plenty of Liberals (and not a few Paleocons) want to ram home the message that this election result was down to bible-totting hillbillies. The Left loves this cover story as it allows them to indulge their elitism and to cast Conservatives as hicks but, more to the point, it distracts from the gaping hole at the heart of modern Liberalism.
One significant factor must surely have been the War and, more specifically, the many natural - even lifelong - Democrats who voted for Bush out of sheer disgust with their party's refusal to take the War seriously, call them Republican Until Victory.
There are a very large group of people who realise that the Democrats, and indeed Liberalism generally, have reacted to the world crisis by taking a hike to Venus. It's not that the Liberals advocate bad policies for winning the War, it's that they deny there even is one. Not even a world in flames can shake the essential narcissism of the Liberal.
There are plenty of right-wing objections to Dubya, for a start his 'quick, everyone, have some cash' spending policies, yet the right put aside it differences to stand solidly behind him. In contrast, the Left was unable to process the War as anything other than the continuation of its own obsessions by other means. The nadir of this attitude was when Senator Murray paid tribute to Bin Laden's role in building day care centres in Afghanistan - presumably to help all those women trying to manage career and family under the Taliban. That was an extreme case, but not qualitatively different from the rest of the Liberal approach to the War. True, Bin Laden may have been ranting about the humiliation of losing Al Andalus in the fifteenth century but what he was really talking about was Kyoto.
There can be no better proof of how unfit the Left is to deal with the War than the events of this last week. To listen to the media, Bush's victory meant Hollywood would be under siege by a torch-wielding mob of Christian fundamentalists, demanding they produce nothing more contentious than remakes of 'It's A Wonderful Life', and indeed a film maker was murdered by a religious fanatic even before the voting totals were in. If you spent your days fearing that failure to possess a bible would become a criminal offence - as all Liberals claimed to - then this should really have raised your hackles, except on closer inspection, it turns out the assailant was a……
Here was Liberalism in all its glory. Liberals constantly defame Christianity and its practitioners, all the while professing to be terrified by Christians yet when confronted with a cult whose adherents really do believe in killing the unbeliever, why, they think that's just a quirky bit of cultural heritage. This is the central psychosis of modern Liberalism, the belief that that which they wish was true, is true: Christians are crazed fanatics, while Moslems are noble savages, and don't none of you Nazi go pointing out any gaps in the Manhattan skyline.
This kind of post-modern insanity is not a new departure for Liberals, but the brutal reality of battle sure throws Liberal delusions into sharp relief. Clinton could claim that it depends what the meaning of 'is' is, but a murder in broad daylight demands better than these kind of word games. Indeed, there is a danger here for the Left. Given the sheer mendacity of the L3 approach to the war, how many RUVs will be lead to question how many other sacred cows turn out to be just so much hamburger ? Who knows ? But until the Left can deal with Bin Laden on his own terms, rather than as a mere stick to beat Bush with, they will all be - to coin a phrase - unfit for command.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
The thing about living in a bubble is that there are no normal people around to point out even the most absurd contradictions in your position. Take the Beeb's efforts last Wednesday - on the same channel, on the same night, the Beeb ran both The Power of Nightmares and a supposed expose of the evils of the booze industry. So the people flying airliners into buildings aren't a threat, but the brewers are going to kill us all.
The program itself, The Booze Business: Consuming Spirits, was a masterpiece of the Beeb's po-faced, finger-wagging moralising. The program tracked a group of young ladies out on the town. Now take a wild shot in the dark which town it was filmed in ? Yep - Newcastle. Let no man say the Beeb is obsessed with stereotypes. The actual report was a perfect example of the 'gorillas in the mist' style Beeb reporters adopt every time they pass the Watford Gap, combined with the aforementioned sermonising, and no little humbuggery. The voice-over informed us that the ladies had spent over £100 on booze - no, actually they'd spent £20 on booze and £80 on tax. Hearing a whiny Liberal complain that people are spending too much on booze when it's people like him who have driven prices up in the first place is like hearing the guy who killed his parents lay claim to the sympathy of the court because he's an orphan.
Still, the Beeb was proving, once again, to be a perfect exemplar of the prejudices of lemon-sucking, Metropolitan Liberals. There's no two ways about it: foul stench, reports of unusual activity in the sewers...yep, the prohibitionists are back, and with them one of the defining battles of human civilisation.
Alcohol has been one of the common factors in the development of modern life. As far back as archaeologists go, they find evidence of hooch. Hell, man may even be a Johnny Come Lately here. Not only will several higher mammals make special efforts to drink booze when it's available, but even in the wild several primates will go out of their way to obtain those types of fruits which are prone to fermentation. What we do know for certain is that booze has been our loyal companion through the long march of human civilisation [if only there was a large group of people who didn't drink, we could see if their civilisation really was as rich and civilised as the prohibs say it must be] .
Booze has been with us from the dawn of history, and quite possibly so have the pinch-mouthed battalions of lemon-sucking freaks pushing prohibition. They say booze isn't healthy, yet what of those studies claiming that consuming certain forms of alcohol can improve health ? Shouldn't these freaks be out encouraging teetotallers to sink a few ? Maybe it isn't health per se that motivates them. They say people spend too much on booze, but they happily rake off the proceeds of punitive taxation. They claim booze is linked to violence amongst young people, so how come our schools are so violent ? As I recall, most comprehensives only serve lager, so maybe youth violence is down to the actual youths, rather than the sinister brewing collectives.
No, you want to know what really motivates these twisted human leeches ? Check out this 'ere poster. That's how they see it - drunks refusing to play their part in society, refusing to accept their responsibilities to be worker bees in the sociological hive. I doubt that one prohib in a thousand would question the fact that the poster is from the USSR, that the drunk is being criticised for not allowing himself to be a willing slave in the service of evil. To fellow drunks, this bloke isn't a waster, he's a hero, an almost Randian figure refusing to allow his mind to be enslaved by a Satanic regime. But don't expect the prohibs to see that. The prohib, almost by definition, is a collectivist - who else would rant & rave about someone else drinking ?
The prohib may have a laundry list of complaints against vitamin XXX, but it all boils down to one thing, a peevish, schoolmarmey rant that people aren't taking the right things seriously. This seems like a simple thing, yet it lies at the heart of the great divide between drunks and the paisty-faced creeps who wish to persecute us.
To the prohib, all life is a grim struggle, all individuality is the enemy. Think of a prohib and you think of some screechy, red-faced hag. Think of a drunk and you think of Dean Martin. The prohib trades on the supposed horrors awaiting the drunk, the drunk has no need of such fear mongering, he simply points out that life is good, and it can be even better with vodka.
Prohibs claim that drunks are irresponsible losers and deadbeats, that all the successful people are maniacal teetotallers: after all, how can a mind rotted by alcohol possibly match the spotless mind of the teetotaller ? I believe we tested this hypothesis some years ago, when we compared the performance of two Chief Executives, one sober and one drunk.
That's really what it's all about: who your role model is. Whether you think life is just great as is, or whether you want to ascend to the glory of your inner something and claim your eternal something else and then….. Who cares ? If you really can't stand booze then we, unlike YOU, are not forcing our lifestyle on anyone. Leave us alone, shut it and just sit in the corner and enjoy an evian or something.
While the Left is OK with homicidal film criticism by members of certain peace-loving religions, there are others which don't quite get the same pass. The ever-dhimmi BBC has posted a topic at (Don't) Have Your Say covering the whole Anglican women priests imbroligo, and - predictably - the L3 are in fine form:
How do we know that Jesus did not choose any women apostles? I cannot accept that God would have a preference in this matter. Anybody in the church who refuses to acknowledge this fact is in denial and should question their faith. Religion, in whatever form, should not be a male preserve. Male control should end or certain religions will die out and quite rightly so in my opinion.
R.C. Robjohn, UK
Yes, indeed. How do we know who Jesus chose ? If only there was some kind of biography of his life. Until then, actual Christians will just have to rely on moonbats like Robbo pronouncing on whether their faith is valid or not.
If churches want to discriminate against women, that's up to them. But they should not be allowed any funding of any kind from the state, and at the very least should have their automatic right to be a registered charity removed.
Alex M, London
Yes, indeed. Freedom of religion, except they'll be differential treatment for those religions which won't get with the PC program.
D'you ever get the feeling that the L3 don't really get the whole freedom of worship thing ?
Yet more prejudice from a church that claims to represent a loving God. See these organisations for what they are; power hungry bigots, not Christian organisations. If you are a Christian find your own way, do not believe the hate these people preach. They should be prosecuted, if any other employer was openly prejudiced like this they would be in court. This goes for all the other religious organisations that practise prejudice too, and that is nearly all of them.
Yes, Christians, find your own way, unless it's a way Chris disapproves of, in which case you'll be prosecuted.
This is a pathetically narrow-minded notion in this day and age. Perhaps Jesus did choose only men as his apostles, but that was in an age when men still beat women in public for disobeying then. I thought society had moved on since then.
Martin, Reading, UK
Yeah, Jesus was an OK kind of guy, but honestly, the dude was sooooo two thousand years ago. It's time to move on and start worshipping someone more modern, like Bono.
Meanwhile, research continues into the question of whether the L3 have become such a bunch of narcistic drama queens that they've lost all perspective on the nature of true evil.
This is a huge step backwards for equality. How can we complain about other cultures treating women as second class when a significant sector of our own society is taking this awful step back to the dark ages.
The ROP stones young women to death, we refuse to dictate to churches who they can employ as priests. So, who are we to criticise them ?
Of course, the real question d'jour is whether it would be OK if the Church met them halfway, and agreed to shoot the women priests ?
Well, this is going to be a classic. The dhimmis have been explaining for years how Al-Quaida and the like are merely responding to US imperialism, in contrast to the progressive policies practiced by the Continentals. Let's see how they spin the murder of a film director in Holland into a brave blow against AmeriKKKa.
Oh yes - the Beeb's Have Your Say team haven't got around to posting a topic on this yet. Quelle surprise!
Hmmmm...the headline's 'Ethnic violence hits China region'. You have to read down to paragraph three to find out that there's a little more to it: 'The clashes were between members of China's majority Han community and the Muslim Hui ethnic group.'
The L3 have spent years trying to prove that opposition to the death cult is secretly ispired by racism, so why so coy the one time that claim can't be laughed out of court ? Of course, given that one of their central talking points is that that the war is actually a racist war waged by white, fundementalist Christians against innocent Jihadis, the news that the Middle Kingdom is also engaged with the death cult does kind of bring that into question.
Add communist China to Hindu India, the secular USA, Buddhist Thailand and Israel (which may well be Jewish) in the list of participants in "George W Bush's war". He must have more clout than you'd think.