Monday, May 31, 2004
As everyone knows, the EU has given rise to an unprecedented Golden Age of peace and universal love. All Europe is on one big flower train, running on love power. Except if we withdraw, at which point rampaging mobs will run through Nijmegen and Stockholm torching British businesses. Is it just me or do other people see a mixed message here ?
Of course, all this is part of the Pile-On D'Jour aimed at UKIP. As far as can be divined, the chattering class charge sheet has three entries on it:
- Everyone in UKIP is weird
- UKIPs Deputy Head of Publicity (Manchester) was reported by the SWP to have once said Hitler did a great job with the autobahns
- And they smell too
So that's UKIP: weird, with some evil nuts in their ranks - quite unlike any other party then. Tam Dayell probably thinks it's a Jewish conspiracy.
In so far as any actual arguments emanate from the critics, it's this one: voting UKIP undermines Euroscepticism since it helps support the canard that anyone who opposes, say, the EU constitution, must secretly support withdrawl. Given that there is UKIP, and there are three
Perhaps sensing that this argument is kind of weak, the critics have resorted to Nazi-spotting. They try to claim that UKIP support reveals the true face of Euroscepticism, as though opposition to the EU means that you're prima facia a racist loon or an isolationist kook. All that need be said is that if we're seeking to draw wider conclusions from the campaign, then the extreme reaction of the Eurofans to the news that the public - gasp! - might vote the wrong way doesn't speak well for their claim that the EU may be an anti-democratic organisation right now, but, y'know, some day it'll clean it's act up. The peasants won't be allowed to screw up the Brave New World, and that's final.
Needless to say, our not-so-Conservative Party is feeling the pressure. Is it just me or it weird to see the Tories embracing the same smears that are always used against them ? Whatever, but at least it should settle any remaining doubts that a Conservative government will offer anything more for Britian than the chance to drink the EU Kool Aid out of a straight glass. Who knows ? There may be something in the Samizdata theory about the UKIP breaking the Tories out of their Grandee obssessed trance.
Posted by DJ at 5/31/2004 08:45:00 pm
There's a tendancy even amongst hardcore Conservatives to regard Amnesty as a bunch of harmless lunatics: doubtless naive and silly, but not actually evil. That's giving them too much credit, consider for example this report flagged up by Mel P, on what happened when a senior member of Al-Q, almost certainly involved in the planning for Sep 11 and other attacks, was detected in Jordan in October 2001:
The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.'
Now, for sure, Amnesia's intervention was probably not decisive. But, still - here's a key player in international terrorism, caught just a month after his organisation has killed thousands of people, and Amnesia have no qualms after standing shoulder to shoulder with him.
[standard disclaimer follows] Yes, Amnesia will claim they're standing up for the general principles, cite the thin-end-of-the-wedge, blah, blah, blah. The problem with that is not only that these general principles seem to be somewhat ungeneral when the 'victim' is identified as being neither Lefty nor a member of a PC vicitm group, but that Amnesia's own agenda is entirely objectionable.
There's a basic contradiction at the heart of the philosophy Amnesia and its fellow travellers try to push. They insist that far from pushing a political line, they merely seek to support basic, universal rights. Yet, to define rights without reference to context is absurd. It instantly falls foul of the shouting fire in a crowded theatre test - and, indeed, the argument that a terrorist mastermind captured during time of war deserves the same consideration as a suspected shoplifter certainly has more than a whiff of the hoaxes in cinemas. Far from being unarguable truths, Amnesia's 'rights' turn out to be a ragbag of Leftist assertions, their rebranding as fundamental rights being an attempt to close down the debate. What kind of Fascist could oppose human rights ?
Well, actually, most people - otherwise why wouldn't the L3 openly advocate letting terrorist masterminds go free ? Amnesia can't win that debate so they're trying to smuggle their agenda in under a blanket of humbug. Here's the truth: Amnesia helped put a major player in internatonal terrorism back on the street. That's the reality behind the rhectoric. If you give money to Amnesia then you're helping terorists kill innocent people. And, no, Amnesia freaks, blowing up airliners is not a fundamental human right.
Posted by DJ at 5/31/2004 07:45:00 pm
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Is it perhaps the presence of a secret member of the VRWC that has led to a bizarre juxtaposisition of two stories in the Beeb's news shows all day ? The Beeb has been frantically spinning for Amnesia Intentional, which has just produced a report called 'Die Yankee Imperialist Running Dogs!'... actually, it may have been spelt differently, but you get the idea. So far, so predictable, except the item next to this story has usually been this one.
See the problem ? On the one hand the Beeb's taking out an onion for all those Jihadis cruelly prevented from going about their unlawful business, on the other the Beeb's getting the Kleenex out because over two thousand British people are being prevented from travelling abroad due to suspicions that they may go on to committ offences. Hello ? Surely, if you still take Amnesia's babblings about cruelty to 'splodey dopes seriously, you've got to be worried about HMG claiming the right to stop people travelling on the grounds that they might do stuff. Or would the L3 take the war seriously if the Jihadis destroyed bars with their bare hands instead of Semtex ?
Here's a couple of clues for that last question: the report claims that the US has 'refused to grant prisoner-of-war status to more than 600 detainees at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, choosing to describe them as "illegal combatants" '. It's funny that folks who normally need sedating not to babble on about something called 'International Law' suddenly take off to the Land of Abstractia when they talk about Gitmo. Needless to say, even the briefest reading of the Geneva Conventions reveals that - surprise! - the Jihadis fail just about every test for lawful combatant status. The US chooses to refer to them as unlawful combatants in exactly the same way I choose to refer to the things that miaow as cats. Still, they'll keep pushing this line, after all, human rights are just the excuse. Otherwise, why would Amnesia spend pages slagging off the US for cruelty to killers, then list the situation in Sudan as an 'area of concern'. Y'know...slavery & genocide, matters of concern, but hey, lets not distract from the real mission of nailing the BushHitler.
So, anyway, Bush freed fifty million people from living under lonney fundies or a family of murderous psychos. What exactly have Amnesia Intentional ever done for anyone ?
Posted by DJ at 5/26/2004 11:07:00 pm
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Now then, why would the BBC choose to run a front page story announcing that a probe by the National Audit Office had found nothing ? Isn't that kind of 'Dog Refrains From Biting Man' ? But, no, front page it is, with the tag line as follows: "Asylum numbers 'not massaged' Asylum figures are "mostly reliable", the National Audit Office says, as a fall in applicant numbers is reported. "
So everythings rosy in the garden ? Sure seems like it - check out these opening 'graphs:
The National Audit Office says asylum figures are "in most respects reliable" after a probe into claims figures were massaged by relaxing immigration rules.
It says there is "no clear statistical evidence" that asylum was cut at the expense of other forms of migration.
But it points to "several weaknesses" in how the figures are compiled and says some statistics are "misleading".
Meanwhile, new Home Office figures show asylum claims fell by a fifth to 10,585 in the first three months of the year.
So, it's a ringing endorsement for HMG, right ? Except, other sources have a rather different take on this report.
The Home Office's official total of asylum seekers receiving welfare and accommodation funded by the taxpayer omitted about 24,000 refugees, according to a Government watchdog.
The National Audit Office (NAO) also cast serious doubt on Government statistics on the number of asylum seekers being deported.
While auditors found the Government's asylum figures were broadly reliable, there were several aspects which were "materially misleading".
Doubtless the BBCoids will point out that the Telegraph is an avowedly right-wing publication. But that's the point - the Telegraph is an upfront, take-it-or-leave-it, Conservative rag. The Beeb on the other hand poses as a disinterested seeker after truth, yet here it is wildly spinning away an awkward report, even to ludicrous extremes - that the auditors say there's 'no clear statistical evidence' of fraud is hardly a ringing endorsement. Would you invest in a company that had a verdict like this passed on it ? Similarly, what exactly does 'mostly reliable' mean ? Harold Shipman's patients mostly got good service. Certainly, I don't recall the BBC ever calling Railtrack mostly reliable. The central thesis that the Beeb is pushing is ludicrous - in effect it claims the Government is innocent because it only fiddled some figures. To take Auntie's argument to its barely logical conclusion, Robert Maxwell was innocent since he reported the Mirror's circulation accuratly even while he was pillaging its pension fund.
If the BBC sees its future lying in providing this kind of overtly left-wing coverage then there's a case for that. What there is not a case for is that the BBC should be free to extort money from members of the public under the guise of providing news and information, while it in fact positively misleads the public on issues judged unhelpful to the Liberal cause.
Posted by DJ at 5/25/2004 11:13:00 pm
Sunday, May 23, 2004
I've never been convinced by claims that the blogsphere is ready to overtake old media. After all, even taking the most optimistic claims at face value, it's not as if TV ever killed off radio is it ? Nope, they do different jobs, and now the blogsphere does a whole new one.
Take this post by Laban Tall. He's dead right about a news blackout. Big Media, the supposedly wild & wacky Fourth Estate, has thrown its hand in with Big Government. Sure, they'll complain about stuff that's off the L3 blacklist - Iraq above all else. But when it comes to the central tenets of L3 faith, the media will down the Kool Aid in one.
But now Laban Tall has told us all about it. Under normal circumstances, there's no way I'd know there were riots in Peterborough but the blogsphere has changed everything. Now the public can talk to each other without Big Media acting as a filter. Sure, these are early days, but looking over at America you can see how the Blogsphere makes it much harder for the Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle Dummer of Big Government and Big Media to spin the news. No, the blogsphere isn't a political force in itslef - otherwise Howard Dean would be the Democrat nominee - but it's making it harder than ever for the Metropolitan elite to set the agenda. Nowadays, no one in the media wants to be Woodward or Bernstein, but it turns out that the Blogsphere is one big Deep Throat [and you can keep your jokes to yourself].
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 10:37:00 pm
The folks at the Angloshpear forums point out this excellent article on how Britain's TINOs are starting to sound increasingly like Lumpy Riefenstahl - although, come to think of it, Ken Clark sounding like a fat, obnoxious, fraud isn't that much of a shock.
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 10:32:00 pm
As if to prove that there is no sphere of national life into which the EU will not intrude, Brussels has now announced that they are demanding Britain introduce random breath tests, supposedly to detect drink drivers. As ever, there's the distinct air of the camel's nose here: Brussels wants us to concede that agents of the state can target citizens without so much as the slightest shred of evidence of misconduct. If you really believe that unrestricted state power is the way to Utopia, then please read this and tell me you want this in Britain.
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 10:21:00 pm
I'm not a fan of Blunkett. After all, he's based his career on sounding like Joe Public and acting like a Guardian leader writer. Still, he is doing one good thing. By continuously allowing the Bench to do all but moon him, Blunkett has set up conditions perfectly for an incoming Conservative government to remind the bewigged scum that sovereignty rest with the people not a moonbat cult, no matter how supposedly educated they may be. After all, few people believe this government has been too harsh on asylum seekers - including the asylum seekers themselves, to judge by their numbers, yet Blunkett is continuously frustrated in his attempts to do the little that he attempts. Not only that but the grounds are absurd - take this latest one, which relies on a supposed fundamental right to go to someone else's country and make them give you money. Say, what ?
Nope, when even an L3 government is being attacked from the Left by the judicary, then it's past time our court system had a delousing. Where's Cromwell when you need him ?
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 10:03:00 pm
In any list of obnoxious TINOs, Stephen Norris is a dead cert for a top ten place, which makes it all the more amazing that he's the one who's broken one of the central taboos of modern British politics: namely, mentioning that the folks who draw up the crime figures are the spiritual children of Robert Maxwell rather than Sir Robert Peel.
Meanwhile, in related news, Sock Puppet has been disgracing himself again:
Met Police chief Sir John Stevens has asked candidates not to exploit fear of crime during the election campaign.
Or, to translate into English, Sock Puppet would rather that an election campaign didn't focus on his party's utter failure to carry out one of the central roles of government. We're choosing who runs the government, but we shouldn't consider little stuff like a demonstrable record of incompetence in running government.
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 09:50:00 pm
Many Conservatives are attracted to Libertarianism. Speaking personally, I despise it. To adapt an old joke, two Libertarians are walking down a street when they see a badly-beaten OAP and one says to the other 'How awful! That's just the type of thing that'll encourage government intervention'.
Nowhere has the Libertarian love of abstract principle over sanity been more obvious than in the War on Terror. Take the question of the French hijab ban. Liberatarians - who are almost always atheists - have screamed the house down with talk of religious liberty yet, as Mel P reminds us, the hijab was always a political, not a religious symbol, and pretty nasty politics at that.
No doubt some will claim schoolchildren should still be allowed to wear it, but can we expect them to mount a similar defence of white children in Alabama who wish to turn up wearing sheets and hoods ? After all, we do know how LIbertarians love their principles.
Posted by DJ at 5/23/2004 08:48:00 pm
Thursday, May 20, 2004
You know why you can never find a cop when you need one ? Because they're all in the office reading through the TV guide with highlighter pens.
Channel 4 has pulled a documentary about social workers in Bradford from its schedule after police warned it could increase racial tension.
Unlike the reporting of Stephen Lawrence, Abu Ghraib and everything in Israel, then.
About that press freedom: there's no suggestion that the footage is bogus, intrusive, or puts any lives at risk - it simply reports what happens. Channel 4 has agreed to suppress a story simply becauase the Liberal establishment would rather hush it up. C4 were always the L3 channel of choice anyway, but can we have a little less foot stamping next time the Army refuses to do all but let C4 give it a prostate exam ?
But it gets worse. How's this for an insight into modern policing ?
West Yorkshire Police feared it would increase community tension in Bradford ahead of local and European elections.
That's our public servants, that is. Openly admitting that they took their decision with refernce to entirly political considerations. Need it be said that 'community tensions' is clearly a euphamism for an increased BNP vote ? Or to put it another way, what kind of unrest is it that pays attention to polling days ?
As ever, I question whether this kind of blatant perversion of democracy will actually help the BNP more than it harms them. The BNP appeals to people who think the systems out to get them, now here's the system indulging in outrageous politicing. But, aside from that, the L3 are trying the BNP shuffle on us again: the scam that says the BNP are so awful, why, we're quite justified in throwing overboard the principles of democracy. The self-same people who can't mention Gitmo without taking out an onion, turn a blind eye to the majesty of the Law being prostituted for short-term political gain.
At the very least, if the Filth are no reinventing themselves as L3 spin doctors, they can hardly complain when they end up as well-respected as Alistair Campbell. That's why it matters. The Law in general, and the Police in particular, can only function when they have the support of the public. By acting as the paramilitary wing of the BBC they renounce any claim to the support of a large section of the public. Who can take their claims seriously now that it has been revealed that they'll float bogus threats of disorder merely to prevent the wrong people getting in ?
Posted by DJ at 5/20/2004 10:56:00 pm
Something I've said before: why do some many Conservatives naturally spring to the defence of Big Business. I mean, yes, we have a common enemy in the L3, but it's not as if Big Business ever puts itself out for us. Take this latest outrage.
As JohnJo says, these folks would quite like to bleed some cash from real patriots but they wouldn't risk getting any of that patriotism stuff on themselves. What is this all about ?
Unfortunately, the St George's flag has negative connotations of football violence."
Bigoted, much ? Anyway: Birmingham. Pub. Violence. Is there no one in that company who reads history ? So, what chance they'll ban Irish flags next Mar 17 ?
Nada. It's only the sins of the English that count. Take events between 1939-45: continus brutality aimed at German tourists, while Arena's spiritual ancestors were taking a far more constructive approach in Vichy. But don't ask what these syphillitic weasels are still doing in the country long after the EU gave them all the right to move to France. If they went to France they'd be expected to do something constructive to help La Belle France succeed. Only as long as they stay in Britain can these pathetic little nonces become the toast of other castrato snivellers for oh-so-daringly pissing on the graves of our war dead.
Of course, Armani Trev would approve. After all, this is exactly what his policies are aimed at achieving: the kind of meaningless drivel of people who claim to be English and proud, but recoil in horror at the site of St George's Cross. Hence the title of this post: it comes from St Ann's comment on a Liberal who spewed out a load of bigoted nonsence about religion, then claimed he wasn't against all religions. That's where we are: Aramani Trev and Arena would deny actually hating England, nope it's just the English parts of it. They'll sign onto meaningless feelgoodery, but when it comes to people celebrating English culture, they're all a quiver. They won't let people ask what's good about England, lest that imply that there are countries which are worse than England. Heaven forbid someone should claim that England beats Somalia hands down.
Of course, there's a deeper reason why the L3 hate anyone to mention that England is actually doing pretty well compared to the rest of the world. Our heritage, the reason why we do so well, is in large part utterly antagonistic to the L3 agenda. Individual rights, the rule of law, a suspicion of government....and so on - all charcteristics of traditional British government, then exported to the US. And for 300 years these ideas have dominated the world, while L3 Eden's like France and the USSR have either disintergrated or booked a room at the Hotel D'Irrelevant. Coincidence ? Needless to say, Big Businesses interest in the whole deal is more short-term. They quite like the idea of a French style economy, where they meet up with friends in government and decide exactly how they'll screw the public over. That Anglo-Saxon capitalism is just so chaotic - what with competition, and everything.
The most basic comparison between, say Cuba with Australia, exposes the toxicity of the L3 agenda. Hence, they've built their philosophy around trying to delegitimise the whole idea of comparisons. Everyone and everything is only as good as everything else. Pay no attention to the Sudanese slaver behing the curtain.
Posted by DJ at 5/20/2004 09:58:00 pm
The Foreign Secretary has warned Spain over its refusal to allow cruise ships which have visited Gibraltar to dock in Spanish ports.
Jack Straw issued the warning after talks with his Spanish counterpart Miguel Angel Moratinos in London.
Stop! Or I shall warn you again. Really - dealing with our government must be like playing cards with a labrador. How can you lose against folks this spineless ?
Officials claim the move is an attempt by Spain's new Socialist government to strangle the colony's economy.
Britain regards the cruise liner boycott as illegal, and has not ruled out legal action as a last resort.
That'll chill their blood in Madrid.
And a vote of thanks too to the EU. We've got HIV+ smackheads from Spain claiming full welfare and treatment benefits, plus Spaniards pillaging our fishing grounds, but Brussels doesn't have a view on a case of outright thuggery by the Spanish. Remind me again why we pay all that cash.
Posted by DJ at 5/20/2004 09:41:00 pm
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
The Government signalled yesterday that it was willing to breach the first of its "red line" safeguards on the European constitution by agreeing to cede Britain's veto over sensitive areas of criminal justice.
The shift in policy raises fears that Brussels could acquire the power to interfere with the common law tradition of habeas corpus, trial by jury, and rules of evidence.
Just the little stuff then. And there's more...
Mr Straw said bluntly yesterday that there would be no deal unless Britain got its way. "If we do not get the key red lines for the United Kingdom then we won't sign up for this constitutional treaty."
EU officials noted the term "key" red lines, taking it to mean that lesser lines could be rubbed away.
And they're probably bang on. Howe can you expect any better from people who can say this:
A British official said the language would have to be changed before the Government would agree to give up the veto.
"We've got to be absolutely crystal clear what we are committing ourself to," he said. "Criminal procedure is very close to the hearts of people."
Translation: we'd happily give the whole store away if we thought we could get away with it, but you know how it is with the oiks, we have to go through the motions of putting up a fight.
That's it, that's the people running our country - they think Britain's kind of OK, but not something to get het up about. To them, Britain's just where they work - give them the right offer and they'll be off. They have no sense that Britain is something unique, something worth preserving. That's why they can manage the country but never lead it, and when their souless blathering leads to the Disaster D'Jour they use it as further proof that Britain is obviously doomed. The thing is, they're dead right as long as we led bloodsucking zombies like them run the country.
Posted by DJ at 5/19/2004 11:02:00 pm
Detectives are investigating a suspected fraud in next month's local election after 16 postal vote forms were sent to an address in Birmingham.
The Elections Office was alerted after multiple requests for voting forms were received and sent to Sparkhill.
It is not illegal for forms to be sent to a different address but checks are being made to ensure they do not go to people who are not entitled to vote.
West Midlands Police's economic crime unit will examine the applications.
Who knew there was such a thing as an economic crimes unit ?
Posted by DJ at 5/19/2004 10:47:00 pm
Monday, May 17, 2004
New US Iraq abuse allegation surfaced today, as the New York Times reported that the U.S. Marines tortured suspected Iraqi resistance forces with high-speed metal projectiles, resulting in nearly two dozen deaths.
According to Human Rights Watch, Marines in Fallujah were recently seen systematically perforating the flesh of Iraqi suspects with lead projectiles, "without a lawyer present, and before the were even arraigned."
"Lead is a known carcinogen, and this type of torture can be severely painful and inhumane," said Human Rights Watch spokesman Blake Schultz. "For Arab men, there is nothing more humiliating than exit wounds."
"If the reports are true, the U.S. is in clear violation of the Geneva conventions," said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). "I can't believe this happened without the knowledge and consent of the Administration."
Posted by DJ at 5/17/2004 10:19:00 pm
Sunday, May 16, 2004
So, the Filth inconvience tens of thousands of people and cause millions of pounds of unnecessary expenditure, all to make a bogus case against a man exercising his right to peaceful protest. Quick - call the Guardian, Liberty, Amnesty, the European Court...oops, now they ain't accepting calls. Why might that be ?
Posted by DJ at 5/16/2004 01:59:00 pm
Who'd have thunk it ? People like to be with people like them ?
Giving parents more choice about their children's school has led to the development of racially segregated schools in some cities, MPs have said.
As ever, there's an agenda here:
A parliamentary report by a committee of MPs has warned the growth of faith schools could make the divide that exists between racial groups worse.
Yes, it's all down to them faith schools, which - by an amazing coincidence - always beat the sub-Marxoid state schools hollow when it comes to attainment. Maybe Sainsburys should claim Tesco promotes racial division ?
Children were sent to schools with the same racial background because of cultural "ignorance and fear", it said.
The inquiry was prompted by race riots in the north of England in 2001.
We may be ignorant, but we wouldn't call fighting between Infidels and ROPers a race riot.
The Labour dominated Office of the Deputy Prime Minister select committee said no more faith schools should be given government approval unless they gave a commitment to promoting a multi-cultural agenda.
So, Jewish Schools will be allowed as long as they aren't actually Jewish. And hasn't the value-free, post-modernist, culturally-Marxist agenda worked great for state schools ?
In the past the schools have been supported by Tony Blair.
The report, called Social Cohesion, said the divide between religious groups in Britain may also deepen, as has been the case in Northern Ireland.
I thought Ulster was now a modern Eden, after the
These choices can increase segregation unless the choices are well-informed and different cultural groups are encouraged and enabled to mix," warned the committee.
Ah yes... you can choose but only if you're well-informed (aka a binge Kool Aid drinker).
The MPs have called on Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to take action, by ensuring that social housing policies do not lead to single race estate
Schools, hospitals and leisure centres should not be located in an area that is likely to be frequented by one community, they said.
Yes, yes: we need more Asian input into our hospitals. With luck, one day soon we may yet see Asian doctors in our hospitals.
The report said greater care should be taken to ensure that regeneration programmes do not fuel resentment by appearing to benefit only one racial group.
Committee chairman Andrew Bennett said that evidence to the inquiry had shown there were economic and cultural benefits to living in a multi-cultural area.
Just think of Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, for example.
However, he said there were "still concerns that some communities are turning in on themselves and trying to create mono-cultural areas."
The inquiry was told about one school in Oldham - where there were riots three years ago - which was 100% Bangladeshi and another that had only one white pupil.
And one head teacher described the decision by white parents not to send their children to his school as "white flight".
White families had moved away from an area to avoid sending their children to a school with a majority of Asian pupils.
Imagine: native Britons in Britain wating to live somewhere with a British culture. Is there no end to this evil ?
The report said: "Schools provide an opportunity for different cultural groups to mix. There are many schools whose students do not reflect the range of cultural groups in their locality and so do not help to promote social cohesion.
"This is a result of parental choice, the quality of some schools and the growth of faith schools."
Or possibly the growth of faith schools reflects the fact that the L3 loons in the state sector are too busy promoting social cohesion (aka indocducation) to do any actual teaching.
The committee recommended that local education authorities should adopt "new techniques" to persuade parents of the benefits of a multi-cultural education.
Guidelines issued by the Department for Education on admission policies and curriculum guidance to faith schools should also be revised.
Hmmm....somehow I think the emphasis will be less on new techniques and more on nobbling faith schools.
So there you have it: faith schools are bad because they won't follow the state sector over the post-modern cliff (isn't gravity a social construct anyway ?) Despite Armani Trev pronouncing it DOA, multiculturalism still remains a turd in the national swimming pool. And the British are bad for wanting to practice their own culture and way of life in their own country. Oh yeah...and the L3 still can't bring themselves to even mention the ROP.
Posted by DJ at 5/16/2004 01:34:00 pm
There are a barell load of good reasons why the Tory/Labour/Silly coalition against the BNP is a bad idea - PC sums it up well here, to which I'd only add that a Party that appeals to people who think politics is all one big conspiracy is hardly going to be damaged by its opponents openly forming a cartel. But, even so, I don't think any of us sceptics could have imagined anything so flat out weird as this latest report:
HIP-HOP stars joined with London’s politicians yesterday to urge black people to vote in next month’s elections and prevent the British National Party from gaining a platform in the capital.
Members of the band So Solid Crew lined up alongside Ken Livingstone, Steve Norris and Simon Hughes to begin a campaign called Operation Black Vote.
With other mayoral hopefuls and candidates for the Greater London Assembly and European elections in London, they unveiled a poster with the warning: “Racists are now more dangerous than ever. They’re voting.”
Yep, that's THE "So Solid Crew" - the very epitome of the nihlistic gansta chic that has done so much to make our inner cities what they are today. Talk about a gift to the BNP. Take away the overt racial aspects, and there's nothing you can say against the BNP that doesn't apply double to these guys. More dangerous than ever becuase they're voting ? [sharpened ballot papers ?] It would be a considerable improvement if that was the worst thing the SSC's of this world did - as it is, if there's a young black guy lying dead in the street, it's a Hell of a lot more likely to be at the hands of some Gangsta rather than a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Posted by DJ at 5/16/2004 12:54:00 pm
The Government is whining again:
The government has criticised a BBC programme dramatising a terrorist attack on London as "alarmist and irresponsible"......
Home Secretary David Blunkett declined to take part in the show, and condemned it as unnecessarily alarmist.
"We are disappointed to learn that the BBC appears to have adopted an irresponsible and alarmist approach over what is understandably an emotive and frightening subject for the public," a Home Office spokesman told BBC News Online
"Irresponsible" - has there ever been such a weasely phrase ? What really tees me off about it is the implication that you can't tell the public the truth otherwise we'll all freak out and revert to cannibalism, or something. All things considered, it's the Government not the public that appear to live in a fantasy world, as proven here:
THE Army and police will commandeer coaches and trains to move hundreds of thousands of Londoners out of the city in the event of a massive terrorist attack.
Would that be the Army that's been slashed to the bone ? Never mind the problem with soldiers deserting to protect their own families (and no doubt taking their weapons with them), what of the Police ? Here's people who almost all will have family in the affected areas - are they just going to stay at their posts and let their kids die ?
And about those coaches ? What about the disabled ? Will people just pile on the coaches and leave their possessions behind ? Never mind looters, will they leave Rover and Tiddles ? Not always.
The fantasy continues:
They will set up roadblocks to create fast exit routes for vehicles, and councils outside London, particularly in the Home Counties, would arrange temporary accommodation for evacuees, according to contingency plans disclosed yesterday.
And what if Joe Desperate crashes one of the blocks in his 4x4 ? Shoot him ? And where are these wide open spaces down south, let alone the materials for tempoary accomadation. And about that accomadation - even assuming that 250 000 people can be accomadated under plastic, what about saniatation ? Law & order ? For that matter, what about insulin for the diabetic and other more specialised forms of care ?
No, it's all garbage and it sums up entirely what the Home Office means when it says 'irresponsible'. Such planning as there is, is merely a fig leaf. A means to provide the public with a bogus reassurance. This government will not take the measures necessary to protect the public, so instead they rely on Mickey Mouse measures like this and crossed fingers. How irresponsible of people to call rubbish rubbish - it might lead the public to demand real protection, thereby threatening the TINO/L3 establishments sacred cows. Back into the sand with your heads: we may be fighting for our lives, but what is life compared to Liberal posturing ?
Posted by DJ at 5/16/2004 12:22:00 pm
So, OK, now the L3 are finally acknowledging that just maybe what happened to Nick Berg wasn't particularly nice, but hey ? It was a one-off, just like Daniel Pearl. The actions of six pervs in an Iraqi prison prove the inherently corrupt and depraved nature of the invasion, the US, western civilisation.... but a continuous stream of murders by Muslims shed no light on the nature of the ROP. After all, the killers concerned weren't practicing true Islam.
Rampant misunderstanding of Islam appears to be a common problem. His Majesty points out a report of earlier case of a man completely misinformed as to the nature of Islam
- I'll give you a clue as to who he was: he was a paedophile rapist and his friends called him Mo.
Posted by DJ at 5/16/2004 12:06:00 pm
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Of course this proposal is disgusting, but it's hard not to see a certain irony in it. Personally, I hate country people, but you do wonder what proportion of the people running scared from this new threat were exactly the kind of elitists who were all for so-called 'Right To
After all, this atrocity gave notice that the government considered private property a flexible concept. City dwellers weren't obliged to let Farmer Palmer run sheep over their lawn, but city slickers had a right to behave like an occupying army in the country. Personally, I thought it would have been fairer if the self-same trash who think they were justified in goosestepping over some farmers workplace were obliged to let the green-jacketed ones do the same in their place of work. Rambelers would spend a refreshing day littering, leaving gates unlocked and destroying fences, then the inbred ones could spend the day at their office jamming the photocopier, sitting on desks while people are trying to work and pulling phones out of their sockets. That would have been more equitable, but that wasn't the law that was passed, so now we're stuck with the idea that there's personal property and there's stuff that you have at the whim of the government.
So don't lets hear any Metropolitan twerps inviting us to a Pity Party for the fact the governments treating them nearly as badly as Snowdonian hill farmers. (Although, incidentally, what is it with ramblers ? This strange desire to go into the country yet try and experience as little countryside as possible ? You have an unspoiled corner of England, and 10-1 it's full of groups of fifty tools dressed in dayglo orange, moving as quietly as a Motorhead gig and leaving a slime trail of Mars wrappers. What's the point ?)
Equally, there's plenty of people who're about as likely to be caught by this legislation as they are to have trouble at the bank getting change of a million pound note. That's OK, the next atrocity will no doubt catch them out (DJ sez: only allowed a car if you can prove you need it).
I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Nu Labour is simply revealing its true face. They always believed that citizens can't own anything, they can only borrow it from government. What this latest proposal really betrays is the complete failure of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives have been so ineffectual in fighting the Culture War that the Left now feels it openly state its hatred of something as basic as property rights. Why not ? The Conservatives have always recoiled from even suggesting that the citizen does have inalienable rights. Every turn of the ratchet has been greeted with mere half-hearted criticism from a Party that is blatantly trying to preserve its own future freedom to impose on the citizenry. In short, this proposal is a sign of complete moral collapse not amongst the Left, who always were scum, but amongst a Party which has renounced the basic priciples underpinning its whole existance.
Posted by DJ at 5/12/2004 11:17:00 pm
So, OK, the bloke behind this was evil as a rattlesnake, but what of his colleagues ? Where's the outrage ? You could fill the Millenium Stadium with Professors prepared to denounce astrology or ley lines, but an innocent life gets destroyed and..... [crickets chirp]
Hello ? We should trust these people while they're prepared to let this sort of thing go on ? Relatively speaking, the folks who think crystals cure cancer may be the sane ones.
Posted by DJ at 5/12/2004 10:50:00 pm
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
It is quite impressive how the pressure of producing five shows a week hasn't deflected Jeremy
Now, [obvious caveat follows]no one's saying that dyed-in-the-wool activists shouldn't be represented on the Beeb, but they should surely be identified as what they are. A man from Mars listening to today's broadcast would be forgiven for thinking IBC was some kind of semi-official, independant group of experts. Which is the very opposite of the truth: try here and here, and note that these criticisms are not emanating from a crazed Right-Wing Death Beast, but a well-respeted Lefty blogger.
IBC have a whole armoury full of axes to grind. Fronting them as an independant voice on the Iraq war is like asking Mediawatch UK if 'Debbie Does Dallas' should be shown on children's TV. We know what they're going to say.
Needless to say, having grossly misrepresented IBC's true nature, Jegsy was in no mood to pursue the more philosophical objection to the enterprise. IBC purports to collate the civilian casaulties in Iraq, presenting the aggregate death toll as proof that the invasion was a huge failure. Yet, in what sense is the death of a civilian hit by a richochet from a British soldier firing at a sniper morally equivalent to the death of a school child killed by a car bomb ? Both count as 'one' in IBC ledger, each supposedly helping to prove that it's all gone horribly wrong. Of course, this is an improvement on other L3 organisations, who can be relied upon to take a fine tooth comb to every shot fired by Coalition Forces while maintaing a dignified silence over killings by - ahem - militants (and should we ever be faced with a real-life version of SPECTRE, there's no doubt who they'd hire to handle their PR).
This is not a purely theoretical objection. Our enemies have shown themselves to be exceptionally media savvy - so much so as to justify Special Branch surveillance on Alistair Campbell. Check out how 'Bin Laden's' rhectoric has evolved from babbling about crusaders immediatly post-Sep 11 to now sounding more like Al Gore (though more pro-American). The fact remains that IBC seeks to use every civilian death, no matter how caused, as the basis for anti-Coalition propaganda. In other words, should those well-known militants blow up a school bus then the innocent dead will find themselves recuited for proganda aimed at achieving the self-same goals as the militants. To say the least, IBC and it's fellow travellers can hardly be said to be discouraging the murder of civilians.
Posted by DJ at 5/11/2004 11:11:00 pm
Sunday, May 09, 2004
I don't know much about art, but I know there's too many honkeys:
A civil liberties group is to challenge an art gallery's decision to exclude white people from applying for a job as a curator's assistant.
Gerald Hartup, the director of Liberty and Law, has written to Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, urging him to ask the Arnolfini arts centre in Bristol to freeze the recruitment process.
Hmmm.. don't think they get much of a response, judging by this latest atrocity:
Business leaders have criticised new rules that require companies to provide prayer rooms and give religious holidays to non-Christians as "unacceptable and ridiculous".
In a 99-page document published last week, the Commission for Racial Equality set out draft guidance on how companies should prevent discrimination against religious and racial minorities.
Avoid discrimination: - give a minority of your staff extra holidays and time off. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
It gets better:
The guidance also contains several other controversial instructions, including recommending that firms should discriminate in favour of ethnic minority job applicants in some circumstances.
For instance, if a black applicant lacks the relevant qualifications for a job with a company that has no black people at a similar or more senior level, he or she should still be considered for the post.
Well, OK, Mr Kawunga is not strictly an MD, but....
The draft guidance also suggests other circumstances where black people can be favoured over white people. As an example, the guidance states that a black applicant for the post of a nursery nurse should be favoured over a white candidate if the job needs someone who can speak in a West Indian accent - even if the black person has no such accent.
Jamaica, Somalia, all much of a muchness. Glad it wasn't a White guy who said that.
The advice, officially entitled the Statutory Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Employment, is intended to show businesses how they should implement the Race Relations Act 1976 and the more recent Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, which made it illegal to discriminate on religious as well as racial grounds.
It is intended to help employers to interpret complex legislation and aid understanding of race equality policies. It will become a statutory code of practice in August and will be used in employment tribunals.
And so the ratchet turns once more.
Posted by DJ at 5/09/2004 11:01:00 pm
I've finally worked out what it is about TINOs that makes them so annoying. Check out a recent couple of posts by King TINO. His targets are Rush Limbaugh and Joe McCarthy - scarcely, daring targets for a TINO, but look at the substance of the complaints. Rush is slimed for not taking the Abu Ghraib situation seriously enough. Is that necessarily more offensive than those who try to place it on a par with Aushwitz (and isn't that just another form of holocaust denial ?) ? But, OK, we'll give TINO that, Rush's comments were stupid. But what do we find two posts below ?
TINO chooses as his quote of the day, a comment claiming that Tailgunner Joe helped a Nazi war criminal escape justice (given TINO sensitivities, it's worth asking if he considers that it damages McCarthy's reputation to be associated with Nazi murderers or vice versa). The first thing to be said is that this version of events contradicts the TINO's own narrative. These people assure us that McCarthy chose to give his famous 1950 speech about Communist infiltration of the US government merely on a whim, then - pleased by the reaction - he opportunistically used anti-Communism to further his career. Yet, here's Joe in 1949, already turning a blind eye to murders committed by anti-Communists. Which McCarthy are we talking about here ? Ruthless opportunist or over-committed fanatic ?
More to the point though, is what exactly the quote means when it talks about McCarthy 'using his influence'. Here's the background: following the war a number of veterans of the Waffen SS were tried at Dachau for crimes committed during the Ardennes offensive. Even at the time there were serious questions over the procedure by which they were convicted (all of them, guilty of all charges) and the controversy refused to die down (for example, a number of German Bishops - not hitherto known for Nazi sympathies - raised questions about it in 1948). As a result, the Senate announced an inquiry into the trials. McCarthy, seeing the chance to score points with Wisconsin's large German-American community, threw the full force of his personality into the investigation.
The Inquiry may have been intended to be a whitewash, but with McCarthy around that was never likely to happen. On the contrary, what was revealed was a process that mocked the very idea of justice. Prisoners were beaten regularly, threats were made to their families, mock trials were held followed by mock executions, where the victim would be hung until unconsciousness, then revived and even - a tactic unavailable in Baghdad - mock priests who would offer to take the prisoners 'last confession'. Even the trial itself was a farce: the self-same US officer who headed the investigation served as the legal officer at the trials, thereby preventing the defence raising the question of the above tactics in court, while allowing the prosecution, following the suicide of a prisoner, to put one of its own investigators on the stand to testify as to what the deceased would have said if he had testified. Faced with a PR disaster, the US commuted the death sentences to life. Which meant, of course, that Peiper would survive, along with all the other accused, including some who'd been low-ranking teenagers in their first battle at the time the alleged offences were committed.
That's it. That's what 'used his influence' means: Senator McCarthy took part in a Senate investigation and revealed gross misconduct by the US Army. The beast!
You see where I'm going here ? Rush is a pig for not being sufficiently outraged about abuse of prisoners by the US Army and Joe McCarthy is a pig for being too outraged about abuse of prisoners by the US Army. You get the feeling the prisoner abuse thing is kind of a surrogate here. Then again, check out the end of the McCarthy quote: "[Peiper]then moved to France, where some Frenchmen with memories blew him up.". If TINOs are going to be so sanguine about Communist terrorists gunning down (not bombing) elderly men, could then at least stop moralising about a certain Norfolk farmer ? Come to think of it, what's with the beginning of the quote, the one about MacArthur ? Should Doug has roused his troops with an Order of the Day headed 'We're All Going To Die' ? And when exactly in history did a battle ever go according to plan ? The quote is the very essence of TINOism, a snide, smug comment that's ultimately meaningless.
That's what annoys me about TINOs. For all the ostentatious intellectualising, allegedly deep thought and the like, it all boils down to snobbery. Limbaugh, McCarthy, MacArthur and Martin all, in their various ways, stood against our mostly self-appointed elites and for the man in the street. That's why the TINOs hate them, but they can't come out and say that, so instead they thrash about trying to find any pot and pan to throw. They're opposed to beating captured soldiers of a fascist regime, no, they're for it, actually they're… Hence, their near-pathological worship of nuance - it's the rhetorical trick by which they try and square the circle and convince us that their snobbish prejudices constitute an actual philosophy.
Posted by DJ at 5/09/2004 10:38:00 pm
Say, what ?
As yet, there's still a lack of any compelling evidence of misconduct by British troops. Yet, our refusal to believe in something for which there's no evidence is an example of blind faith ? That's the real genius of it - the meme not only doesn't require evidence, but the abscence of evidence is itself proof of the charge. You don't believe that the British Army is just like the NKVD ? You're blind, you're not enlightened, you're too stupid to recognise that there's load of evidence, but it's all being hushed up by the system, man.
Puuulease. No doubt there are people who wouldn't believe in military misconduct even if guardsmen were filmed eating babies, so yes, they do have blind faith. But what of those for whom the mere abscence of evidence is no reason not to believe that there are mass graves behing HQ Basra ? What are they suffering from ? Isn't blind suspicion just guillability standing on it's head ?
Who knows ? But, since we've 'moved on', as the L3 would say, from needing actual evidence, may I just be the first to point out that we can not blindly trust that Jeremy Vine is not a sheep-molesting terrorist.
Posted by DJ at 5/09/2004 07:56:00 pm
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Is there LSD in the water at Westminister or what ? To join our non-Conservative Conservative Party we now have the Lib Dems, a party that's so Europhillic it thinks the Euro-elections should be used to register a meaningless protest vote. Meanwhile, Nu Lab has rebutted claims that it was running out of ideas by launching it's campaign with a vicious attack on someone who retired forteen years ago.
This is going to be a loooooooooooong campaign.
Posted by DJ at 5/05/2004 11:06:00 pm
Islamism and Indocducation - it's a winning combination. (pay no attention to the exploding man behind the curtain)
My favorite was this line:
“Jihad means struggle but not necessarily a violent struggle. It can mean the struggle for tolerance and freedom."
As exemplified by all those tolerant, free and non-violent Islamic Republics we keep hearing about.
As one of the commentators at lgf points out, there's a clonking great giveaway even in the well-spun press release:
For example one of our posters has the names of the prophets including Jesus who of course is an important figure for Christians but who is also an important Muslim prophet.
As the commentator says, we'll see how tolerant the Jihadis are when the Christian kids start interrupting to point out that Jesus was God, not a prophet.
"You're expelled Jones, you racist thug. Everyone knows true equality means allowing the Jihadbots to tell you what you can and can't believe"!
Posted by DJ at 5/05/2004 11:01:00 pm
About five days in fact, before government policy on dealing with the 'new EU' collapsed into ruins. Can you guess what happened ?
Yes, indeed, the scumsucking moonbats at the High Court have ruled that it's a fundamental human right to go to someone else's country and demand free money from the local citizens. Sort of like Danegeld for the Nu Lab generation. Strangely, the High Court has yet to find a fundamental human right for people not to be coerced into giving their hard-earned cash to any tool who has the nouse to get on a bus from Lower Bratislaovitsia to England. Here's the details:
Asylum seekers from the new EU countries in eastern Europe won the right yesterday to bring a High Court challenge against the Government's decision to block state benefits.
Yes, they're claiming asylum from a fellow EU country. Never mind that they're are all from countries, by definiton, signed up to the whole EU barrell of monkeys human rights garbage. They already have the right to residence in Britain (or any EU country) but, hey, that don't pay so well, so they keep their snouts in the trough just as long as the L3 nuts in the High Court will let them.
And that's the better story from the L3 never-never land of the judicary. This is far worse:
Lawyers for 12 Iraqi families who claim relatives were killed by British troops in Iraq have lodged papers at the High Court in a battle for compensation.
The lawyers want an independent inquiry to make the Ministry of Defence accept legal responsibility for the deaths.
They have lodged papers at London's Royal Courts of Justice - the first step in seeking a judicial review.
The test cases will decide whether the UK armed forces in occupation are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998.
After lodging the papers, solicitor Phil Shiner said he expected there would eventually be a total of 17 Iraqi families seeking damages under human rights legislation.
There's some debate over whether the Human Rights Act has been hijacked by an L3 judicary, or whether (as I believe) the government always knew it's allies in the madhouse would use it to make law that Labour would never risk exposing to public scrutiny. Be that as it may, the suggestion that the Human Rights Act applies in the middle of a foreign war zone is a whole new turn of the ratchet. Just how long are we expected to have our elected representatives bypassed by a bunch of unelected, and unelectable, tranzi lunatics ? Wasn't this what the Civil War was about ? The primacy of Parliament over a supposedly enlightened, and definitly privledged, elite that sought to warp the law of the land to fit it's own agenda ?
We need another Cromwell.
Posted by DJ at 5/05/2004 10:52:00 pm
Further to the Mirror and the alleged torture pictures, it's not as if the L3 don't have form for this. Take the case referred to here, or read here about how the L3 are still trying to spin a long-debunked anti-Semitic libel.
Hell, this sort of thing scored Rigoberto Menchu a Nobel Prize and Lardy the Leftie an Oscar. I realise I'm not exactly breaking any new ground here, pointing out that the L3 are lying scum, but can we at least try and kill the meme that cyberspace is the medium of lies and rumour, while Old Media are selfless guardians of truth. They've drank no end of Kool Aid in their time.
Posted by DJ at 5/05/2004 10:24:00 pm
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Somehow, I can't get emotional about missing this program. Here's the opening line of the blurb:
In the current climate, converting to Islam is not an obvious choice or an easy one, either for converts or their families.
Yes, it's that well-known Islamphobia, as extensively documented in....
C'mon - if Nasser Hussain gets out for a duck the Met records it as a Hate Crime, and still the famous backlash proves as elusive an Iman condemning Bin Laden.
For the four converts featured in the documentary, conversion is a positive step - but one that demands sacrifices of them and can cause worry and confusion for those closest to them.
Yes, 100% positive. No doubt, they've had a few rough spots, probably caused by their Infidel families, but there's always a happy ending when you join the five-a-day headbangers club. Anyone ever recall this kind of soft-focus coverage of converts to the bead jigglers or the Canterbury Club ?
Balance - it's so last century.
Needless to say, the four drones featured all seem to be the kind of social inadequates who would join a death cult. But check out this delightful piece of dreck:
Aqeel Burton was brought up in Manchester by Jamaican Christian parents, but rejected his parents' faith, because it seemed to him a white person's religion.
See, that's how braodminded the Beeb is: even being a self-confessed racist nutjob won't stop them giving you a tongue bath. They'll probably do Nick Griffin next. Right ?
Of course, there's an agenda here: the War only exists 'cause we're too dumb to understand Bin Laden et al. There are no substantive issues dividing Islam from modern, secular democracy. Everythings gonna be all right if we just hold hands...
Ultimately, though, it is a hopeful film. At a time when many people talk about "a clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West, converts just might become a living bridge between Islam and the West
Of course, converts from the ROP to Judeo-Christian religions also have their part to play.
What you mean 'Death Sentance' ?
Surely not, doncha'know it's a Religion Of Peace ?
Posted by DJ at 5/04/2004 11:24:00 pm
Seems like only weeks ago the Left was whining about an irresponsible press. Apparently, criticising the EU is beyond the pale, but printing propaganda which can only have the effect of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war, why, that's just ducky.
What's that ? Something about a free press ? Ahem - neither Conservative MPs nor the Daily Mail can mention immigration without sixty thousand taxpayer funded race hustlers claiming they're done all but lead a lynch mob through Oldham. Yet here's a major paper publishing a load of inflammatory nonsense that's riddled with anomalies and Piers Morgan is a John Stuart Mills for the Twenty-First Century.
Yada, yada, yada. They could be genuine (although if they are, they were probably taken by Elvis). So what ? There's no evidential reason to publish the actual pictures, we know what someone being beaten up looks like. Publication of the photos merely serves to inflame the situation. This is where the anti-war Left is these days: they'll go out of their way to follow the policy which creates the most damage for the war effort, irrespective of whether it causes more British casualties, harms British interests and helps embolden those who would turn Iraq into Somalia II.
If the photos are fakes, then the above applies double. The L3 are hung by their own words here. They claim that news of torture will put British troops at risk and help propel Iraq further towards anarchy, yet they leap upon even the flimsiest allegations and trumpet it from the roof tops. Can we call them traitors yet ?
Posted by DJ at 5/04/2004 10:58:00 pm
Laban Tall gives a link to the Modern Crusader, which is - as may be expected - somewhat sceptical of the whole ROP deal. Thing is, given that openly practicing genocide, ethnic cleansing and slavery gets you a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission, they may just be the sanest of us.
Posted by DJ at 5/04/2004 10:45:00 pm
Mark Steyn recently offered this anecdote:
On “The Daily Show” a few months back, Stephen Colbert ended a parody news report on the “gaysplosion”, the growing popularity of gay culture, by declaring earnestly that he too was gay. The host Jon Stewart affected surprise: he hadn’t realized Colbert enjoyed sex with men. Colbert was revolted: Whaddaya mean, sex with men? What’s that got to do with being “gay”?
I thought of that when I read this. The temptation is to say 'a plague on both your houses'. For sure, there's plenty obnoxious about Gay Activists, as ever, demanding equality-plus, the right to be treated just like anyone else, except better. Especially so here, where they claim the right for police officers to wear regalia associated with a particularly controversial worldview. But what of their opponents ? Surely a case of 'live by the pander, die by the pander' ?
The Police specifically, and the whole TINO/L3 coalition generally, have bent over backwards to appease the Pink Wedge. Even the rationale for trying to specifically recruit gay police officers in the first place is an example of the Filth swallowing the identity politics scam whole. The rationale is that gay police officers are required to bring a gay perspective to law enforcement, particularly when dealing with crime involving gays. To that end the Old Bill have advertised in gay mags, met with gay activist groups, visited gay clubs…. Did they think that approach was going to net Nigel 'Who Knew ?' Hawthorne types ? On the contrary, it was designed to recruit Gays, with a very definite capital G. People whose sexuality is at the very core of their being. Yet, now the TINOs are shocked, shocked! I tell you, to find that their new friends meant what they said about being glad to be gay.
Take this item from King TINO himself. I myself have been the target of a few of his girly-girl eyepoke attacks over my refusal to endorse this kind of pandering, but now he wants to be taken seriously when trying to sound like the Mr Hyde to Peter Cuthbertson's Jekyll. Are we not supposed to notice ?
But don't call the TINOs inconsistent when they complain that the Gays they recruited are just too gay. TINOs don't object to people holding particular views, they just object to people holding views. For all its ostentatious nuance, the TINO position on any issue boils down to pose of smug detachment, the TINO above it all, looking down his nose and sneering at the lower orders with their terribly gauche ideals and their simplisme principles.
Say what you like about the Gay Activists, but at least they never pretended to be anything they're not. Still, it is a valuable lesson for the gay community: you can cut a deal with the TINOs, but don't expect them to respect you in the morning.
Posted by DJ at 5/04/2004 10:41:00 pm
Paul is exactly right about this latest atrocity. Not only that, but note the warped morality on show here: householders can't defend themselves against house invaders because -hey - they're just loveable, jack-the-lads called Lefty, who wouldn't hurt a fly, and besides, given a right to self-defence, householders - ordinary, decent citizens, -will turn into homicidal killing machines. Hello ? Smackheads who kick people's doors down and hold a knife to their throat are A-OK, but country GPs are one click away from Norman Bates country.
And what exactly is with this ?
"Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, said that it would have created a "spiral of violence and retaliation".
Not really. The scum will attack, we'll kill them. Really, there's not much of a sequel to that. Still, I have to know - any relation to the well-known 'cycle of violence', which by an amazing coincidence only ever goes out for a ride when the Israelis kill scumbags ? Is it just me or is there some kind of pattern here ?
Posted by DJ at 5/04/2004 10:35:00 pm
Monday, May 03, 2004
Brilliant story at lgf. As you may know, the Thais are the latest people to have annoyed the ROP with their Imperialistic McQu'Hungs and their sinful existing. Except the L3 don't have a lot of presence out there, so samity still reigns:
More than 100 suspected militants — mostly young men wielding machetes — were killed Wednesday when they attacked police and army posts in pre-dawn raids in three southern provinces. Three police and two soldiers were also killed.
Needless to say, such an outrageous display of nuancelessness has enraged the usual suspects:
On Friday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights demanded that Thailand investigate the killings, citing treaties that require security forces to refrain from using excessive force.
International and local human rights groups have also called for investigations.
And the Thai response ?
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra responded with defiance.
“Please don’t intervene. Please leave us alone,” he said in a radio address Saturday.
“It is my job and we can cope with this matter. We are trying to explain this to foreigners. But if they do not understand or ignore our explanation, I don’t care because we are not begging them for food,” Thaksin said.
Why don't more people do that ?
Posted by DJ at 5/03/2004 10:59:00 pm