Wednesday, June 30, 2004
It's the spirit of the age. Work hard and succeed and Fat Gordo bangs on the door demanding half your wages. Get stoned eight days a week and the money rolls in. Slowly, some of the more thoughtful Leftists are starting to realise that a welfare state which relies on taking money from one set of folks and giving it to a completely different bunch can't last very long. Take the whole sprechen Sie English deal. Who's least likely to speak English ? Exactly - pay taxes since you're sixteen and your kids can't get a place 'cause Ivana Scroungealot has just arrived with her 64 kids.
There's a deeper problem here. Sooner or later, any welfare system has to talk about desert: giving money to people who not only need it, but deserve it. Smackheads need money - they need it to get high. Giving a smackhead cash is just a roundabout way of transferring foreign aid to Asia. Lefties claim to be repelled by the idea of making moral judgements but just ask them what they think of City salaries (or, for that matter, any post by me or Smart Peter on you-know-who issues). They moralise just fine, they just don't like our morals. We've had forty years of L3 morals on display in the welfare system - does anyone think things are better ? At least someone in the Conservative Party is prepared to point out that there's got to be a better way. IDS had many flaws, but at least he understood Conservatism was a moral as well as an economic philosophy.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Misha applies the Cluebat to a Guardian writer. It's superb. Never the less, the Moonbat does, in one sole respect, have a point. Current plans for choice, from either party, repeat the same mistakes made in the No-Education system. You'll have the right to choose, but since everyone will want to go to a top hospital, chances are you'll probably end up at Death Row General anyway.
Until the money follows the patient (and the pupil) successful institutions will be artificially prevented from expanding to meet demand, while failed ones will be propped up, able to go on their merry way destroying lives. In short, both parties support practices in two of our most vital public services that would be highly illegal if they were carried out by a cartel of hat manufacturers or bakers. No one is prepared to say that the best thing you can do with a failing hospital is close it and transfer the money to a successful one. Hey Liberals - if 25% of the patients die, maybe they shouldn't be in the health care business. But no - if a restaurant closes then that's too bad, but NHS employees have a job for life, no matter what. It's not some vacuous 'choice' that we need, it's real competition.
Has anyone else heard this rumour ? Apparently, Michael Moore has a new film out. It might be true, but how come no one's talking about it in the media ? You'd think the BBC would at least mention it. [/sarcasm]
Can we at least kill the myth that the Beeb doesn't screen adverts ? To be fair, I don't think Fatso's got a mention in the weather forecast yet, but everywhere else….Let's just say I saw Kirstie Wark interview Jabbah and I was reminded of Meg Ryan in 'When Harry Met Sally', if you get my drift.
Still, at least there's light at the end of the tunnel. Come Oct 1st the L3 will throw Moby over the side (doubtless with the help of a crane). Why ? For the best of reasons: St Ann is back. Lardbucket may be being hailed as the Stephen Hawkins of politics right about now but, if past history is any guide, at 12:01AM on Oct 1st the switch will flip and L3 will be queuing up to denounce the Divine One as being As Bad As Michael Moore. It's still going to be a long few months, but make a mental note of the media Lewinskying of the Zepplin, and enjoy the full glory of the backflip come the autumn. Remember to diary it though - instinct tells me Ann won't get quite the same exposure.
The Conservative Party is so narcoleptic in the Commons that's it's easy to overlook the fact it's still in business. Fortunately, things are a little different in the other place. Take the latest move to bring long-term carers under the ambit of the civil partnerships bill.
So you see, consensus politics can work. The L3 have removed what they always claimed was a dreadful unfairness from the law, while we on the Right have defeated what we always think of an injustice. So everyone's happy ? Well, not exactly….
Ministers in the Lords refused to take part in any further debate on the Civil Partnership Bill after peers voted to extend it to other couples, including carers and sisters who lived together.
So what's their problem ?
Labour peer Lord Alli said: "This amendment is ill-conceived and does nothing other than undermine the purpose of the Bill.
"This is not a Bill to do ill. This is about same sex couples whose relationships are clearly different from siblings. These are complex issues."
So complex he can't actually say what his problem is.
Gay lobby group Stonewall says it is "deeply distressed" about the outcome.
The organisation's chief executive, Ben Summerskill, said: "It's a number of years since we have heard peers referring openly to 'unnatural sexual practices' and 'hijacking' of the word gay.
And when he returns from his tangent he may fit in time to tell us exactly what his problem is.
A government source told BBC News Online: "It's clearly a wrecking amendment to progressive legislation. It's very disappointing the Tories want to scupper it."
How exactly would it be scuppered ?
When the L3 max out on the outrage and go light on the facts, it usually means they're up to no good. After all, seemingly since about 1967 we've been bombarded with lachrymose tales of La-La's deprived of the right to see their dying partners in hospital (although the L3 have been strangely reluctant to name names and specify dates). Now the end is in sight, and they drop anchor. What's going on ? It's not like the carers are going to use up all the rights so that Sir Elton will end up hammering on the doors of St Bart's Hospital is it ? Speaking in terms of practical politics, broadening the demographic that will benefit from these changes will only help speed the day when hairdressers are no longer cast out of A & E. But, no, they don't mind being thrown out, just as long as no carers sneak in with them.
Well, actually, it's no kind of mystery at all why exactly the L3 are spitting blood. Non-verifiable reports of ICU ejections to the contra, this Bill was never about rights, it was always about symbolism. It was about establishing La-La relationships as entirely equivalent to marriage in every sense of the word. Hence, the bizarre speech impediment that's suddenly struck the L3. After all, they've spent the last few years calling everyone who pointed this out a bigot. They'll have to leave it about a week before performing a backflip.
Superficial hypocrisy to the contrary, there's actually a deeper hypocrisy here. It's about this: the La-Las want this Bill to be a gay marriage bill, and just a gay marriage bill. It's theirs, all theirs. Never mind that carers are the victims of real injustice, the La-Las don't give a toss. They'll keep a lid on their hatred of heterosexual marriage (for now) and accept equal billing, but they won't let anyone else share the stage. That's the hypocrisy at the centre of it. They're worried about diluting the significance of marriage. They want to redefine an institution that goes back to the dawn of time, then lie down in the road preventing anyone else joining in, lest it be cheapened. In short, when it comes to gays discussing extending benefits to carers, they sound like nothing so much as Conservative family activists. Except for one thing.
Family campaigners base their support for marriage on the belief that it is the best environment for bringing up children. Gay marriage is opposed because it threatens this link. Once we accept that marriage is just a lifestyle choice then the question becomes why should we bother about it ? Indeed, over the last thirty years government has gone from supporting marriage to supporting people with children. Needless to say, government demonstrating it doesn't care whether children are born in or outside of marriage has led the public to feel the same way, with all the fabulous consequences observable in any town today.
But the La-Las ? What have they got to be so precious about ? Every argument in favour of giving gays marriage rights is trumped by the case for giving them to carers. La-Las claim they get a bad deal from the government. Hey, carers have to face the loss of a loved one closely followed by the Government banging on the door shouting 'Get the Hell out of our house'. Non-flying Air Stewards claim that gay marriage will bring about all kinds of abstract social benefits such as 'aiding stability' (whatever that means). There's no such hand-waving when we talk about the social benefits of carers. They save the country billions - they deserve medals, not eviction notices.
There's a certain grim satisfaction in seeing the Gay Wedge endorse our principles, but I don't expect anyone in the media to point that out, just as they won't point out that the target of all this snarling hatred is people who've given up work to care for elderly or sick relatives. Just remember, next time you see a pink activist take out an onion on TV in memory of all those hairdressers thrown off the ward by fascist nurses, that they're perfectly happy to see a fifty-something woman thrown out of her house, rather than share their toys with anyone else.
Blunkett's still committed to proving that local control of Police is a very flexible concept. Even the Mad Mullah of Mold has taken time out to denounce the Sheffield Skunk. When one of our castrato senior police officer speaks out against a Nu Lab minister, then the man with the red boxes must really have gone too far. One of the victim's fathers has spoken out against Blunkett. Beardey says that's irrelevant. Can this really be the same Party whose conference once featured a teacher from Dunblaine screeching hatred against gun owners, Conservatives and everyone else who wasn't a moonbat (it achieved one thing though: hearing her hysterical, eye-popping rantings reassured me that violence isn't caused by weapons) ?
Still, as ever with Nu Lab, we have the reassurance of knowing nothing will really change. Of course, that was in Sock Puppet's area. How come Blunkett hasn't called for him to go ?
To ask it is to answer it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Uh oh... the Beeb's headline is 'Watchdog criticises asylum decisions', that can't be good:
Immigration authorities are making faster decisions on asylum cases - but need to improve how many they get right, says the government's spending watchdog.
The National Audit Office says £200m could have been saved if ministers invested in case work rather than on removing failed asylum seekers.
It says mistakes meant more people appealed - increasing the costs....
But the NAO said case workers making decisions "receive less training than they should", sometimes use "flawed tests of credibility" and occasionally make basic errors of fact.
The quality of some country reports - basic information about home nation conditions - was also flawed.
These factors were sometimes complicated by applicants without documentation or inconsistencies in their accounts.
This meant too many cases were unnecessarily going to an appeal - leading to higher costs within the system and in supporting the applicant waiting for a final decision, said the NAO.
All good sob sister stuff, of course. But what's this ? The Telegraph also covers the story, except its take is a little different.
The Home Office has been forced to reinstate minimum academic standards for asylum case workers after they were dropped to attract more ethnic minority applicants.
It found that some executive officer recruits - who no longer needed to obtain two A-levels and five GCSEs, including English - could not do the job properly.
The academic requirements were abolished in Nov 2000 and replaced by a "competency-based approach and psychometric tests to select candidates". The aim was to meet the Home Office's "overall recruitment needs and to broaden the diversity of applicants".
But a report on asylum published today by the National Audit Office (NAO) said "some of the new case workers were less able to deliver properly-considered decisions on complex cases".
As a result, the minimum academic standards for recruits were restored in February this year. The Home Office was set a target of recruiting at least from ethnic minorities this year.
But, don't think the Beeb downplays the role supposed 'affirmative action' played in this fiasco - nope, it just doesn't mention it at all. There are oblique hints to problems with training and the like, but nowhere is the central problem addressed.
This is hardly a question of tone or point-of-view. The Beeb is just flat out lying. It would be bad enough if it didn't cover the report, but what it does is far worse. It claims to cover it, while censoring those parts that do not serve it's own agenda. The effect is to misrepresent what the report actually said. When are we going to have quotas for honest reporters at the Beeb ?
What JohnJo said. All that I ask of supporters of this witchhunt is that they explain why, if they have no issus with the procedure used to obtain this conviction, they don't want to see it used in Britain. Think of the money saved, let alone any wider issues. But no - as ever the target was one of those bad people, just like truckers, gun owners, farmers, cyberfreaks.... all at one time or another (along with many other groups) cast as hobgoblins ready to eat babies should Parliament fail to tear up another tranche of traditional British rights. Which brings me onto the latest events.
Few people deserve sympathy less than senior Police Officers - even ones who haven't presided over complete trainwrecks. These people have been willing henchmen of Nu Lab and coconspirators in turning the Police into the armed wing of the Guardian-BBC Axis of Moonbat. Nevertheless, there is a serious point here: local control of the Police is a central part of British policing. There are arguments for a National Police Service, but Blunkett isn't making them. He wants power without responsibility, the ability to remove uncooperative Chiefs, with the ineviatble chilling effect that would create as a corollary, without taking the rap for problems - even where in many cases it is central government which has caused, or at at least contributed to, the self-same problems.
Look at the Soham situation. One of the main problems was the effect of the Data Protection Regulations - in large part brought in by this government. Never mind exactly what the letter of the law was - it was ineviatble that this legislation would have a chilling effect on record keeping, and Blunkett did nothing to forstall that. Ditto the lax treatment of allegations of underage sex. Government policy has done all but encourage such things - for Blunkett to act outraged that Police and Social Workers failed to react to news that Huntley was banging a fifteen year old suggests either a complete failure to understand his own Department's policy or outright humbuggery of a truly Blairian nature. Similar comments could be made about other sections of the report. If the system in Humberside was dysfunctional then it was no more so than anywhere else in Britain. If failures in one section justify sacking it's chief, who should go for the more general failures ? Perhaps Blunkett could suggest someone ?
What's in a name ? Nothing apparently. While Mikey claims to have no firm opinion as to whether the Sun will rise in the East, not-so-dumb Johnnie is bitch-slapping the L3 big time:
Australian schools must have a functioning flagpole if they are to qualify for extra educational funding, Prime Minister John Howard has said.
Mr Howard, who is expected to call an election within months, said cultural attitudes were changing and more Australians now wanted to fly the flag.
The announcement came as a new poll suggested the opposition Labor party was still ahead.
The Australian's Newspoll showed Labor leading a two-way race by 52% to 48%.
Other conditions schools must meet to earn a slice of the A$31bn (US$21bn) funding on offer include meeting national standards on the curriculum, improving reports for parents, and setting aside two hours each week for students to exercise.
Somehow, I think the Oz L3 contingent, both of them, will be channeling Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist' about now. Note too that the Bruces are dealing with an outbreak of fatties by taking more exercise, instead of blathering on about Ronnie McDonald breaking into people's homes and forcing Chicken McFilth burgeres down kid's throats.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
There is a collapse in belief in government -- all government. As a result, politics is becoming fragmented, as people vote in ever greater numbers for small or single issue parties which don't have a hope in hell of getting elected. The argument that fragmenting the vote in this way will 'let in the other side' no longer has the resonance it once enjoyed because, with the major parties saying such similar things, fewer people care if the 'other side' does get in. What becomes important instead, for people who feel so fundamentally disenfranchised, is to make their voice heard.
Exactly. Like most people, there are certain issues which dominate all others in my choice of who to vote for. Yet, when I compare the two main parties, I - lifelong Conservative - note that it is Labour which better represents my views. Which is to say, Labour are despicable as ever, yet at least Blair has taken some action against Islamofascism. The Tories ? They want to hit Bin Laden with Love Power. For all the rest, who cares ? Does anyone really believe this Conservative Party will change anything ? Sure, a Conservative government will boost the vital brown envelope and escort industries, but actual policy ? Forget it! This Conservative Party seems happy to serve as a mere figurehead. Is that the limit of their ambitions ?
Proof, as if it were needed, that the whole whuman wrights scam is just an excuse for the Left to foist its agenda on us: the deafening silence from the L3 over this.
Even taking the Filth's explanation at face value raises questions. Here's a bloke passing through a 'banned area' for several meters when - quite by coincidence - there's some cops there to catch sight of him doing so and bust him. Sounds like they've sorted that 'shortage of resources' they always complain about. Somehow, the alternative explanation sounds a little more credible. Hey - protestor arrested on trumped-up charges. Sound the Seethealarm. Cue m'learned friends to quote paragraphs and section numbers. Time for Guardian columnists to write darkly about crushing of dissent. Nope - they're in favour of ecoloons torching a McDonalds every May 1st, they think it outrageous that peace protestors are allowed to hold a rally calling for the peaceful extermination of Jews and Americans no closer than five hundred yards of where Dubya is, but these guys ? They're talking about family issues! How crass and suburban is that! You can't waste rights on those people, or they'll be none left over for getting Al-Quaida terrorists released.
Ditto, expect a deafening silence over this latest proposal. Of course it's trailed as a response to Soham. Funny how the only measures the Left ever takes to deal with paedophiles are those which impact the innocent as well as the guilty. Needless to say, the Government will assure us that there is no question of a system that does away with the requirement for actual evidence to be used to alibi the kind of harassment noted above.
And if you believe that, I have a nice bridge you may be interested in buying.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
And it's a lu-lu, thanks to Paul for pointing it out:
An investigation into the police has unearthed "stealth racism" in the training of new officers, the Commission for Racial Equality says.
Ooooh…that's the worst kind. Racism for which there is no actual evidence at all. You need special techniques to expose them, for example many racists can't detect if you put salt in their tea because they don't have taste buds like normal people, also many racists own cats and big cauldrons, and if you tie them up, then throw them in a pond, they'll float instead of drowning.
The probe found forces failing to meet minimum standards on race equality, despite laws compelling them to do so.
The CRE is warning 14 unnamed forces they have 90 days to comply with race relations law or face legal action.
I should feel sympathetic to the Filth, but hey ? They've never had a problem with acting as the paramilitary wing of the BBC so screw them if the pigs have come home to roost.
The probe followed the BBC's 2003 documentary The Secret Policeman on racism among police recruits.
Heading the report, former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir David Calvert-Smith said racism was still a major problem in the police and that his team had found failings at "every level":
And the former head of CPS should know all about total failure. Note though a certain contrast here - back when Sir
"Any thoughts that follow in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry that this problem had somehow gone away are wholly wrong.
"An enormous amount of resources have gone into programmes on race and diversity, and it has not been anywhere near as successful as people had hoped."
All that witch-hunting and nary a witch to show for it. Clearly, indicates a lack of resources.
He said there may be a case for creating a system of undercover officers working within the police to root out racism.
Needless to say, suggesting this in any other context will drive the L3 into a frenzy of whining about entrapment, agent provocateurs and the like. See above comment about being deeply reassured.
According to the CRE's interim report, more than 90% of police race equality schemes fail to meet the minimum legal requirements.
Forces had new duties to take potential race issues into account in recruitment, but screening procedures were falling short, it said.
Waiter, some sauce for this goose: let the Filth screen out potential perverts, druggies, terrorist sympathisers, thieves and skivers. Of course, this might make recruitment a little difficult, but since the L3 are in favour of discriminating against people based on what they might do, then it seems only fair to apply it across the board.
Ironically, applicants from some minority communities were more likely to fail an initial screening for their views on race and diversity than a white applicant.
Which is ironic only in the sense that it's ironic that people supposedly opposed to racism openly imply that only them pesky honkeys could possibly be prejudiced against anyone. I'm pretty sure that Rwanda isn't in Scandanavia.
Evidence into probationary training found complaints ranging from almost exclusively white tutors with superficial knowledge of race relations through to overt demonstrations of prejudice.
Them honkeys again. How could greymeat understand about race relations ? They don't have the genes, it stands to reason you can't take these people off the Steppes and expect them to deal with all this complex stuff….
Are the CRE subcontracting to taxi drivers or what ?
One recruit told investigators he had experienced "stealth racism", something he described as prejudice from an officer who knew how to avoid breaking the law.
Any of our more geriatric bloggers remember the 'PC Savage' sketch on 'Not The Nine O'Clock News, sometime about 1982 ? It was about a racist copper who was victimising a black guy, arresting him for stuff like 'walking on the cracks in the pavement'. The thing is this: one of the charges was 'looking at me in a funny way'. This is where we're at now: what the L3 claimed to oppose twenty years ago, has now become their own policy.
Another Asian Muslim recruit said curry had been smeared on his bedroom door in the training centre.
Liberals keep wavng the bloody shirt about Stephen Lawrence, but then they bring up stuff like this: curry abuse. It implies a certain scrapeing of the ol' barrell. Besides, the L3 freak when terrorists fighting to impose Islam on the world are described as Islamic. Apparently, it unfairly labels the vast majority of peaceful Muslims as tangos. But that doesn't mean that a single anecdotal report of curry abuse isn't proof positive that the Bill are like a hard-line Waffen SS.
A police trainee admitted having no knowledge of anti-discrimination legislation. Another had not heard of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
Instinct tells me you won't get much sense out of the witch hunters if you asked them to define 'Dhimmitude' or explain who Keith Blakelock was. Still, that's to miss the larger picture, and what a breathtaking piece of politicisation this is. The charge isn't that the trainees (incidentally a word meaning one who has not yet learned everything) actually did, said or even thought anything: nope, it's that they were not correctly programmed with L3 talking points. Suddenly, crime is no longer breaking the law, now it is displaying insufficient enthusiasm for pushing the L3 line.
You see where we going here ? Plenty of people think the MacPherson report was a disgrace. Yet, in the cause of diversity, they're to be excluded from the Police Service. The L3 always claimed that the Filth couldn't represent, say, Chinese-descended people, until they had more than x% of Chinese cops. Right - don't let anyone convince you otherwise with talk of response times, clear-up rates and the like. What they really want down the 'Ming Dynasty' is the right probability that the lazy drone who turns up three hours after the robbery will be the same colour as them. Meanwhile, in the real world, if you're Conservative, you can't join the Police, but don't let that turn you against them.
The service was heavily dominated by a macho "bar culture" which excluded recruits from minority communities who did not drink, the report said.
Because, Allah knows, you can't go in a bar without drinking - at least that's what I always told my ex. She didn't buy it either, so we'll have to look for alternative explanations. Gosh - who can it be who doesn't drink ?
You know, I do believe there is one group - yep, indeed. 'Excluding recruits' sounds like code for refusal to adopt the appropriate dhimmi position - you know, like admitting the sheer awfulness of people from cultures which do drink, drinking. Clearly, the Filth should be teetotal, lest they exclude anyone by choosing to spend their leisure time doing stuff that Allah doesn't dig.
And as for the sleeping around...
CRE chairman Trevor Phillips said: "We are entering a zone of zero tolerance - the time for chat is over.
"All that people have to do is obey the law."
Of course, if Armani Trev and other allegeded 'black community leaders' could adopt the same hardline when talking about Yardies, the quality of life in Tottenham would show about a thousand times more improvement than that achieved by any number of witch hunts.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Apart from clear and unacceptable racial differences in the screening process, it is frankly astonishing that so many people are failing the basic diversity test.
"Either huge numbers of racists were getting through before screening was introduced, or the screening process itself is seriously flawed."
Or possibly a system designed to discriminate against non-moonbats works as advertised.
But Ravi Chand, former head of the Black Police Association and a member of the investigation team, urged members of minority communities not to give up on joining the police.
"There are many members of these communities with the skills and talent needed for a 21st century force."
Unless they're Conservatives, of course.
A Home Office spokeswoman said it would consider the report "carefully and positively".
"It is an interim report and we will give a fuller response when the full version becomes available early next year."
Hey, I've just thought, wouldn't it be totally amazing if one second after the report was released, the Home Office came through with a whole new bunch of PC witch hunting legislation ? It sounds crazy, but it could just happen.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Here's a question for the modern philosophers: how many elections does a guy have to lose before his acolytes stop praising his electability ? Probably about 57, still we can dream: 'Mr Norris, we've booked you on the Loser Express to Nowheresville, you'll be travelling in the No Class compartment'. I mean, what was that slogan ? 'Death before electability' ? That was how they mocked the views of anyone to the right of Tony Blair. Well, it looks like they forgot the 'electability' part of it.
Let's be clear about this: Nozza lost to a guy whose main claim to fame is introducing a whole new tax, and whose secondary claim to fame is making moonbat comments about Dubya, the US and Western Civilisation in general. On first principles, this should have been a walkover, but there's more to it than that. TINOs hypothesise that the public is repelled by the overtly ideologically driven and those holding controversial views. Ken Livingstone was the perfect candidate to test this theory. In fact, had Livingstone been a Conservative, he would have been the target of the very same jibes about 'Death before electability'. Except now he's been elected again. And Nozza's failed again. And done so against the background of an increased Conservative vote in the London Assembly. Oops. Apparently, TINOs have a whole different definition of electability.
The irony is that the self-same day that Nozza latest fiasco was announced, their number one hate figure was showing exactly what real Conservatism was all about. TINOs often disparage Conservatives for being backward-looking, miserable and dull. Well, an elderly woman giving the eulogy at the funeral of an old man should be a textbook example of that, yet Lady T's eulogy for President Reagan was quite the opposite. It had the vibrancy and impact that only happens when someone is speaking great truths from the heart: good and evil are real concepts, we are not the victims of unseen forces, we can make a difference…. You've probably read it anyway, but here's the point: everything TINOs claim for themselves was in that speech - it had vision, generosity of character and a real belief in the possibilities of the future. The TINOs ? Try reading any of Nozza's speeches and working out what he believes. The phone book is more inspiring. Lady Thatcher was the very epitome of everything TINOs despise, yet she won three elections. In the cause of electability, the TINOs have held a fire sale of every principle and run from ideology like a vampire faced with a crucifix, yet that pesky electorate keep not electing them. Of course, the L3 media is quite happy to pay tribute to their electoral appeal - there are few better signs of an alleged Conservatives mediocrity than the respect of the media. But every time Joe Public gets a chance to vote, the TINOs get a slap.
Far be it from me to advise the TINOs, but hey - TINOs in general and Nozza in particular keep speaking out about the need for the Conservative Party to purge itself of electoral liabilities. Given that Fat Boy has now lost two on the bounce to a complete moonbat, isn't it time Nozza gobbled up a nice portion of sauce for the goose ?
Friday, June 11, 2004
The UN Special Commissioner gets to grips with the Beeb.
Scott B addresses something that really hacks me off: the whole 60s monomania of the media. He's right about it all - as the saying goes, if Copernicus was born in 1940, he would have discovered that the Universe rotated around himself. But I'd add that the sheer humbuggery of it all is annoying. The 60s, man, were supposedly all about rebellion. The kids were throwing off the old, they had nothing to learn from their squaresville parents. But now ? Now these people are coming up to pension age and they're still babbling on about the ****** 60s. John Kerry is just a particularly specialised example ['Senator, do you like films ?' 'Yes, I saw many films when I was in 'Nam'].
To listen to these geriatric 'tards, you'd think they'd actually done something more worthwhile than drop acid and paint their backsides orange. And that's the tooth-grinding, hackles-rising, geriatric-hippy-bashing-with-a-baseball-bat thing about it all. These people argue that the fact they got blasted once on the Isle of Wight is a historic moment on the scale of Alamein. Yet, who were these tossers rebelling against ? Yep, the people who really did fight at Alamein. The whole 60s thing revolved around the idea that just because you'd fought in Burma you didn't know anything about anything. But now ? Now, this collection of geriatric spoilt brats keep popping up to share the special insight they gained from.... What exactly ? Nada.
This past weekend, we have remembered their fathers and all they did for us. Even to such a bunch of self-obsessed weasels, the contrast between storming Hitler's Fortress Europe and dropping a couple of tabs while listening to the Beatles is somewhat painful. Hence, the desire to invest every moment of their wasted youth with Earth-shattering significance. Here's the truth: they were tossers then, and they're still tossers now. Screw 'em.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
So, it's election day, and you know what that means: the Metropolitan elite will be a'wimpering and a'whining about low turnout. We'll be lectured about our responsibilities to the
In case you haven't heard, there's a proposal to set up a Museum of Homosexuality. So far, so London, except - wouldcha'believe it - Sir Elton and the boys would like us to fund it. You may feel that it is not the proper role for government to extort money from nurses and security guards for the purposes of queeny self-adulation. Well, here's the allegedly Conservative candidate for London Mayor addressing that point:
"I'm afraid whoever you elect, you're going to get it. What's not to like?"
And there you have it: up yours, voters. The political class has decided and we can shove it. Norris must know that there's more chance of Hitler being elected to Haifa City Council than there is of Joe Public voting for robbing nurses to fund a suitable home for George Michael's jockstrap. So, don't give them a choice. Just like we don't get a choice on crime, multiculturalism, education…. Hell, just about every worthwhile issue in Britain today has been taken off the table by the Westminster Cartel. Liberalism ? Whoever you elect, you're going to get it.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
JohnJo points out another outbreak of stupid at the Beeb:
They are everywhere. It seems you cannot go down any street at the moment without seeing cars, shops, houses and pubs festooned with St George's flags.
But are these patriotic displays just an indication of support for the England squad in Euro 2004 or do they represent something else?
Actually, the Beeb's stealth editors have been at it. The unedited version (as preserved by JohnJo) made the Beeb's agenda a little too clear:
But are these patriotic displays just an indication of support for the England squad in Euro 2004 or do they represent something else, perhaps something more sinister?
Ah ha - the flags are actually thought transmitters used by the Greys to control their slaves from a cloaked saucer, locked in geosynchronous orbit over Huddersfield. It's totally true.
Well, is that any more ridiculous than the Beeb trying to put a evil cast over Englishmen in England owning English flags ? And what exactly is with the implication that, if you fly your nation's flag for any reason other than footy, your reasons must be sinister. But, annoying as the Beeb's Nazi spotting is, what also grates is that - as ever - they don't have the courage to come out and say it, instead trying to phrase it as a question.
Similar spinelessness is on show in the next paragraph:
In some quarters concerns have been raised that the recent surge in the number of the flags on show on England's streets, has little to do with supporting the national football team and is more a statement of discontent with the state of the nation.
Ah yes, 'some quarters'. Not the Beeb you understand. They'd never waste public money on screechy Hate Britannia garbage but, y'know, the points been raised by...somebody.
Shopkeepers have reported their biggest ever sales of the pennants this year which have coincided with increasing calls from civic groups to be proud of our nation and football team.
But is that the only reason for such outward displays of patriotism?
No, it's the Greys I tell you. They're tied of giving people anal probes individually, now they're plotting to take over the Earth using zombies to cause chaos while they seize our planet.
One pub chain recently attempted to ban the flag because of its links to hooliganism, and a flag manufacturer is looking to produce a "softer design".
And I sincerely hope that real Englishman have treated the chain in question the way Liberals hope they would treat any organisation which adopted an unwelcoming attitude to a particular racial group.
Geoff Marlow, owner of Kings Heath Photo Centre, said he will be hoisting a huge flag above his shop in the build up to Euro 2004.
"I'm all for it, it's our flag so why shouldn't we be entitled to fly it, you wouldn't go up to Scotland or Wales and tell them not to fly theirs.
"The reason is football, there is no need at other times.
"I had it up during the World Cup and had no bad reactions."
That's because he's in the real world, rather than the Moonbat Dimension where the Beeb lives.
Kings Heath builder Gary Timmins, 34, an England fan who is following the team to Portugal, admitted he thought the flag was being used by many to declare their annoyance against immigration issues.
'Admitted': no bias there.
"It is about patriotism and I think it is a big statement from people because they think they are getting pushed about and hear about people who are coming into our country and within two or three weeks getting everything.
"I think 99% of those flying flags won't be going to Euro 2004, they are putting on a show."
True, but only in the opposite sense, that if you think England is the worst country in the entire world, then you won't be worried by the government giving a passport to Sheikh Khal'al Dujoos.
Non flag-bearers Tina Chauhan, 22, an administration clerk from Moseley, and Ali Azam, 22, a security worker from Moor Green, said they feared it could be used by some to incite racism.
"There can be problems with it and that needs to be pointed out," Tina said.
They might hate the flag, but I bet they can manage to stomach holding a British passport and all associated rights. They probably think England would be a great country, if only it wasn't for all those natives running round the place. Savages, everyone of them, and probably racist too.
But Lorraine Reeves, 42, an assembler from West Heath, said her only excuse for not flying a flag was that she was about to trade her car in for a new one.
"I'm proud to be English and it's a pity we don't show it more often, we always have to wait for it to be football, it should be all the time," she said.
"If you go to a lot of Asian shops they are the ones who are selling them."
Noooooo...the flag is a symbol of hate. Mere contact with an England flag causes acid burns to any skin darker than Casper the Ghost. As for England shirts, they can turn even the strongest of Black men into a useless physical wreck. Look at Emile Heskey.
Dan Steel, 27, a church worker from Stirchley, said: "I find it quite bizarre and couldn't work out what it was about although I noticed it started more after St George's Day.
"I think it is over emphasised patriotism. I love football but I wouldn't put one on my own car.
"I expect the BNP are happy about it."
Ah yes - a Nazi slur. Like greeting an old friend. Indeed, of those who fly the flag, some may be Nazis. But wait - he says he's a church worker. We know paedophiles have infiltrated the church, now here's a self-confessed 'church worker' who suddenly introduces a slur on millions of patriotic Englishmen. Sounds like he's trying to change the subject. Has he got something to hide, mmmmmmmmmmmm ?
Theresa Price, 55, a cleaner from Kings Norton, said: "I have put it up because I am English, I put it up for anything, the cricket, the rugby and the football. It is pride in our English teams.
"I think people banning it is stupid, I work in a pub which has got all the flags up and not one woman in there says anything about them being up."
See above: this is reality we're talking, not the Metropolitan Moonbat Reserve aka the Beeb.
Shopkeeper Patricia Sandford, owner of Ace Party in Northfield, said she had sold more flags this year than ever before and expected to sell out.
"We have sold them to women and to non-white people, there is no fear attached to them," she said.
Good job it wasn't a Conservative organisation that tried to imply Nasser Hussain couldn't be a real patriot.
And Tim Tansley, marketing manager for House of Flags who make the flags, said demand had increased 100% on last year and individual orders were becoming more common, especially for middle class homes.
"Flying a flag is definitely becoming more popular, the football is emphasising the St George's flag because England are the only home team but when the rugby was on we had lots of business from supporters of the French, Italian and Irish teams.
Yes, but at least there's no history of violence associated with Irish Nationalism.
"Our typical customer is definitely not the stereotypical football fan of five or 10 years ago."
Despite this he said the firm was just about to sign a deal to produce a new style of St Georges cross which would remove it from negative connotations.
Lemme guess: white cross on a white background. Give it that touch of Gallic style.
Andrew Houseley, director of the Commission for Racial Equality Midlands, said he was concerned that some people felt threatened by the increase in flags on display in public.
Some people feel threatened by a Black guy walking within ten foot of them. We call these people bigots. What's the diff exactly ?
"We understand how the flag could instil fear as it has been hijacked by racists in the past," he said.
"But, the only way to remove this fear is to reclaim the flag from the racists who wrongly claim to be the only keepers of the flame of Englishness."
Or alternatively, fire all the race-hustling deadbeats who try to justify their grossly inflated salaries by claiming that any interruption in English, British or general Western self-flagellation proves the Fourth Reich is just around the corner. After all, who except one of these parasites or their brain-dead acolytes would see a six-inch piece of plastic as threatening ?
Well, actually there is one group that can always be relied upon to be offended. Blowing people up they're this way and that about, but flying flags - now that's evil.
Not sure I agree with this, take Monday's Jeremy Vile Show. First item was discussing the Gipper, or more specifically, whether you needed to be intelligent to be a successful leader. Say, what ? Just a hint of begging the question, methinks ?
Now, it is an interesting question whether, say, an Oxbridge education is really an asset when it comes to leadership, but that wasn't what was being asked. Nope - Dutch was a lucky idiot and, by 'eck, Jegsy would prove it. The start of the show featured interviews with two guests who'd served in the Reagan administration, or more correctly, five minutes of continuous variations on the 'Didn't Reagan do well considering he was such a dumbass ?' theme. Both guests replied that, while Reagan had never been anyone's idea of a member of the natural ruling class. (whatever that actually means), he was extremely intelligent, capable of picking up fundamentals quickly and applying them in new ways. The President who saw the potential of both supply-side economics and Star Wars can hardly be said to be a dimbulb.
Fortunately, Jeremy was able to overcome the disappointment of his guests spitting out the Kool Aid and move on to a guest who could produce hate by the tonne. It is somewhat ironic that a man who has spent his life supposedly fighting the class war should be one of the most notable beneficiaries of Britain's residual snobbery. Really - try reproducing one of Tony Benn's screeds with a Scouse or Glasweigan accent. Fortunately, Tone was born in the city with the right Kensington, so he's spends his time in TV studios promoting evil and depravity rather than doing it by selling Socialist Worker in Church St. Which is nice for him but bad for us.
I, unlike Michael Howard, am a real Conservative so I don't think there's such a principle as 'freedom of nice speech' - everyone should be heard. Still, given that - had history turned out differently - Benn would had been a willing partner in enslaving the British people, either as part of a homegrown Marxist revolution or an agent of Soviet occupiers, can we at least hear less fluttering from the Beeb about the dangers of political extremistism, m'kay ?
But what, you may ask, does Benn (failed British junior minister, now full-time moonbat) actually have to contribute to a discussion about US politics ? About as much as you'd expect, really. Apparently, Reagan (the two-term dumbass) was a puppet of the neo-Cons, just like Dubya is now - hey, it's twenty-four years later, just how neo can they still be ? Surely you can apply for full-status after five years of loyal service to the VRWC ? Also, Reagan jailed the air traffic controllers - which must have made the prisons a little crowded. Plus the Soviet Union was already falling apart anyway, thus raising the question of why Benn has spent his life promoting a philosophy which self-destructs. Hey - you expected honesty and coherence from Benn ? Need it be said that not only was there no one to put the pro-Reagan case, but Mr Vile's role was less interviewer than mere provider of brief breathing spaces between particular outbursts of 'Reagan killed Bambi' lunacy.
At least when right-wingers rant, there's an actual point. Whatever you think about Joe McCarthy, there really were Communists in the State Dept, but Benn ? What exactly was that all about ? His screed could be summarised simply as 'Reagan Sux'- imagine a hybrid between Lord Charles and Michael Moore. To air this drivel at any time would have been a mistake, but to do so with Reagan barely dead was nauseating. Benn has the right to be a moonbat, but why exactly should the Beeb be able to charge us to provide him with a chance to flick v-signs at a great man's coffin.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
One of the great men of history has been called home and that means one thing: L3 Partytime. But where's a hate-filled freak to vent on a day like this ? Why, the Beeb's 'Have Your Say', of course. I've stuck to domestic moonbats, but that hardly matters, we've got a full load of vile tossers right here on the Sceptic Isle.
This guy proved the point that anyone with enough money and enough publicity can become president. Maybe there's hope for Arnie yet.
It's difficult to remember anything good about the Reagan/Thatcher axis of power except that it is now consigned to history. Perhaps he can rest in the peace which he so assiduously denied to others during his years of office.
Derek Blyth, UK
Yet another republican warmonger. I hope he saw the error of his ways before he died.
Tom Amos, England
Rotten actor, rotten president. Symbolised everything crass and shallow about Americans.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
"We're more fascist than you"
The Islamofasicts are mobilising against the BNP. As ever, even a full wash cycle from the Beeb (soft soap, followed by full spin) doesn't suffice to hide their nuttiness from anyone with an IQ greater than 15. Try this:
It also urges both men and women to turn out to oppose a party it considers to be "fascist-leaning".
Mr Pot, I have a Sheik Al-Kettle on line six. Seriously though, as a thought experiment, try to imagine the likely media reaction to Michael Howard announcing that he'd be happy to attract votes even if they came from women.
"[Muslims] marched in huge numbers with their fellow non-Muslim citizens against the war in Iraq and the mainstream parties ignored them. "
Yep. Saddam was a supposedly secular leader and certainly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, but these people still stood foursquare behind him against the filthy Infidels. So what was that about irrational prejudice ?
Still, at least some people are listening to these tools. Housing must be bad in some
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Another Beeb presenter has had a Kilroy moment. Nick Page was due to attend a village fete where Islamists had set up an exhibit, so he told the organisers to shove it and claimed the ROP kills hundreds each week. I predict a burning at the stake in the near-future.
Oops - no. Just checked the story and it turns out that Nicky the Nerd was slagging off fundamentalist Christians. So that's alright then. Clearly, claiming that Blair - family destroying, marriage hating Blair - is a fundamentalist Christian is exactly the type of well-balanced attitude which is welcome at the Beeb. Good job I checked - wouldn't want to unfairly label somebody a brain-dead bigot, would I ?
So OK, parents - even L3 loons - have the right to do what's best for their kids. Except that isn't what they're doing. Not only do they want the right to decide what their kids eat, they want to dictate what everyone else's have. What kind of sick, depraved Marxist ghoul wants to stop kids in hospital having a treat ? Even if these freaks are right and it is damaging in the long-term we aren't talking long-term, we're just talking a little something to brighten up a horrible time. And why exactly should anyone care what a bunch of evil, lemon-sucking, Communist perverts think about anything anyway ? Why should these dirty freaks be able to inflict their lunatic, racist, junk science fuelled paranoia on ordinary, decent people, let alone their kids ? What kind of arrogance is it that propels semi-literate Liberal morons to order about sane people based on nothing more than the scribblings of other brain-dead Kool Aid drinking idiots ? Why am I asking questions to which there is no rational answer ? Who knows ? But, if you ever find yourself wondering whether Leftists are possibly human, just remember this is what Leftism means: stopping sick kids from getting treats.
Laban Tall has a nice round up of what is, superficially at least, one of the strangest trends in British politics at present, namely Lefty opinionistas starting to sound like they're channelling Mary Whitehouse. Myself, I think there's a kind of logic there - the Left's obssession with S-E-X was always somewhat tactical. After all, it's not like the L3 have a roblem with moralising - ask them about salaries in the City, tax evasion or Kyoto. L3 attitudes to humping were always an anomaly.
Given that even university academics claim that slagging off business or the Queen is the height of reckless courage, it's hard to believe there once was a time when Liberalism was as radical and revolutionary as its acolytes still claim it to be. Early on Liberals recognised one basic fact: people being people, they'll always be suckers for a philosophy which will allow them to shag anything that moves guilt free. The sex thing was something of a Trojan horse as far as helping Liberalism into the mainstream goes.
Things have changed a bit since then. Liberals can justifiably quote one of their spiritual ancestors and claim 'we are the masters now', which means - wouldcha'believe it ? - that the self-same people who wanted to smash the system, man (or claimed to) now sound like a parody of the people they claimed to oppose. Here's Tessa Jowell on the Olympic bid:
Whingeing pessimism and hostility will not stop our campaign but it will hand votes to the cities against which we are competing. It is whingers who will weaken our national will. At this moment, optimism, self-confidence and ambition is what we need. Let that win, not the whingers
National will ?
Hell, it wouldn't be so bad if she was talking about Iraq, but no - it's the opportunity to host drug-powered mutants for two weeks that's lit her candle. In truth, a philosophy like Liberalism that requires total control of everything in the whole world, plus the rest, was never going to be compatible with sociological anarchy. It's served its purpose but now it's getting to be a drag, hence hardcore L3 sounding like Viz's Victorian Dad.