Magistrates, Your Intellectual Superiors:

How out of it are our betters on the bench? This much:

But she was shown mercy by District Judge David Copper after he was told how she had bought the £3.10 box of Nestle chocolates to say sorry.

Judge Cooper, sitting at South East Suffolk Magistrates Court, told her: "That is a very sweet gesture. I have never heard of that happening before.

That's funny, 'cause I'm an ignorant right-wing moron and even I've heard of it happening before. Take this case for example:

A convicted killer who went on a drug and drink-fuelled rampage in Northampton has apologised to the police officer he punched ... by sending her a bunch of flowers and box of chocolates.

Timothy Harris also floored another innocent victim during his angry outburst in the early hours of New Year's Day and had been told to expect a jail sentence.

But the 43-year-old was yesterday given a second chance after Northampton Crown Court heard how he had become a "different man", secured a job and given up drink and drugs.

Like one of the folks says over here:

I imagine that a lot of officers will be receiving petrol station flows and tins of Quality Street after this from "quite unique" violent killer thugs, if that's all it takes to dodge 3 years in pokey

Well, quite. The only people who can't work this out are apparently all sitting on the bench.

Meanwhile, like I said over at Julie's place - if only the underclass were as diligent and adaptable when pursuing lawful ends as when playing the system, then we wouldn't have an underclass.

"They Read Lines For A Living"

Seems about right.

No Mainstreaming Going On Here!

Actually, it's an interesting moral question: who's worse, the scumbags who did this, or the sleazy hipsters who'll doubtless hail it as 'bold' and 'transgressive'

MONA Maternity

Are you ready for the Mothers of No Appearance?

Clearly, Methodists the lot of them.

Outrage D'Jour

I could almost take liberals' deranged hoplophobia, if only it was matched with a desire to punish the folks who actually use guns. But no: every handgun in the country gets melted down, but this guy will be out in time for the next Olympics.

In Another And Better World....

For an explanation, as if you needed it, of just why the left will die in the ditch rathger than give up the licence fee, consider what's happening to another, once-respected, media organisation that sold its soul to the liberal cult.

Speaking Truth To No Power!

There's already been plenty of good comment on the Brand/Ross situation, so I'll just add two things:

In so far as our national broadcaster now apparently defines itself in opposition to the nation's most popular newspaper, can the much despised Daily Mail readers finally get an opt out from the licence fee? True, there are other public services people might not necessarily use, but at least the NHS doesn't spend its time denouncing the healthy as Nazi vampires.

Point two is this: do not in any way shape or form allow the BBC and its groupies to convince you that this is just a side-issue or a proxy. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the BBC.

As Evan Sayet would point out, there's no underlying comedic or satirical value to making obscene phones to elderly people. They weren't taking on the powerful 'Fawlty Towers Lobby'. They were victimising an elderly man simply to demonstrate their contempt for those pesky 'social mores'. This was just an extreme example of the BBC doing what it does pretty much 24-7: tear down the concepts of civilised behaviour and promote dysfunctional sleazitude.

They're still doing it right now, every time they try and defend themselves by caricaturing the critics as as semi-senile lemon suckers who aren't down wid da kids, as though objecting to obscene phone calls to elderly gentlemen was some wacky olde worlde eccentricity. In the bonkers world of the modern left the equation is simple: right is wrong and wrong is right, and once you work that out, everything they do makes much more sense.

Quote Of The Day

A commentor at B-BBC hits the nail on the head:

BBC's HYS is asking should comedians challenge our "social mores". I replied "yes" they should, and then I typed out my favourite Bernard Manning joke. So far it hasn't been allowed through. But lets keep pushing those boundaries kids!

Well, They Do All Look The Same Anyway....

Hey, it's not like they need to deal with issues of identity in their job, is it?

He was invited by mistake, when the NBPA wanted to hear from his near-namesake, former shadow home secretary David Davis.

I thinking their failure to get promoted may not entirely be down to racism after all....

Quote Of The Day

You invited me to come here, if you wanted someone just to turn up and give the same old speech you should have picked somebody else.

A Tory with testicles? Who knew?

Say, Anyone Know Where Al Gore Is?

London, I'm guessing.

Well, Stop Subsidising Them Then

Jovial Jack Straw has rightly been flamed for his descent in terminal humbuggery, but the clue is in the language he uses:

In a speech at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, Mr Straw will say that the Government needs "to reclaim the language of punishment and reform" when it is talking about offenders.

He will say: "Two simple words: it's time we had them back. They are straightforward words. Their meaning is clear...

"And with reform. The word implies an obligation on behalf of the offender to make an effort to make amends...

The public expect the justice system "to punish those who have broken the law", he will say, adding that it is time "to go back to the sort of plain English we all understand".

He will suggest that some of the language around how to deal with offenders has been hijacked by the criminal justice lobby, which is concerned with phrases like the "criminogenic needs of offenders.

Hey, is it just me or is anyone else starting to see a theme here?

Even the Telegraph spots the problem with that. The language has been fine for the last eleven years - it's the actual policy that's been the problem. Straw can say what he wants, but every time we get to peek behind the curtain at who actually runs the justice system, it turns out to be people like this:

The Sentencing Advisory Panel, which advises the Sentencing Guidelines Council, said there should be a presumption that thieves, burglars and anyone convicted of dishonesty should not receive a jail term.

In fact, it's worse than that. Not only do we have moonbats lodged in the system itself, Straw's government actually pays out taxpayer's money to activist groups to push this stuff. In other words, the Home Office uses our money to pay activists to lobby the Home Office in support of criminals.

In the unlikely event Jack Straw really has been mugged on the road to Damascus, the first thing he could do would be to stop wasting taxpayer's money on pro-criminal astroturfing.

You Know What'll Help Us Ride Out The Recession?

More femiloon witch hunts!

Grievance hustling - it's the original recession proof industry.

Heh

This almost works, but to go the whole way, you'd have to insist that the fact schoolkids who play regularly are fitter than those who don't just means that they must have already been fit when they started playing.

I'm Still Waiting For The Guy Who Hammers A Nail Into His Own Testicles

Hmmm... if waterboarding is torture, how come we can't stop liberals queueing up to get 'tortured'? You never get them filming each other applying 240 volts to each other's genitals.

Well, not while working anyway.

We Have Aways Been At War With Eastasia

Hey, you can't accuse the BBC of just plain refusing to report suspicions about the crime figures. Nope, BBC's Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton actively mislead the public on this issue.

That might sound harsh, but consider that when that article was written, informed citizens could hardly not have been aware that something was going on, yet Mark Easton, BBC Home Affairs Editor and certified better-than-you, refused to engage with the substance of any of these charges. It's all bluster and airy dismissal, as if the mere fact the BBC disagrees with these charges is proof enough that they're bogus. Indeed, if you wanted a textbook example of how the BBC's bloated status encourages it to try and dictate the news agenda, this would be it.

Doubtless, if it hadn't all gone horribly wrong, the BBC would still be claiming that the crime figures were fine even today. Meanwhile, the people who did warn of these problems, who were sneered at by the likes of Easton - right up until they were proven right - will still be idiots and hacks the next time they blow the whistle.

Best Talibin Story Evah?

It's for the polar bears!

Last week it was the turn of Frank Hughes, who runs a small scaffolding hire company. The inspector asked him how he disposes of his waste.

Frank said he doesn't. He explained that scaffolding is a relatively simple business which doesn't generate waste.

But you must eat lunch, the inspector retaliated. I bring sandwiches, Frank told him. And before you ask, I take the wrapping home with me.

In which case, you're breaking the law, the jobsworth informed him. Sandwich wrappings are classified as industrial waste within the meaning of the Act. You need a licence to dispose of them.

And since you don't have one, you are committing a criminal offence. Frank would be hearing from the litigation department in connection with this heinous crime and could expect a minimum fine of £300.

Like I keep saying, if liberals ever deny the existence of vampires, start sharpening the fence posts. Liberals have spent years denying that this sort of thing happens, but here it is. Now suddenly it turns out they were lying just like us loonies always said they were.

Ditto, I'm sure the local authority will generously drop the case (now they've been exposed) but I'm equally sure that no one will lose their job over this. Let's stop the tape here: these people tried to extract money out of someone on bogus grounds. Isn't that kind of illegal? Equally, even if it doesn't rise to the level of a felony, shouldn't people who claim they can our spend our money better than us be setting the bar just a little higher than 'not technically breaking the law'?

Today's 'All Cultures Are Equal' Story

Negotiating with these guys should work just fine.

Hipsters Still Wrestling With Their Daddy Issues

So this is the dawn of the libertarian revolution then? Slightly provocative slogans on buses. Take that you suburban squares!

Seriously, I'm thinking these guys are going to have to take it to the next level.

Anyway, what's with an atheist bus? Does that mean when it gets to the journey's end it just sits there and rots? Or maybe it means it only goes ten miles per hour and ends up nowhere near its destination, but that's all the fault of the faster, more comfortable 'faith buses' which steal all the good passengers.

Still, let's give our perpetually teenage friends some credit. At least they've outed themselves. At least they admit to pushing atheism - actually, that should be Atheism - rather than claiming they're just secularists who simply want to move towards a more tolerant, progressive world where people will come together and EXTERMINATE THE IGNORANT SKY FAIRY WORSHIPPING NEANDERTHALS.

On the other hand though, when sane people think of the negative effects of religion on bus travel, they tend not to think of Christians, but these people can only ever attack the Religion of Peace in the context of a more general condemnation of religion. Well, whatever propagates your DNA, but could they at least stop hailing their own heroism?

Lord Snooty Goes On Patrol

How determined is the Telegraph to trash its reputation? This determined.

All of which rams home an important point about liberal multiculturalism: only certain cultures qualify. The same people who pat themselves on the back for their nuanced take on honour killings, can't string two sentences together about Americans without calling in the Stereotype Squad.

That goes double where the military is involved. At least when these people are talking about America they content themselves with sneering and borderline racism. When it comes to stuff painted green, they're not only proudly ignorant, they actually think they're so super smart that they know better than the troops themselves.

Consider the incident with a bunker. A sergeant sees an enemy position but Tristan knows better. Hmmmm.... that's a toughey: who to believe ? A veteran NCO or a snivelling little mangina who pretends to be wounded so he can sneak off on a medevac chopper? Besides - if suppressive fire was that important, they'd have taught it at Oxford, right?

Re-Return of The Pathological Conservative Yet Again, Part II

I thought we were sadistic lunatics victimising innocent sex offenders? Nope - now it turns out that we are the sex offenders.

So next time you hear these people claim that the conviction rape for rape is too low, remember, this is the standard of evidence they prefer to work with.

(via)

And They Hit An Afghan Wedding Party Too

I've never been one of those conservatives who accused liberals of throwing their hand in with the forces of evil after September 11.

Nope, liberals were supporting anti-western vermin long before then. Hey, there is literally no one liberals won't pretend to believe if it means they can slag off the west.

At risk of stating the obvious, the whole liberal cult's account of history only makes sense if you believe the evidence supplied by Goebbells. To put it another way, liberals claimed it was perfectly credible that a single raid killed ten times more people than every air raid on Britain during the entire war, one thousand times as many as killed by the thousand bomber raid on Cologne and even twice as many people as were killed in both atomic strikes on Japan. These claims struck liberals as eminently possible.

Again, to hammer the point home: in any other context liberals are obsessive Hitler-spotters, ever ready to see Nazi overtones in any statement by a conservative. It turns out that the only thing that isn't 'just like something out of Nazi Germany' is a myth dreamt up by Hitler's propaganda ministry. Ditto, while conservatives are supposed to not discuss immigration, crime and pretty much everything else for fear of encouraging those elusive 'right-wing extremists', liberals are fine with propagating a lie used by actual Nazis to spread the myth of German victimhood.

What They Do

The Cameron Years have already provided us with no end of sleazy, obnoxious or just plain loopy pronouncements from the Nu Tories, but one stands head and shoulders above the rest for pure toxicity: Tim Loughton explaining that the only reason respectable members of the public hate social workers is because they're too stoopid to know what social workers 'actually do'.

Rarely can a single statement has summed up so much of what is wrong with a political ideology, illuminating as it does both the elitism and the moral nihilism at the heart of Cameronism. What, for the sake of Loughton's foul argument, are social workers actually doing in a case like this?

Of course, social workers may be acting honourably in trying to stop children being cared for by their own grandparents, but they sure do seem to act like people with something to hide:

On their side were three council officers and a note-taker. On ours were Gail and Graham, myself (invited as a friend) and Norman Lamb, though Social Services had twice rung to say his presence would be ‘inappropriate’ – hinting darkly that there could be facts that the Curlews might not want their MP to hear.

Mysteriously, no such incriminating allegations materialised.

Let's assume Loughton is as morally retarded as he appears - just as an MP, doesn't social workers trying to pressure people not to involve their elected representative offend him?

But, no, thanks in large part to the tacit support of pretendey-cons like Loughton, these people are quite openly fascistic:

‘This is all to do with Mr Curlew not working with the department in a co-operative way,’ she said.

Isn't this like a bank robber blaming the teller for her own murder on the grounds that she should have just handed over the money?

To put it another way, these thugs are justifying their destruction of an innocent family on the grounds that the victims were insufficiently cooperative in their victimisation.

Doubtless, in another dimension Matthew Hopkins is kicking himself for not having thought of that.

Oops, no: can't say that: might imply life after death. Only Marxist atheism is allowed:

Another accusation against them is that they’ve told the children they can have ‘secrets’ from their foster carer.

This may sound incriminating – until you hear what the secret is. The children have been told by their foster carer that they can’t say their prayers: ‘We don’t do God in this house.’

They were upset and Gail reassured them: ‘You can pray in your head. God still hears. It can be a secret.’

And thus was shattered the image of social workers as Marxist fanatics. Needless to say, the negative effects of prayer must be another topic which only people with special social worker jedi training are aware of.

The children’s guardian – appointed by the State...

So at least you know she's independent!

But anyway:

The children’s guardian – appointed by the State – insisted the children had told her they wanted to live with the foster mother. I asked where the conversation had taken place. She said it had been in the foster carer’s house.

‘Would it be helpful to interview them at their grandparents’ house too, in case they are saying what the adults want to hear?’

‘I’m not going to work at weekends,’ she replied. ‘Why not meet them on neutral ground one weekday afternoon?’

‘I’m not committing to anything,’ she said angrily. ‘I’m not going to be told what to do.’

And what's more she won't tidy her room!

Hmmm... shouldn't supposed experts on raising children sound a little less like they're fourteen years old themselves?

And now there's the inevitable sequel.

Again, to repeat a point made above, if social workers are acting ethically, why are they so desperate to prevent public scrutiny? Forget Loughton's blathering, the issue is absurdly simple. Should public servants be able to arbitrary destroy families, try to intimidate the victims from asking their elected representative for help and publicising their case and even attempt religious indoctrination?

To ask it is to answer it. Loughton's position is not sophisticated or nuanced - it's just plain depraved. On the one hand we have degenerate Marxist fanatics who destroy entire families to make trivial political points, on the other soi dissant conservatives who throw their principles under the bus rather than rub shoulders with the common herd. Maybe the question we need to ask is this: what do Tory MPs actually do?

The Clue Is In The Question

Yes, it's a mystery why Glasgow Airport would be worried about Islamic terrorism. But wait... could it be that Hell will freeze over before these people protest this?

Don't Worry About The Bailout

The one thing that I think speaks in favour of the government's 'throw money at the banks' policy is that leftists have come out against it. Leftists only ever embrace fiscal responsibility when the case for more spending is irrefutable. Aromatherapy for smackheads will pay for itself, but jailing low-life so they can't commit more crime is just crazy talk.

Consider what the self-same people enraged! at the bailout think makes perfect sense: NHS sailing holidays, graffiti walls, positive-thinking courses for people who deserve to feel terrible, paying chav scum more than the average teacher earns, free houses for scrounging chav scum, free houses and plasma screens for Al-Chavs and braille for all those blind squash players and air traffic controllers.

Against all this, the bailout makes perfect sense. Hell, at least this way we'll get the chance to build up a nice stockpile of stubby pens on chains.

BBC: Lying For The Common Good

And people said my plan to put scopolamine in the BBC's water supply was stupid! Behold the latest fruits of my brilliant plan!

Yes, there's a lot to be said about the specifics of this particular case, but we shouldn't let that obscure the more general point. Right up until Thompson's attack of clarity, Beeboids were insisting that detecting any bias in the BBC's coverage was proof positive that you were some kind of crazed, Nazi, moron bigot. Now, suddenly it turns out that there is bias there, but good, happy, justifiable bias - and, furthermore, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Consider the brass neck of the BBC's position: finally admitting the critics were 100% right, our publicly-funded state broadcaster states that not only has it spent years spinning for a particular ideology as a matter of policy, it intends to keep on doing so, all the while still slimeing critics of the BBC - especially the ones who claim it's abusing its dominant position to behave unethically.

No Mainstreaming Going On Here!

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me:

A college lecturer who was caught naked in bed with a schoolgirl walked free from court yesterday after admitting to an 'error of judgment'.

More MONA Minors

"A number of people" thought to be involved. So no machete-wielding cats or rabbits then? That's a relief. The last thing we need is Tiddles going on the rampage.

Meanwhile, the search continues for the MSM's missing journalistic integrity...

Blowback Express Now Arriving At Platform Two...

Y'know I can see some kind of contrast here:

Tube workers Vic Cooney and Carlos Rozza, whom Mr Jean-Marie had accused of taunting him with jokes about biting the heads off black jelly babies at Caledonian Road station, were suspended and subjected to a fierce interrogation 'like something from the Sweeney'.

The two men were prosecuted for racially aggravated harassment but were cleared by a crown court jury in November 2006.

London Underground later agreed to pay Mr Jean-Marie £125,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

Whereas:

Mr Mahoney, who has 25 years' service and led 500 passengers off a train along the tracks to safety after the 7 July bombings, said his allegations of bullying against co-worker Daniel Jean-Marie were not acted upon because he was white.

Mr Jean-Marie was not suspended and never properly questioned about Mr Mahoney's claims...

Mr Mahoney, who was not directly involved in the 'Jellygate' affair, told Watford employment tribunal of an incident during the criminal trial when Mr Jean-Marie burst into his office and started taking photographs of him, which he feared would be used to smear him as a racist.

The Irishman said: 'I was very shaken. I felt it was to intimidate me and I became very concerned about my personal safety and that of my family.'

But managers did little to protect him and victimised him for making the complain.

But wait... I thought only whites could be racist?

Not that the tide has totally turned though. £125 000 vs £6000? I guess the jelly babies must have pushed it over the top.

Culture War: Why It Matters

I was as appalled as anyone by this case, but the real kicker is in the comments, where we find out that the Magistrate in question was this guy:

Tony Pomeroy is a magistrate member of the Board. He was appointed a magistrate in 1984 on the former Canterbury Bench and is now on the East Kent Bench. For some years he was a member of the Bench Training and Development Committee dealing with appraisals. He sits on Employment Tribunals and on the Independent Schools Admission Panel. He was a former member of the Kent Probation Board, the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Panels, Board of Visitors of Canterbury Prison and Consumer Council for Water. He is a school governor and for some years an advisor at the local Citizen Advice Bureau. He retired from a career as a pharmaceutical research chemist.

Hmmmm.... I thought these guys were all about having a judiciary that 'looks like Britain'. Apparently, you can never have too many QUANGO prince liberal kooks.

However important you think it is for magistrates to be 'representative' of the community ('not very' in my case), they surely should represent the community, in the sense of upholding the values of the public, as codified in law. Pomeroy and the rest of these Trojan leftists don't do that. Instead they hijack the courts and conscript anyone who comes before them as sock puppets in their little agitprop theatre productions.

This is the elephant on the table that the Nu Tories just won't address. For the sake of their slippery argument, let's take their propaganda at face value and pretend Cameron really is this century's Churchill: it still wouldn't matter. Current Tory policy is all top down. They can do what they want in Parliament, but as long as the actual business of the state is carried out by activist loonies like Pomeroy nothing will really change.

Liberals Shocked By Whole 'Consequences' Thing

Yes, it's a mystery alright. Liberals have spent years denouncing anyone with a real job as a dupe or a fascist (depending on how high up the ladder they are), and now they're shocked! to find that the yoof are lost in Fantasyland.

Hmmmm.... does this mean those of who talk about a 'culture war' are still fascists or not?

I only ask because some of us would say that we got here in large part because schools decided to get involved in the 'personal development' business in the first place. Also significant: a government who's response to cultural collapse is to talk about setting up goofy programs in primary schools. That should do it!

Outrage D'Jour: Come Back Femillons!

What more can you say?

A barrister has caused outrage by suggesting a rape victim could not have been upset by her ordeal because there were photos of her on Facebook looking happy...

Colin McCarraher, defending, told Reading Crown Court last week: 'What we have is a person who has post traumatic stress but is quite capable of going out and having a good time at a fancy dress party.'

But even that's not the outrage. This is:

The barrister's attempt to save his client from a lengthy prison sentence failed and Deputy Circuit Judge Stanley Spence jailed Francis for five-and-a-half years.

Lengthy? As in dog years?

I'm guessing at least some femiloons will pile on the scumbag lawyer, but that's a side issue. Here we have a dangerous predator being given a the type of sentence you'd expect for diddling the VAT man. To put it in context, it's precisely 1.375x longer than Jeffrey Archer got for perjury.

Again, I return to that point: this is who liberals are. While the femiloons invent ever more loopy definitions of victimisation, actual, real predators do less time than it takes to get some university degrees. Where's their outrage?

Nope - it not about 'violence against women', it's about pushing the left's agenda. Traditional families, businesses: Bad. Violent felons: good. It's all about the left's cult of indiscriminateness.

PC: Not All Bad

Chalk one up for the blowback files! Pious lefty pillock Harry Enfield falls foul of a ridiculous racism complaint.

But wait.... I've just remembered: Harry and pals are quite clear that if something is perceived as racist then it obviously is. That must make Harry the Bernard Manning de nos jours - except without the jokes.

The People's Champagne

City fat cats, doncha' hate 'em?

Quote Of The Day

Liberalism as a mental illness? What makes you say that?

Still, at least the comments include this better than Shakespeare summary of where we are today:

We've gone from "When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers" to "Those of us with vivid memories of middle school..." in a matter of two generations. Somewhere out there lies an America that may have disappeared for some time, but will arrive again, maybe a century from now.

The Boudica Of Today Comes Out Of Hiding (For One Night Only)

Nu Tory pin up Margo James, who is a lesbian, has emerged from hiding to complain about being labelled a 'Lesbian Conservative'... while speaking at an event run by Stonewall.

Hmmm... either her supporters are going to have to drop the claim that she's the Henry Ford of PR, or stop their hysterical whining every time someone points out the absurdity of The Margon's coy 'dance of the one veil' over her sexuality.

Of course, there is another interpretation of her complaint about being called a 'lesbian conservative'. After all, she is one of Dave's pals. Seriously though, if we drop the lesbian thing, what else does she bring to the table?

I'm not sure she can trade on her conservative bona fides. She's certainly seems confused about where exactly soi dissant conservatives are supposed to stand on the whole collectivism/individuality debate.

There is so much wrong with this government's policy, gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative

And thus was ended the debate over whether or not the Nu Tories had an obnoxious sense of entitlement!

What, for the sake of The Margon's deranged argument, if her hairdresser really thinks the only reason the NHS sucks is lack of money or that the EU could screw up a sunny day? Does he need a waiver signed by Sir Elton?

How about her supposedly brilliant political skills? Try this:

I think gay people have got more angst on this issue than anybody else because gay people are paying in, through their taxes and actually using far less of the NHS because they tend not to have families, less of the education system for the same reason and all the more reason to be angry with this government for the waste of their taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is where I came in. As I pointed out at the time - and was assailed by her freak show supporters for doing so - if we had a party list system, we could indeed have 'lesbian conservative' candidates, 'bisexual conservative' candidates and 'bitter ex-SIS operators who have to return to the shadowy world of international espionage to stop a deadly terrorist plot that could kill millions' candidates. Unfortunately, we don't have that system, we have a constituency-based one which means MPs are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents, even the lumpy, dumpy breeders who think 'eating out' means going to Mackey Ds, and that education is kind of important, actually.

Ditto, if education really is such a yawner, could these folks at least stop whining about Clause 28 even as they foist gay propaganda on young children? Hey, it's not as if parents run round demanding government restrictions on leather goods and vaseline.

One more thing - as Snafu points out, her argument doesn't even stand up on its own terms. Sure, gayers might place less demand on the education system, but what of the rest? It's not just HIV, there are other STDs, drug abuse and all the other aspects of the gay lifestyle. Crunch question: if it turns out that the balance of payments was the other way round, does that mean Margo James, who is a lesbian, would cross-over, as it were?

Still, in amongst all The Margon's triumphalist crowing, there is a serious point. Yes, social conservatives have been utterly defeated both in the Tory Party and society in general, and speaking as one myself, I'm glad that even Margo James, who is a lesbian, admits that. Key point: in so far as Margo James, who is a lesbian, is prepared to admit openly that there really is a gay agenda (just like us fascists said!), and even boast about its success, can they at least stop all claiming to be Ann Frank?

Nope, the gay rights movement doesn't support fascistic restrictions on free speech, religious freedoms and the like through fear of persecution - they support them because they need this power to remake society. This is what the gay agenda means.

But there's more to it than that. What social conservatives need to do - before heading to the hills - is to tie this can to the Tories. The hipster, Metropolitan progressive Nu Tories are now in total command of the Party, and soon will have control of the whole country. At last we'll have the chance to evaluate the progressive agenda in all its glory.

It's worth ramming that point home now, because I guarantee that a few years down the line Margo James, who is a lesbian, and pals will be blaming all their failures on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Bombs: Yes, Badges: No

I guess liberals don't always feel the need to understand the 'root causes' before dealing with 'extremism' after all. Hmmmm... how do we know that this won't just lead to more badge-wearing?

Of course, what the guy should have done was gone to sunday service at the Church of St Adolf the Martyr, then libs would have been right behind him, wouldn't they?

Ditto, I guess these guys are safe just as long as they avoid any badge related activities.

Oh.... and then there's this guy. Probably a Buddhist, right?

It Wisnae Me!

I got accused of Cameron Derangement Syndrome the other day. Can you believe that? So just to forestall these evil libels, I pass on this link without comment. Remember, just like the BBC I'm only reporting, not commenting.

PDS: Confirmed Case In Britain

Further evidence for my theory that, liberal hysteria to the contrary, the Daily Mail just isn't that good an example of right wing thought: Quentin Letts, Daily Mail columnist and full-time Cameron groupie filing a column full of unhinged, misogynistic lunacy.

Exactly

This isn't just good news on its own terms, it shows that even some folks in the legal system are aware of the honking great contradicition at the heart of the system.

While liberals in the legal system invent ever-more bizarre human rights, the family courts are allowed to ignore even long-standing principles of justice:

The European Court of Human Rights ruled their rights had been infringed because they had no legal redress for the loss of their child in 1998.

Well, quite.

This is the thing: there's nothing novel about what critics of the system are demanding. They just what the same protections for families that the courts give to terrorists.

No, Not That

Pretendey African Camila Batmanghelidjh writes in the Independent:

first we have to communicate the importance of human life. It's not a lesson of morality; preciousness of life has to be emotionally experienced and practically realised. In writing off one person, we facilitate violence as a repercussion.

She's writing about the criminal justice system, of course. What else did you think it could be?

(via)

Humbug Of The Year

Who said this about his little movie defaming Italian partisans?

This simply shows that in Italy the wound is still open. ... It is up to Italians to come to grips with their past, not up to me or James McBride or the film

Yep, Spike Lee, the race hustling weenie, accuses someone else of being obsessed with past grievances.