The Clue Is In The Question

On today's theme of liberal thuggery, another Beeboid has got caught waving his balance at the crowd.

Like I keep saying, for an impartial broadcaster, it's funny how every time one of their staff goes feral, they always go feral in the self-same way.

As ever though, nothing destroys the left's arguments like listening to actual leftists. This kind of ranty lunacy is exactly why people want to send their kids to a free school - so they can be taught by actual teachers, instead of this guy's freaky fellow travellers.

If It Wasn't For Projection, Liberals Wouldn't Know What To Say About Conservative

Faux Ordinary Joe and actual Marxist John Crudas manages to slime the EDL and Tea Partiers both at once because of The Extremism.

Except here's the thing: it's never folks on the right who get caught planning stuff like this.

Then again, the left doesn't just coddle Islamic lunatics. They have their own brand nutters too.

That's how we ended up with people who are literally Tolerance Nazis: diversity freaks fantasising about eliminating whole swathes of the population, but presumably not in an extreme way.

Labour In Crisis

You have to question how Labour will do without David Miliband - it's not like they going to be able to easily find themselves another upper middle class North London Oxbridge graduate.

The Rehab Industry: Like Astrology, But Without The Science

Now that the Pope has headed home and hipsters don't have to pretend to care about sex offences any more, normal service has been resumed.

Either I'm Psychic....

...or liberals are really predictable.

The usual suspects have just discovered they've been under-reporting the numbers of homeless people, and just in time for Christmas too!

Who'd have thunk it?

Special Ed Elected: The Beatings Will Continue Until The Poll Numbers Improve

After shiving his own brother, I guess it was a natural evolution for Special Ed to take it to the next level and use his conference speech to throw himself under the bus. Either that, or it must have been some other Ed Miliband who wrote their election manifesto last time out.

Mind you, there was a certain Blairesque degree of brass neck to hearing Ed announce there was a new generation at the helm, even while the same old lunkheads sat there on the front row in full view of the media.

The bottom line is that Ed could have ridden in on a unicorn dragging Lord Lucan behind him and it still wouldn't have distracted from the fact he only has two basic speeches: the one where he's vacuous, and the one where he's repulsive.

Today's speech was the perfect example of Group A: Ed is in favour of loving homes, aspiration and long walks on the beach. On the other hand, at least he's not afraid to come out and denounce Hitler.

It's actually quite a coincidence, since the first thing I thought of when I heard he was a contender was the old story about the guy hiking through the Amazon in 1953.

This bloke comes across a house hidden deep in the middle of the jungle and as he gets closer he hears Wagner blasting through the windows. Suddenly, he sees him! Adolf Hitler, alive and well, and living in Brazil.

Hitler explains how he escaped from Germany to South America, and how he's now planning to return to power and once more raise Germany from the ashes to seize its rightful place as the true ruler of the entire world, and what's more, this time things will be different: now, there will be no more 'Mister Nice Guy'!

Yes, indeed, stripped of the soft-focus, Hallmark blather, what is Milibonker's basic platform other than that the reason Labour MPs in England are an endangered species is because, gosh darn it, they just haven't been crazy enough.

BBC Ignored By Yoof, Asks 'Is It Time To Reform Our Kids'?

Now here's a revealing insight into what these guys are on about: last Sunday in the 11 AM slot, Radio 2's Michael Ball was chatting to his first guest, an alleged media expert, and both admitted to being baffled by how many young people had turned out to see the Pope.

As a frank admission that the BBC had been blind sided by a cultural trend, that would be one thing, but instead these guys were just shocked! that da kidz had turned out to see an old establishment squarro like the Pope instead of adopting the groovy, rebellious position taken by our plucky, upstart, £3.5 billion pa State broadcaster.

It's a mystery all right....and likely to remain so as long as Beeboids keep interviewing fellow media luvvies all day. Hey, Beeboids, for a free clue, try this from a, now sadly off-line, review of the movie '300' by Big Hollywood's John Nolte:

After forty years of liberal rule in Hollywood it is nihilism that’s old-fashioned. It is moral relativism that is tired. It is political correctness, the always-noble people of color, the always-evil white guy, and the metrosexual that is clichéd. A film with a clear divide between good and evil is something new. A film that celebrates patriotism, heroism, sacrifice, freedom, and honor is something revolutionary. In 1955 300 would be old-fashioned. In 2007 it makes a counter-culture statement as strong as Easy Rider in its day.

The Raoul Moat of Chelsea

Old and Busted: Barrister Mark Saunders was murdered by a police death squad for no reason at all.

The New Hotness: OK, maybe he was a violent drunk with a loaded weapon, but cops still suck

See, it's true - the rich are different. If this case had happened on a sink estate in Liverpool or Glasgow, he'd be 'Mark, who'? If only Raoul Moat had some blue blood, the press would be covering his musical choices too. 

Admittedly, there is a certain entertainment to be had in listening to the full range of chav scum clichés being trotted out by a bunch of pampered Metropolitan snobs, but screechy entitlement isn't attractive in any accent More to the point, after months of industrial-scale sliming by Saunder's charming family, we now find out that the Five-oh tried all but witch craft to avoid one of DI Drake's 'fatal outcomes'.

Then again, the rich might be different, but cop haters are all the same. They've got a new line of attack: they might not be able to actually prove the cops did anything wrong, but they should be allowed to slime individual officers anyway.

Actually, it's even better than that:

It's a cliche, but it is true: justice needs to be done and it needs to be seen to be done

Hello? We're having a whole inquest right here. We know exactly what everyone of the cops was doing during the siege.

It's precisely because the cop-hating freaks have come up empty that they now need to resort to trying to find out if Officer Brown is into the gay BDSM scene, Officer Smith has a cousin in jail or Officer Anderson's ex-wife thinks he's an absolute scumbag.

So for those of you keeping score at home: revealing the identities of convicted paedophiles in a given area leads to mob rule, but revealing the identities of police officers is a vital pillar of democracy.

Meanwhile, does this work both ways? In the spirit of openness, shouldn't activist weenies like Graef be forced to account for themselves? I don't have any solid 'evidence' that this guy has sex with farmyard animals, but I think his failure to account for his every waking minute over the last twenty years speaks for itself, right?

As it happens, it's a vital feature of not just British law, but all civilised jurisdictions, that you can only be charged with a specific crime, at a specific time. You can't be charged with being the type of dubious character who probably commits some kind of crime or other. To the point, Roger 'chicken shagger' Graef's sleazy suggestion that justice requires the personal lives of private citizens to be torn apart isn't just absurd, it's entirely lawless. The police officers concerned were either acting lawfully in this particular incident, or they were not, and no amount of shady sex games in their past will change that.

Still, I'm getting the hen humper's not really a guy for those tricky 'guilty/innocent' distinctions. In fact, I'm kind of seeing a theme running through his whole article:

These officers need to be held accountable - by name

Hey, isn't it strange how it's always the right-on libs who are ready to throw the whole 'due process' thing overboard when they want to victimise someone?

No, not really. Liberals are scum. What was I thinking?

Anyway, back to Rogering the livestock Graef:

The Government proposes to expand the use of restorative justice, in which offenders and victims meet to discuss the impact of the crime far beyond the rules of court....

In the case of this inquest, they should meet the friends and family of Mark Saunders and explain to them what they did and why they behaved as they did - and, most of all, hear first- hand the impact their actions have had.

Do you see what he did there? Not only have the officers concerned not been so much as charged with any offences, the repulsive Saunders clan are only victims in so far as one of their number suffered from the delusion that their power and privilege extended so far as to allow him to aim a loaded weapon at a police officer without consequences.

All of which means this is bunk:

Lawyers have always worried about such meetings, arguing that the police might feel obliged to apologise - and thereby open themselves up to litigation.

But I believe there should be qualified apologies, in which legal liability is set aside.

Apologise for what exactly? Exercising their common law right as citizens to use reasonable force to protect themselves? That's all they did - no magic police powers required. If a maniac points a loaded shotgun at you, you're quite within your rights to shoot them with your pistol - or, at least you could if you had a pistol, but somehow I don't see the left using this case to push 'concealed carry'.

Still and all, our friend from the hen house does a fine job of summing up the fraudulent nature of all the left's talk of justice. Their definition of justice is simply a vision of the courts as another venue to pursue class enemies. If the courts can't perform, then mob rule and smears will do just  fine.

Like Rosa Parks, But With Child Rape

It's not just Fat Hari who's turned the Humbugomatic up to 11. Gaystapo founder member and all-round loon Peter Tatchell is leading the charge about supposed paedo-appeaser Pope Benny, except.... what's this?

Peter Tatchell...contributed a chapter to the now notorious, out of print book [The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenrational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Young People.]. His statement in the text that "not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful"

In fact, the full quote is even worse:

[Tatchell] gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.

And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’

By the way, that was in 1997, but apparently being on record talking warmly about child molestation is no bar to becoming the leader of the gay movement. Watch out for those Catholics though!

Come to think, in so far as Weird Pete has campaigned to drop the age of consent to 14 and is known for committing illegal acts to protest what he claims are unjust laws, shouldn't he be supporting the paedo priests? Weren't they too, in their own way, protesting against unjust laws that criminalise their attempts to bring 'great joy' to young boys? And is anyone in the MSM ever going to ask him about this?

Revisiting The 'Despised Minority'...

If nothing else, the Pope's visit at least means we've now got liberals on record denouncing paedophiles.

Only Catholic ones though, the far higher rates of abuse by their fellow liberals in the care or education systems are just yawnerooney. It's all because of The Hypocrisy apparently.

Huh?

Isn't that kind of saying that, being liberals, you'd expect teachers and social workers to be filthy perverts?

Still, let's not let the generalised humbuggery of the left detract from the more specific humbuggery of individual liberals. Take Fatty Hari: he claims to be enraged by Catholic paedophilia, but can't get through the title of his piece without giving the game away.

Yep, those are his charges: the Pope supports child abuse and he says mean things about gays.

Hmmmm... not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but someone should tell Fatty: if you're accusing someone of not taking child abuse seriously enough, you probably want to try not comparing child rape to voicing opposition to the gay agenda.

On the plus side, of course, at least the Pope never wrote this.

About That 'Panzer Pope' Thing...

Mark isn't impressed by the Left's attacks on the Pope's supposed Nazi past.

It's even worse than that! Thanks to Nick in the comments to this post, for pointing out the dubious history of the left's majority shareholder, Spectre No 1 a.k.a George Soros.

Yes, Soros's own position was indisputably worse even than Ratzinger's, but on the flip side, he both profited personally and remains unrepentant about doing so. Besides, under the left's new Pope Rules, it looks like anything short of ritual suicide counts as collaboration anyway.

Independence Day!

Who's have thunk it? 'Non-partisan human rights organisation' Human Rights Watch has just been caught taking a bung from Spectre No 1 himself.

Yep, that guy.

Say, Why Does This Sound Familiar?

Further support for my theory that no, the Daily Mail is not a right-wing paper.

Leaving aside the Mail's shameless regurgitation of revisionist garbage, does this mean the Huns were bombed too much, or not nearly enough?

More importantly though, are the squareheads Rafophobic? After all, reading through the latest edition of the PC rules, it seems like we'd be quite within our rights to build a 15-storey Museum of British Aviation Achievement right in the centre of Dresden.

Dave Drone Driven Mad By Strain of Defending The Indefensible

[Cameron] intends to do more to outline his own political philosophy, which is best described as a realistic radicalism of the centre.

Huh?

Seriously, what does that even mean?

Actually, it does mean something: it means even dyed in the wool fan boys can't cobble together a defence of the Dave without descending into madness. Ditto, Anderson's claim that one of the least qualified PM's in history is 'reinforced by experience'. What experience? His sole experience outside politics is as a senior flack for a media firm. In other words, he took a break from smoozing politicians and journalists to spend some time smoozing journalists and politicians. He's a renaissance man!

True, Cameron does have no fear of power, in much the same way George Best had no fear of booze, but what's it all for? When even his fans admit that Cameronism means accepting public spending moving ever skywards, what's it all about? Bled dry by the NHS, or bled dry by the NHS plc, who really cares?

Ditto, what kind of conservatism is it which refers to the ' false antithesis between the individual and society'? If conservatism doesn't mean defending the individual against the collective, then what is it actually about?

For that matter, what form of conservatism is it where 'ethical questions' are simply a pretext for the extension of state power?

So maybe we should give him that: Anderson actually does a pretty good job of pointing out the basic absurdity of Cameronism: if fiscal conservatives, libertarian conservatives and social conservatives are all thrown under the bus, what exactly is left?

So Why Did He Hire Him Then?

Over at ATW, David Vance has the best line on the whole William Vague thing.

Personally, I was sceptical about the whole gay thing, until I saw how the usual suspects have railed round him. It says a lot about where the Tory Party is at right now that Dave's Drones are shocked - shocked! - that the guy who harried Prezza and Jackie Smith is now hunting down Tory crooks. What kind of game is that Guido guy playing anyway?

Inevitably, the winner of 'Best in Show' was the Reverend Dale, with his trademark mix of passive-aggressive bitchiness and humbug. He concludes one post with the following phrase:

I said on Radio 4's PM that there was part of me tonight that is ashamed to call myself a political blogger this evening, and I meant it. That may sound a bit holier than thou, but it is how I feel.

I hope Mr Fawkes can look himself in the mirror tonight. Because I sure as hell couldn't.

Holy Sickbag, Batman!

But what's this? In his other post, he moves seamlessly from whining about 'lies, smears and innuendo' to this:

Guido Fawkes is not a homophobe, but the way he is writing about this allows those who think he is homophobic to confirm their own prejudices.

Uh...OK. And at this point, I'd just like to note that while I have no, actual, 'proof' that Iain Dale dresses up as Wonder Woman and molests farm animals, I can see how some people could think that he might, IYKWIMAITYD.

More to the point, wasn't the Reverend Dale one of the leading lights in the cyber lynch mob that targeted Philip Lardner? Ah yes: let's hear it again:

Sometimes, you just hold your head in your hands and think 'how on earth did people like this get through the candidate selection procedure?'....

[David Cameron] called Lardner to account and I hope any Conservative does the same if they encounter people in the Government who hold similar... views. They should be chucked out of Parliament for good - not just suspended.

Hey, I'm sure glad the Rev doesn't go in for 'petty and spiteful vilification', but let's check the scorecard on this: comments made by a Tory candidate speaking in a personal capacity in defence of religious liberty demand burning at the stake. Meanwhile, a senior politician appears to be using taxpayer's money to provide a full employment service for marginally-qualified youths, but investigating that is a gross intrusion on his privacy? Really?

But let's not let the individual humbuggery of the Reverend Dale distract from the collective humbuggery of the Nu Tories in general. At risk of stating the obvious, this case exposes the utter fraud of all this talk about 'diversity'. Nothing could lead to less diversity than entry-level government posts being handed out like baubles to well-connected young men and women. Indeed, it's to prevent this that the government has objective hiring standards in the first place.

But it's even bigger than that. What is blindingly obvious from this case is that Hague is the perfect example of what Mark Steyn called 'the Emirs of Incumbistan', using the Treasury as his own personal piggy bank to provide non-jobs for cronies.

Hey, let's accept the Hague's defence at face value: he still hired a marginally-qualified youth to do a non-job on the taxpayer's dime. Hague may, or may not, have got laid, but the rest of us surely got screwed.