More Projection Than The Local Odeon....

Looks like crime's so low in the People's Republic of Caledonia that the McFilth have had to resort to policing hypothetical crime:

Police have been accused of targeting JK Rowling in a parody by inventing a fictional trans-hating character called Jo who believes 'they all belong in the gas chambers' in a hate crime scenario.

Yep, that would be the 'Jo' who's a massive Labour Party donor and Uber-Karen, but now they're trying to claim she's totally some demented liberal caricature of a right-winger.

Honestly, it's like a mashup of Taggart and the Self-Righteous Brothers. 

Still, I'm all about the equality me, so how about asking them what they would do if Jonathan 'India' Willoughby broke into Porton Down, stole anthrax spores and then hired an ice cream van and drove round south-east Inverness giving anthrax-laden 99s to passing school children while dressed as Amy Winehouse? 

Hey, you ever think about that one, PC McWoke? 

No? 

Will no one think of the imaginary children? 

Apparently, 'jihad' doesn't necessarily mean 'holy war' but everything the right says totally does - even if the rightists in question are identikit Guardian-reading bores like 'Jo'. 

Say, that sounds like something a bunch of creepy fanatics would use to try and bamboozle the public into supporting violent thuggery....

I mean I can't help noticing that all the actual, non-hypothetical, crimes appear to come from one side of the debate. 

Just who exactly is fantasising about herding their opponents into gas chambers, huh? 

They're not even hiding it anymore. A journalist for the BBC - of course - is openly fantasying about a 'Final Purge' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - targeting people who [checks notes]... hate woke video games. 

Seriously, that's all it takes for a leftist to start fantasising about mass murder: not liking their rubbish, preachy games. 

These people are all nuts. 

It's Their Country, We're Just Living In It

Ah show biz... sometimes it's stupid and toxic, other times it's just the opposite: toxic and stupid. 

Still, as long as politics are downstream of culture we need to pay attention to it all. After all, you can't have kids growing up immersed in leftist garbage and then expect them to go straight to voting conservative once they turn eighteen. 

Then there's the other thing - how liberal behave in show biz reveals how they would behave everywhere else if they had that same level of domination. 

All of which is why we have to talk about the whole Doctor Woke fiasco. 

Reminder: if the BBC just wanted to have a black lead in Doctor Who they could have bought back Jo Martin. Her Doctor had some real gravitas, some actual depth - which is more than we ever had with Jodie Whitaker's portrayal of the Doctor as some kind of Galactic children's TV presenter. 

But no: instead they went with this guy, no doubt based on his previous work in... [checks notes] Netflix's 'Sex Education'. 

In case you haven't seen that show, to name it is to know it for the desperate exercise in try-hard edginess that it is. What it isn't is anything close to the sci-fi/fantasy genre. 

True, he is - allegedly - an actor so maybe he has the necessary range but given that he's taken over an iconic character and all he can talk about is muh representation I'm not hopeful. 

Yeah, yeah, I can see you've given some deep thought to what you can bring to the role. 

In so far as he seems to think that casting a black actor in a sci-fi/fantasy series is some kind of ground-breaking moment in pop culture history he doesn't seem to know much of anything about the genre he's supposed to be working in anyway. 

Basically, he's Jodie Whitaker Mark II, with race husting in place of girrrrl powah nonsense. 

The bottom line is that this guy hasn't been cast because he can bring anything to the sci-fi/fantasy genre, he's been cast because he can't. The BBC has always been deeply embarrassed by the Doctor Who fanbase - they'd really much rather pander to the kind of groovy teachers and disco vicars who watch 'Sex Education' hence this latest attempt to turn 'Doctor Who' into 'Sex Education in Space'. 

Yeah, yeah: you can make your own jokes, but the thing is that a lot of the 'Doctor Who' audience is geeky, kind of loser-y and just a bit weird and that's the point. The show managed to score lucrative overseas sales and merchandising deals while still being a a show for the people left on the kerb by the rest of our culture. It's for all the kids for whom travelling to another planet is only as unlikely as getting an invite to a cool party. 'Doctor Who' gave them a sense of belonging and hopefulness even when nothing else could and now the BBC - our public service broadcaster remember - is taking it away from them just out of spite. 

To the point: at any one time there are approximately eighty-six shows catering to the same North London wannabe cool wine aunt demographic as 'Sex Education' but it turns out eighty-six shows at once just aren't enough. No, Gaia forbid that one show should cater to the nerds. Literally everything on TV must be made for people in Islington. This is not representation, it's the exact opposite, a load of arrogant Metropolitan elitists are outraged that there is one - one - show on TV that doesn't pander to them. 

Everything must be about them at all times.  

This is who they are. They think they should get their way always even when they, say, lose a  referendum. Doesn't matter! Leave voters are losers so their votes shouldn't count anyway. 

Ditto, it's why Sir Kneealot went big on Partygate even while out in the real world household budgets were being crunched. Paying bills is boring and provincial, bogus thespian outrage is where it's at!

The British left has become what it once opposed, an incestuous and insular elite living lives of absurd privilege and sneering at the rest of the country. 

And their shows are rubbish too. 

The Pitch Is Grass, The Campaign Is Astroturf

I'm so old I remember when the left was outragously outraged by undeclared political donations and secret backroom deals - but that was then and this is now. 

This is just proof that if you want to know what the left is up to, look at what they claim the right is doing, then double it. They've spent years claiming the right is secretly piling up the roubles, meanwhile they're secretly using licence payer's cash to fund a phony-baloney campaign fronted by a multi-millionaire. 

This - this - is what they want to make 80 year old widows pay for. 

How about advancing the cause of social justice by making millionaires pay for their own publicity? Or at least ask him if he'll donate any future endorsement or sponsorship deals to charity? 

Meanwhile, the BBC is claiming to be reporting impartially on a campaign their own people have helped push. Conflict of interest doesn't really cover it.... but if you doubt the political motivation of it all recall this: Markey-Mark was born in 1997. In other words, his years of hunger were under Nu Labour. By the time the Evil Tories came in, he was already embedded in the academy system as a youth player.  

Now when was the last time they mentioned that? 

LARPing With Liberals

Say, here's a question I've been wondering about: if liberals are so smart how come they keep getting taken in by obvious frauds like this?

It's a Scooby-Doo mystery all right!

I guess they didn't notice the cardboard helmets and that all the 'miners' had names like Julian and Roderick.

The important point though is that rich kids dressing up as working men is in no way like wearing socioeconomic blackface. No, siree, Jack.

As ever, the bias is annoying, but also strangely reassuring. Think about it this way: the left has spent forty years claiming that liberalism is the default, with conservatives as the loony outliers. Yet every time the BBC interviews some 'member of the public' who criticises the government, it turns out that he's actually a leftist nutcase.

Labour is the People's Party, providing you mean specifically the people who think there are ninety six genders but no valid reasons to criticise Diane Abbot. Other than that?  

Nope!

Hence, the reliance on the Trustifarian Theater Company and a state broadcaster guaranteed not to ask any hard questions.... apparently 'scrutiny' isn't that important after all.

There's Inflammatory And Then There's *Inflammatory*

Just in case you wondered why the MSM was being unusually honest in its coverage of Birmingham's 'Movies And Machetes' Day, the answer is carefully buried in in paragraph 7 of the BBC's follow up - which is to say three paragraphs after the claim it's all racisss:

"But during the first 24 hours of the film over 25 significant incidents were reported and escalated to senior management in 16 separate cinemas," it said.

So, not actually just Birmingham then, after all.

Hey, it's probably just a coincidence how all these violent incidents keep happening at the same movie except I can't help noticing that the MSM and the left - but I repeat myself - seems a little more sensitive when it comes to speech from the right. Lest we forget, these people were outraged about use of the H-word:

He described her intervention as "humbug" and repeated the word again.

The SNP's Nicola Sturgeon said there was "a gaping moral vacuum where the office of prime minister used to be".

And then there was that time the MSM ran with ludicrous stories of Nigel Farage inspiring Brexiteer death squads to ethnically cleanse Essex...

So for those of you keeping score at home, the current rules are as follows:

• Question the ludicrous claim to victimhood of a deranged leftisit MP: Stoking up hate!
• Suggest Britain should leave the EU: Toxic rhetoric!
• Make A Movie Celebrating Violent Insanity:  Diversity Yo!

Needless to say, the BBC was fearless in holding the filmmaker to account for his exercise in social arson.... by quoting from his Instagram account without comment:

Blue Story's writer and director, Andrew Onwubolu, said Saturday's disturbance in Birmingham was "truly unfortunate".

In an Instagram post on Sunday, the rapper-turned-filmmaker wrote: "Sending love to all those involved in yesterday's violence at Star City in Birmingham.

"It's truly unfortunate that a small group of people can ruin things for everybody.

"Blue Story is a film about love not violence.

Yep: it's all about the love except somehow people keep seeing it as a call for homicidal madness.

So, you know, it's basically the Koran of movies.

Of course, there is one other reason why the BBC is busy claiming to be shocked - shocked - to find violence going on here:

The movie which was written by Andrew Onwubolu, a rapper and YouTuber who also goes by the monicker ‘Rapman’, was produced by Paramount and BBC films. 

Public Service broadcasting FTW!

Although admittedly it must be hard to turn down  the creative genius of a man who raps under the stage name 'Rapman'.

I guess it was a tough decision for this guy whether to go into music full-time or stick with his job at NASA.

All of which brings us back where we started: literally everything people on the right say is outrageously outrageous but meanwhile the BBC is blowing our license fees on an inner city version of 'Triumph of the Will'.

Why is anyone on the right still taking these people seriously?

On the plus side though, there is one moment of unintentional humour from Badmovieman. File this one under 'Missing Persons':

He said he wanted the audience to see past crime statistics and headlines about knife crime, to understand how a "good kid" can lose their way.

"They didn't come from child abuse or neglectful mothers. What kids go through in the school playground is so intense, it all starts there."

Hey, This Seems Vaguely Familiar....

Now, I wasn't going to mention Fraudy Nick Robinson again, but this is just too perfect.

Yep, that must be that vitally vital scrutiny he's so proud of: offense archaeology aka that thing liberal losers on twitter do for free, but he has somehow managed to convince the BBC to pay him a six figure salary to do.

Ah well, it's only licence payers cash.

The one thing it isn't is actual scrutiny. As this case shows, the topic could be life on Mars but conservative commentators would still get stupid gotcha questions thrown at them. The actual issue under discussion is irrelevant. It's all about trying to take down conservatives. Hence, why there's no point even trying to engage with these people.

Hey, You Know Who's Just Like Hitler?

People who refuse to pander to the absurd delusions of prats who think they're actually ubermensch, that's who:

Journalist Nick Robinson has likened the behaviour of Boris Johnson to a 'dictator' for broadcasting directly to the public on social media.

Presumably, as opposed to democratically-elected politicians, who are famously camera shy and communicate via mime.

Plus: you know who else had a dog, right? 

Of course, there's a reason for all this girly hysteria:

The former BBC political editor, currently a host of Radio 4's Today programme, called the Prime Minister's social media use a 'form of propaganda' and said it was undemocratic to avoid proper scrutiny by journalists.

...And, seriously, how could we do without groundbreaking analysis like comparing everyone you don't like to Hitler?

More to the point though, who does this prat think he is anyway? How did he become the Scrutineer In Chief? Is there some kind of Shaolin Temple for MSM drones? Did he beat the previous Scutineer in single combat?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, 'Freedom of the Press' is short for 'Freedom of the Use of the Printing Press'. It means anyone is free to print whatever they want with no requirement to seek some kind of publishing license from a Department of Approved Publishers....

 ....In other words, in so far as it guarantees the right of any citizen to publish what they want, it means the literal opposite of establishing some kind of super elite order of certified journaljismers, with special press freedoms no one else gets.

Nick Robinson can demand the PM invite him in for a meeting. So can Bob Smith, of 22 Acacia Avenue. Neither have the right to be granted a meeting.

Which is the whole point right there. We now have a MSM that's genuinely believes they're some kind of modern equivalent of the Samurai - wimpy, entitled Samurai admittedly - a cult of uber citizens with special rights, above and beyond the common rabble. They're utterly detached from real life, and proud of it. All that's happened now is that the penny has finally dropped with the conservative movement. Someone's finally run the figures and worked out that rather than pander to a bunch of elitists weirdoes, representing about six postcodes in north London, it's far better to reach out to actual, normal people.

I don't know how good Bob Smith is at the whole 'scrutiny' thing, but he's surely more in touch with reality than narcissistic prats like Nick Robinson.

Cucks 4 A Caste System

If you want a barometer of how worthless Licensed Conservatives are, just look at how they all jumped to defend muh free speech when it was Jo Brand, but went MIA - or even piled on - when it was Count Dankula.

Or Sargon.

Or... well, anyone actually - just as long as they're outside Snoot Club.

The theory seems to be that by penning 10,000 word essays praising their own nobility in not condemning Fatso McAcidface, the left will be shamed into seeing the inherent hypocrisy of their position and take up the cause of free speech.

Ah huh.

Basically, it's a demand for unilateral disarmament in the culture wars.

As HD says, how's that working out for the right?

Liberals don't worry about being exposed as hypocrites. They get off on making us follow rules they have no intention of abiding by. It's the whole point of the exercise. When the cucks defend Jo Brand they're implicitly accepting this premise. They're accepting that there's a de facto caste system in Britain. There's the common rabble, constantly harried by a zillion hate speech laws, and then there's the Brahmin caste who can not only say whatever they want, but expect us to admire their courage in so doing.

Jo Brand, huh? So daring. So courageous. How does she get away with it!

Hey, I'm thinking the cucks continuously babbling about muh sacred principles probably help.

This WIll Not Work Out The Way They Think It Will

For proof of how deluded the snoot class is, consider that they really think the Andrew Marr interview with Nigel Farage was a win for them. 

That's problem number one right there. Captain Softball sights someone outside the bubble and suddenly he tries to go all Andrew Neil. It's gotcha! questions for the outsider and 'how do you feel' for the actual PM. Crap like this is why people voted Brexit in the first place. Folks might not have ever been on TV themselves, but millions face this kind of thing on a smaller scale every day.

The bigger issue is that this sort of thing rarely works anyway. We've been this way before in the 1990s. The British right went half mad trying to work out how a slippery conman like Tony Blair could get away with it. Couldn't people see that he and his entourage were the biggest collection of dysfunctional freaks outside of Arkham Asylum?

Actually, people could see it just fine, they just didn't care. Blair was at least prepared to pretend to address public concerns about things like the NHS and schools, while a Tory government full of smug, entitled prats acted like they thought these issues were kind of a drag, and all they really needed to do was come up with a few soundbites to bamboozle the ignorant masses, then they could get back to screwing over the country....

Say, why does that sound familiar?

Blair didn't hide his true nature from voters, they just didn't care. Blair convinced people he cared about the things they did while the Tories all but wore surgical masks and gloves every time they came within a country mile of actual voters. So it is now. The MSM can keep digging for 'The Truth About Farage' but people already know who he is and they also know he's their best bet of getting what they voted for. The snoots can dig up a tape of Farage snorting coke off a hooker's backside in Tijuana but the public only care that on the central issue of the day, he's right and the snoots are wrong.

The Ouroboros Must Be Fed

So, farewell then, Danny Baker, latest victim of the Offendotrons. 

Lest we forget though, this guy would gladly have piled on if it'd been anybody else. Behind the bogus cor blimey guv'nor facade, he's just another media liberal who found out too late that you can never be woke enough.

Curiously enough, I can't seem to find any articles about how this case raises wider issues about the dark side of remain voters and/or Corbynistas.

Meanwhile, it's D+8 and still no one's been fired over this (these guys are all about the equality)!

Hey, did you ever think the day would come when liberals would be outraged by people mocking the Royals? This is all further proof of my theory that the new left is just the old right. Angry of Tunbridge Wells has been replaced by Woke of Walthamstowe. If only Kenny Everett was alive today, just think what he could do with these guys?

Doctor Who The Hell Is Still Watching This Garbage?

Spoiler Alert: the next episode of Doctor Who will feature The Doctor investigating the disappearance of large numbers of people - specifically the audience.

Mind you, judging by the public review scores on Rotten Tomatoes, the less people who get to see it the better as far as the BBC's reputation goes.

Meanwhile, MSM reviewers have eaten this up with a shovel. Or, to put it another way, people whose job it is to tell the public what programs are likely to be worth watching have been caught lying like rugs. I mean, they may all just be tasteless morons, but I can't help noticing that this only ever seems to happen to shows that push the liberal agenda. Equally, if there's no underlying political agenda here, how come they're so sure all the people who hate Doctor Woke are, like, total Nazis? 

Aside from anything else, this proves we really need a snappy word or phrase to describe the huge, great difference in review scores between woker-than-thou MSM drones and actual, normal people in these cases. How about Wokorrection Factor? Shills Gap? Scorechasm?

At this point, Respectable Conservatives usually roll their eyes and explain how it's just a kids show and conservatives should be concentrating on real issues, like tax breaks for megacorps and concreting over Britain. 

Well, back at you snoots: if it's just a kids show why have the left circled wagons round it? There are plenty of awful shows out there, why defend this one?

If the rise of Jeremy Corbyn proves anything at all, it's that politics is downstream of culture. You can't let kids spend hours a week watching liberal heroes take on a bunch of evil conservative caricatures, then expect to win them over at age eighteen with a few facebook ads. The left gets this in a way that too many allegedly brilliant professional conservatives don't.

Equally, it's a perfect example of who the MSM are. There are many complex issues in the world, this show is not one of them: it's just awful. All they had to do was review a TV show fairly but even nominally conservative outlets like the Daily Mail drank the kool aid. When you see how cravenly the MSM pushed this dumpster fire, you have the perfect metric of how much they have sold out their journalistic integrity for woke points.

'Troll' Means Nothing

At this point, surely everyone on the right now knows that a troll is just someone winning an argument with a liberal. This is why when the MSM reports a trolling atrocity story they never quite get round to covering what it is today's baby seal said to draw fire in the first place.

Consider this latest example. Nope, she wasn't 'asserting the ethnic diversity of Roman Britain', she was supporting the open borders obsessed BBC's ludicrous attempts to rewrite history by claiming that the father of a 'typical family' in Roman Britain would be black (as summerised in this YouTube video).

Now you see what the MSM is so reluctant to tell what she actually said! It doesn't get any better on closer inspection. Her evidence for Roman Britain looking like Brixton was that there was a Roman Governor who was born in Algeria. That's her 'typical family' - the Emperor's representative in Britain. That's like claiming the Pope is a typical Catholic priest, and never mind that Algerians aren't now, and certainly weren't then, black, or that, by the same reasoning, Cliff Richard, Rudyard Kipling, Joanne Lumley and thousands of other children of the Raj would be 'typical Indians'.

And then there's the point Nassim Nicholas Taleb made. As befits a genuine genius (rather than a phoney-baloney beneficiary of the left's Witless Protection Program), he asked the key question: if Roman Britons really did look like the cast of Zulu, what happened to the descendants of all these people? No matter what happened in the intervening period, there should be some trace of their DNA in Britain, and there just isn't.

This isn't a matter for debate. With the state of modern DNA science, you may as well claim that fossils are just random rock formations, but the same liberals who sneer at creationists, will seriously claim that mass mutation has somehow robbed millions of Britons of their ancestral DNA (and, what's more, somehow substituted it with that of other ethnic groups).

If anyone is a troll, it would be the fraudy-pants wacademic unleashing a mob of liberal lackwits on anyone who questions her junk history... especially when even the BBC has started to back away from its ludicrous claims. 

It's Different When They Do It

The BBC is still struggling with the blowback after revelations over a so-called ‘gender pay gap’ in its wage structure. Personally, I think they’ve been harshly treated: whatever the difference in men & women’s earnings, at least pay rates were equal across the other 47 genders, so you know…

But this does raise the deeper point: the BBC has spent years claiming that any difference in pay or conditions between men and women, or black and white for that matter, can only be the result of bigotry, and furthermore anyone who disagrees is a huge Bigoty McBigot. Hence, why even rinky-dink little firms in Nowhereshire trying to recruit a night watchman need to put in a place a bloated formal process to prove their innocence, just in case some treasure hunting weasel trys it on.

Meanwhile, it turns out that liberals are recruiting each other for top jobs over lunch at the Groucho Club, more or less, and that’s just the way it is. Take Gary Lineker: he’s given the thick end of £2 million a year but they can’t tell you who else was considered for the job, who decided to hire him or what performance metrics he needs to achieve to get his contract renewed.

No wonder liberals are obsessed with the idea that the country is full of old school tie wearing Ruperts and Sebastians giving each other top jobs. Like the Third Law says, liberals always project.

Just Saying...

Hey, wasn't it just a month ago that liberals were outrageously outraged that anyone could criticise a veteran?

They Can Give It Out....

Surely everyone now knows that member of thr Inner Party are not to be quizzed as though they were commoners?

No doubt this will be the next bogus scandal after the Twitter Wars. Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting to find out how many times during his tenure the BBC ran shows featuring alleged 'consumer' journalists ambushing small businessmen?

That's Not The BBC TV I Was Thinking Of

Our completely impartial national broadcaster brings us this:

n an effort to support and positively address transgender roles on mainstream comedy television shows, the BBC has teamed up with artist collective Trans Comedy to bestow upon upcoming writers the Trans Comedy Award. Specifically BBC Writersroom, an ongoing program that helps scribes develop projects for the BBC, is offering talented writers up to £5,000 (about $8,000) to use toward producing a television pilot.

Well, they've certainly got the parody thing covered, albeit probably not in the way they were intending.

Hey, it's a free country, so if some guys want to get together to eat, drink and be Mary, why not? I'm just not sure why licence payers should be expected to pay for it, and especially so when the organisation that wants to 'positively address transgender roles' steadfastly refuses to call the guy with a bomb vest a 'terrorist' in the name of bogus objectivity.

I See What You Did There

Dan Hodges is the latest of several million liberals to try and concoct a defence for our completely impartial national broadcaster and he's come up with a line that, in terms of sheer brass neck, is worthy of his old boss Princess Tony himself.

Apparently, we need to let the boys in blue get on with the job. 

You know, just like Blair did with the Macpherson report.

The left's record of serial cop hating aside, you have to admire the sleight of hand. Sure, it's a matter for law enforcement to investigate whether or not anything the BBC did rises to the level of actual criminality, but when it comes to justifying soaking the public for three billion and change a year, 'not committing any actual felonies' doesn't really cut it.

Who knows whether anything George Entwhistle has done is actually illegal? Not me, but I do know he acts like a slippery weasel when perfectly reasonable questions are raised by the people who employ him. Given the choice, who on Earth would employ him if they had to pay his salry with their own money?

This is what liberals do. They claim the right to torment private businesses in the name of accountability, but when their own people are under fire, nothing less than conviction in a court of law counts. Hence the BBC's new slogan 'You can't prove nuffink, guv'.

Reality Is Banned

And talking of the BBC, apparently it's now verboten to assume that a facial disfigurement is disfiguring.

Isn't that liberals all over? If liberals ran a restaurant, they wouldn't worry about half the patrons going down with botulism, but you'd get thrown out for using the wrong one of the 87 knives.

As I Was Saying....

So now we know: while the BBC was running approximately eleventy billion pieces about 'paedo priests', they were covering for a predator in their own ranks.

Personally, I'm shocked - shocked - to find that the BBC has been sticking two fingers up to any rational standards of decency or accountability, but consider what else it says about their standards. In amongst criticising the Church for being too soft on paedophiles, the BBC has criticised the anti-paedophile movement for being too tough on the low-life.

The BBC has thrown every pot and pan it can lay its hands on at anyone who criticises the legal system's appeasement of paedophiles. They've complained about supposed vigilantism, claimed it's a threat to artistic freedom, cited bogus studies of successful rehabilitation and so on, ad infinitum, and all the time they insisted they totally did oppose paedophiles too, and it was just they genuinely thought that any tactic anyone ever suggested to combat them was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now we find out that the real reason the BBC didn't like the anti-paedophile movement was becuase it just didn't think paedophilia was that big a thing. Cool out, daddeo. Each to his own, huh?

It's always like that. Just as 'anti-zionists' always turn out to be people who think Mel Gibson is a bold truth teller, so the folks complaining about the tactics of the anti-paedophile movement always turn out to be people who don't oppose it anyway.

"That Was No Lady, That Was My Fourth Wife"

Give it up Liberals! It's going to take more than 'Al Teri and Jhuan' to convince anyone that these freaks are sane.

On the plus side, at least we've got a leg up on who's behind the next wave of bombings.