That's Not What 'Random' Means

Friends, I thought the day would never come but here it is - I finally feel some sympathy for civil servants. 

Sometimes even I have to admit that their job can be impossible. Take the report that's finally come out re: the guy who went on a knife rampage. 

You remember.... the guy who went on a knife rampage in the Midlands.

No, not that, the one in Birmingham. 

Anyway, they've done a report into this case and the answer is....

Can you guess?

McLeod was known to be a violent offender and Ms Hunt said agencies had failed to communicate effectively and had not prepared properly for his release from prison.

Yep, MOAR MEETINGS!

Of course, preparation is kind of difficult when you can't acknowledge what you're preparing for. 

The BBC shows us two of the victims but not the other five - they're Victims Of No Appearance apparently. Say, I wonder if they have anything in common with the two guys shown? 

Nope, it's was all 'random' apparently - which is the line they were taking long before they even started on the report. 

Hence my feelings of sympathy. It must be hard to do a threat assessment for Fantastic Mr Fox when you're not allowed to use the words 'chickens' or 'hen house'. 

New Euphemism Just Dropped!

Hey, I hate the lycra lice as much as anyone but I don't think the mode of transport is the key issue here:

Police have named the 16-year-old boy who was killed in a stabbing on Wednesday 'by two cyclists wearing masks'.  

The victim has been named as Darrien Williams, though formal identification is yet to take place, according to Avon and Somerset Police.  

He was attacked in Rawnsley Park in Easton by two people wearing masks who left the scene on bikes, before running to Stapleton Road where he was assisted by a motorist.

On the plus side, at least it's a change from 'talented footballer' or 'aspiring rapper'. 

I Shot A Man In Reno Just To Watch Him Die (And It's All Stephen King's Fault)

Liberals, true as ever to their motto 'being outraged about the wrong things since 1978', have decided that the real guilty party in the Brianna Ghey case is everyone who ever objected to a guy in a dress sharing a changing room with their six year old daughter. 

Although to be fair, I did think J K Rowling went a little too far in her book 'Harry Potter And The Creepy Tranny In A Terrible Wig'. 

Meanwhile, non-insane people note that the actual killers will be eligible for release in their mid-thirties i.e. still prime murdering age. 

I'm sure they'll be totally rehabilitated by then though.....

Note that not only did the jury not find that the killers were motivated by transphobia, the prosecution didn't even allege this - the judge herself decided to introduce this after the verdict was in.

You might say she decided to transition the case....

But wait, where are all the people who usually sermonise about muh sacred due process now  that a judge has suddenly decided that the whole trial thing is just a warm up act to her telling us what really happened? 

As it is, her reasoning seems.... well, let's just say I think there's a reason why she chose to wait to  introduce this until after no one could answer back:

'Your messages about Brianna were transphobic,' she told him. 'You consistently referred to her in a way that was dehumanising, calling her "it". You also described her as a "femboy thing".'

Wait... this guy sounds like me. 

Or, come to think of it, anyone else who rolls their eyes at the whole 'I identify as a cat' thing. 

And if you think that's weak, there's this:

While Jenkinson did not use transphobic language, she said it was the prosecution case that she 'encouraged' Ratcliffe to kill Brianna in the knowledge that his 'attitude' would make it more likely that he would go ahead and stab her

Huh? Hanging out with bigots who use insensitive language makes you a bigot too. How about if they work under you in some kind of group? Let's say there's some hypothetical guy - we'll call him Sir Keith Stoller - and some of the people who work under him are a bunch of raving antisemitic nuts? Is he responsible for any crimes they do too? 

Still, we have to look on the bright side of all this: at least motivation is back in play as something we're allowed to talk about. 

Hey, if we're allowed to trawl through some scumbag's text messages to work where he's coming from, we're surely free to do a deep dive into other cases... like, say, the Nottingham Horror. 

Right, liberals? 

Nope, guess not. 

The killer was sane enough to arm himself, conceal the weapon, travel into town, strike at the time of day when the police response was likely to be slowest, lie in wait for his victims and target only a specific demographic but too crazy for us to be able to ever understand why he targeted the people he did. 

Could be literally anything, you guys!

I Have No Idea How This Keeps Happening

At this point, being featured as Victim Of The Week in a MSM documentary should be admissible in court as proof of guilt: 

A Mixed Martial Arts fighter who told a Channel 4 documentary he wanted to prove people who thought he would end up in prison wrong has been jailed for throttling his ex-girlfriend.

Demornia Cantrill, 24, featured in a true-life 2015 film about his upbringing in care and how he was desperate to be a success.

Hey, it could have been a gritty warts and all take on this guy.... but would you really bet on that?

If Nigel Farage's show had ever given a violent thug this kind of soft focus boosterism, liberals would now be demanding air strikes on GB News HQ. 

Instead it's Channel 4 and so now we're supposed to just 'move on', 'draw a line under it' and definitely - definitely - do not ask what it is about media liberals that they keep getting caught palling around with violent thugs.

Another £1,000 Note Left Lying On The Ground

Labour may have signed up for Lockdown4Eva but at least Sir Kneelalot has found someone who does deserve freedom: this guy. 

Pitchfork, 61, raped and murdered 15-year-olds Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in the 1980s - and is now due to be released on parole.   

Sir Keir told LBC Pitchfork had 'served a long sentence and he served the sentence imposed on him by the court, and under our system that means there comes a point at which he has to be released'. 

First things first: you'd think a former prosecutor would know that life terms have a minimum tariff, not a maximum one. 

Equally, isn't this the guy who wants to ban 'conversion therapies'?

Yep, apparently, sexual orientation is fixed (when it's one liberals approve of) but also fluid (when it's one they don't). 

So, you know, you can tell it's all totally based on hard science. 

Tony Blair had the 'People's Princess', now his successor has the 'People's Paedo'. 

Truly, when it comes to judging the public mood, he has the sure touch of Captain Hook. 

The cliché is to call this sort of thing virtue signalling, but is it really? It's more like a banker setting fire to a £50 note in front of a homeless guy. They're happy to talk about the importance of releasing degenerate predators, but they know full well their kids will never end up living next door to Mikey Murderpants. 

Meanwhile, suggest to actual voters that we need to carefully balance the rights of innocent children with those of homicidal perverts and see what happens. This is not really a tough issue for anyone outside the Woketopia of north London. 

And again I return to a familiar point: the sheer bogusness of the Cringe Cons. The David Cameron wing of the Tory Party keeps claiming that they're totes conservative, you guys, but they just think the Tories need to tone it down to reach out to centrists. Hence, the jettisoning of conservative principles all through Fat Dave's reign of error. 

Yeah, OK.

Well, here's where all the votes are on the right - at least if you define 'not releasing dangerous savages' as right wing - and these guys are AWOL. 

They should be airdropping copies of Starmer's statement into every marginal constituency in the land, but no: they're all about electabilty right up until it means losing dinner party invitations. 

Electability: This Is What It Actually Means

Like I keep saying, the biggest myth in British politics is that conservatism is a tough sell. 

We keep getting told that the Tories have to throw any actual conservatism overboard to get elected. Actually, the truth is pretty much the opposite: the only reason sleazy cucks like Neil O'Brien ever get elected is that voters have the vain hope that they might actually support something conservative. 

For proof of all the above, consider the Labour Party's position on the Police And Crime Bill. Or, rather, consider their multiple positions on this bill. For a supposedly extreme piece of legislation, they sure do seem to be struggling to say what it is they don't like about it. 

Apparently, the bill is super awful! Terrible! The worst.... but they dare not say exactly how and why.

That's the deeper point. The cucks keep giving us these patronising lectures about how, y'know, you guys, they'd totally like to support some actual conservative policies but they worried about muh electability. 

Well, here's an actual conservative policy and the left dare not oppose it openly. Sounds like a vote winner to me! So, how about it cucks? 

The conservative base has spent years being told it had to suck up cringe conservatism as the price of winning elections, now it turns out that actual conservationism is a vote winner, these guys will totally be getting on board with it, right? 

...

No, I don't recommend holding your breath either!

The MSM: Speaking Truth From Power (Part 2,457)

Lest we forget, long before the WuFlu made it obvious, British academia was already dominated by woke nonsense. The evidence is all over the place, but the undoubted winner of Best In Show is the rehab industry, a train wreck mash up of Marxism, New Age lunacy and the weirdo obsessions of a small group of privileged upper-middle class brats. 

How full of it are these people? Even they don't believe their own doctrines, at least to judge by cases like this. 

Two things virtually all criminologists agree on: escalation - meaning that over time this type of offender will commit more and more serious crimes - and, linked to this, that cruelty to animals often acts as as a gateway to committing the same type of crime on human victims. 

All of which is by way of saying that this is a potentially extremely dangerous individual and so, naturally, the police have done.... what? 

Don't ask the perfessional journaljismers! They've given it the memory hole treatment - no doubt influenced by the Protection of Sadistic Creeps Act (2019).

But wait... I just checked and there's no such act. No one ever voted for this. If it's true that the loony card is being used to let dangerous savages walk free then that's surely something the public has the right to know. 

Apparently, justice *doesn't* need to be seen to be done, after all, just as long as it involves muh mental 'elf.  

Local journalism is super important, you guys, but just not the type that involves reporting stuff. 

We should totally give these guys a bail out!

Hey, I might not be a Certified Member of the Order of Journalists, but I'm thinking that a bloodthirsty maniac walking the streets might actually make a better story than, say, painting gorillas (no, seriously). 

Nontroversy!

Like I keep saying, the big difference in politics is that the left wants the right silenced, while the right positively encourages the left to speak at great length about they believe.

Take today's alleged controversy:  apparently, it's super outrageous that the Government is deporting foreign criminals. 

Huh?

What definition of 'controversial' are we using here? Is there anyone outside of the fever swamps of the left who doesn't think this is exactly what HMG should be doing?

Being able to control who gets to live there is pretty much a basic requirement for being able to call yourself an independent country.

More to the point though, if liberals think even convicted rapists shouldn't be deported, in what sense do they not support open borders? Who exactly would they deport - aside from conservatives ?

Equally, if deporting scumbags strikes the left - and the cuckservatives - as an outrageously extreme policy, how come they keep pretending to support border security every time there's an election on? Wouldn't they be happy to proclaim their love of open borders from the roof tops right up until polling day?

But no: the left is so confident in open borders as a winning issue politically that they keep demanding any potential critics are silenced and shouted down. They're the voice of the people, providing no actual people are allowed to speak.

Hey, maybe that's the answer: we tell them we're not deporting criminals, we're just operating a nationwide 'no platform' policy.....

The Assumption of Superiority

It's five days since the London Bridge attack - which is to say the second London Bridge attack - and the latest scores are in. So far, we've had 257 softball MSM interviews with David Merrit versus... let's see.. none whatsoever with literally any other relative of anyone killed in jihadist attacks.

I wonder what it is about the Corbynista Tory hater that attracts our unbiased broadcasters?

At least the Tories haven't cucked though (for once). Like I keep saying, the whole debate about the rehab industry is the perfect example of how the left pushes its agenda. Take the left's own attack line: if you think there's something gone badly wrong with our justice system, you're politicising the issue, you evil scumbag!

And if you think the system's just fine the way it is? Nope, that's not politicising things at all, that's just something all the smart people agree on.

Consider the sheer smug entitlement of that position. They don't want to win the debate, they want to ban it and then call everyone else names.

And that leads to the wider issue. A week ago all the smart people were telling us that Usman Khan was totes reformed, you guys. Anyone who wondered if it was really that simple was labelled a moron and a bigot. And then, as if by magic, the jihadist did some jihading, and now the left are insisting we can't talk about it.

Just last week believing that Usman Khan was now a pillar of the community was proof of the Very Special Genius of these guys. Now it turns out their theories were total garbage, but they still think they can run your life better than you can.

About That 'Electability' Thing....

I don't know where that unfortunate elderly couple from Hither Green are staying but I assume it must be a big place, since the whole of the Tory Party seem to be hiding out there too.

To put it another way, if President Assad really does have chemical weapons, he just needs to store them on an encampment of Loveable Traveling Folk and Theresa May won't go near them.

All of which raises the question: are the Tories motivated by cowardice or just stupidity? Ever since the accession of Fat Dave, Professional Conservatives have justified throwing their principles overboard with patronising lectures about the importance of electability. Now, suddenly there's the political equivalent of a £1,000 note lying on the floor and they're nowhere to be seen.

Are these guys genuinely afraid of losing the votes of the 'pro-home invasion' tendency? Have they become so thoroughly cucked that they're incapable of taking a stand even on the vexed question of whether to support law abiding householders over violent criminals? Or is that they're so far gone into a post-modern death spiral, and so obsessed with focus groups, push polls and microtargeted Facebook ads that they've lost all touch with reality?

Who knows? But at least we can hope to be spared any more lectures about the Very Special Political Genius of Professional Conservatives.

It's Science (For Some Values Of Science)

Showing exactly the kind of savvy political judgement that secured their massive landslide in 2017, the Tory Party is staying well clear of the John Worboys fiasco. I'm guessing their computer models of the electorate warned them to avoid alienating the key 'serial rapist' demographic.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this case is reinforcing everything we ever suspected about the rehab industry. Consider for instance their strange definition of 'independent expert'.

Personally, I’m just shocked – shocked – to find that an ‘independent expert’ producing reports for the Parole Board turns out to a True Believer in the Cult of Rehab... and she’d have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids reading the stuff she’s published openly for years!

As Britain's most brilliant blogger once said, the rehab industry is the Rosetta Stone for understanding how the left gets away with it. For years the left has tried to claim that if you oppose the rehab industry then you, sir, hate The Science. Now it turns out that these scientists sound a heck of a lot like a Guardian editorial.

Hey, can we at least get some ground rules so we can tell when they're being scientists and when they're being activists? Maybe something like lab coat on equals expert, lab coat off equals campaigner?

The Rehab Industry Has A Titanic Moment

Actually, that's unfair. The Titanic only hit the one iceberg, but John Venables is the gift that keeps on giving. Also: offending.

Lest we forget, this case was meant to be the flagship of the rehab industry. Hence the blank cheque:

The killer's new identity is protected by a lifelong anonymity order and has been changed four times since his release in 2001, costing taxpayers £250,000 each time, and around £5million in total has been spent trying to rehabilitate him.

Also worth noting: this guy was specifically released early so he wouldn't have to face the trauma of an adult jail. It would have set back his progress, apparently, and so he would never have become the model citizen he is today. Not only did no one in the rehab industry blow the whistle, they actually came out with stuff like this:

In fact, a report by famed psychiatrist Sir Michael Rutter release said Venables posed a 'trivial risk' to the public should he be released.

Don't send that guy to buy your lottery ticket!

Apparently, the rehab industry is based on science, just not the type of science that produces actual, reproducible results. See, this is why taking on the rehab industry is a key issue for the right. Not only because it's the right thing to do - though it is - or because it's a winning issue politically - though that's true too - it's because it's the Rosetta Stone of the left.

The fact that every time normal people get to peek behind the curtain of the rehab industry we see something that looks like Scientology, but without Tom Cruise or the high moral standards, isn't a problem for the left, it's the whole attraction. It just proves that only the truly sophisticated can understand the genius inherent in a toxic mess of Marxism, new age psychobabble and outright fraud. 

To borrow a line from Douglas Adams, for modern leftists supporting the rehab industry is an opinion held by all right-thinking people, who are largely recognizable as being right-thinking because they support the rehab industry. People who think Jean Piaget was a painter nevertheless are quite certain that the rehab industry is based on solid science. No, they can't actually explain how rehabilitation is meant to work or what techniques are used, but they're sure that anyone who says things like 'you can't rewire evil' is clearly some kind of dummy dumb-dumb low-life who probably voted leave. 

A vote of thanks too for the libertarian movement.  The State Is Not Your Friend... except if it wants  to move the Sunderland Slayer in next door to a young family, in which case a blank cheque and a complete lack of transparency is A-OK with these Neo wannabees. 

Hey, it's either that or risk their membership of the Smart Set. Ditto, with sword, oak leaves and gold cluster, Cuckservatives terrified someone might call them a suburban prole who Just Doesn't Get It. 

And that's how drivel took over the justice system!

The point is that on this issue, as on so many others,  the drooling masses of tabloid-readers, Ford owners, semi-detached dwellers and football watchers were....completely right. And the Julian D'Arcy Snivellington-Snides were wrong to the max. It was the Smartest People in the Room who fell for the retarded child of Karl Marx and Carmen Batmanghelidj and they can't quit even now. The whole basis of the modern left is a bogus claim to intellectual superiority in the face of all the evidence.

Enough with the Conservative Cringe, we were right, we are right, and all the left has left is sniffy denial.

Crocodile Feeding Expedition Ends Much As Expected

This sounds awful!

They should write to their MPs.

Hey, I'd be more sympathetic, but the clue is in the question: if MPs can be victimised with impunity, what does that say about how less well-connected people on the right are likely to be treated by law enforcement, or the likely career prospects of openly conservative police officers?

It's the same in the rest of the public sector. As it happens, there are 316 Conservative MPs right now, so that's about 300 more than there are conservative professors in the whole of academia. How about schools? Even the Guardian (!) is worried they're too much of a monoculture. And so on.

Enough with the sob sister stuff, what do they want to do to actually drain the swamp?

Ah yes, that is the root of the problem. If Theresa May is known for anything at all - aside from blowing dead cert elections - it's her stupid 'nasty party' speech in which she threw the conservative base under the bus, parroting every libel the left has ever come up with against grass roots conservatives. The Nu Tories have spent years giving a winking, smirking endorsement to violence against supposed right-wing extremists. I mean, they're Literally Hitler anyway, right?

All that's changed now is that the chickens have come home to roost. The Tories forget the one iron rule of politics: a Nazi is just a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. 

Maybe He Was Confused About The Whole 'Fraud Squad' Thing...

Hard to believe, but the Nigel Evans Show wasn't the strangest recent case involving Lancashire Police and a gay dude.

In an interview with his local paper, [Richard Kennedy] said: 'I heard a group of men shouting homophobic abuse at me. 'The next thing I know I was punched in the back of the head. I was violently assaulted - all because of my sexuality. 'I was covered in blood and had my face stamped on, causing my teeth to go into my gums. I might need surgery to amend the damage done. It’s absolutely disgraceful to violently attack someone because of who they are.' Kennedy went on: 'From all of this, all I want is awareness...I want people to see what can happen if you are as stupid as me to be alone on a night out'.

Yes, indeed, a fairly typical case of homophobic violence - which is to say, a hoax.

But today the teenager, who studies Contemporary Theatre and Performance at the University of Central Lancashire, admitted he made it all up.

Oh, my!

It takes more than being exposed as a Big Fat Liar to hash his mellow though:

After being shown CCTV of him tripping and falling, face-first, onto the pavement, Kennedy accepted that the 'utterly inhumane homophobic attack' he had talked about actually never happened.

Much as Bernie Madoff accepted that his bookkeeping wasn't all it could be, no doubt. Then again, who can blame him for his arrogance? It's not like he was going to face any consequences, was it?

Detective Inspector Paddy O’Neill said:... 'Having had oversight of the investigation... I accept his report was made in good faith.'

Say what?

This wasn't a guy who woke up with a bad case of UDI (Unidentified Drinking Injury) and decided to spin a heroic tale about it in the SU bar afterwards. He made an official complaint, complete with a graphic tale of violence, and triggered a police investigation. That's the very definition of wasting police time.

More to the point, was his tale of crazed homophobes meant to encourage community cohesion and mutual respect? Hell, no. In so far as it was a classic attempt to smear, mostly Christian, social conservatives it was what the left used to call 'Hate Speech', until approximately two seconds ago.

All of which is to return to the usual point: stop giving leftists the benefit of the doubt. This case isn't about noble intentions gone wrong, it was a set up right from the off and now everyone can see how corrupt the left is.

Conspiracy Nuts FTW!

As I understand it, the latest iteration of Harriet Harperson's position is that she was working for the NCCL when they were coordinating with a paedophile group but she somehow missed the open references to legalising child abuse: in other words, she wasn't at the meeting, she was with the meeting.

To which all I can say is 'how about that paedo panic, huh'?

Yes, normal caveats apply. Spending £14 bazillion to put Basil Brush on trial for supposedly touching someone's bottom in 1974 is insane, but the people Harperson was working with were the real deal.

Ditto, while 'road to Damascus' conversions do happen, they do require you to admit that you were on the way there in the first place, rather than claim you were just taking the scenic route to Cairo.

As it is, for all Harperson might claim she didn't know nuffink guv, there is a common thread between what the NCCL believed back then, and what the same people believe right now. That's why this is such a key issue for conservatives, not just because the harassment and interdiction of paedophiles is the right thing to do (though it is) or because it's a winning issue politically (also true) but because it's a perfect insight into the left's MO.

Round around 1990 the left suddenly decided to start claiming that they totally hated paedos too, but they just wanted to fine tune things. They tried to claim they were Barnes Wallace to our Bomber Harris but the trouble was the more time went by without any actual dams being busted, the more obvious it was that these guys were all a bit Neville Chamberlain.

The rhetoric might have changed but the theme was still the same: rigid opposition to anything common sense would suggest as a way to make life harder for paedophiles. Consider this: for all the supposed excesses of the 'paedo panic' these guys can never name a case where they think the law was excessively savage to a bona fide, actual predator. It's always some guy who should never have been convicted anyway. Meanwhile, us knuckle-dragging rightists can name a barrel load of case where savages were let loose to strike again - like this:

Michael Clark, 40, was on the Sex Offenders Register and subject to official checks. But he was able to move into a city of his choosing where neighbours did not know his past.

The council considered him too dangerous to live there, but had to house him after being warned of legal action for breaching his human rights as a homeless person.

If the left could ever show as direct a connection between CO2 and climate change as the right can show between elitist liberals and murder, every conservative in the country would be biking to work. Meanwhile, the left regards a few dead bodies as the cost of doing business, but pouts and whines about 'smears' when anyone calls them out on it. 

Mental case of No Appearance?

Hey, as the left always say, I'm just 'asking questions'.

Besides, I always like the way the left will effortlessly throw one lot of baby seals overboard as soon as some group higher up the Victimhood Scale is threatened. The left has spent years sneering at anyone crude enough to suggest that an off-meds schizo with a machete could possibly be 'dangerous'. Now suddenly it turns out that crazy is as crazy does. Loons, hey?

Don't ask what type of nut she was, or what particular form of madness could possibly have driven her to do what she did. The offender was nuts, hence she did nutty things, that's all you need to know.

Of course, this is all guesswork, but I can't help noticing we also have a sighting of the rare, yet increasingly common, VONA too. You have to google the original reports to find out that the victim was not, in fact, Somalian.

At Least Astrologers Don't Have A Body Count

It's another great day for the Rehab Industry:

A serial rapist who tied his girlfriend's housemate to a bed before killing her and dismembering her body was today sentenced to serve at least 37 years in prison...

The court heard how Sharp was allowed back on to the streets after multiple convictions for sex crimes stretching back 30 years, despite telling parole officers he fantasised about raping and killing women.

Oh, what does he know? He's probably just another tabloid-reading goon who didn't even go to Oxbridge.

Seriously though, if even the predator himself admitting to planning his next crime doesn't ring any alarm bells, this does kind of blow the whole 'carefully monitored'  thing out of the water. If nothing else, I think we need a benchmark here, we need to be told just what would have made Dr Julian Rubbish and his pals act.

Naaah. Just kidding. Nothing would have made these guys sound the alarm. It's the fundamental calculus of the Rehab Industry. They claim to be 100% successful and when an inconvenient body or two turn up, they go the class war route and try to claim all their critics are lager-poisoned Jeremy Kyle viewers who just don't appreciate the subtle genius required to consistently free maniacs to strike again.

There is no better measure of how utterly liberalism has triumphed over socialism than that such a frank appeal to snobbery is considered a winning argument for the left.

A vote of thanks too for the feminists. They're outraged that anyone would suggest that getting wasted then walking through the city alone at 2:00 AM isn't such a great move, but the courts setting perverts loose to strike again?

Cat got you tongue, ladies?

Truly, they are the Stepford Wives of the left.

Send The Bill To Shami

Who'd have thunk it: an Islamonazi lunatic not cooperating with law enforcement? Honestly, it's getting so you can't trust anyone these days.

Mind you, I haven't checked the latest reports from the courts this week. Are we sure they haven't found a human right to abscond?

 In related news, liberals won't trust a country GP to keep a pistol round the house becuase that would be dangerous.

Crivens! It's The Community of No Appearance

Don't trust the courts. They might be forced into jailing scum when they're under pressure, but as soon as they think the spotlight has moved on, all bets are off.

It gets better:

But Miss Rebecca Wade, for Yasin, said... 'He has been vilified within the community and while you would expect a significant level of outrage, this has gone beyond, the case has been all over the national press

Wait... he shouldn't be jailed because the press has reported accurately on what he did? When did being called what you are make you a victim?

As for the 'vilified in the community' thing.... bitch, please. I'll believe 'the community' really does vilify this guy when he gets at least as much condemnation from this mysterious community as some guy who draws Mo-toons.

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'.