PC Update

Old Meme: Raycist police officers refuse to clamp down on evil drug-dealing filth becuase they hate black people

New Meme: Raycist police officers execute drug-dealers because they hate black people

A 'Peaceful Protest'

Looks like the enemy within have chosen their line on the Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest about the shooting of 'a man' was hijacked by mysterious extremists.

Hello?

In the real world, people who protest in support of a would-be cop killer with multiple convictions are themselves generally considered pretty extreme. What's the line here? That the peaceful protesters are opposed to the use of violence, except for the whole 'shooting cops' thing?

Again, the contrast is obvious between the BBC's pious denunciations of extremist rhetoric when Oslo comes up, and the self-same organisation pushing a moral equivalence between the forces of law and order and a bunch of lunatics who belive they should be above the law. Just in the past 24 hours, the BBC has given more house room to conspiracy nuts and racist buffoons than five years of the Daily Mail.

Bottom line: does the BBC think there is likely to be more or less violence when a state broadcaster is prepared to propagate myths about executions and police brutality?

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.

Shock New Report: Britain Sux!!!!!!

On the plus side, I think we can now safely say beyond a shadow of doubt that liberals hate Britain. What other interpretation is there for the reverence with which the BBC reports on this load of old pony?

Anti-British psychopaths led by a member of a foreign cult blew up British citizens, and this proves Britain sucks? Even from first principles, that'd be a stretch, but the logic on show makes 'I wouldn't start from here' sound like genius:

Al Hutchinson's report, published on Tuesday, found that by acquiescing to a deal between the government and the Catholic Church to move Fr Chesney to a parish in the Irish Republic, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was guilty of a "collusive act".

He said this had compromised the investigation and the decision "failed those who were murdered, injured or bereaved" in the bombing.

Hey, think how the bombers feel: they missed out on the chance to become Ministers of the Crown like Machine Gun McGuinness and pals.

Seriously, let's check the scorecard here: police follow the lead of the elected government in 1972 and go easy on Father O'Semtex = Bad Pigs! Headcases holding public office right now = hooray for the peace process!

Apparently, there's appeasement and there's appeasement!

Meanwhile, liberals supported the IRA all the while it was murdering civilians, but now it's all moot, they claim what they actually meant was 'let justice be done though the heavens fall'.

For further evidence of humbuggery, consider the BBC's description of Sinn Fein as 'the political party closely identified with the IRA'. That's how the BBC describes them right now. In 1972 the police were under political pressure and dealing with a background of sectarian lunacy, what's the BBC's excuse?

Indeed, if there're any parallels between 1972 and modern life, they lie mainly with the BBC's determination to duck the tough questions.

All of which leads to the wider issue: for years the left in general, and the BBC in particular, depicted Ulster Unionists as crazed bigots with some wacky, irrational fear of Irish Catholicism. Now we know the truth: the Catholic Church in Ireland was exactly what the Unionists said it was. True, the bowler hat thing is kind of weird, and the Pope probably isn't the Anti-Christ after all, but objecting to being ruled by people who think True Christianity means murder and ethnic cleansing, well, that used to be what the Left claimed to stand for.

But that was in the old days, before the Left was born again and liberals learned to accept the joy of hating Britain into their lives.

We're All One Big Bastiat Tribute Band!

Yes, indeed: England go out the them! on the hottest day of the year. An economic boom surely follows, right?

By the way, for any five-oh sceptical of it all, I have one thing to say: just think of the overtime!

Update:

Heh. Few folks left on the kerb with this one. Bastiat wrote the Parable of the Broken Window to explain what he thought was bonkers about economics, namely that all economic activity is treated as good, even if - like replacing broken windows - there's no net gain at the end of it all. In contrast, if it's mere activity that you're after, replacing all the shop windows put through during the normal post-world cup exit near-riots ought to guarantee an economic boom (to say nothing of all that police overtime). Bastiat's theory could have been tested to destruction, except - as Ross notes - the sheer awfulness of England seemed to drained the life out every the most committed lunatics.

Truthers Gone Wild!

Laban points out a guy who's blown the lid! off the death of St Jean the Martyr.

Yes, indeed. It's easy to mock, but mainstream Trutherism isn't much better these days. Here my old pal Tommy explains how just because the Truthers couldn't even get a verdict against Captain Chaos herself, Cressida Dick, she's still, like, totally guilty:

Yes, the jury in the "health and safety" show trial - used by the state to put the matter on hold until it was "old news" [it was a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy? - DJ] - specifically exonerated Ms Dick [well, quite - DJ]. Perhaps the lethal errors were all made after she - as Gold Commander - transferred control to CO19. Certainly there is no proof she was involved in discrediting an innocent victim in the disgraceful campaign of lies and spin which followed Jean-Charles's murder [yep, it's another conspiracy theory - DJ]. Perhaps history will even remember her for her role as head of the Metropolitan Police's "Diversity Directorate" more than for that day of national disgrace [opinion stated as fact without supporting argument - DJ]. Perhaps.

The question still remains. In honouring a woman whose name is tied to that monstrous injustice, what message, dear reader, does our Prime Minister intend to convey? [Message? How about 'YOU LOSE, LOSERS'? - DJ]

Still, don't get the feeling I'm bracketing Indymedia guy with the mainstream of Trutherism. After all, at least our pal from Bristol's conspiracy theory is internally consistent. Once you accept his fundamentally loopy premise, the rest of it hangs together. That sets him apart from the rest of the Truther movement.

Indeed, not to give aid and comfort to the insane, but if Truthers are genuinely enraged over their failure to land a glove on their hate figures, they might want to try producing a coherent story. It speaks to the essential bigotry driving this movement that no explanation is required for just why, say, police officers would cooperate with a vast conspiracy to terminate a small-time crook. They're pigs, it's what they do, init?

UPDATE:

Walk them cats back! An anonymous commentor claims to be shocked - shocked! -that anyone could call Truthers conspiracy nuts, claiming they just question police procedures, to which I reply thus:

i/ the only way the death of St Jean could have got more publicity would have been if he was riding along with Princess Di. In so far as the Truthers have been trying to blow the lid! on this case for nearly five years, I think we can safely conclude all the answers are in. They may not like them, or believe them, but there's something deeply gutless about claiming they're just 'asking questions'. They're not, they're making accusations and they should come out and say that - although, to be fair, Tommy certainly does that, which leads on to point two...

ii/ If the Truther were really just concerned about procedures, they'd write about that, instead of ranting about 'Death Squads' and the like. Au contrair, from the start the Truther movement regarded this case as a Rosetta Stone that exposed dark forces that were secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes in the sham democracy of the United KKKingdom.

It's way too late to pretend they're just concerned about how cops do their thing.

Let's Check I've Got This Right....

When thousands of violent headcases ,who openly support murderous ideologies, descend on a city - or even The City - boasting about how they're going to close down it down, and go on to wreak a branch of RBS, that's no reason for the Filth to treat them as anything less than pillars of the community, albeit with a tiny minority of criminals in their ranks.

On the other hand, when one of the aforementioned lunatics - someone who believes that terrorism is a perfectly valid form of protest, and large swathes of the population should lose their breathing privileges - claims she might have had a miscarriage (with no supporting evidence whatsoever)... why, siree, that raises all sorts of questions.

Say, it's a mystery why the crime rate round here is so high.

Latest Score From The Culture Wars

Parliament passing mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes = a despicable attack on judicial independence

The head of an independent investigatory agency attacking a number of citizens even before his agency has properly started its investigation = the very epitome of an independent tribunal

No Bias Here!

Tonight ITV are going show a drama about an event in July 2005. Use your skill and judgement to guess which:

1. The July 7 bombings


2. The search for the July 21 bombers
   


3. The shooting of St Jean the Martyr
   

OK, that is kind of obvious. Folks escaping from the burning wreckage of a tube train deep underground or cops in a race against time to track down fanatical bombers? No potential for good drama there, but a dramatisation based on the transcript of an inquest - now that's entertainment!

Really - that's the other thing about media bias. It's not just annoying on political grounds, it also leads to some really terrible TV. At least Winston Smith only had to put up with two minutes of hate, our MSM keeps it up 24/7. After all, just what is the point of all this? This isn't bringing an obscure corner of history to life - few events in recent history has been covered as extensively as Stockwell. Ditto, the left has spent years - literally - trying to leverage this case into a broadcast condemnation of da pigs (and failing, utterly) This drama has nothing to add to the debate except another opportunity for the left to indulge in masturbatory cop hating.

As ever with questions of MSM bias, it's worth stating that yes, there should be a place for full-on political commentary, just not when it's trying to pass itself off as impartial and any vaguely right-wing commentary results in a firing.

Kill Da Pigs II

The non-hateful left strikes again!

And no, you can't even say these people were misguided idealists, or vindicated by history. Their sole claim to fame is that they were cop killers. Again, I say it: this is who liberals are. They support violent lunatics because they're violent lunatics. There's no deeper thought here, liberals will support anything and anyone opposed to western civilisation.