Hipsters: Still Reliably Disgusting

Shorter O'Neill: Admire the sophistication of my refusal to condemn even outright insanity.

Like night following day, any outbreak of sadistic lunacy will be followed by the MSM's hipster contingent paying generous tribute to their own courage in refusing to condemn the killer. Free clue: it's only courageous if everyone else in the chattering class bubble isn't saying the exact same thing. For an MSM opinion writer to denounce the man on the Clapham omnibus as an unsophisticated brute is about as brave as George Galloway's warm up man denoucing Israel.

Hey, 'devil child' may lack nuance, but at least it also lacks any pretence to bogus insight. Meanwhile, O'Neall wants Dangerous Dan to get 'help and education'. Like what? 'Not Murdering People 101'? A quick course of aromatherapy? Colonic irrigation?

Hey, at least give us a hint here hipsters!

But no: their point is an essentially fradulent one. They want to contrast their own support for Therapy Nation versus the supposedly punative nature of the mob, but what's so sophiticated about their position? The science behind the rehab industry is about as reliable as a UEA climate model. O'Neall even cites the Bulger killers himself - the rehab industries' own flagship case, where despite a blank cheque and a policy of turning a blind eye to a string of offences, 50% of them still ended up back in jail anyway.

Hey, can you imagine how bad the figures are on the cases they don't want to talk about?

This is another case where conservatives have let liberals set the terms of the debate. It's not imprisonment versus rehab, it's the certainty of public protection versus pseudo-scientific garbage. Supporting the clowns and charlatans in the rehab industry is no more an intellectual position than believing your horoscope, and at least Jonathan Cainer doesn't want to set the Mad Axeman loose.

Important PC Update

New rules issued: being crazy enough to be sectioned doesn't mean that you're not perfectly capable of running the country, however any mental condition whatsoever, including but not limited to, Aspberger's, OCD and Arachnophobia, still means that you can in no way be held criminally responsible for your actions in a court of law.


Wait.... suddenly it all becomes clear.

Because Liberals Say So

Surely the real question here is why it's barbaric and stupid to believe a therapist can stop a man being attracted to other men, but also barbaric and stupid to believe that a therapist cannot stop a man being attracted to children?

And Talking Of Our Useless Elite...

How useless is the MSM? Well, consider that they keep pushing the line that Ken Clarke is a loveable man of the people when you only have to listen to him for five minutes to realise he's a fascist dolt:

But you have to explain to the sensible public that you can’t give an absolute guarantee.

And there you have it: if you disagree with Fat Ken you're stoopid!

Hey, I don't think it's the right that uses simplistic arguments, and that's without considering the obvious: whether we're talking secure mental hospital or a prison, you really can guarantee a lot less reoffending than if you give them six months aromatherapy and set them loose with directions to the hardware store.

They Expected The Spanish Inquisition?

NNW points out that the critics of religiously-motivated child abuse only ever seem to get motivated about one particular religion. True enough, but there's an even bigger humbuggery about it all here.

Consider this: the hipsters are enraged! that the Catholic Church tried to rehabilitate paedophile priests instead of handing them over for punishment.

Say what?

Wasn't the whole 'punishing paedophiles' thing supposed to be the litmus test that separates us knuckle-dragging socio cons from our sofistikeyted betters? Weren't us proles supposed to be the crazed lynch mob demanding punishment, while our natural ruling class rolled their eyes and explained patronisingly that 'good' and 'evil' were social constructs?

Bottom line: strip out the metaphysical aspects and the Vatican's 'talk it over' policy sounds mightily like our elite's preferred Therapy Nation strategy. So just what is it that they actually object to?

Why Social Workers Suck

They can't diagnose dysfunction because the liberal concept of the family is so screwed up in the first place.

Exhibit A (Key line: 'The Glasgow-born doctor argued that insanity was a perfectly understandable reaction to the madness of society and famously linked psychosis to bad parenting - while fathering ten children with four women.')

Exhibit B (Key line: 'From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio - some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.')

We shouldn't let liberals keep cats.

Modern Britain In Microcosm

JulieM points out this snapshot of modern life.

Yep, six kids disappear and it's a yawner, but don't call them insensitive: they've spiked the music concert. Isn't that just the perfect exemplar of what forty years of liberalism has done to Britain ? They'll let the innocent die through indolence and apathy, then weep buckets at the graveside.

To paraphrase Theodore Dalrymple, it looks like these people don't bear grudges - they can forgive themselves anything. All they really need is a bit of ostentatious emotionalism, and then everyone can 'move on'

Officers In Pursuit Of No One In Particular

Down in the comments, Lurker points out the distinctly anorexic description issued by PC Plod following the killing of Jimmy Mizen. Not 'arf - apparently the suspect is a 'male youth'.

Well, that ought to narrow it down.

In its own way this case marks a new low even for the Met. This is why the culture war matters. A police force service prepared to risk a dangerous lunatic running free rather than break the dictates of PC at least serves as an accurate barometer of where we are after forty years of liberalism.

I'll take a shot in the dark, and tell you this case'll get a lot worse. In so far as the suspect is almost certainly one of the brudders (75% probability), I'll state here and now that the guy who killed a random white boy in an unprovoked attack not only won't be charged with racially-aggravated violence, but he'll get off even the basic murder rap with a claim of diminished responsibility (you know, sort of like this guy )

Robin Hoods on Crack

See, I told you: it's only been four days since Jacqui Smith asked the police to target thugs, and already the usual suspects are turning the hysteria up to 11.

How come liberals become born again fiscal conservatives every time the topic is national defence or law enforcement ? It's not like we have to hire in the cops specially. We already have the odd one or two or 125 000 round here somewhere.

Still, consider the chutzpah. The country is plagued with yoof workers, social workers, probation officers, therapists and all the rest of the folks making a life and a living on the Therapy Nation gravy train. How come this is never subjected to 'any kind of analysis' ? The closest we ever get is freaks like dear old Ally assuring us that the best way to fight crime is to keep shovelling the taxpayers cash at him and the rest of the unemployables (although, on the plus side, if PC Plod does need some more cash, I think we've found a whole bunch going spare).

Of course, it's all a sham. Ditto, the liberal claim that they do oppose crime too, it's just they think the best way to fight it is do the exact opposite of what any sane person would advocate.

Libs don't oppose targeting criminals because they think it won't affect the thugs, they oppose it becuase they know it will. Let's hear it from the leech's mouth:

Anyone who has talked to or worked with persistent young offenders will describe some recurring common attitudes. Anger at the world is normal, as is a sense of persecution and injustice. There is a nihilistic indifference to their own fate and a belief that, whatever they do, life will inevitably kick them in the teeth - all of which combines to make self-destructive, antisocial behaviour and criminality a no-brainer.

Yes, we can't do anything about violent thugs, otherwise they'll.... do what exactly ? Indulge in violent thuggery ? Still, it does raise one interesting question: everyone he meets is like this ? Is there some kind of common factor here ? Maybe the destructive insanity may somehow be related to the entourage of social workers following them around, drip-feeding them victimhood and flattering them as rebels or avatars of working class authenticity.

All of which brings us to the real reason the usual suspects are panicked about Operation Leopard and the like. Liberals tell us that crime is caused by society/poverty/climate change....blah, blah, blah, but hang on a mo' - we're talking about a single estate here. If it was really the environment wot done it, you shouldn't be able to choke off crime just by targeting a minibuses worth of people. Operation Leopard proves that even on a notorious sink estate only a tiny minority of the population account for virtually all the crime.

Apparently, the thugs are neither victims nor authentic representatives of anything much. They commit crime because they want to, making life hellish for everyone around them, and liberals get paid to enable them. It's a good gig - if you're completely amoral - but now with the success of Operation Leopard, they've all been busted.

Red on Red D'Jour

Carrying on the theme of the femiloons ever-flexible interpretation of 'zero tolerance', the left's endless games of ideological twister have managed to land them in a tangled heap once again. Muslim sex offenders claim they shouldn't have to take part in the Prison Service's Ferapee sessions.

See, that's clue number one right there. When a religion prohibits group therapy, but not rape, you really have to question the whole PoMo 'all cultures are equal' thing. Still, don't be surprised if the left's knee-jerk dhimmitude suddenly gets kicked into touch here.

Consider the issue under discussion: the remission of sentence available to perverts who agree to take part in therapy sessions. Who knew ? But while liberals may not want to publicise it, this is a perfect example of how liberals think crime should be handled.

Liberals genuinely believe that criminality is a psychological condition, sort of like OCD or claustrophobia. Leftists believe that all we need to do is arrange for some beardey-weirdy to stop by the prison with a can of psychic WD-40 and even the worst of predators will be good to go. Of course, this also has the side-effect of liberals scoring well-paid jobs in the rehab industry but you have to make sacrifices for the common good, right ?

Hence why libs are on the horns of a dilemma. Their normal no-guts reaction would be to fold, but then that would mean either early release for people even they admit are still dangerous, or alternatively, admitting that the whole rehab industry is a fraud and a farce, and all the group therapy in the world doesn't make the blindest bit of difference anyway.

Hey, say what you like about astrologers, but at least Jonathan Cainer doesn't spend his time letting rapists out of jail.