It Is A Real Science, I Tell You

What can you say ?

A bogus forensic psychologist who supplied evidence in hundreds of court cases has been jailed for five years....

The court heard Morrison was paid at least £250,000 in taxpayers' money for giving apparently expert advice, but had actually bought his qualifications from a sham university...

Judge Lewis said: "Your activities in various ways struck at the heart of the judicial process."

Hey, if the 'judicial process' is prepared to admit evidence so ropey that it takes thirty years for anyone to tell the difference between an expert in the field and a fraud, maybe a stake to the heart is long overdue.

Whining Liberals

Is there any other kind ?

Apparently, the phenomenon of Leftists getting a pounding in the Blogosphere then squealing and demanding regulation isn’t just a British thing.

Right-Wing Maniacs Battle Capitalist Pigs

It baffles me why the Daily Mail is such a totemic hate symbol for the Left. Its coverage of the War is on the far side of loony, but even on domestic issues it produces garbage like this.

So, let me check if I’ve got this right: you use legal chicanery to weasel out of your obligations to a service provider, and so they stop providing you with that service. It’s a mystery alright. Apparently, in the Mail’s preferred system of government, the state not only sets the price, but also dictates who businesses can sell their services too. This is right-wing how exactly ?

20 mg of Humbugex STAT!

Get this: the government has introduced new rules whereby immigrants will only be considered for jobs if there’re no suitable local candidates.

Don’t worry, there’s no need to retune your sense of reality, the rules only apply to doctors. Can you imagine a better proof of the toxic mix of elitism and cynicism that drives British Liberalism? Liberals will prattle on endlessly about the benefits of mass immigration, but when it’s their ox being gored, suddenly we get this:

The changes were prompted by the massive rise in numbers at medical school threatening a glut of doctors.

But…but…but I thought that was the point! Wasn’t mass immigration a good thing because it kept down inflationary wage pressures ? So run this by me again, o egalitarian ones: downward pressure on the wages of bar maids and janitors is a good, downward pressure on medical wages is a bad. Ah yes.

The joke used to be what do you call the guy who graduated bottom of the class at medical school ? Doctor. Now, the jokes on us with even the dimmest GPs scoring six figures. How does this supply and demand thing work again ? Meanwhile, we have a medical profession chock full of the type of people who defend the poverty caused by mass immigration by explaining that the people who lose out are all chav scum anyway. I say it’s well past time for some sauce for this goose.

Let’s just consider the wider issues though: Liberals defend an open door policy towards jihadis, pushers and perverts by claiming that it’s culturally enriching to have a former Somalian milita leader living at the bottom of the road. Well, here’s a whole bunch of people who are, doubtless, plenty vibrant, but also intelligent and hardworking, and suddenly the Left has decided that border controls are the way of the future. If only these medics had stopped prescribing drugs and started selling them, Liberals would be all over them, but in the bizzarro world of Liberal immigration policy, the skills Britain really needs are welfare scrounging, blowing stuff up and dressing like a circus clown.

Meanwhile, in order to prop up one of Britain's most highly paid professions, the Left is forcing out huge numbers of highly-trained, hard working professionals providing valuable services. I'm guessing they're jut afraid that if the don't doctors will finally admit the truth, and classify Liberalism as a form of mental illness.

Profiling Latest

In Manchester, your opinions on immigration are admissable evidence in court. Down south, they're a little more relaxed about such things.

Hey, I think we need a scorecard here. Can we have some kind of definitive ruling ? Opposed to mass immigration = evidence of homicidal intent, terrorist chic = access all areas pass. I'm guessing it's down to all those terrorists attacks the BNP have committed versus the Religion of Peace.

What Are The Odds, Hey ?

Who'd have thunk that the guy responsible for this would be called 'Mohammed' ?

Who'd Have Thunk It ?

Down below, I mentioned the Great Charles getting soem flak from the MSM for suggesting that there was an Islamic angle to the Salt Lake City killings. Well, you'll never guess but....

Taking The War Seriously

19 months after terrorists killed 52 people, and this counts as a controversial new move ? And are we allowed to ask why mad bombers never turn out to be hiding in Sikh temples ?

Don't Mention The War

The great Charles Johnson sums it up perfectly:

The fact that Islamists launch mass murder attacks around the world nearly every single day is immaterial; the vital job of journalists is to make sure there is no “backlash,” and they’ll withhold information to prevent it.

RTWT (and especially the third from last paragraph).

We’re Doomed

What could make the prospect of a giant asteroid hitting the Earth even worse ? Why, this, of course.

They really are in a fantasy world. Try this:

The UN draft treaty would establish who should be in charge in the event of an asteroid heading towards Earth, who would pay for relief efforts and the policies that should be adopted.

In addition, it would set out possible plans to deflect the object.

God forbid we attempt to deflect an asteroid without the input of Hugo Chavez. The giveaway is that the only agency mentioned that’s actually doing anything about asteroids is NASA. Quelle surprise!

I’m guessing the treaty will define the areas of responsibility like this: the US will concentrate on detecting and diverting incoming asteroids, while the UN will concentrate on whining, complaining and child prostitution. That way, everyone plays to their strengths.

Your Call Is Very Important To Us, Please Hold While We Arrange For A Sleazy Moron To Defame You

Liberals have long had the ‘ladder of victimhood’ to help them remember who to support when, say, Islamofascists announce that if Allah meant women to be taken seriously, he’d have given them brains, or when rap artists produce jovial ditties about murdering gays. Equally, important, but less well known, is the Liberal enemies list, used to ensure that the baddie in any given situation is always the one Liberals hate most.

This is why British soldiers are a murderous gang of savages, sort of like the SS but without the discipline and the spiffy uniforms, except when they get killed by the USAF, in which case they’re Anne Frank.

Or take a recent example from the BBC. Normally, the mere mention of big financial institutions has Liberals channelling Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Ditto, outsourcing. Factor in that Libs also think that Big Business provides lousy service just because they can and what do you have ? The BBC allowing an insurance company to claim, without evidence or additional commentary, that all those complaints about its lousy service are the result of a racist conspiracy. Ah yes.

But is there something a bit more unsavoury playing a part in customer dissatisfaction?

"Some people definitely had a certain mindset and decided the call was going to be bad before they'd even dialled the number," says Adrian Web from Esure...

"When we listened back to calls people had complained about often they were fine. Some people wanted the member of staff to fail because they were in India."...

People's complaints might have initially been fuelled by a bit of xenophobia, but it is now about the service they are receiving, says Ms Hathway.

That's balance at the BBC. One guy calling the Great British Public racists, one lass saying that they're racist but there also have other motivations. Call it a wild guess, but I’m thinking if some guy claimed it was all down to the fact them darkies can’t work a phone, the BBC might have managed a follow-up question or two. On the plus side, we now know one company to avoid when it’s renewal time.

UPDATE:

Just to clairfy, I think the whiner from esure might be right about some customers, it's just that the BBC has spent years covering how eviiil Big Business exploits defenceless consumers, so it's hard to see this sudden outbreak of sympathy for our poor, abused financial services industry as anything other than Class IV humbuggery.

Manufacturing Massacres

Don’t be shocked, but a high profile war crimes case against a British soldier has just collapsed. Again. You know, I’m starting to suspect that some of these guys aren’t even trying to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians every day. Mind you, Liberals are still pushing the boat out to try and find some – any – evidence of massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan. I keep pointing out that everyone knows there are mass graves across both countries, but they say those massacres didn’t count.

For that matter, what’s with the obsession with tracking down British atrocities? People blowing up large groups of civilians? Yep, we’ve got ‘em, but not only do the Libs give them a pass, they bend over backwards to hobble the folks trying to stop them. To add insult to injury, we have an Army desperately short of almost everything, but money’s no object when it comes to trying to cobble together a Frankenstein’s case against our troops.

Fortunately, as Ross points out, we have Liberalism’s own Mr Tourettes to explain what really motivates these people. There it is, in black and white, by his own account Hari supports conscription because it will hinder military efficiency. Yowser! We always knew that all that Liberal garbage about opposing use of depleted uranium on health grounds and the like was garbage, but still, their desire to destroy the utility of the forces is rarely stated so clearly.

Ditto, Hari’s claim that a conscript army would make it harder to go to war gives us a revealing insight into the Liberal view of politics. It appears inconceivable to Hari that every now and then it might not be the West that goes to war. Are people parading in the streets with banners claiming Christianity will rule in Mecca? Nope. But in Liberal land, it’s always the West that’s wrong.

Hatred of the West and the desire to hobble the Army are what really drives this insane search for a British Oradour. If Libs really cared about civilian deaths, they’d stop referring to foreign jihadis who blow up marketplaces as ‘insurgents’ and the like, but they won’t. Even when faced with head-chopping lunatics, they'll bend over backwards to try and smear Britian.

Can we call them traitors yet ?

No, Iain, That’s Not A Rocket Launcher, He’s Just Pleased To See You

Laban has some great background – and a great headline – on the Greatest Crime Never. Executive summary: folk in Lancashire do not, in fact, go to sleep tucked up next to anti-tank weapons, while the use of the word ‘chemicals’ was predictably slippery.

Not that I’ll mock the police’s confusion of crossbows and RPG-7s, it’s an easy mistake to make – that’s partly why I left the Archery Club under such a cloud. On the other hand, not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but the Islamopaths probably want to have a think about whether they really want storing large quantities of rice and sugar to be taken as evidence of terrorism.

Still, all of the above does cast a different light on the Tories efforts to cast this as the BNP’s own July 7 (and, remember, this effort comes from the very top). Consider that the ‘suspect’ was a Conservative Party member for 30 years, compared to only a few months in the BNP. Not only does this raise the question of why he’s a ‘BNP bomber’ and not a ‘Tory terrorist’ , it also raises a rather more serious point. Are we meant to believe that after thirty years there was no one in the local party who knew both the suspect and the informant well enough to say ‘hang on a mo’- you know these folks are mentally ill, right ?’ That makes RPG-7s under the sink sound plausible.

There’s plenty to object to in Nick Griffin’s ideology, but at least the BNP has never resorted to exploiting the mentally ill for political advantage. The folks who poked the inmates with sticks at Bedlam at least had the excuse of ignorance and superstition, what excuse do Call Me Dave’s carin’ sharin’ Tory Boys have ?

Super-Important Tip D'Jour

If you're a government trying to reassure people that you can be trusted with a surveillance system that will constantly moniter the movements of everyone in the UK, it's not very reassuring to find that you're harassing public servants who've come out against that policy.

(Thanks to ATW)

Tories Promise New Help For Disadvantaged Stories

Iain Dale wants to treat the BNP like Islamofascists. Hey, crimes bad enough without having to check with Nasty Nick Griffin before busting any white trash. Ditto, about the only thing that could make British education worse is setting up ‘BNP schools’ where the kids are taught about the dangers of inferior races contaminating our essence (but don’t worry it’s only a metaphor!).

But, wait … it turns out he means the media should stop soft-pedalling the case of a single, former BNP member arrested on terrorism charges. ID claims to be mystified why this case hasn’t received the same publicity as Islamopathic terror plots. Yes, it’s an enigma alright. Here we have a guy who’s been reported to own a rocket launcher (which no one has actually seen), be stockpiling ‘chemicals’ (and also packets of Smash) , who supposedly mentioned that he wanted to kill Tony Blair (who doesn’t ?) and who came to the police’s attention when he was turned in by a wife worried he was going off the deep end. That’s it, that’s the proof of this particular Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Ideally, shouldn’t an indictment be more specific than the average horoscope ?

In contrast, things seem a little more solid where Islamic mayhem is concerned. Never mind the thousands of incidents of actual violence happening post-Sep 11 alone, I think most people can tell the difference between a group of members in good standing of the Ummah, with known connections to terrorism, and illegal items in their possession caught discussing attacks on specific targets, and some nutball stocking up on the mash potatoes, waiting for the day when the New World Order will strike.

But let’s be fair to Iain Dale – it’s an easy mistake to make. On second thoughts, let’s not – the whole point is absurd, as two words will demonstrate: Simone Clarke. Last month the MSM went to Defcon One, terrified by the prospect of far-right extremists controlling the nation’s ballet resources. Any journalist with actual proof of BNP involvement in terrorism would make his reputation for life, yet all we’ve got is an ex-member, stockpiling 'stuff'. I don't think Ewan McGregor will be getting that script anytime soon.

There’s only two types of people who claim an equivalence between the BNP and Al-Quiada: Islamofascists apologists and Brit-hating Lefties. Well, now we can add the Tories to the list. The Worthless One’s idea of taking a firm line on terrorism is to claim the tangos are as bad as the BNP. Hey, maybe you wouldn’t want to live next door to a BNPer, but at least Nasty Nick can point to a proud record of no trains destroyed.

If the Tories can’t even bring themselves to denounce folks who to blow up the 9:23 without wrapping it up in absurd moral equivalence, just how can we trust them to take actual action against terrorists ? For that matter, what of their rhetoric about reaching out to the ‘vast majority of peaceful Muslims’ when they endorse one of the Islamofascists main talking points, namely the secret army of Infidels ready to fall upon innocent Muslims ? Indeed, why even talk about ‘terrorism’ in the first place ? In so far as the Tory position claims equivalence between those who use extreme rhetoric (the BNP) and those who use extreme rhetoric, plus violence (the Islamofasicts), doesn’t that implicitly accept terrorism as just another tactic ?

Still, if Dale wants an example of a desperately under-covered story in the North-West, here’s one served up on a plate. Perhaps he'd like to speculate as to why this one hasn't been covered by the MSM ?

The Classy Left

What can you say ?

Well, It Could Have Been Worse

So, that was the first two episodes of ‘Life on Mars’ season two. As I suggested earlier today, I was half expecting a bait and switch deal this time round, with the accent switching to PC nannying and ‘weren’t our ancestors horrible’ sermonising. Fortunately, the BS is still fairly subtle by BBC standards, but it’s definitely cranking up. First episode we had woman bravely battling against sexism, then second time up we had black dude bravely battling against racism, followed by next week’s episode, which looks like it’ll be loveable Oirish folk bravely battling against the bigots opposed to their jovial homicidal ways, to be sure. We may as well start taking bets now for which episode will take us to a gay club.

That’s all alongside the previous offences. Amazingly enough, it turns out that case number one was helped along by using Sam’s 21st Century techniques for processing a crime scene. Again. Ditto, the Morgan Freemanesque barman – not insignificantly called ‘Nelson’ - was present and correct. Still, at least the show has an actual plot and good dialogue, which beats out the rest of the dreary Lefty drivel the BBC pumps out.

Actually, just as with the first season of the new ‘Battlestar Galatica’, there’s at least the saving grace that while the Liberal subtext is there for all to see, they acknowledge that there are actual counter-arguments from the Right. Take the first episode of the new run, where Sam’s clashing with a man he knows will become a murderous gangster by 2006. Suddenly, it Sam who’s bending the rules and DCI Hunt who’s playing it by the book. Of course, this sort of inversion is SOP in these shows, but it’s nice to have some acknowledgement that there’s a downside to the ever-expanding range of ‘uman rights. It’s great that there’s at least one BBC show that can consider a Conservative viewpoint, but it’s just a pity that it has to be sneaked in hidden in the boot of a Ford Cortina.

If Only The Past Was Another Country

Ranting Stan sums exactly what hacks me off about 'Life on Mars'. Actually, the first series surprised me by not being a PC fest. We'll see what it's like this time round. Still, the sneering at the past grates a bit, the more so when you realise that it's coming from the 'who are we to judge ?' demographic. Apparently, we can't say whether or not female circumcision is a 'good' or a 'bad', but pre-1997 Britain was a savage hell hole.

We need more multichronal sensitivity.

I, Victim

Monday morning though it may be, I’m feeling pretty happy at the moment. As a white male, I’m responsible for everything that’s ever gone wrong ever, including the rise of Hitler, the sinking of Atlantis, Nelson Mandela being jailed, and Bin Laden being free. So imagine my relief when I found that I too qualified for the Left’s Special Victimhood Program – and I didn’t even need to get up off the couch to do it. Actually, getting off the couch would probably be a bad move all round, now I’m a certified victim of fattism.

That piece of research really is just the perfect example of modern academia. Physical Education teachers have a downer on fat kids ? Really ? You know, it’s really lucky we’ve got these grant-gobbling nogoodniks around to tell us these things, otherwise they’d be no way to tell that the knuckle-dragging mesomorphs did not approve of bloaters – other than subtle hints, such as listening to what they say.

Still, even this insight into the blindingly obvious isn’t the best of it. Here’s what the researchers have to say about their conclusions:

We need to educate PE students and teachers about the physical limitations of some of the people they work with.

Physical limitation ? Having no legs is a physical limitation, being fat is mostly a lack of limits. In so far as the fat would generally prefer to indulge rather than perform repetitive motions at the behest of a semi-literate Neanderthal, it’s a matter of choice rather than the cruel hand of fate stuffing cheeseburgers down anyone’s throat.

See, this is what’s wrong with the victimhood industry. Liberals profess to be terrified by the supposed epidemic of obesity sweeping the land, but then they turn round and claim actual fat people are hopeless and hapless victims. So, on the one hand we need fat permits for business (and this from a supposed Conservative) while on the other we’re not allowed to suggest that folks such as myself may indeed be less active than, say, Olympic sprinters. Or, to put it another way, yet again the Left wants to replace social pressures (‘don’t be such a slob’) with Big Government. Hey, it worked so well with the family, right ?

(Cross-Posted At TWA)

UPDATE:

English is hard!

Personally, I Thought It Was Inbreeding

Hey, I actually find Cameron’s admission of drug use quite reassuring. At least there’s some kind of logical explanation for why he’s so firmly ensconced in the Hotel Insania.

Moore From The Tories

Further proof of the Tories sloughing off extremists and attracting a younger, hipper, just plain nicer crowd: top choice on ‘Webcameron’ is another contribution from the Truthers. Meanwhile, Iain Dale – a Tory A-Lister remember - continues his flirtation with Trutherism.

Let’s leave aside Dale’s absurd point that only some of the 84 BBC interviews were softball city – other than to ask if can we have some kind of hint in future if it’s going to an interview or a meeting of Sob Sisters Anonymous ? Ditto, let’s state that, yes, for the sake of argument, the suspect is totally innocent of these specific charges. Well, call me old-fashioned, but refraining from sawing off heads should not – in and off itself - qualify someone for a soft-focus interview with the BBC. To put it another way, I wonder what Dale’s reaction would be if the BBC offered this kind of kid gloves questioning to a guy ranting about gays. Of course, Abu Bakr probably doesn’t go a whole bundle on hanging out with all the boys, but that’s kind of the point: we aren’t actually told anything about him. The nuance fanatics at Al Beeb are running the story with nary a hint of context or background.

I believe the phrase that pays is ‘hoist by your own petard’. The BBC has been pushing the line that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are terrified by the thought that they could be arrested at the drop of a hat by racist police picking names out of the phone book. Whatever could have given them that idea ? Well, how about a broadcaster which allows a suspect in a terrorism case to rant and rave without any kind of context whatsoever ?

Instinct tells me that Abu Bakr has left quite a paper trail. No, that alone isn’t grounds for arrest, but neither does that mean the Left is justified in presenting him as some kind of everyman martyr to the Nu Gestapo.

But what really sticks in the throat is Dale’s characterisation of the debate as between ‘civil libertarians and authoritarians’. Really ? Personally, I’m thinking the authoritarians might be the ones lining up with Marxists and Islamofascists. On the other hand, the anti-dhimmi camp stretches from Nick Cohen to the hard Right (also known as ‘real Conservatives’). If we’re seeking to impose some kind of sinister hidden agenda, it must be a doozy to get all these folks on board. Well, you know, either that or we just want to win the war.

That’s irony number one right there. The ‘authoritarians’ turn out not to want to impose any particular agenda after all. Meanwhile, the ‘civil liberties’ crowd worships at the altar of unelected and unaccountable power, insisting that each and every effusion from the moonbat-infested fever swamps of the courts be treated as the new Magna Carta, even in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition.

Are there real ‘authoritarians’ seeking to use the war to chip away at important liberties ? Probably, but here’s irony number two: in insisting on a Stalingrad strategy whereby even the most obnoxious examples of judicial overreach are defended to the last man and the last round, these ‘civil libertarians’ make it easier for real authoritarians to argue for throwing out any number of babies with the junk jurisprudence bathwater.

Socialism, Liberalism And The Descent Of The Left Into Madness

Fame at last! A link from Samizdata. Only trouble is with it being slightly critical, that’s going to make the post I was planning later today look like payback.

Anyway, to business: Brian Micklethwaite questions my use of the word ‘Liberal’ for the people who make up the bulk of the modern Left. It’s quite deliberate. I try to use ‘Liberal’ in place of ‘Leftist’ quite simply out of respect for the Left.

No, really.

Take Frank Field: while much of what he believes is just plain wrong, you can’t doubt his sincere commitment to social justice. OK, so passionate stupidity doesn’t help anyone, but Frank Field really does have brilliant insights into where Britain’s gone wrong and how to fix it. Equally admirable is the fact that he’s prepared to follow his insights to their logical conclusion even if it brings him into conflict with the kool aid posse – who’d have thunk that it’d be a Labour MP who’d be the most high-profile supporter of private pension provision ?

What Frank exemplifies is that there are – or can be – good arguments for Leftism. If I’d been born a hundred years ago, I’d probably have been a socialist. That’s not to say Leftists can take all the credit for progress since then - I’m sure plenty of folks at Samizdata would claim the Left actually hindered progress – but back then the Left was grappling with serious issues. Not just politically either – there was a whole flotilla of Leftist organisations providing things like educational services and the like (really providing them, not just outsourcing for the government). Again, they may have been wrong on the specifics, but the principles they endorsed, things like self-reliance, education and a sense of community, were good ones. It seems unfair to bracket these people with Cherie Blair.

This isn’t just a matter of morals, in the sense that Frank Field has them, and Cherie doesn’t. Nope, it’s much bigger than that. Consider education – there are plenty of ways to organise an education system, but the central problem is this kind of thing. From educating the masses to eulogising stupidity, things sure have changed in Leftland.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what Liberals believe, not only because of their natural slipperiness, but also because it doesn’t make sense anyway. It’s a mistake to spend too long analysing the ideological underpinnings of folks who’ve embraced both the Gay Rights pests and Islamofasicts. Nevertheless, there is a definable spine of ideological thought which can be summed up as Liberal, as distinct from traditional Leftism. Maybe Liberal doesn’t quite catch the sense of where they’re at, but that’s better than letting trade on the legacy of honest Leftism even while sticking two fingers up the principles that animated their forefathers.

Alf Garnett Takes To The Air

Not the least ludicrous thing about the Left’s response to the death of L/CoH Hall is their breathless reporting of coroner Andrew Walker’s unhinged attack on America as though it was some kind of shock. Hey, maybe we’d have let them call it a shock when Walker first used an inquest to denounce America, but this time round it just looks like a one-hit wonder trying to relive the glory days (a deranged moonbat being appointed to two Liberal cause celebres – what are the odds hey ?).

Anyway, what’s with this idea that denouncing America is somehow a courageous stand in the British legal system ? Denouncing Israel at the Hamas annual convention takes more courage. All he needs to do is work in something about Kyoto and he’d be on the High Court by next Tuesday.

The real mystery is what happened to the chickenhawk meme. About ten minutes ago, this was the Left’s favourite argument: unless you had personally bayoneted sixteen Argies at Goose Green, you lacked ‘the experience, judgement, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.’ But suddenly everyone – grandstanding politicians, know-nothing journalists and media whore coroners especially – knows how to manage air assets in a mobile battle. True, they never actually get round to explaining how they’d do things differently – written requests ? – but they’re really, really sure that the Yanks are STOOPID.

That’s another rich source of humbuggery right there. Tuesday’s Jeremy Whine show was just the worst of a whole bunch of shows full to the brim with slack-jawed idiots phoning in stories about how their granddad always told them that those Yanks couldn’t be trusted with bombs. It’s just a pity we never got to hear grandad’s views on blacks or gays. For that matter, can we check the rules here ? Call it a hunch, but I’m betting more people in Britain have suffered death by Islamopath than have been killed by the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so how come no one’s talking about the vast majority of peaceful A-10 pilots ?

If nothing else, with officers of the court sounding like writers for 'comment is free' and MSM deadheads pretending to be Montgomery while airing the views of semi-literates claiming that Yanks are stupid, immature thugs and personally they send ‘em all back home, can the Left just stop pretending they’re baffled that the Yanks won’t hand over their personnel for trial in Britain.

Journalist Barbie

The Rotty Pup bags the BBC for using one of the most absurd ecoloon talking points. As the Rottmeister points out, just where do Libs think the business community live, if not in the world ? Do they commute in from Mars ?

But let’s just consider the humbuggery here. The BBC doesn’t agree with the plainly observable fact that, yes, if the Earth falls into the Sun, even the rich people will die. I think the term goes something like ‘motes and beams’. For years Beeboids have been eulogising the whole Liberal litany, including ‘progressive education’, multiculturalism and the rights of sex offenders, all while themselves living as far as possible from Ground Zero. Folks who really have seen how, say, the curriculum has had the liver of Prometheus torn out it have been dismissed as out of touch reactionaries, even while Beeboids have been careful to put their larvae down for faith schools. How about a Beeboid visiting the indigenous people’s of Bradford ?

Still, even that isn’t the most depressing part of it all. Consider the slack-jawed logic on display here:

Call me cynical if you will, but my first thought was, so you mean, what, corporations like Enron? Or Arthur Andersen? Or WorldCom? And I was not alone. Mr Bodman had momentarily silenced an entire press corps.

Like, totally. Is this really a BBC reporter or did he get his 14 year old daughter to write it ?

Call me cynical if you will, but I'm like yeah, riiiiight! And I was not alone, everyone was, like, totally ‘I can’t believe you said that’, and it was like, dead funny cause Rachel at CNN, who’s really kewl, even though her boyfriend's kind of weird, is like ‘you are such a geek!’ and we’re all laughing and then…

Best Story Ever

This made me laugh like a hyena on NO2. I had to track down a page of Ben Elton gags just to stop laughing.

Actually, I’m kind of charmed by the idea of a place where people can just be themselves. Liberals have their 750 page definitions of human rights, but when it comes to that most central of rights – the right to do your own thing, they want nothing to do with it.

The humbuggery is thick in the air here. What of all those folks, including some on the Right, who gave pious speeches about the importance of standing up for gays ? Here’s a whole bunch of homos getting nailed by these regs, so where are they now ? Ah yes, it turns out that the whole ‘gay rights’ thing doesn’t extend to actual, y’know, rights for gays. Well, either that or they just don’t get excited when there’s no chance to flick a v at the Church.

On the other hand, what’s with Matthew Parris and pals ? These folks were taking out onions not two weeks ago just because there were tiny corners of the Septic Isle where rampant butt 5ex was not regarded as art. Thousands of noble arboreal citizens of the Earth where sacrificed to carry heart-rending – or possibly stomach-churning – pieces about how they felt as though their very souls had been torn out of them and ripped into a million pieces by the jackboots of the Theocons and their outdated insistence that there be no playing the pink oboe during Sunday Mass. Yet, now we’ve found some more cases of people being discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, there’s no sign of unsanctioned soul removal. Seems like Parris and pals have packed their crosses away. Apparently, you can go too far with this whole ‘tolerance’ thing.

So, anyway, the Pink Wedge are principle-free hacks, and The Dawk’s Brights are a bunch of creepy fascists. Same ol’, same ol’, but at least some gays might have joined the long list of people who finally realise you can go to bed with Liberals, but don’t expect them to respect you in the morning.

The Reassuring Pursuit Of Filthy Lucre

Continuing on today's theme of the depraved nature of modern Liberalism, consider this latest story passed on by Ranting Stan. Let’s leave aside the attempts at creative writing here, and just consider the charges on their own merits. But wait! They don’t have any. As Stan rightly points out, half are completely unsupported and the other half don’t even make sense.

This case would be disturbing enough, even without the question of motivation – or lack thereof. Why exactly did this family become the target of a Liberal Jihad ? The Mail speculates that it was to allow the council to hit government targets for adoption. That sounds bizarre, yet what other reason could there be ? Well, for one, I’d suggest the fact that – contra to the Liberal argument that the police must reflect the communities they serve – social services departments are dominated by folks who are hostile to the conventional family. If you genuinely believe the traditional family is exactly like a gulag, then that makes it a lot easier to destroy one. Either way, it is disturbing to note that the full machinery of government can be unleashed on such puny grounds.

The key point is that, whatever the motivation of these people, there was no one around to say ‘this is insane’ and nothing in the system to stop them. Liberals are obsessed with the idea that everyone in jail has been framed by bent coppers. Well, here’s a case of bent social workers trying to destroy an entire family, but the Left isn’t taking calls. Is seizing someone’s children worse than planting a wrap of H on them ? Why yes, I believe it is.

Consider what it says about the modern Left that this sort of thing raises no eyebrows. This is what I mean about the nihilism of the modern Left. No matter how degraded your moral sense, the idea of children being seized by the state on absurd grounds should appal you, but even this does not raise the Left’s hackles. After all, social workers are firmly in the Left’s camp – you just know the bar’s set far lower for groups identified as traditionally Conservative.

Except that’s the thing. Liberal’s talk darkly about ‘putting profits before people’. If only. The pursuit of profit means that you have to at least try and produce something somebody wants. Government’s don’t have to bother, which is one reason why real evil needs state backing. After all, Holocaust II would be hard to raise funding for. Equally, as in this case, it would be kind of hard to get people to pay for a bunch of lesbian headbangers to destroy families for trivial reasons.

The Right Kind Of Genocide

Further proof of the moral degeneracy of Liberals. Not only pushing even more legislation restricting free speech, but loading it down with caveats to protect people whitewashing their favourite murderers.

The New Age Of Nothing

As I said before, it might just be that Liberals have managed to contrive the only ideal in the world today that’s less inspiring than the concept of humans as playthings of the moon god. The Left’s determination to cleanse the public square of Christianity is a big - perhaps the biggest – part of that, but there’s more to it that that. It’s often said that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant the Left had nothing left to fight for. The trouble is that that’s pretty much what the Left is fighting for: nothingness.

It’s not that the Left ducks the big issues of today; it’s that it doesn’t agree there are any big issues. In the age of irony, the Left’s main contribution is to affect a smug, eye-rolling air of being above it all. Sawing people’s heads off, not sawing people’s heads off, who’s to say which is better ? A country is whoever happens to be passing through at the time; a family is any random group of people who share a postcode.

All this wouldn’t be so bad, if the Left was merely cynical, but this very nihilism has become an ideology all on its own. Not only does the Left not believe anything, but it hates with a passion anyone who does have beliefs. Everyone who’s not ready to splash round in the Left’s moral equivalence cess pit is either a dupe or a fascist, depending on how well they argue against the Left. Ditto, all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which is the evilest there could ever be.

Not to say that even some Leftists don’t feel the strain of cognitive dissonance every now and again. Hence the descent into junk science and trutherism, as Liberals struggle to explain why sadistic muggers are the real victims and noble savages nobly fly jets in buildings (they’re traumatised by their childhood, and the Jews did it, respectively).

Back in the day, the Left had some insane ideas, but at least they (most of them) really wanted to make the world a better place. Now, the Left’s sole impulse is a destructive one. They hate the West, and they’ll turn any number of ideological somersaults to advance that hatred. Take the Pink Wedge: Liberals claim to be obsessed with gay rights, when it allows them to wage war on the family, but when the major threat to the West internationally is a group of people who string gays up, well, hangings are just fabulous!

That’s what’s wrong with modern Liberalism. Look behind the hatred and the bile and there’s….well, nothing really. That’s their achievement, that’s where we came in. That's how they contrived the only ideology in the world less appealing than Murderin’ Mo’s death cult.

Las Mancs

Who'd have guessed that the Super Casino would be going to Manchester ? Apparently, the selection committee had to consider issues such as the influence of organised crime, drug abuse and violence, but they decided that these problems were outweighed by other points in Manchester's favour.

Steyn Quote D'Jour

Even better, it's about the smartest man ever:

[David Cameron's] also living in a country whose major cities have been hollowed out by Islamist cells. Nevertheless, as England decays into Somalia with chip shops, taxing the chip shops is the Conservatives' priority.

Govt Admits Reform Was Huge, Misdirected Failure

That'll be the day.

Cobbett is bang on here. A huge bureaucracy has been created, ultimately paid for by Joe Public, yet by the FSA's own account, standards are still appalling in the financial services industry. Hmmm....sounds like the FSA needs massive reform - but don't hold your breath waiting for that either.

Actually, of course, the FSA hasn't been able to find any actual evidence of malpractice, far less consumer detriment, in its industry. The FSA's indictment, such as it is, revolves around the claim that 'two-thirds of the mortgage lenders it sampled did not have satisfactory processes in place'. Not only that, but processes tended to be less robust in smaller operations.

Well, I don't know about you, but I was shocked - shocked! - to find out that John Smith's Mortgage Brokerage has less robust systems than the Halifax. Who'd have thunk it ? Still, I dunno, it seems kind of.... indirect somehow. If only there was some more obvious way to check the quality of John's advice ?

What it all boils down to is time-serving public sector zombies berating the productive sector for not being having the kind of mindless worship of paperwork and process that has made the parasite sector what it is today. You think banks are bad now, wait till they start working as cheaply and efficiently as the NHS.

Still, the FSA is at least being true to its roots as a product of the blood-sucking sector. What are we to make of the other participants in the pile-on, organisations such as the Citizen's Advice and other consumer groups....

Hold it right there. I happen to think that if the FSA was kicked out of the trough, the public would immediately benefit from not having to fund thousands of overpaid leeches, but will any 'consumer association' ever say that ? For that matter, would the MSM ever refer to any organisation formed to push that world view as a 'consumer association'. Not in this lifetime. The designation 'consumer association' is reserved for Liberal astroturf organisations pushing Big Government. Maybe there's a compelling case for socialism, but if there is, why do these people need to hide what they're about under weaselly designations like 'consumer group' ?

Nope, any time an alleged consumer group opens its trap, you know you're going to get made-over Marxism and Big Government boosterism wrapped in fluffy bunny rhetoric about 'protecting the consumer'. For proof of that, look at their comments this time round. They're worried that banks may be lending money to people who can't repay it (which makes no sense until you remember that Liberals think business is like the public sector in that the more money you waste, the more you get).

OK then Libs, you win: from now on banks won't be allowed to victimise the working classes by offering them services. Only middle-class professionals with golf club memberships will be allowed to use banks. But wait...do I hear someone whining about 'financial exclusion' ? Why, yes, I believe I do.

So, in summary, banks are evil for lending to people who aren't even doctors or lawyers, but they're also evil for not lending to these people. But don't let that convince you that 'consumer groups' are anything less than disinterested defenders of the public good.

As I Was Saying…

Spookily enough, the topics of the last two posts kind of feed into a comment I left earlier at Laban’s place. It was in the comments to this post where someone asked if people would be so worried about the fall of Christianity if there wasn’t a well-known peaceful religion clawing at the door of western civilisation, ready to replace it.

The simple answer is that nature abhors a vacuum. There’s no either/or there. Islam is an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of a body already rotted by Liberalism. Let’s face it – Islam isn’t advancing through the force of the ideology. Islam teaches that people are slaves to a brutal moon god who demands blind obedience even on the most trivial of things. The closest you get to any kind of hopeful message in Islam is the belief that if you kill enough Infidels, you’ll get an invite to Big Mo’s Whorehouse in the sky.

But what is it faced with ? The Liberal world view is based upon the idea that we are at a unique moment in human history when now, for the first time ever, a civilisation can get by without the family, a shared narrative, a code of honour, objective truth, a sense of consequences or, well, any of the other 871 things the Left sneers at whenever traditional values are mentioned. Apparently, every civilisation that has existed in the past 5000 years has been a ghastly mistake.

Well, now we've got a chance to test that hypothesis. European sophisticates vs deranged savages.

Oops.

The rise of Islam is the perfect barometer of just how sick our civilisation is, proof positive of the essential hollowness of the Liberal ideal of multicultural, omnisexual intellectuals sitting at pavement cafes, discussing trends in post-modern architecture over the lattes. When our civilisation is less inspiring than the rantings of a sociopathic nonce from the 7th century, we’ve got real problems.

That’ll Leave A Mark

America’s chief (only ?) sane Lib Kirsten Powers sums up exactly what’s so annoying about professional atheists. At least religious nuts claim God’s on their side – these people claim the right to behave like pigs just because.

Very Nuclear Family

Sorry if posts seem even more incoherent than usual, but I’m still coming to terms with being a family man. I mean, I’m still single with no kids, but after reading this post from Iain Dale, I realise that’s no reason to feel left out. After all, if we accept the Dale hypothesis that a family is just whatever random group of individuals happen to be occupying the same post code at the same time, well, I see no reason why people should be allowed to discriminate against monocentric family groups. After all, if critics are going to claim that single people can’t be a family just because a family needs to consist of more than one person, I have one word for them: schizophrenia.

But seriously, don’t think I’m criticising Dale’s post here. It strikes me as at least 1000% more honest than anything from his slippery ‘everything’s special’ leader. The only problem is that Dale doesn’t follow his own logic through to its natural conclusion. As Joe Single, I can see a case for paying relatively over the odds tax-wise to help ensure the next generation get the best start in life, but once we move outside the traditional family structure, what’s the case for subsidising even the most dysfunctional arrangements ? Or, to put it another way, if all lifestyles are equal, how can anyone justify taxing some and subsiding others ?

More profoundly though, what’s with the claim that all lifestyles are equal anyway ? We know that’s not true. The data is in – and has been for ages – some family groups do dramatically better than others. In and of itself, that’s hardly a compelling case for government intervention, except if you’re the type of deranged statist who thinks the government should issue fat licences. Oops.

Hey, how come all types of food aren’t ‘special’ ? Why aren’t Tories claiming that there are many different kinds of ‘healthy’ ? After all, in both cases what we’re talking about here is statistics. There must be plenty of folks still eating a full English breakfast every day well into their 80s, so how come the Tories want to set up their own CID (Cheeseburger Investigation Division) to clamp down on unlicensed kebab dealers, while claiming that kids could be raised by wolves with no harm done ?

Rush Quote D'Jour

Rush Limbaugh puts his finger on what's wrong even with 'nice' Leftists:

'Having fun at a dream job' was cited by 39% of workers as important, with 17% saying 'making a difference in society' was most important. Thank God it's only 17%. Hitler made a difference.

MSM: Some Extremists More Equal Than Others

Just thinking about a couple of posts over at ATW. Tom Tyler rightly points out the somewhat selective reporting of racial attacks in the MSM. Doubtless, these people would justify this by claiming they have to be sensitive to the possibility of aiding extremist thugs..

Well, OK, Libs. Let’s go with that: media organisations should refrain from reporting that could help the cause of violent lunatics. Except that turns out not to be the Left’s position at all. When the lunatics in question are Islamofasicts – henceforth to be known as 'real thugs' rather than, say, the still-waiting-for-it Islamophobic backlash – any suggestion that the media’s reporting ('all atrocities, all the time') could be helping these lunatics has the MSM cranking the girly hysteria up to 11.

So which is it ? Are the MSM fearless seekers after truth ? Or is responsible reporting all the rage ? Or is it, and I'll admit I’m going out on a limb here, just that they’re a bunch of hacks who’ll report anything – providing it harms Britain.

The Leader They Deserve

Talking of the Tories, Tom Paine passes on a useful insight into what the Party’s bright young things really believe.

I believe the phrase is 'stick a fork in it, it's done'.

Judge, Rope, Scaffold - Some Assembly Required

So, now we know: even people convicted of actual attacks on kids doesn’t count as ‘dangerous’. But hey – how come the judges aren’t yammering about political interference this time ? Whenever it’s suggested that they should be sending more people to jail, the whining’s audible from South Korea. This time, not so much.

But let’s consider what the judges are really doing. It’s so obvious, even Nick Robinson has picked up on it. They are – as these Leftist tools would doubtless say – sending a message. They want some payback against John Reid, so they’re releasing dangerous predators. Huh ?

Just what kind of amoral degenerate do you have to be to reach the point where giving predators another chance to strike at innocent children in order to make trivial political points strikes you as a good idea ? And should people like that even be on the bench in the first place ?

A vote of thanks too for the Tories, reliably appalling as ever, for jumping onboard this particular bandwagon. No matter how awful you think John Reid is, he can hardly be personally responsible for the lack of prison places. I’d suggest the blame lies with another member of the Scottish Raj, but that’s by the by. In throwing their hand in with a bunch of activist judges seeking to hijack the legal process, the Tories have tacitly accepted one of the most toxic – and anti-Conservative - trends of recent years. Tories allowing short term politics to overrule long-term strategy ? Say it ain’t so!

Coming Back At Ya

Steve’s wondering why religious people should get special exemption from gay rights legislation. Some of us would ask the opposite question. Why should gays get special rights in the first place ?

Sure, these people claim gayness is equivalent to, say, race, but I have six words for them: ‘not one drop of gay blood’. Doesn’t really work, does it ? No one’s talking about checking out someone’s family tree, it’s all about the life they lead. Hey, maybe there’s a genetic element to it, but maybe there’s a genetic element to being obese, or a drunk, or a smoker. No one’s demanding that being a fat chain-smoking hooch jockey is off-limits to debate, nope, it’s only the folks who like to hang out with all the boys who are a protected species.

So, Who Is Dangerous Then ?

Not that the Left is weak on sexual predators or anything. He'd have had more chance of time if he'd have gobbed a traffic warden.

Stories That Are Never As Interesting As The Headline Suggests

Mind you, you can never have enough of these movies.

Arrogance Or Delusion ?

Don’t laugh, but the Tories have decided to go after votes in the North. This, lest we forget, from the party whose list of preferred candidates – supposedly designed to produce a ‘party that looks like Britain’ – managed to include more councilors from Kensington and Chelsea than from the whole North-West plus Yorkshire. Still, at least they’re strong in the North-East. Oopsie – looks like not only do they have to parachute in candidates but …..well, you know. Not that all this implies any kind of contempt for Viz country. No, siree. Just how STOOPID do they think we are ?

Nice Shot!

The Reptile gives a righteous kicking to Richard Gott, ex-KGB agent and current idiot. It's all good, but don't miss the zinger he passes on in the last paragraph.

The Case Against An English Parliament

Hey, at least when the Scots soak us, there’s a statistical risk the money will be spent on stuff like cancer drugs or education. Our fellow Englishmen have different priorities.

The Spoils System Of Child Care

Reading this post over at ATW I finally put my finger on what it is that so utterly nauseates me about the gay adoption movement. It’s their sense of entitlement. That’s bad enough when we’re talking about the welfare state, but to hear these people talk about how they’re being unfairly discriminated against by being deprived of their fair share of kids is more than flesh and blood should have to stand.

Back in the day, when it was all green fields round here and you could buy a mansion and still have change of a fiver, the adoption system was run for the benefit of the kids, but not anymore: now, successful agencies with great records for placing kids are being forced out of existence for depriving you-know-who of their rightful share of the spoils. Could there be a better example of the narcissism and shamelessness of the Pink Wedge ?

Bad News: We're All Crazy (Again)

Uh oh – looks like an old friend is back: the Pathological Conservative. Really, Liberals wax indignant about the supposed Conservative ‘War on Science’ but just how much respect should the Right have for people prepared to present any old garbage as science, providing it slimes the Right ?

Actually, great though the takedown of that study is, all I needed to know was that it featured two of the best markers for junk science, namely the claim that Stalin was actually right-wing, and reference to the work of that old Marxist fraud Adorno. Absurd twisting of definitions and blind acceptance of nonsensical rubbish are never a good basis for research.

This is not some obscure scientific eccentricity either. There’s the obvious point that folks like this are scoring swag from the taxpayer to produce semi-literate screeds denouncing Conservatives, but it goes a little deeper than that. Let’s leave aside any speculations on how Liberals think we should treat the disease of Conservatism, and just consider one specific area of policy. Right now, the same level of genius which produces work like this, is also driving government policy on crime and punishment. Or, to put it another way, the integrity-free hacks who produce reams of garbage proving Rightist are mental cripples, are the ones determining if and when paedophiles are ready to be released. Reassuring, hey ?

Fascists Appeal To Idiots For Sympathy

Ah yes – Islamopaths get caught telling the truth by Channel 4, so you know what that means: back into Muslims Fear Backlash After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing territory.

Personally, I think these guys are bang on.

More Voting With The Backside

Talking of Blair, Matthew Parris pens a love letter to the Dear Leader in the Times. He lays out a tightly-argued thesis in favour of Blair’s underlying ideology.

Just kidding!

Nope, Parris praises Blair for promoting ‘tolerance’. What can he mean ? Admittedly, Parris makes weak attempts to try and link Blair’s position on the Most Important Issue Ever to more general trends, but his heart’s clearly not in it. Well, same ol’, same ol’. Except, of course, Parris is a former Tory MP and supposed commentator on political affairs.

See, that’s what’s so annoying about Parris and his ilk. Instead of taking the Peter Tatchell route and being up-front boosters for gay rights, they try to pass themselves off as Conservatives, yet on any issue even tangentially related to the MI2E, you can call their position even before the cards are dealt. Just who do they think’s buying it ?

A Heroine For Our Times

The Left’s snit with Blair has reached such absurd proportions that I now find myself warming to him. At least there’s still one member of the Blair family who is reliably appalling. Still, rancid though she is, you have to acknowledge Cherie’s important social role as the unacceptable face of Liberalism.

Leave aside the actual politics, and you have to admire how Princess Tony effortlessly triangulates and evades his way around even the wildest contradictions – hence why his Liberal critics have had to fall back on screeching hysteria. Cherie, on the other hand, wears her lunacy on her sleeve.

Cherie is a living example of what Liberalism really means. Liberals wax lyrical about abstract concepts like society, but what does all that boil down to in the real world ? Cherie hoovering up a warehouse full of clothes, soaking a cancer charity and then shaking down F-list celebrities for free holidays. Oh, and by the way, we must also remember that Cherie is a feminist icon, thanks to her huge achievements such as being married to the PM. Still, she always has her business acumen (and who better to act on her behalf than a convicted fraudster) ?

Liberalism is the belief that us peasants need to shut the hell up and gratefully accept the reign of Liberal philosopher kings. Well, here she is: Queen Cherie, Liberal archetype, the sleazy, selfish, shameless and, most of all, stupid living embodiment of what’s wrong with Liberalism. All you need to know is that every time someone calls for more government regulation, they’re calling for more power to go to people like Cherie Blair.

More Fun With The BBC

Didn't I tell you that a Liberal slander squad would be scrambled? Once a judge outed himself a sane, it was only a matter of time before Liberals slimed him. Needless to say, first in line is the BBC with this remarkably mendacious report.

Reading the BBC's report you could be convinced that the accused was charged because, to quote the injured party,” he lunged at me and I had to retreat from the cell so the police made the decision to charge him”. Gosh - who could object to the police charging a guy who does that? Clearly, the judge must be some kind of racist himself, right?

Except, let's - since you won't hear this from the BBC - look at exactly what the judge said:

Any reading of what was actually said in court would make it clear that the potential seriousness of what occurred was that a police surgeon was threatened with violence and non-racial abuse to the extent that he decided he needed to leave the cell to which he had been called. This amounted to an assault, but this was not the offence charged.
“A gratuitous single piece of racist abuse was uttered as the surgeon left. This was the charge on which the full weight of the law had been brought to bear. My comments were not intended to make light of racist remarks.

Or, to spell it out for any Liberals reading, the judge was specifically questioning why the police had not prosecuted this obvious, blatant case of assault while bending over backwards to prosecute over a single word. To put it another way, the BBC report makes no sense whatsoever. The victim claims the assailant should have been charged over the assault, while the judge claimed the assailant should have been charged over the assault. The ‘abused surgeon’ was hitting back at the judge by agreeing with him.

Let's not beat around the bush here, anyone reading the BBC report alone would be left with the impression that the judge didn't think an assault on a police surgeon was any big thing. On the contrary, the whole point of the judge's speech was that the assault should have been prosecuted more vigorously than the supposed hate speech offence. You may, or may not, think hate crimes laws are a good idea, but to try and smear a man who criticises hate speech prosecution are somehow supporting actual violence is beyond sleazy. Maybe Liberals will defend it as just the way politics is but guess what, they just got through telling us that the BBC was unbiased. So which is it?

Liberal Education Saves Lives

Like we couldn't have guessed. In it's own way it's the perfect metaphor for Islam and the modern world

He went on to attend only three weeks of the summer term. Police later found six pages of notes from the course, with Islamic prayers scrawled in the margins, when they raided his council flat seven years later.

Apparently, Liberals were wrong. It turns out that if you're doing chemical stuff, you need a knowledge of chemistry. The rantings of the Paedo-Prophet is not a different, but equally valid, area of study after all. And no, the concept of the 'right concentration' is not a social construct either.

Wrong Sort Of Authenticity

OK, so I've resisted so far, I've got to pitch my 2p’s worth in about Celebrity Big Brother. Actually, tool though he is, Richard Littlejohn, neatly sums up the Alice in Wonderland quality to the MSM’s decision to concentrate on this example of racism on Channel 4. Of course, being firmly rooted in the MSM himself, old Ricky can't quite bring himself to say what really lies behind the MSM's decision, namely total cowardice. Hard though it is to believe, they've actually exceeded their performance during the Motoons fiasco.

Still, there is one other factor: the totally surreal debate over what one of those chavs actually said to the Indian lass. Liberal witch hunters allege that he told her a p***, while the chav in question maintains that he merely called her a c***.

The distinction might not be obvious to folks in the real world, but to Liberals it is all-important. The first version of words sealed his reputation as a Liberal hate figure, while the second is proof positive of working-class authenticity. Indeed, as much effort as Liberals are currently spending denouncing the chavs for their alleged racism, they spent previously telling us obnoxious behaviour was the hallmark of genuine working class culture.

For that matter, what of the Indian lass herself? By all reports she is intelligent, educated, prissy, and a master of the Princess Di-style conspicuous emoting, in short, the type of person Liberals has spent years trying to convince chavs to have a Pavlovian reaction of hatred to.

In so far as Liberals have spent years telling us the chavs are merely expressing a different, but equally valid, culture to the rest of us, they are the last people in the world qualified to claim to be shocked - shocked! - at the sight of Homo Chavus in action.

Of course, let's not lose sight of the cynical political calculation behind all this. The eulogisation of dysfunctional behaviour served their needs when it was directed towards the institutions of society, it's only now this behaviour had been turned towards one of their sacred cows that they profess themselves to be shocked at such people.

Back then, chavs served a useful role as shock troopers in the war against traditional British values, but now they're shocked that chavs won't blindly obey their prissy, little rules. Screaming abuse at all and sundry when faced with the slightest disappointment is perfectly understandable but calling an Indian “the Indian", why, Liberals have never heard anything so horrific.

Why be surprised when Big Brother's celebrity chav star disintegrates on camera? Don't ask why she thinks she can get away with it when in almost every other case she is not only got away with it, she’s positively been rewarded for it. Can anyone who's read these guy’s books claim to be shocked at these events? Liberals haven't been so unjustifiably enraged by events since they started noting Blair lies quite a lot.

Why Are Paedophile Priests Better Than BBC Reporters ?

Because there are some things even priests don't expect you to swallow:

It is something he has found difficult as, since his return, he says he has found it hard to be in large crowds and to talk about his experiences.

You will not believe which sociopathic publicity whore's profile that line appears in.

Liberalism Eating Itself

This is moronic, but still funny.

Scientists Baffled As Sane Judge Found

So, police officers arrest an innocent man then charge him with behaving offensively while he’s being held on the bogus charges. Well, it’s one way to get the figures up, but isn’t this what the Left used to oppose ?

Ah, but that’s forgetting the special hate crime monkey dust. Liberals are horrified by the thought that terrorists may be forced to have warm milk on their cornflakes, but when it comes to hate crimes, all bets are off. Except this time the impossible happened: the case came before a sane judge:

[Racist abuse] by a drunk towards an obviously highly professional, educated and respected member of society in a position of clear authority over the defendant, I found it hard to conceive that it could be taken as seriously upsetting abuse

Yowser! This guy must be like Charlton Heston in The Omega Man, walled up in his court while vampire Liberals mill outside. That’s not all. He puts his finger on the Yang to the Yin of Liberal obsession with hate crimes:

Any reading of what was actually said in court would make it clear that the potential seriousness of what occurred was that a police surgeon was threatened with violence and non-racial abuse to the extent that he decided he needed to leave the cell to which he had been called. This amounted to an assault, but this was not the offence charged.

“A gratuitous single piece of racist abuse was uttered as the surgeon left. This was the charge on which the full weight of the law had been brought to bear.

Indeed. It would be easier to take the Liberal obsession with naughty words, if only they put the same energy into dealing with actual, real thugs. But no. Still, I have to say that I’m impressed this guy's survived as long as he has. I guessing a Liberal Slander Squad has already been scrambled. Then again, maybe not. After all, Liberals don’t seem to be worried about hate speech anymore.

One Priest Scandal The MSM Won't Touch

ATW passes on some more evidence of the long suspected tie-up between the Catholic Church and the IRA. Doubtless, some would point out that these were rogue priests, yet not even the otherwise excellent Popes JP II and B16 have managed to come out with anything like a full-throated condemnation of those loveable leprechauns.

The bottom line is that if you were a full-on, Dawkinsesque critic of religion, then the news that priests stepped out with murdering scum should be the mother lode, but Liberals aren't answering the phone. The Catholic Church is attacked because of its central role in western civilisation, rather than for any deep moral reasons. That's why they'll pass up the chance to take a shot at the Church if doing so would mean being on the same side as civilisation. It's the essentially nihilistic nature of the modern Left - they'll always take whatever angle is most harmful to the West.

The Missing Stage Two

Further proof for my theory that the Left’s always missing the middle bit. Look at the Simone Clarke whingeathon. Liberals claim a dancer supports the BNP, something something something, death camps open in Essex. As Cobbett points out, the Left has got some brass neck warning of the dangers of extremist loonies using public office to propagate their views.

But What About A Gay Scouser ?

Nothing proves BBC bias like the subject of BBC bias. In BBC land, any scepticism about BBC impartiality is proof, in and of itself, of mental problems. They just can’t handle the idea that their critics might actually have a point.

It isn’t just politics either. Look at this drivel. Now, being a real Conservative – unlike, say, David Cameron – I think folks like McKenzie should be positively encouraged to show their genius on national TV. After all, as Lincoln said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself. What sticks in the throat though is seeing this man cast as some kind of social commentator. Let’s start with the headline ‘Controversial Views’. Huh ? The two Peters, Tatchell and Hitchens, have controversial views. McKenzie is just a bigoted nutcase and proven fraud. Simone Clark he ain’t. Take away the hatred and the ranting and there’s nothing there.

Of course, the BBC would have a point, if they were indeed prepared to carry ‘controversial views’ but on the contrary, the BBC is proverbial for its cringing PC attitudes, as perfectly exemplified here. Ditto, consider the girly hysteria on the BBC when Ron Atkinson was overheard uttering a racial slur. Does anyone seriously doubt that if McKenzie’s reputation was built on slurring, say, Jamaicans he’d never get within a country mile of a BBC studio ?

More than that though, what is it the BBC keeps mentioning ? Ah yes, the unique way it’s funded. If McKenzie was making his money giving after-dinner speeches to drunken businessmen in the Home Counties, that would be one thing, but on the BBC it’s inevitable that at least a part of his fee was paid for by the very people he rants about. That’s the fundamental problem with the BBC: it claims the right to leech off everyone while maintaining a strict hierarchy of who it feels it should serve. Single complaint about homophobia ? Grovelling all round. Thousands of people demonstrating their disgust at the BBC hiring McKenzie ? Hire him again. You might think this indicates a certain bias, but the BBC would point out that that’s only because you’re nuts.

A Weasel Writes

Apparently. It’s National Potential PM’s Publish Vacuous Articles Week. Laban alerts us to a piece of steaming gunk from SCOTLAND’S Gordon Brown, while there’s this from Camewrong:

'We can see he looks like a winner, but what does he really believe?" "Isn't he just copying Blair?" "Is he actually a Conservative at all?" Daily Telegraph readers tempted to think that the Conservative Party leadership is distant from its grass roots should know that party members and activists ask me these questions – sometimes more robustly than I could repeat in a family newspaper – all the time.

Does he really think anyone will believe he talks to the ordinaries ?

And my answers are clear.

No one will believe that.

What I really believe is that if we're going to make our country a better place to live – with a stronger economy, well-educated children and lower crime – everyone needs to understand that top-down central government is never going to do it on its own. Businesses, parents, and local communities must be given more responsibility. I believe in social responsibility, not state control.

It’s the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, The Forehead will do nothing to dismantle the elephantine state sector – nor, of course, the taxes needed to maintain it. Hey, at least Gordon Brown supports Big Government because he genuinely believes that if the rest of us were left to our own devices, we’d end up stabbing ourselves to death with our own pens. Cameron wants to keep the machinery of Big Government, but when it’s time to deliver on his side of the social contract, tell all and sundry to stand on their own two feet.

Far from copying Tony Blair, I am learning from his many and serious mistakes.

Indeed. Just look how much flak he got over ‘Education. Education. Education’ or ‘Tough on crime’. You won’t catch Cameron doing that – nope, he’ll say nothing of any substance whatsoever, that way there’ll be no comebacks.

Instead of simply accepting the political consensus of the time, as Blair did, I am challenging it.

Presumably the concensus that there’s no room in Britain for three left-wing parties ?

New Labour was all about coming to terms with Conservative victory in the battle of ideas.

The Conservatives won the battle of ideas ? I guess that’s why judicial activism is a fading memory, there’s never a ‘five a day’ coordinator around when you need one and Trevor Phillips is on the streets with a sign saying ‘Will provoke meaningless racial conflict for food’.

The modern Conservative Party is about replacing the failed New Labour experiment, not aping it.

Admittedly, is so far as even Tony Blair never dreamed up anything as barking-at-the-moon nutso as fat permits, Cameron truly has taken Big Government onto the next level.

Those who ask whether I am a Conservative need to know that the foundation stones of the alternative government that we're building are the ideas that should unite us all: the ideas that encouraged me as a young man to join the Conservative Party and work for Margaret Thatcher.

Pity he didn’t get inspired to work in the real world, but thanks for the reminder that you’ve never had a proper job, you silver-spoon totting retard.

Those ideas are profound and enduring: freedom under the law, personal responsibility, sound money, strong defence and national sovereignty.

As Stan says, them’s not ideas, them’s ideals. Anyway, if the Conservatives won the battle of ideas, why is it necessary for a party leader to emphasise that he’s in favour of ‘national sovereignty’ ? Mind you, that’s still better than claiming you support ‘freedom under law’. Even John Reid would claim to support that.

That is why, under my leadership, we have opposed ID cards and will replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights that better protects both our security and our freedom.

Or it would do, except Britain would still remain bound by the underlying, supra-national legislation meaning that, at best, these idiot rulings would simply be handed down from the European Court of Human Rights instead of from the High Court.

See, this policy is Cameronism in a nutshell. The case against the human rights industry is wide-ranging, covering issues like the way the definition of rights have morphed to include entitlements, the overruling of elected governments by unaccountable lawocrats, the effect on national sovereignty, and so on. And Cameron’s response ? A headline-grabbing yet completely meaningless change of no strategic importance whatsoever.

It is why I have made the strongest commitment to supporting the family and marriage that any Conservative leader has made for a generation.

In so far as Cameron is known for anything at all, it’s throwing in his hand with the Pink Wedge. True, it was a politican who came up with the phrase ‘if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus’, but this really is too much. Cameron it was who took the Tories down the road of ‘everyone’s special’ moral relativism, where everything was the same as everything else and the only true evil was judgementalism. As with everything else Cameron has ever said, his commitment to marriage amounts to a calorie-free endorsement of feel good nonsense, bereft of any policy implications whatsoever.

It is why we are pledged to share the proceeds of economic growth between public services and lower taxes, thereby ensuring that over time the state takes a smaller share of national wealth.

Now, ain’t that nice ? He’s promised to share the proceeds of growth with us. Except it’ll be our hard work that secures the growth in the first place, so he’s offering to share our own money with us. Except when we fall off a ladder, either metaphorically or literally, we’ll get little lectures about how top-down government can’t do it all, so you’re on your own, dude.

It is why we support the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent and have led the campaign for better conditions for Forces families.

Another truly Cameroonatic policy. When people talk about the need to increase defence spending, they’re talking about vehicles which have more survivability than, say, a Mini, or ammunition that actually goes bang. But no, that’s all a bit manly for the Pastel Prince, so instead it’s new bathrooms for the wives and kiddies. Yay for that, but I think they’d rather dad had the stuff he needs to end up not dead.

It is why we will restore Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, and it is why we have announced our withdrawal from the federalist European People's Party.

Always assuming of course that the other 24 countries let us opt out. And if they decide to reimpose the provisions of the social chapter via the back door by, say, rebranding them as health and safety measures, what then ? Given that Cameron promised to pull out of the EPP in the first week of his leadership, I wouldn’t bet the farm on the social chapter disappearing anytime soon.

Our new Movement for European Reform is a pan-European campaign to promote a positive vision of an outward-looking Europe rather than an inward-looking EU obsessed with its own bureaucracy.

But who the hell couldn’t sign up to that ? Newsflash: Cameron criticised by Labour MPs calling for insular, self-obsessed, sclerotic EU. No, I don’t think so.

We will continue to oppose an EU constitution that is about transferring power away from nation states and we will keep the pound as our currency.

Except up until ten minutes ago the Tories were telling us they opposed an EU Constitution in principle. Ahhhhh…and he just got through telling us how eurosceptic he was. Guess it’s true – never trust a Tory.

But these Conservative intellectual foundations are just the start.

Listen, Dave, this stuff doesn’t even count as intellectual tent pegs.

We must now apply them to the hopes and aspirations of people and families today, just as Mrs Thatcher applied Conservative principles to the challenges of the 1980s.

Hold this thought until you see what’s coming next.

Commentators such as Tim Congdon seem to have forgotten much of what Mrs Thatcher said and did. It was Mrs Thatcher who launched the Scarman inquiry in 1981 in an attempt to understand the alienation of young black men. And it was Mrs Thatcher who launched modern environmental politics with her Royal Society speech in 1988.

Thereby neatly debunking the whole point of Cameroonacy, namely that traditional Conservatism must be ditched in order to deal with social problems. Mrs Thatcher did deal with issues like inner city decay, the environment and the like. How successful was she ? Decide for yourself, but she proved that you don’t have to be a Kool Aid drinker to be concerned with these issues.

The reduction of Thatcherism into a sort of laissez-faire libertarianism does not do justice to her record.

So stop doing it then, you prat.

She was animated by a vision of the good society – a vision obscured by decades of economic dirigisme and cultural relativism. The task she set herself was to restore not only personal liberty in economic matters, but also a sense of duty, respect and moral obligation in social matters.

Has this guy got ADD or what ? This is another case of Cameron contradicting himself in the same paragraph. They key word is ‘restore’. Mrs Thatcher wanted to protect the traditional values that had served Britain well for hundreds of years. She emphatically did not have want to use the state to impose any wacky visions or utopian wish dreams about the ‘good society’ or anything else.

I, too, am animated by a vision of the good society.

Who isn’t ? The question is whether or not you want to use the power of the state to impose that vision on other people. Mrs Thatcher defended traditional British values against Leftists social engineers. Cameron positively supports the idea of government indulging in Frankensteinian attempts to remake the culture.

What I call social responsibility – responsibility to family and community, nation and planet – is as central to my politics as economic liberalism. Indeed, I believe the two are closely related.

Much as shagging and virginity are.

It is that combination of social responsibility and economic liberalism that is best placed to deliver what people really want from politics today: a government that helps to improve their quality of life.

Hang on, when we came in Cameron was telling us that top-down government couldn’t do that. Which is it ? Or does it change depending on who the Forehead is talking to ?

So when I talk about social responsibility and social enterprise, when I express anxiety about the commercialisation of childhood or say we need to create an inspiring national programme for school leavers, I am not proposing some vast expansion in state programmes.

But what is, for example, a ‘national program for school leavers’ if not a massive expansion of state power ? Someone’s got to fund it, and run it.

On the contrary, I am identifying the priorities for independent social action that will allow us, over time, to help improve the quality of people's lives.

Yep, the patrician snob is taking time out to identify priorities for independent action. Makes you wonder what ‘independent’ means in his world.

The past year has been about establishing the Conservative Party as the party of change, optimism and hope.

Yep, they’re optimistic that people are so desperate for a change, they’ll vote for any old bunch of idiots and hope for the best.

For years we have allowed ourselves to be presented as narrow-minded and backward-looking.

Mostly by Tory MPs upset that the plebs insist on them actually displaying some modicum of Conservative values.

This perception was never true of our philosophy, nor of the vast majority of our supporters.

But it was true of some supporters then ? For the sake of Camoron’s absurd argument, can we get a percentage here ? Just how many supporters does he think want to legalise wife-beating, for example ?

I am proud that we are once again regarded by our fellow citizens as decent, competent and comfortable with the modern world.

Again, this is where the rubber meets the road. Which parts of ‘the modern world’ should we be comfortable with ? The violence, the collapsing educational standards, the failing health system ? These, and many others, are all serious issues, and Cameron’s ducking the lot of them. I guess we’re supposed to chill out and accept that ever-increasing numbers of kids leaving school unable to read and write is the way of the world.

For all their prancing and posturing, the Cameroonatics have not the slightest idea how to deal with real world problems, so instead they’re becoming to the political equivalent of the eye-rolling teenager whining that going on about the NHS is, like, so ten minutes ago. Cameron’s most dramatic achievement has been how he has extinguished serious political debate in the Conservative Party and replaced it with trivia and nonsense.

Modernising the party, increasing the number of women candidates, leading the debate on the greening of British politics, making clear our commitment to the NHS and state education, challenging Labour over the need to tackle entrenched poverty – these were all important steps forward for the Conservative Party in 2006.

Yes – it’s his cunning plan to beat the Left by adopting all their policies

But now the real work begins.

Which would be a unique experience for Cameron.

If 2006 was about changing the party, 2007 is about preparing to change the country.

But I thought he was at ease with the modern world ?

Over the coming months our policy review will report.

Speaking personally, I’d rather have a PM who didn’t need a think tank to tell him what he believes.

We will be going firmly on to the offensive against Labour, and the record and plans of Gordon Brown in particular.

Mr Brown's recent clunking attempts to steal our clothes – talking about social responsibility and the environment and even, preposterously, suggesting that he believes in decentralisation and local autonomy – are evidence of his moral and intellectual exhaustion.

As opposed to the Nu Tories, who never had any morals or ideas in the first place.

The Conservative Party now has a huge opportunity.

But to do what ?

We can present Britain with a clear choice: a modern and coherent Conservatism, based on the idea of social responsibility, or a divided and defeatist Labour Party wedded to the old ways of state control.

Social responsibility, state control, potat-oh, potat-ah.

I hope all true Conservatives will join us in the fight.

Dude, we’ll join the fight. Just not on your side, you slimy toad.

Well, OK, that was David Cameron’s message to the nation’s Conservatives, his big ideas. All the same garbage we have now, except that Cameron won’t even pretend that his ideas amount to anything at all.

At least with Blair there was - behind the sleaze, the triangulation and the sheer awfulness of his lowest common denominator politics, the rotting remains of a genuine idealism. True, Blair’s policies were mostly insane, but he understood that politics had to be about more than just the moment. That’s what’s wrong with Cameron, not just the arrogance, the sleaze, the incompetence and the thousand other things. It’s that underlying it all is a nothingness, a soulless shell. Hey, Blair had an excuse: Liberalism was always sick and disgusting, but to hollow out Conservatism the way Cameron has done, now that takes skill.

Liberalism In A Nutshell

Policies proving to be an utter failure ? Why not try even more of the same ?

Beam Down A Clue

Call it a hunch, but I'm guessing that if a Republican congressman claimed that America was like Buffy Summers fighting off vampire terrorists, you wouldn't have needed to go on line to find out about it.

Not A Libertarian

Among the seven hundred or so excuses for Cameron is that his betrayal of social conservatives is actually a reflection of genuinely held Libertarian beliefs. He just has the idealistic vision of people being free to live there lives how they choose.

A-huh.

So how come Captain Freedom has linked arms with Unite Against Fascism, the off-the-scale Leftist headbangers who've appointed themselves chief witch hunters in the case of Simone Clarke ? 'Cause I'm kind of thinking that wanting to destroy the careers of people with the wrong views - not very Libertarian. Au contrair, in so far as UAF are an avowedly Marxist organisation, for a party leader - a Tory, no less - to associate with them raises far more questions that the political views of any number of ballet dancers.

Did Anyone Not Speak To Kelvin McKenzie ?

Looks like the fat fraud has unveiled yet another secret source for his Hillsborough rantings. Back in the day, he claimed he had his info from a senior (needless to say, unnamed) police officer. Then it turned out that an (also unamed) Tory MP gave him the same story (though what one of them was doing at a footy match was never quite explained). Now, he's claimed that a (well, you know) 'Liverpool-based news agency' also gave him the story. I'm guessing by 2017, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles will also turn out to have pitched in.

It says a lot about the MSM's view of ethics that no one ever thinks to ask McKenzie the obvious question: in so far as the only specific allegation he made, namely that a pack of marauding scousers broke down the entry gates, was debunked by CCTV footage almost as soon as it was made, why should anyone believe the rest of his rantings about unnamed people victimising other unnamed people at unspecified locations and times ?