The BBC And The Left: A Criminal Joint Enterprise

Viewers of BBC 'North West Tonight' last Wednesday would have been baffled by the choice of lead story: a long segment was dedicated to the news that the mother of Jordon Cunliffe, one of the low-lifes convicted of the beating to death of Garry Newlove, did not approve of her son's murder conviction.

Personally, it made me nostalgic for the days when having a son who was a murderous thug was something parents tried to hide. In so far as she had an actual point, it was that she did not approve of the law on 'joint enterprise' - as she told us at great length. The victim's widow was allowed thirty seconds in the middle of the report, and sounded exactly like a woman still struggling to come to terms with the murder of her husband. Meanwhile, the Violet Kray of Warrington got the proverbial 'last word' in a long interview at the end where she was articulate, polished, poised - in a word 'coached'. Who exactly had trained her though was not something the BBC thought we needed to know. Then again, we never found out why, months after the trial, the BBC thought we needed to look again at settled law. But then, wouldcha believe it?

Two days before Sofyen Belamouadden was stabbed to death at Victoria Underground station during rush hour, a group called London Against Injustice were meeting just down the road in Westminster. Led by Bruce Kent, the famous CND activist who’s so Left-wing he even had to resign as a Catholic priest, which is saying something, the group were protesting against Joint Enterprise, a law that enables groups of people to be convicted of a murder, even if some of them had no direct part.

What are the odds, hey?

Not only that, but it turns out the folks at Lefties Against Justice have also anointed Jordon Cunliffe as their chief baby seal. Small world, huh?

Incidentally, we're supposed to find Cunliffe a sympathetic character because he's 'legally blind' - which only works if you don't know that the definition of legally blind is vision of 20/200 or less i.e. a legally blind person can see an object 20 feet away with the same clarity as a normally sighted person could see it from 200 feet away. None of which matters since the whole point about beating someone to death is that it's kind of hard to do from across the street anyway.

Needless to say, no one pointed this out on 'North West Tonight', which is a pity since - absent this attempt to claim victimhood - this is exactly the kind of case where 'joint enterprise' should apply. A mob of savages set upon an innocent man and beat him to death. Cunliffe's whole defence is that he was innocently administering a beating to the victim when some passing stranger murdered him - he was at the mob, not with the mob.

It's a stupid argument, but the point isn't to win anyone over yet. What the BBC and the left are doing is trying to put the law on joint enterprise in play, to rebrand it as a 'controversial' law that 'some say' needs to be 'brought into the 21st Century'. It's about how our impartial state broadcaster creates the right social environment for radical leftists to dismantle the law.

Enriched Policing

Interesting exchange in the comments to this post, Lurker points out another attack by the fearsome Men of No Appearance gang.

But wait....I hear a squeaking from the corner. Mr Liberal would like to point out that it's early days and the law restricts what can be said about an ongoing investigation. Yes, indeed. Which is why you never see anything like this, via Rob.

....

Except when you do obviously. Say, what can be the difference between these two cases?

Grace Under No Pressure

Speaking personally, I never bought into the MSM's 'David Cameron as a Great Orator' thing. Cameron's speeches, just like Obama's, mainly revolve around the same three themes again and again. There's the ludicrous caricature of what the right is saying, utopian nonsense about the coming Era of Dave and finally a fulsome tribute to his own courage in taking his critics on.

All things considered, this is probably all the Dave speeches you'll ever need:

You know, as I travel round Britain people come up to me and say 'Surely conservatism means eating babies'? Well, I say to them 'no, they will be no baby eating in my government because I'm not afraid to say the Conservative Party has changed, and there is no place in it for cannibalism. I want a Britain where babies are free from being consumed and everyone of them will grow up to be above average, and drive flying cars that run on water and every house will its own unicorn.

All of which is by way of saying I wasn't too surprised by his recent meltdown. After all, The Dave's whole reputation as a master communicator has been achieved mainly by dealing with softball interviews. We're invited to admire the way he stays cool even when faced with a barrage of fawning.

Still, fun though it is to see the myth of Dave the Great Communicator implode, that shouldn't blind us to the way this interview also exposes the myth that The Dave is a master tactician.

Just about the only consistent themes in the teachings of the Ayatollah Khameron have been throwing social conservatives under the bus at every opportunity, and pandering to the gay rights movement. As the saying goes, how's that working out for you? The more they denounce The Dave with the same unhinged rhetoric they use for social conservatives, the more obvious it becomes that us nasty old social cons were right after all: they are a bunch of loonies. They're not Rosa Parks, they're Robert Mugabe.

Actually, this all points to a deeper absurdity, and not one limited to The Dave. We're told that Cameron's lack of ideological ballast makes him a master politician, able to trim his sails to the needs of the moment. True enough, but as Gerald correctly points out, the flip side of that is an obsession with the purely tactical leads Cameron into elephant traps like this.

Consider this particular issue. There's obvious humbuggery in Ed Balls saying he supports faith schools, but only providing they don't teach anything that conflicts with the gay agenda, but at least he grasps the wider issue. The gay agenda is a essentially transformative one, they want to remake society, and freedom of religion is just one more egg that's got to be broken to make that omelette.

Ditto, consider the specific issue at stake here. The activists want to rebrand the demands of the gay movement as human rights. In other words, they won't have to go through the tedious business of promoting their views in the marketplace of ideas, and pushing their preferred policies democratically, instead the gay agenda will be the default setting, with everyone else having to get with the program or else.

You could pretty much choose a conservative blogger at random and they could explain why using the power of the state to push a radical agenda, free of all democratic oversight, is inherently anti-conservative. Meanwhile, the World's Smartest Man is thrashing round like a stranded goldfish. He doesn't support the gay agenda, but hates social conservatives. He's a brilliant tactician, but he's spent years pandering to fringe groups only to have them turn on him. He's a great communicator, except when he has to go off script.

All this would be bad enough under normal circumstances, but for a party that's devolved into little more than a cult of personality, there's bound to be trouble when the personality concerned turns out to be an empty vessel.

Will No One Speak Out For Unhinged Bigots?

Thinking about cases like this, it baffles me that these tools still think this is a valid defence:

Director for Children's Social Care at Birmingham City Council, Colin Tucker, said: "It can be a case of you're damned if you do and damned if you don't."

See? They're fair-minded: they don't just ignore the guilty, they also persecute the innocent. Why will no one on the right point the absurdity of this defence?

More to the point, why will no one take it to the next level? It's not just that these people make lousy decisions, it's that they're a bunch of bigoted lunatics. It was inevitable that the really big bogus abuse scandals, Orkney, Middlesbrough and Rochdale would all involve native families, just as assuredly as the kids left to die are disproportionately ethnic minorities. 'Starvation' is an eurocentric concept, but the average British family is the Auschwitz of today. That's why they're damned - because they're a bunch of leftist nutcases using children as sock puppets in their deranged agitprop.

Telling Us Who They Are

Tom Hanks proves what we always suspected about Hollywood actors. Needless to say, he's not really talking about the war in the Pacific. Nope, he's making a heavy-handed analogy: 'Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?'.

Actually, he's right: it does remind me of modern politics. Specifically, the bit about liberals explaining how America being attacked by bloodthirsty fanatics proves America is evil. It shows not only just utterly rote this recitation of American sins really is ('was the Apollo program raycist?'), but also the essential narcissism of liberals. American history, and the rest of the world right now, is naught but a reflection of US domestic politics. That Imperial Japan, or the Taliban, might just be evil for their own reasons and in their own way, never occurs to them. They're only of interest in so far as they show America in a bad light. For folks who claim to believe in universal human rights, it's noticeable just how the universe seems to shrink to the places where US forces are engaged.

Genius Ain't What It Used To Be

Say what you like about Tommy Boy, but he does a great - if inadvertent - job of illustrating the latent fascism that underpins much modern libertarianism. Here he is trying to explain away the Bulger/Venables case without referencing the elephant in the room.

The thing with it all is this: the knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal, tabloid-addled, drunken, dirty, illiterate, sewer-dwelling, Ford driving, football watching, coupon clipping Untermensch...... were right. They - we - always believed two things: Venables & Thompson are violent felons and should be treated as such, and the legal system could not be trusted to do so.

As luck would have it, Venables was declared rehabilitated and released from yoof custody (aka Playstation Prison) approximately one second before he was due to be moved to an adult prison, then - as we now know - he embarked on an odyssey of drug-fuelled criminality, much of it in the city he was specifically barred from visiting.

Meanwhile, the Certified Super Smart Set are busy explaining that Goodison Park is 'on Liverpool' but not 'in Liverpool'. Besides, who'd have guessed that a convicted killer would react badly to a snoot full of Bolivian marching powder?

The bottom line is that John Venables was 'too big to fail'. By hook or by crook, Venables was always going to be classed as rehabilitated, and he was going to stay rehabilitated, no matter how many felonies he committed.

From the start, this was supposed to be the flagship case for the supposedly enlightened, and definitely privileged, to throw in the face of the unsophisticated masses with their stupid ideas about 'public protection', 'deterrence, 'vindication' and other childish nonsense. They wanted the success of this case to be the metric by which we judged their claims to sophistication versus the ignorant moralising of the peasantry.

Hell, if they'd managed to keep the fraud going just that bit longer, they'd doubtless be trying to cram a BBC docu-drama about it all down our throats. But now it's all gone horribly wrong, and the truth about the rehab industry has leaked out (it's exactly the sleazy farce the right always said it was), they think we shouldn't talk about it, otherwise lynch mobs will rampage through the streets and eat your neighbours!

It's genius, Jim, but not as we know it.

Steynism

....I give up on the whole d'/de/du jour thing.Instead, on with the show, and this perfect summing up:

News from the Netherlands: To protest the Islamophobia of Geert Wilders, a male teacher from Eindhoven has taken to wearing a Muslim headscarf in public.

Look, I like a neat visual shorthand as much as the next fellow, but this is almost too perfect a symbol of what's happening on the Continent: European men are auditioning for the part of Muslim women.

Shot In The Dark

What are the odds that the proposed compulsory dog insurance will be subject to insurance premium tax @ 1.5%?

About That Extremist Rhetoric...

One more thing about the Bulger case: is it just me, or is there a certain 'motes and beams' quality to the left's sermonising about this case? You'd have to search for hours to find anything as unhinged as the average MSM liberal ranting about the coming vigilante holocaust. Hell, a whole week of Daily Mail editorials couldn't come up with something as utterly foul as this from Guardian moron Steve Bell.

Yes, indeed: he really is suggesting that people who report stuff what the justice system does are exactly the same as murderous savages. Which is not at all a deranged position to take.

Reminder: The Left Doesn't Do Well When People Know What They're Talking About

Zoe Williams in the Guardian 04/03/2010:

Venables, of course, has served his sentence for the death of James Bulger... Actually, if his case demonstrates anything, it's how effective parole can be, and how quickly the conditions of a licence can be acted upon.

OK, so that's a little like arguing that Toyota's jamming accelerator problems gave them the opportunity to demonstrate just how well their air bags work, but let's say that from first principles, that's not such a bad argument. Except....

Venables, 27, is banned from visiting Merseyside as one of the conditions of his release, but he has reportedly been to Liverpool several times, where he has gone clubbing, snorted cocaine and been to Everton football matches.

Never mind the specifics of the current allegations, these revelations alone testify to a system that's neither quick or effective.

For all that liberals whine about media scrutiny in the Venables case, that cuts both ways. From the moment the Bulger killers were sentenced, they became a flagship project for the touchy-feely, deep thinkers in the rehab industry. Beardy-Weirdy had a free hand, an unlimited budget and complete protection from public accountability, so it's only now, when we finally get a chance to peek behind the curtain, that we find out that the whole rehab effort was pretty much the pseudo-scientific farce the right always said it was, global warming with psychopaths instead of polar bears.

Humbuggery

Well, now, isn't this nice: an article in the Times criticising the public and politicians for not facing the realities of our economic meltdown, written by... Matthew Parris.

Hello?

Parris is a textbook example of the type of Nu Tory douches who've spent the last few years sneering at anyone who claimed binging on borrowed money would not end well. We've had no end of patronising lectures from these people on how, sure, Thatcherism was right at the time, but we needed to move on, let it go and climb aboard the groovy train. Now, shockingly, it turns out that the socialists are running out of other people's money, just like that witch said they would, and now the chattering classes are saying we need to face the consequences of their actions.

That's what really sticks in the throat. These people have never hidden their disdain for the public, but now it turns out that all that genius can deliver is a standard of living 'ratcheted down a good couple of points relative to other nations'.

Thanks to pseudo-cons like Parris as much as any leftist, we now have an elephantine state that interferes in just about every aspect of British life. Such businesses as haven't actually been sucked dry by the need to support millions of Certified Bottom Inspectors are now having to fit their actual work around the need to complete two bazillion forms, inspections and other forms of low-level war waged on them by the undead denziens of big government. And, after all that, after billions of man hours and trillions of pounds wasted, it turns out that all we have to show for us is snippy communiques from our betters telling us that we're screwed so suck it up.

Enough already. If they can't even manage to keep the economy on an even keel, why listen to the rest of their garbage? Our elite have failed utterly. They're ten out of ten for paying generous tribute to their own brilliance, but that whole reality thing keeps letting them down.

Shocka! Femiloon Is Man-Hating Headcase

Hey, maybe we could set her up with John Venables? Either way, we win.

Lord Ashcroft Killed James Bulger!

Or possibly not, but at least that might get our fearless MSM to start investigating the increasingly bizarre revelations about John Venables, the certified '100% rehabilitated' killer... who's back in jail.

As I understand the hipster position, revealing what criteria the legal system used to determine that a convicted killer was, in fact, a fluffy bunny rabbit of a man may lead to the Earth falling into the Sun. Meanwhile, demanding critics of the government submit to the financial equivalent of a prostate exam has no negative implications whatsoever for democracy.

Speaking personally, nothing says 'robust scientific process' like an unaccountable cabal of activist liberals awarding each other contracts to carry out a process we aren't allowed to know anything about. I wouldn't say the rehab industry was slippery, but I hear the folks at UEA are complaining that they're ruining the good name of science. Meanwhile, the only way the MSM will take an interest is if Lord Ashcroft turns out to be moonlighting on the parole board.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm thinking we ought to be drawing a chalk outline around British journalism right about now.

Amy Winehouse Was Right

Achtung Peasants! Our hipster betters command you to support the release of this guy. After all, everyone knows the rehab industry is the very model of scientific rigour and impeachable integrity.

Besides, what could possibly go wrong?

ANOM

....this being the opposite of a Man Of No Appearance.

Down in the comments to this post Lurker points out this case, where Asians 'yoofs' victimised...well, who knows? Apparently, they're Victims of No Appearance.

I guess it's a bit like the Ultimate Question & Answer in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where knowledge of one automatically precludes knowledge of the other in the same universe. I guess we have the Men of No Appearance, or we have Victims of No Appearance.

Of course, it goes without saying that Asian or not, to the MSM, they'll always be 'Men of No Affiliation'.

Beeboid Self-Awareness Fail

Bad news everyone! Supa-smart Beeboid ecoflack Richard Black has got our number:

I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of CC are decades away and in other places.

Yep, that's us. We're just a bunch of selfish, insular bigots, blind to other people's suffering.

We should be more sensitive, like Ricky:

I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.

A-huh! So we shouldn't ignore potential human suffering, instead we should fantasise about how we could use it to push our goofy cult.

How very.... sophisticated.

Gosh, it's a mystery why there credibility is in the landfill with the rest of the UEA's data. Perhaps they need to have another 17 meetings with each other to try and work it out?

Liberals: Given Up Even Trying To Hide It

Kids today:

Too sexualised?

Or not enough?

Spookily enough, either way, it turns out the answer is Big Government.

Steyn D'Jour

Yes, indeed: it's Diversity Day at the House and who better to sum it all up than the Great Steyn:

"Diversity" is not a virtue; it's morally neutral: A group of five white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women is non-diverse; a group of four white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women plus Sudan's leading clitorectomy practitioner is more diverse but not necessarily the better for it.

How Did The Tory Party Ever Miss Out On This One?

Hey, at least the MSM has now found one bogus discrimination case to report on. I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence that it happens to involve one of their own.

Of course, now that the MSM have uncovered the First Bogus Case In History, that means Lisa Aziz will certainly face.... well, nothing really. Not getting an undeserved multi-million pound payout is apparently punishment enough. Hmmmm.... maybe she is a natural for Westminster, after all.

It's Hard Out Here For A Race Pimp

Trixie reports that Lib Dems have been passing themselves off as Nu Tories. How can anyone tell?

On the plus side, finally, Oxbridge educated city slickers have a voice in this nation. At last, Cast Iron Dave is bringing millionaire Old Etonians out of the shadows.

Still, what are the odds, hey? Captain Diversity turns out to have the same CV as every other one of Dave's Drones. Apparently, this is the type of diversity where everyone's the same.

But let's think this thing through: in so far the only sense in which there's anything diverse about this guy is his DNA, is it still the right that's obsessed with race? Here's a guy who's lived a life of privilege and plenty and he's supposed to reach to all da brudders in da hood 'cause, hey, he kind of looks like them (or would do, if he wasn't wearing Armani). Patronising, much?

Anyway, how does this work? The Nu Tories clearly hope that there's an as yet untapped mass of black voters who'll only vote Tory if they start hiring black guys. Meanwhile, any white voter in Spelthorne who objects to arrogant, Metropolitan poltico-luvvies handing out seats in the House like a medieval King handing out Dukedoms is clearly some kind of raycist.

David Cameron: Saviour Of Conservatism

Alan Duncan has come out with a whole new line of attack against the right: YOU'RE STOOPID!

Of course, I mean 'new' in the sense of 'used in every second Guardian editorial since 1974'. At least this kills the myth that the whole 'Nu Tory' thing is just tactical, and they're actually all rock-ribbed conservatives. Unless there's a previously-unsuspected pro-criminal voting bloc out there, they come out with this sort of thing because it's who they are.

Still, even leaving aside wider issues, I have two questions:

• Are we sure people on the right who criticise Duncan are still just anti-gay bigots?
• How does this new direction for policy mesh with his plans for capital punishment for people who oppose gay marriage?

The usual suspects will no doubt point out that Duncan doesn't really think critics of gay marriage should be murdered. True enough, but then again, I doubt he really thinks the problem with the current legal system is that the courts are just too punitive.

There's simply no way you can look at what's been happening in this country since 1997 and honestly conclude that the problem is that a legal system too focused on punishment. Duncan's comments are literally senseless, but that's the thing: Duncan, just like his boss and the rest of the Nu Tory face cards is a fully-paid post-modern politician for whom actual reality is just one of a number of competing narratives.

Forget the 'Heir to Blair' thing, the real comparison is with the Obamamessiah. Consider this exert from the Great Steyn:

The defining moment of [Obama's] doomed attempt to prop up Martha Coakley was his peculiar obsession with Scott Brown's five-year-old pickup:

"Forget the ads. Everybody can run slick ads," the president told an audience of out-of-state students at a private school. "Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."

How they laughed! But what was striking was the thinking behind Obama's line: that anyone can buy a truck for a slick ad, that Brown's pickup was a prop – like the herd of cows Al Gore rented for a pastoral backdrop when he launched his first presidential campaign...

Howard Fineman, the increasingly loopy editor of the increasingly doomed Newsweek, took it a step further. The truck wasn't just any old prop but a very particular kind: "In some places, there are codes, there are images," he told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. "You know, there are pickup trucks, you could say there was a racial aspect to it one way or another."

Ah, yes. Scott Brown has over 200,000 miles on his odometer. Man, he's racked up a lot of coded racism on that rig. But that's easy to do in notorious cross-burning KKK swamps like suburban Massachusetts.

Whenever aspiring writers ask me for advice, I usually tell 'em this:

Don't just write there, do something. Learn how to shingle a roof, or tap-dance, or raise sled dogs. Because if you don't do anything, you wind up like Obama and Fineman – men for whom words are props and codes and metaphors but no longer expressive of anything real.

Cameron and pals don't come out with this rubbish because they believe it, they come out with it because they believe it's what politicians are supposed to say. It's entirely self-referential.

But here's the thing: is that really such a surprise? Yes, the Tory Party is an arrogant, narcissistic mess of smug, incestuous weasels with nary the slightest interest in carrying out their supposed mission of promoting conservative values, but you know what that reminds me of? Every other quasi-governmental body in Britain. The Tories are the perfect example of everything real conservatives have ever said about the corrosive effects of the state on anything it touches.

On the other hand, who cares? I've pointed out before Cameron's eerie ability to not only miss the bandwagon, but to get run over by it coming back the other way, still, recent events have taken that to the next level. ManBearPig must be destroyed!

Tough luck if you were hoping to vote for a mainstream party that didn't support massive tax hikes, crony capitalism and a bureaucrat peering over every shoulder. Instead, you can vote for the People's Front of Warmenism, or the Warmenist People's Front. Either way, you're going to take it in the shorts. Except... it's all going horribly wrong.

Then there's the Great Republic. Back in November 2008, the usual suspects were assuring us that the ascension of the Obamammessiah meant that the Republican Party was DOA. Fourteen months later and its the Democrats that are scrambling for the lifeboats. Crunch question: did this turnaround happen because the Republican Party finally got its act together, or because it utterly failed to? Isn't the whole Tea Party movement a symptom of public contempt for a Republican Establishment that seems almost Cameronesque in its contempt for the ordinary voter?

What links the Tea Partiers in the US with the anti-Gerbil Worming movement in Britannia is that they're both genuine grass roots movements that have risen in the face of utter contempt from the political classes. Well, that and they're both winning. They're setting the political agenda even as the alleged realists like Cameron explain that all the right can really do is bend over and take it like a man. What definition of 'realism' are we using here?

Is his own way, Cameron is exactly what the conservative movement needs. There was always something deeply unconservative about the idea that we could just vote every now and then for a bunch of politico-luvvies down in London and hope they'd sort everything out, and now Cameron's sneering contempt for the conservative base has rammed home just how absurd that was. Leaving aside you-know-who (who the Nu Tories hate anyway), what arguments have the Tories won in the last forty years? Nada! The Tories have always been useless at actual conservatism but now they've finally gone the whole way and elected a man who doesn't even bother pretending to try. Let these elitist dolts disappear up their own narratives, the real battlefield for conservatism is out in the country.

Never Forget

Glad to see 'Biased BBC' reminding everyone of the BBC's role in acting as a publicly-funded PR agency for a bent copper. Still, I do like to ram the point home, so let me say it explicitly. The BBC - ever anxious about the rise of 'extremism' - granted a violent criminal the chance to push inflammatory, racist rhetoric without even the inconvenience of dealing with an interviewer.

But what was worse was that this lunatic's rantings were presented as objective commentary on the state of modern Britain, and the police in particular. Anyone right of Tony Blair is introduced as a 'right-winger', but a sleazy, race-hustling crook needs no warning label.

Attack of the Clones

David Cameron is battling to save the political career of one of his favourite women candidates today after she dramatically quit less than four months before the General Election.

Joanne Cash mysteriously resigned at a special meeting of her local Tory association after reportedly clashing with Conservative party chairman Eric Pickles.

Well, OK, same ol' same ol'. One of Dave's Drones is a prima donna completely unsuited for practical politics? I find that very hard to believe. No, what caught my eye was this: she's an Oxbridge-educated barrister, married to a millionaire who's one of The Dave's Eton cronies, and the Tories are trailing her thus:

Conservative colleagues have spoken about her representing the sort of candidate that Mr Cameron has been desperate to attract to inject a wider range of experience into a future ministerial team.

This really ought to be item no 1 on the list of 'ways you can tell a party is too incestuous': when a media lawyer from London is their idea of a maverick loose cannon.

Weakest Palin Slam Evah?

Some days 'respectable conservatism' seems mightily like drinking the kool aid.

Yes, writing notes on your palm is exactly like being tied to a teleprompter, just like if she quotes the Declaration of Independence in a speech, that means she's a plagiarist. Huh?

Proof of concept: if Palin's notes had washed off on the way to the podium, would she have turned in to a babbling mess like....like.... this... uh... guy?

And then there's this.

Kabloooey! Suddenly I realise where I've seen this all before. Think of Sarah Palin as the Roadrunner and the 'respectable right' and all points left as Certified Super Genius Wile E Coyote. Every single time they think they've totally nailed her, they somehow end up under the boulder while Sarah disappears in the distance.

Liberalism's 'Animal Farm' Moment

Again I say: who'd have thunk it? A race-hustling liberal pin-up turns out to be a crook.

Yes, indeed: tempting though it is to note that these days having a sympathetic profile published in the Guardian ought to be admissible in court as evidence of guilt, just this once we should listen to the libs when they say there are wider issues here. Not, as they will doubtless claim, that the raycism made him do it. Nope - there's something even more profound here.

The thing is that Ali Dizael isn't just a crook and a low-life, it's the particular form of criminality he practised. Liberal propaganda assures us that, sure, the Nu Police may have their problems, but do we really want to go back to the bad old days of Gene Hunt fitting people up?

Oops.

Dizael wasn't just corrupt, his was exactly the type of corruption which liberals always cite as grounds for their PC reign of terror in the first place. You can't say both liberal and conservative approaches to law enforcement have their pros and cons. Liberal policing turns out to be all one big con.

Maths Is Raycist

Another one bites the dust:

One of David Cameron’s rising stars of the Conservative Party has had her house repossessed over an unsettled debt of £324,000.

Adeela Shafi was hand-picked by the Tory leader to open the 2008 party conference and was selected three years ago to be Parliamentary candidate in the Labour stronghold of Bristol East.

As an Asian Muslim woman, her appointment was greeted with plaudits and she was described as part of a ‘new generation’ of future MPs.

But Mrs Shafi’s suitability for public office was called into question this week when it was revealed she had three county court judgments against her over debts of almost £330,000.

Who'd have thunk it? One of Dave's Droids turns out to have a little trouble with the whole income/expenditure thing. Doesn't she know politicians are only supposed to waste other people's money?

Maybe the Tories are trying to reach out to people who can't count? Surely they're an under-represented minority group too? After all, surveys show that only 60% of the public understand percentages - the other half haven't got a clue.

Hey, I could go on like this all night, but no: there's serious point here. The Commons isn't meant to be the Big Brother House, with a carefully calibrated cross section of the public sitting around all day doing nothing. MPs aren't there to be feel-good tokens of diversity, their job is to hold the Executive to account.

Prime Ministers - even the Smartest Prime Minister Evah! - aren't meant to be absolute monarchs. That's why we have checks and balances in the first place. When Cast Iron Dave tries to stuff the back benches with slippery no-marks, he's sticking two fingers up to our whole system of government.

Who'd Have Thunk It?

Fat whiner and professional lifter of gentleman's shirts Johann Hari interviews David Cameron and banality ensues.

Don't be shocked, but Hari is enraged! by any attempts to link the gay movement with paedophilia:

But Mr Cameron, why can't you simply condemn people who call us "faggots" and "paedophiles" as homophobic ?

Yes, indeed, where could they have gotten the idea of links between the gay movement and people trying to mainstream paedophilia? Possibly from people like this guy:

[I have written] in favour of understanding and embracing despised minorities like gypsies and paedophiles...

That would be prominent gay rights activist and award-winning paedo-apologist journalist Johann Hari.

Clearly, that must have been the other Johann Hari.

The Cannibal State

Laban rightly points out the modern liberals have given up even hiding the fascist nature of their ideology. Still, there's something more going on.

Of course, there's the usual leftist humbuggery of claiming people have a right to force other people to hire them. Huh? But that piece of insanity is par for the course these days. Then there's the sheer absurdity - which even a lot of social conservatives miss - of claiming that organisations should be forced to hire people who violently and publicly object to their very existence. Hey, the Vegetarian Society isn't being forced to hire Bernard Matthews and Jeremy Clarkson's got no chance of getting voiceover work from Greenpeace, but those guys who parade through the town centre, dressed as nuns and sticking crucifixes up each other's backsides? Cruelly discriminated against (by being held to the same standard as any other potential employee).

Oh, and by the way, anyone know what proportion of employees at our publicly-funded universities 'wimmin's studies' departments are conservatives? Or, indeed, are there any conservatives at all?

But even that's not the whole thing. Liberal fascism demands that its enemies be ground to dust, the ground on which they stood salted and their works cleansed from history ... but here they are asking that the Catholic Church - aka the Worst Organisation Ever - give their insane cult members undeserved jobs and credibility. A-huh!

Forget all this talk of girrrl power and the pink pound. The defining feature of these freaks is parasitism. Their ideology may be, behind the half inch layer of touchy-feely drivel, driven entirely by hatred of western civilisation, but it's also entirely dependent on that civilisation, and more specifically those evil white males, continuing to support these worthless liberal dregs. Not only in the specific sense, that they need men (and evil corporations too!) to keep the lights on and the water flowing, but in the general sense that they require male taxpayers to keep their noses to the grind stone to keep the whole outhouse in orbit. Compare the breakdown of the sexes in the private and the public sectors to see who's really leeching off who. Ditto with the special people, some of whom in the more... enriched parts of the UK are finding out that mild social criticism may not be as bad as it gets, after all.

To the point, the only reason these spoilt brats are free to spend their lives raging about the horrors of western civilisation is precisely because the people they hate keep working themselves into an early grave trying to stave off the inevitable results of the left's insane ideology.

Hey, the Aztecs may have performed human sacrifices, but at least they didn't expect the victims to cut their own hearts out.

Quote of the Day

Norman Tebbit gets to the heart of the matter:

For the moment, at least, I will not succumb to the temptation offered me by the commenter called “James (1)”, who would like a conversation about “third world immigration, Islamification and a non-indigenous demographic time bomb” – although I would observe to opponents of Islamification that it is quite difficult to beat a something with a nothing.

Exactly right - for all the supposed negativity of conservatism (mainly defined as 'not signing onto to the ten squillion pound boondongle d'jour), it's noticeable that, even forty years later and with complete cultural dominance, the sixty-eighters have never managed to construct anything like a positive vision of society. Instead, we have fifty-somethings still trying to bag the oldsters by making rubbish flicks about how bad the 1950s were.

Reminder: Liberty Is Not Actually A Civil Liberties Organisation

Here's Universal Shami preaching in defence of the vital civil right to parade round in fascist regalia. The thing is there's at least two problems with her position.

The first problem is that the pro-regalia tendency don't just want the freedom to wear the uniform of this nation's enemies in time of war, they want the state to repress the freedom of anyone who might think worse of them for being fascist weenies, lest they discriminate against these charmers.

Problem number two is that non-partisan campaigning group Liberty only ever seem to get excited about the liberties of certain people. If the right to wear enemy uniform in wartime is an essential part of British liberty, how about the vital Right to Comedy?

Was the gag funny? Probably not, but neither are most club acts, and no one's suggesting their performances should be interrupted by cops jumping out shouting 'Satire Squad! Drop the mike, you're under arrest'! Armed entertainment criticism would be a strange use of police resources at the best of times, but there's the other thing that there may not even have been an actual offence committed.

I'm not a lawyer, but these people are, so let's hear what they say:

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate. Refer also to Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard elsewhere in the Legal guidance.

OK, so let's see what Sec 4 says:

The following types of conduct are examples which may at least be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour:

* threats made towards innocent bystanders or individuals carrying out public service duties;

Hey, I'll take a shot in the dark here and say that the definition of 'towards' requires the accused to actually address the alleged victim, not be tapping away on a twitter feed that the victim has to be specifically told to look for.

These airport guys remind me of nothing so much as the old joke about the woman who called the police because her neighbour was sunbathing nude in his garden. The cop comes round, looks out the window and says 'I can't see anything', and the woman says 'you can if you go upstairs and climb on the wardrobe'.

All of which is by way of saying, they must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to be harassed, alarmed and distressed.

To the point, in so far as a young man exercising his right to free speech has been seized by agents of the state on a charge that's legally absurd and morally ludicrous, it is exactly the type of thing a soi dissant civil liberties organisation should regard as nearly as important a freedom as the right to coerce employers into hiring people dressed in enemy uniform.

The Tipping Point

Is modern liberalism dependent on victimhood? Well, consider that the Guardian has now started running tearful articles on the discrimination Muslims could face, if the government were to introduce profiling.

Coming soon: how right wing necromancy could lead to your kids being eaten by zombies!

Hey, if our hypothetical doctor really is an 'Islamic moderate' whose country is being torn apart by terrorist lunatics, wouldn't he be onboard with just about any measures to clamp down on Islamic terrorists? After all, Miami Cubans aren't known for the deep love and affection for communism.

But we don't profile: that would be uncivilised. Instead, we have compulsory nudie scanners. Hey, I admit I haven't checked up on our ever-expanding Human Rights Act in the last 48 hours or so, but I'm thinking that if a demand you get your virtual tackle out before flying doesn't contravene your human rights, they aren't worth having.

Oh yeah.... profiling isn't 100% reliable. Meanwhile, the panty bomber buys a one-way ticket with cash while on a 'no-fly' list, but this doesn't say anything about the efficacy of non-profiling methods - and neither does the fact he used a liquid explosive that doesn't show up on scanners anyway.

Folks, I think we're reaching a tipping point. Liberals always love the pose of Olympian detachment, coolly deciding between various competing claims, but that dog won't hunt anymore.

Leaving aside drivel about lack of efficacy - despite 100% of Islamic terrorists being found to be Islamic - the case against profiling always was that it was better to slightly inconvenience everyone than to make people who exactly match the profile of the last hundred or so people to commit acts of terrorism onboard airliners feel slightly uncomfortable by asking them more questions than an 88 year old Jamaican grandmother would face. So now we have a system where your teenage daughter will be required to go through the nudie scanner four or five times in front of drooling imbeciles while the guy with 16 South Yememese stamps in his passports gets waved through because we don't want to make him feel uncomfortable.

Shocka! Pandering To Thugs Fails

Who'd have thunk it? A rapper turns out to be a violent retard.

Talk about the clue being in the question. We've got a problem with violence in schools, so a government minister teams up with a scumbag low-life. Hmmmm.... I think I see the problem.

I'll take a shot in the dark here, but if Ed Balls really wants to do something about thuggery in schools, he might try treating these people as the douchebags that they are, instead of treating violent insanity as a wacky, but enriching!, cultural quirk

Mel Brooks Did It First

Hipsters' knee jerk obsession with sticking it to The Man reaches its logical conclusion.

Note too how the splendid senator from Wisconsin gets slipped in there along with the mass murdering leftists. No context required when dealing with the right, obviously.

Golden Future Postponed

I can't wait to see how they blame this on a white guy...

Best Give Up On The Whole 'Development' Thing Then......

Today's Africa's screwed up and it's all your fault story.

Liberal Hate Speech

I was just reading NNW's post on Avatar when I realsied something about it: take away any wider issues and you're still left with a genuinely bloodthirsty movie, where Americans (and, it is strongly implied, conservative ones) are depicted as fascist thugs, then slaughtered in large numbers.

Hey, unlike certain David Camerons I could mention, I'm a real conservative. Let Hollywood make what it can sell, but in so far as liberals are queueing up to see conservative caricatures butchered, can we at least have to end to all this talk of liberal 'nuance' versus hateful conservatives?

UPDATE:

And now, the same point from an actual literate person:

Yes, movies traffic in absurd super-simplifications. But we’re supposed to accept that of the deployment of several hundred, every soldier save one is a low-IQ cold-blooded murderer. What does “Avatar” build up to? Watching the invading soldiers — most of whom happen to be former American military personnel — die is the big cathartic ending of the flick. Extended sequences show Americans being graphically slaughtered in the natives’ counterattack. The deaths of aliens are depicted as heartbreaking tragedies, while the deaths of American security forces are depicted as a whooping good time.

Truthers Gone Wild!

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

Best Headline Evah?

This story probably says something profound about modern Britain, but my mind's gone too blank to work out what.

Today's Good News Story

Hey, sharks need to eat too!

Still, if these freaks genuinely believe they can sell people on a speedboat being rammed by a huge whaler, it looks like we've finally found some econuts who don't mind polluting their bodies with 'chemicals'.

Libs: Even More Pathetic Than We Thought

Mind you, I'm right behind the whole libs killing themselves thing.

Strong, Independent Career Woman Whines Like Little Girl

Heh. It's just like that episode where Buffy sued the Master after he said she had a fat backside.

Like Mark says, just what more does this hag want? She's had an insanely pampered life, but now she's the Rosa Parks of science? Clearly, those beasts at the Royal Society were so keen to fire a lady director, they had to go to the trouble of hiring one in the first place just so they could sack her, but only after keeping her on for four years to hide the true nature of their evil plan.

You know, with deep thinkers like that on the bridge, it's a wonder British science is sinking so fast.

As it happens, there may be one other reason why she got the ol' heave ho:

Lady Greenfield's removal comes after the Royal Institution incurred huge losses during a major refurbishment project she masterminded. The £22 million project left the body so short of funds that its auditors raised questions about its ability to continue operating.

The body's trustees decided that the position of a full-time director was no longer affordable in the light of funding problems that has left it more than £3 million in the red.

Steering your organisation into a £3 million sized hole is bad. Not seeing why that could be a problem really should be a sacking offence.

It's not as if there isn't evidence of pilot error:

Supporters of Lady Greenfield say she had modernised the charity, which aims to connect the public with the world of science, but had been regarded by some as too stuffy and outmoded.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how often modernisation precedes total disaster? I guess keeping track of the red ink isn't part of the New Girl Order.

All in all, you have to have some sympathy with the Royal Society.... but only if you're stupid. Greenfield's whole schtick is and always was professional victimhood (try this for a 2002 example). These guys must have known right from the off that they were hiring a divisive femiloon but they were prepared to go along with that as long as she aimed her unhinged rants at everyone else.

To the point: no less a scientist than Newton claimed to be 'standing on the shoulders of giants' - meaning he recognised the contribution of those who had come before him. Femiloon ideologues go the other way: everything that came before is a product of the Patriarchy and therefore bad, Bad, BAD! They insist we all hail them as the First Woman To.... , then they goose-step in and announce the need to modernise everything in the whole world, until it all goes horribly wrong and then they claim the worker bees let them down.

The Royal Society has sown the wind and they can reap the whirlwind: Death to the Manginas!

Stop Being Outraged By The Wrong Things!

Hey, at least she has a real job, but wait.... what's this?

Since the age of 18, she had been a party activist for the Lib Dems but later became disillusioned.

She quit the party in April and declared it had been 'drifting into the wilderness and neglecting their supporters'.

Another one? Are there any conservative candidates who are actually, y'know, conservatives?

Anyone Else?

So is this guy a mangina or just realistic about the women on the jury?

She told detectives she was being harassed by a stalker and later blamed a random motorist after they were involved in a minor car crash.

He was arrested on suspicion of harassment and held by police for 20 hours before being released without charge....

The mother of two made up the allegations between November 2007 and June 2008 to seek attention, said David Morgan, prosecuting....

‘Don’t be fooled into thinking that she should get a sympathy verdict.

‘She has caused immense distress to friends who thought she was in real danger. She was selfish,’ he added.

Say, Dave, anyone else 'caused distress'? Anyone at all?

Liberal Sinks Own Boat, Libertarians Climb Aboard

Smug liberal freak David Aaronvitch advances a stunning new argument: people who don't dig the gay agenda are secretly gay themselves.

Hey, fat boy, 1975 called: they'd like their talking points back. Well, either that, or Dave's standard issue leftism means he secretly fantasises about indulging in orgies of tax-cutting.

All of this is his way of claiming that the right are really huge hypocrites - unlike leftists who have no morals at all and don't care who knows it. Also - and I know this may shock you - Dave's noticed that some folks in the Third World aren't down with sorting sex out man to man....

Don't worry though. The obnoxious open borders booster manages to swerve round the obvious implication of his position. See, Western supporters of traditional values are totally the same as the people who want to string up interior designers.

Still, that's not the biggest outbreak of humbug in his article. Try this:

The sexual conservative’s true hypocrisy is that he doesn’t really believe in his own idealisation. Men will be inflamed by the sight of hair, women will bear other men’s children at the fall of a veil, boys will suddenly cast off the tedious ways of heterosexuality and put on the gaudy garb of gayness.

Say what? There's only one side of the great divide that obsessed with the idea that men can be inflamed at the drop of a hat. Hell, the article itself makes no sense unless you assume that, without the iron grip of PC, our nation's socio-cons will be out there whipping the public up into a queer-bashing frenzy.

Compared to the reigning ideology on the average university campus, social conservatives are the John Stuart Mills de nos jours. Which is lucky because libertarians are increasingly giving up the fight, throwing their own ideology under the bus as soon as the chance to score some hip points comes along. Quote of the day? Really?

There's the obvious point that Fatty Dave's deliberate collapsing of the distinction between those who support traditional values, and those who want to impose them, is a common trick of the totalitarian-minded, but it goes a little deeper than that. One of the central points of libertarianism is the distinction between those who use violence and those who don't - to suddenly decide that it's no big deal after all is to expose just what a fraud most modern libertarianism is.

The Left Is Eating Its Own

Maybe she is a good writer, but she sucks at victimhood poker.

Then again, how much sympathy can you have for someone who played the Chick Card like a violin in the early days? Are we sure there weren't any up and coming white guys whose scripts got binned in favour of her eleventeenth script about a tough, independent woman making her way in a male-domina.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quote of the Day

Rick Darby is thankful for small mercies when it comes to the Boxer Bombers:

Incidentally, the Chosen One didn't mention the name Abdulmutallab, he of the weaponized groin. The public might have gotten the impression that the "suspect" was a M____m. Thankfully, though, he refrained from saying the Dutchman had "acted stupidly."

...which is lucky, 'cause I'm thinking a beer summit is right out this time.

Your Country Needs You...

....to send your kids to a lousy school.

This bizarre confusion about who's serving who is par for the course where educrats go, but I note two related pathologies in that article.

One is the bonkers view of just how normal people live in this country. Consider the average middle-class income versus typical school fees: really, no one is sending their kids private just out of one-upmanship. After all, buying his'n'her Beemers would be cheaper and more fun. No wonder these people think they can keep bleeding the middle classes dry with endless taxes if they really think the average family has north of £10K pa to spend just to impress the neighbours.

But that's not the best of it. Consider the other Deep Thought underpinning this article. The implication is that the middle classes should send their kids to Hell Street Comp otherwise.... What, exactly? We'll be left with schools dominated by the working class? Gott in Himmel! How will our nation survive?

Hey, not to go all Laban, but back in the day our nation had a whole network of working class orientated educational bodies and, spookily enough, none of them were nearly as awful as the average comp. Seems to me that it was the education of the working class falling under the control of people like Professor Woods that marked the beginning of the death spiral in the first place.

I'll guess we'll have to wait to find out just *why* educational institutions serving predominately working class kids is a bad thing. That goes double for finding out by what loony toon calculus middle-class parents who scrimp and save to provide their kids with a good education are the bad guys.

Actually, as they used to say on Blankety Blank, the clue is in the question. Parents send their kids private precisely so as to avoid an education system dominated by hard-left loons ranting about the evil middle-class (most of whom probably earn a lot less than Woods does). Hey, it's not 'prejudice' when they really are a bunch of loons.

Quote Of The Day

After last night's (near) 'Death Note' incident, I'm going to try something a little different and give you this example of liberal torettes from the Yazzmonster:

There is nothing more pernicious in life to the millions who are unhinged or troubled than the idea of others living lives of perfect contentment.

OK, so she's nuttier than a nutty thing, but she certainly states the left's position more straightforwardly than most: even if you think the country is kind of OK, that just means you must be contributing to someone else's misery, you fascist!

But note the humbuggery too. The Yazzmonster is taking out an onion for all the excluded on the margins of society, yet - as evidenced perfectly by her AMAB ranting - there's no people like leftist people for denouncing whole groups as not just wrong, or even evil, but as savage subhuman degenerates whose very presence pollutes our national life. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that if redundant dads do feel socially excluded, it's no such much the Christmas trees that do it, so much as the mainstreaming of the views of feminazi loons like the Yazzmonster who denounce them as lice to be crushed.

Quote of the Day

The Maha Rushbo on why socialism sucks:

This massive new entitlement is going to obliterate tolerance. This whole notion of live and let live, there isn't going to be any more of that. Every American is going to be looking at neighbors with jealousy, resentment, and anger at whatever medical care he or she receives because not everybody's gonna get the same. That's the way socialism works.

Exactly. The problem with the 'Common Good' isn't just defining what's good - hard enough though that is - it's defining the limits of what's common. Once everything belongs to everybody, then anything that goes to anyone means taking something from everyone. What's the quid pro quo when you're in hock to the whole country?

Audience Participation

I was going to say something about how the Blogger dashboard has improved a lot since I first set this blog up, then I realised that was back in 2003. Kablooey!

Anyway, it's pretty good, and the comments now work. So what do you think? Tastes like chicken? Needs more salt? As the Great Sir Freddie once said: we'll breakfast at Tiffanys, we'll sing to you in Japanese, we're only here to entertain yooooooooooooou.

Work/Train Wreck In Progress...

Alright, the Haloscan commenting system is soon to become a no comments at all system, which means back to Blogger. Except that doesn't work, so I'm guessing my template must die too

All of which means if next time you're here the site is bright yellow, that's why.

This could be a long job....

MSM Journalist Admits: We Suck!

Not in so many words, obviously. Still, it's good to see at least one jouno taking the kool aid IV out of his arm. The only thing is that this raises the obvious question: how does he square this with the MSM's criticism of that naughty old internet?

It turns out that everything those pesky bloggers said was right. The MSM has soft-pedalled on Islam - personally, I think other factors are at play, but let's pretend it was the lawyers wot done it: even if we buy the MSM's argument that some of what's on-line is potentially defamatory, that doesn't make it unreliable. The MSM was happy to use the bogeymen of crazed bloggers smearing innocent terrorists when it suited them, so it's way too late for these people to pose as principled defenders of free speech.

Y'Know, I'm Not Sure Tax Cuts Will Require Cuts In Services After All...

Read it and scream....

Noted Ecomentalist Calls For More 4x4s

In case you were still taking Copenhagen seriously....

Nigerians On A Plane

Thinking further about yesterday's post, it's no wonder the left is emphasising the whole Nigerian thing. After all, the Ummah's Undie Bomber might not have damaged any planes, but he's sure blown a hole in the left's credibility.

There's the obvious point that - again - the passenger on an airliner who turns out to be a terrorist is the one who fits perfectly the profile for a terrorist (or would have done if airlines were allowed to profile passengers). That ought not to be a surprise, but it sure seems to keep passing the left by. If the evidence for Gerbil Worming was as strong as the evidence for profiling, conservatives would be biking to work, but instead the left insists that since profiling wouldn't necessarily pick up one of those Chinese Catholic suicide bombers we hear so much about, the whole thing's a bust.

Which is point two right there. The left's always justified its opposition to profiling on the grounds that they have supa-smart alternatives - all of which utterly failed in this case. No fly lists and no liquids allowed? No problem!

The precise details of how exactly the various governments screwed it up are still being revealed, but one thing's for sure: the only serious opposition the Boxer Bomber faced was from the random collection of civilians on the flight with him. Indeed, while the professionals were asleep at the wheel, the ordinary Joes - or Jakkes - attacked with such skill and effectiveness that I understand the hipsters want to have them all jailed.

Even more surprisingly for students of hipster rhetoric, these de facto citizen soldiers managed to achieve all they did without slaughtering any Sikh pharmacists or inadvertently imposing the Fourth Reich.

But that's not the best of it: in so far as this particular Man of No Affiliation had the background of a Nigerian David Cameron, that would tend to debunk just about every excuse hipsters have ever deployed for that completely random collection of individuals who keep getting caught up in terrorist incidents. Poverty? Disenfranchisement? Lack of educational opportunities? If this guy's a victim, who isn't?

Terror At 40,000 Feet, Insanity At Ground Level

Ross asks some good questions about the Boxer Shorts Bomber, but misses the key one: just what surreal excuse are the usual suspects going to come up with this time?

I don't think the whole 'isolated incident' thing is going to work this time. Come to think of it, it's not even an isolated incident of 'Apparel-Related Terrorism On A Trans-Atlantic Flight'.

Of course, the hipsters have already started up on 'Operation Snowjob' or, to put it another way, anyone know where this Man of No Affiliation came from originally? I think it came up on the TV once or twice, but I missed it in amongst all the shots of Lagos, people in traditional West African dress and Nwankwo Kanu scoring for Portsmouth.

Apparently, there were no casualties on the airliner, but the whole nation of Nigeria has been thrown under the bus. All of which proves the Victimhood Poker truly is the Rosetta Stone of politics. If this poor, misguided, young scallywag had spent his time in London indulging in recreational rapes and drug dealing, he'd have been a 'man from Central London' - a Man of No Appearance, in fact. But now the MSM are scrambling to throw sand in the public's eyes, and suddenly it's all Nigeria, all the time. Will no one think of the 'vast majority of peace-loving Nigerians'?

The True Meaning of Christmas

...is sweary elves.

It's not old, it's timelss!

'Science' != 'Whatever Scientists Do'

For once, the ecochondriacs have got a point: it's so easy when writing about Climategate to concentrate on individual outrages such as one tree forests and miss the wider context. We should never let indivudal frauds blind us to the basic insanity of the whole project.

There's a great round up here, but I'd just like to pick up on one point S2 makes since it really strikes at the heart of what's gone wrong with climate science.

Theories are like opinions, everyone has them, but to qualify as a bona fide scientific theory, it has to meet certain criteria and chief among them is the issue of falsifiability. To put it another way, a theory has to make predictions that can either be proven or disproved.

Consider Pasteur's debunking of the theory of spontaneous generation. He predicted that nutrient broths kept in flasks protected by filters would remain germ free. Had bacteria grown in these flasks, that would have destroyed his theory. In reality, the broths stayed bug free and so the germ theory was strengthened. That's how science is meant to be done. Climate science? Not so much.

For a group of people so anxious to claim status as secular priests of science, it's remarkable how much climate scientists play fast and loose with this basic principle of science. As far as I can tell, climate science predicts, well, everything, up to and including zombie attacks. Hot/cold, wet/dry, it's all good. It's not so much science as a giant game of Buckaroo where these guys load each and every result onto their model until the point where it collapses into a bucking train wreck.

No doubt these guys would claim that, hey, politics is a contact sport, you've got to go along to get along, blah, blah, blah.... True enough, but they're the ones who keep blathering about how they're the Guardians of True Science. They're Eric Cartman demanding we respect their authoritah... right up until they get caught talking nonsense, in which case it's just politics. Lab coat on, lab coat off. Whatever works best at that particular moment.

Why take their science any more seriously than they do themselves? To paraphrase Ghandi, as far as climate science goes, I would welcome it.

Save Our Smackheads!

Hey, say what you like, but at least we've found a case of Islamic violence that liberals don't support. He should have claimed it was a protest against Israel that got out of hand.

Still, this does throw some light onto the true nature of the Nu Tories. In so far as the main excuse for conservatives supporting the Ayatollah Khameron is that he's actually a hard-line conservative who just plays a liberal squish on TV, it's hard to reconcile that theory with the reality that the Cameron Party has not only embraced the left's agenda, which can sometimes be excused as political realism, it's also embraced the underlying world view, which never can be.

Consider Chris Grayling's recent attempt to reach out to the right: he wants to allow householders to kill burglars. Say what?

As Julie says, who's asking for that? Homicidal householders are a liberal caricature. There's no better barometer of the demented state of modern liberalism than that these people really think folks who smash their way through front doors at 3 AM are all loveable old lags called Lefty, but the nation's home-owners are sadistic killers just waiting for the chance to torture innocent smackheads to death.

What the right wants, and has wanted for years, is a meaningful, right to self-defence. One that isn't subject to being retroactively revoked years after the fact should liberal activists manage to contrive a plausible atrocity story around us actually defending ourselves or our families. Or, to put it another way, if 'reasonable force' is such a reasonable concept, why don't we apply it more widely?

'Top Judge' Wonders: Uhh... Maybe Our Lawless Scum Coddling Wasn't Such A Good Idea After All

Good News: a top judge has finally admitted that thugs are, literally, getting away with murder.

Bad News: his reasoning is a complete train wreck.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge declared that there should be long jail sentences for those who launch violent attacks – even if they do not mean to kill.

He said cases of ‘one-punch manslaughter’ were being treated too leniently. Greater weight should be given to the outcome of the attack than to the intention and ‘crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously

Say what? The offence is the offence. What the right is saying - and has said for years - isn't that there should be different penalties for the same crime depending on how it affects the victim, it's that when a violent headcase strikes a man in the head, death is an entirely predictable outcome of the crime, and so a murder rap is more than justified. Even Baroness 'Papers Please' Scotland gets closer to the truth:

‘If there is anyone who does not know that if you punch someone they may fall over, strike their head and then die, we should do everything possible to enlighten that person.

Or we could just kick them off the bench?

This is where rubber meets the road. The law, as passed by Parliament is quite clear that these cases are murder. It's the bewigged ones who have spent decades defining murder up to the point where anything short of flamethrowers hardly counts.

As ever, there's a wider issue here. Judges hate hate hate the mandatory life sentence for murder, but instead of doing the decent thing and resigning to campaign for a change in the law, or even just the moderately sleazy thing, and campaigning against it while still in office, what they've done instead is evade the clearly-expressed will of Parliament by tightening the definition of murder to the point of absurdity.

It's great that they're finally deciding to treat killing people as more serious than, say, tax evasion (but, say, why now instead of over the past twelve years), but it doesn't change the fact we only got here because a lawless judiciary was allowed to ignore the law of the land in favour of its own far-out lefty nonsense. Whatever happens in these particular cases, the fact remains we still have a judiciary that thinks Parliament's output comes stamped with the word 'For Information Only'.

Quote of the Day

Kathy Shaidle says what half the country has been wanting to say for years:

We're always scolded that we should be grateful to our "foremother" feminists who paved the way for us in the workplace, but all most of them did was turn offices into sucky boring swear-free non-stop birthday parties and gossip factories littered with cat pictures.

...but don't forget the constant lawsuits too. Hey, if the sexes were reversed, this would be worth at least five million.

And Finally...

If the right is so extreme, why do liberals have to lie about just who's really committing crimes?

And Another Thing...

Again, if it's the right that holds the patent on 'inflammatory rhetoric' and the like, how come it's always right-wing public figures that are the victims of violence?

Boys Will Be Boys!

Looks like the Moviegoer of No Appearance has been convicted of ABH, or as the BBC chooses to put it, 'Boy Found Guilty of Bleach Attack'

Ah yes: kids today: scrumping apples, playing truant and trying to blind people in bleach attacks. If it's the right that's so extreme, how come it's always liberals who carry water for savages?

About That Budget Deficit.....

This must be what they call investing in 'hospitals and schools'.

Moviegoer of No Appearance

Somehow, instinct tells me this guy probably wasn't from 'Leeds' so much as somewhere a few miles west of there... but wait: Mr Liberal would like to point that there's a ban on naming the defendant so the newspapers can't report any identifying characteristics. So there!

But her bearded 6ft 3in attacker was desperate for revenge, said Tim Capstick, prosecuting.

Oops. Guess it's only some identifying characteristics they're not reporting (although the beard strongly suggests another one of those Amish).

Worst Attempt At Racial Victimhood Evah!

Has to be seen to be believed.

On the plus side, at least that kind of wraps up the whole 'only whites can be racist' thing, right? Besides, as one of the commentors said, if Tiger only prowled round his own ethnic group, he'd die a virgin.

Liberal Tourettes Claims Another Victim

This time it's Guardian weenie Hugo Rifkind accidentally letting his inner loon out in public.

The opening section is merely retarded, dependent as it on trying to create an analogy between engineering and biomedical research on the one hand, and the gerbil warming crowd on the other. Or, put it another way, Rifkind wants to compare two of the most tightly-regulated areas in science and technology to a bucnh of loonies busily playing musical datasets.

Hey, try getting a drug on the market while claiming that you've lost the original data from the clinical trials. As for building bridges, well, the folks in Workington might have had their town cut in half, but at least they don't have to put with people insisting that the bridges are still there, and anyone who says they aren't is in the pocket of Big Construction. Still, since Rifkind raises the point, how about a National Institute for Climate Excellence, huh? We can even use the same acronym.

Still, wacky though it is to see a liberal go all misty eyed about pharmaceutical companies, the real money quote is later on:

Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right?

And that is why people talk about liberal fascism.

The liberal concept of freedom means everyone has the right to their opinion.

There's a fundamental humbuggery here too. Rifkind claims to be ever so 'umble, because he's ready to defer to whatever the scientists say. But hang on a mo, we know exactly what they're going to say: we're all going to die and the only solution is Big Government, Bigger Taxes and Speech Licences. These people are exactly the same type of Guardian-reading tools as Rifkind himself. Liberals like Rifkind might defer to the geeks, but only providing they're liberal geeks. How about those guys in the biotech industry who claim restrictions on genetic modification are strangling progress? Do they qualify for the Magic 'No Public Debate Required' Pass?

(And as for that whole 'Bell Curve' thing....)

For that matter, how about those of us who were scientists, but escaped to the Free World? Are we qualified to have an opinion? We might not be current, but we could point out that 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.

The whole point of a scientific theory is that its falsifiable - it makes predictions that can be shown to either be true or false. Climate science? Not so much. A cold winter proves the climate's changing, so does a mild one. Ditto, hot summers, rainy summers, cold summers.... it's all good. Besides, if needs be, they'll just compare summer temperatures in 2007 to winter temperatures in 1968 to hide the decline or something. It's not corrupt, it's just science, advanced fraudology. Besides, you need to look at the context, or as Ann Coulter says:

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

America The Beautiful

Now this is the way to handle liberals! You can almost imagine the dialogue:

Liberal Whiner: Having to wait for the executioners to find three veins is cruel!

Real American: OK, you win! We'll just kill him more slowly with the one drug then.

Liberal Whiner: Doh!

Today's Slice Of Open Borders Theatre

Finally! The Government's clamping down on those pesky Chilean immigrants selling their daughters into forced marriages. Or sons. Or whatever.

True, there are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about this marriage, all things considered:

The ‘heartbroken’ 18-year-old chose to live with 19-year-old Diego Andres Aguilar Quila, who had to leave the country recently after his student visa expired.

OK, so maybe he's married a British woman for the visa. On the other hand, he's married to a British woman, so you can't say he hasn't earned it the hard way.

Still and all, in so far as this is in no sense of the word a 'forced marriage', this surely meets the main criteria for 'open borders theatre', namely the blind enforcement of arbitrary rules against sympathetic targets, thereby press-ganging them as sock puppets in the left's endless agitprop production 'Evils of Nasty Racists What Refuse To Embrace Glorious Open Borders System'.

Who Knew The Men Of No Appearance Was A Franchise Operation?

Looks like they've opened a branch in New Zealand.

(H/T to Lurker)

Race Hustling Pseudo-Con In Fraud Shocka!

Who'd have thunk it? Race hustling whiner and professional Tory turncoat St John of Taylor is facing fraud allegations. Financial fraud that is, not just the whole 'pretending to be conservative' thing.

As Laban says, the BBC will be heart-broken. Then again, what about that? Since at least 1992, when St John's elephantine sense of entitlement and sneery contempt for the bumpkins managed to single-handedly lose a safe Tory seat, the BBC has been promoting him as some kind of human litmus test. Any suggestion the Tories should move right, and particularly on culture war issues, and sure as night follows day, there would be St John to perform his party trick of reading Guardian editorials while prefacing every paragraph with the phrase 'as a conservative myself....'.

Now he's busted. Hey, in so far as the left seems to be pretty keen on Britain apologising for, well, just about anything, isn't it time for the BBC to apologise to the British right? We've had nearly two decades of our state broadcaster providing a platform for a fraudster to defame a huge chunk of the country.

If nothing else, what about the voters who had the good sense not to fall for the hype in 1992? The BBC has spent seventeen years implying that their criticism of Taylor was just a pathetic attempt to hide their raycist motivations. Now it turns out that the bumpkins had him bang to rights. It was the sofisticaytes at the BBC who were too plain prejudiced too see that the yokels had a point after all. If apologies are your bag, this would certainly seem an apologising matter, right?

We're Safe Forever

Finally, someone's taking seriously the risk of hijackings by pop tarts.

In related news, liberalism will kill us all.

This Is What I Would Have Written (If I Could Write)

Kathy Shaidle sums it up perfectly.

'Top Gear' Even Cooler Than We Suspected

It's all about having the right enemies. Good quote too from Benny Boy. Very..... moderate.

We Hate Them Because They're Scum

Ranting Stan has a good post on the bizarre 'Baby P' report (short summary: social workers suck, so give them huge pay rises). Hey, it's not exactly the same as the Macpherson Report.

Stan hits the nail on the head. It's not about who reports to who, or how many department heads there are, it's about a warped culture. It's bad enough that these people are obsessed with pandering to designated victims, no matter how dysfunctional their behaviour - see Victoria Climbié for further details - but they've also absorbed the deranged feminist idea that the traditional families is, by definition, evil.

That's why they let certain of their 'clients' get away with cultural quirks, like starving their children to death, but will bend over backwards to victimise any family without the magic victim card.

That's point one right there. There a clear pattern of prejudice and attempted social engineering here. These people are extremist kooks pushing their own agenda. They don't have bad judgement, their judgement works fine, they're just basing it on different criteria from what people who aren't socialist thugs do.

Which is point two. Consider this from the case above:

She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: 'We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.'

Now, isn't that nice? Again, this is not about judgement: a citizen was pressured to give up her legal rights by the threat of further victimisation. You could have Perry Mason stop by and he couldn't argue that as anything other than an outrageous example of lawless thuggery. And that goes with swords, oak leaves and gold cluster for a system that permits them to do this.

To the point: social workers are extremist lunatics who abuse public office to lawlessly victimise innocent families while abandoning politically-inconvenient children to a hideous fate, and now they're complaining of low social status? They're lucky to be allowed to walk the streets.