Call me paranoid, but it seems like the more serious the omissions from a BBC story, the more likely it is that one of the protagonists has his name spelled in the most ludicrous way possible. It's almost as if they were afraid of Mr Google. Look at this story here. Not only has the CV been thoroughly tippexed, but the name isn’t even close. Coincidence ?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Call me paranoid, but it seems like the more serious the omissions from a BBC story, the more likely it is that one of the protagonists has his name spelled in the most ludicrous way possible. It's almost as if they were afraid of Mr Google. Look at this story here. Not only has the CV been thoroughly tippexed, but the name isn’t even close. Coincidence ?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
See, this is the thing. Maybe what kills PC won’t be something big like July 7, it’ll be something small like a public figure claiming the right to make obnoxious anti-English comments, then casting himself as a victim when the inevitable backlash happens.
Consider the tournament in question, played as it is at the ‘All England’ club. Murray may hate the English, but he sure manages to get over it when there’s money to be made. Why not ? After all, his countrymen claim the right to assault English visitors, while reserving the right to immigrate into England anytime they choose, then hit the welfare state like a battering ram, all while proclaiming their hatred of the English loudly and often. But that’s not it. What’s really infuriating is that Hamish McPsycho claims the right to sue for discrimination any time an employer chooses a less homicidal candidate. Liberals justifiy this the way they seemingly justify half their absurdities these days – by crying ‘racism’. But do they have any actual evidence for this ?
Pre-1997, few Englishmen would have paid much attention to Murray’s comments. Even now, there’s no English National Party blaming all England’s problems on the Scots. No children are assaulted for wearing Scotland shirts in England. This division of most of the country into English vs Scots is entirely a product of a form of Scottish nationalism that boils down simply to hatred of the English. There is no ‘racial’ aspect to it, except that which they themselves have created.
This is the absurdity of PC in its purest form, stripped of extraneous blather about ‘slavery’, ‘colonialism’ or any other Liberal excuseology. A group of people have carved a separate identity out of whole cloth, claiming that it gives them the right to commit crimes, bleed the state dry and scream their hatred of their fellow citizens at the top of their voices, but no one else should be allowed to judge them on that behaviour. Well, why not ? Aren’t they just taking Liberalism to its logical conclusion ?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Yep, it’s the fruit police. But that’s not even the best of it. We’ve got Cherie shaking down cancer charities, Prezza shagging everything that moves, Tessa Jowell paying off her mortgage in a month und so weiter – and they want the state to check other people are providing suitable role models ? Still, I’m sure local councils will use their powers with all the common sense and discretion they’ve bought to traffic enforcement – just like I’m sure that when the kids turn Eighteen, the files will be destroyed. Won’t they ?
The excuse for all this is the need to avoid another Victoria Climbie case. But hang on a minute:
Eight-year-old Victoria Climbié died in 2000 while living with her aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, and her aunt's boyfriend, Carl Manning, despite having been seen by dozens of dozens of social workers, nurses, doctors and police officers.
Not to go off at a tangent here, but what does it say about the true nature of modern politics that it’s Liberals that claim that Africans routinely torture their kids, while those ‘racist’ Conservatives claim that black children deserve the same protection as white kids ? Similarly, consider that many of the alleged professionals must have known that the victim was near death, yet not one was prepared to say ‘the hell with it’ and act to save the child. What does that say about Liberalism's success in - literally - demoralising public servants ? Morality has been extinguished and replaced with blind obedience to political dictates
Forget the computer systems, what we really need is public servants who’ll do the right thing. Has any progress been made in that direction ? Apparently not. Social workers have got foster carers found to have taken obscene photographs of a kid under their care but, hey, that’s no big thing. Add in the fact, unreported by the Beeb (naturally), that the assailants had told social workers that they only wanted to foster boys, and the question is raised: just what would have struck social workers as suspicious ?
Of course, this brings us back where we started. Nu Lab and the judges might be indulging in play fighting, but they’ll close ranks when it really matters. For proof of that, look no further than the judge's insane comment that the case wasn’t about homosexuality. Au contraire, that was exactly why these scumbags were allowed to go on so long, just as assuredly as the race hustlers helped ensure that the people supposedly protecting Victoria Climbie spent more time worrying about offending her torturers than they did about saving her life. We have a dysfunctional justice system, where ‘sending the right message’ trumps all else, so the answer is to keep tabs on everyone in the country. Hey - the last government might have screwed up the BSE situation, but at least they didn't claim their failure meant they had the right to tell you what to eat for Sunday lunch.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Over at ATW they’ve caught Hari peddling pro-paedophile propaganda. He’s got previous form at this as well. Here he is talking to another Liberal about his own writing:
However, your implication that since I haven’t raised every single one of these issues I don’t care about them is, I’m afraid, flawed. You haven’t written about the persistent abuse of asylum seekers by our own government (as I have). I could also mention climate change, prison reform, drugs legalization, human rights abuses in Colombia, higher taxes here in Britain, rights for transsexuals, against religious fundamentalism of all stripes, against the World Bank, in favour of understanding and embracing despised minorities like gypsies and paedophiles … I could go on with issues I've written about any you haven't.
Equally, how can gay rights activists claim to be outraged at any attempt to link them with paedophilia when the ‘Contributing Editor to Attitude (Britain's main gay magazine)’ spends his time spinning for pederasts ?
Actually, I don’t mind Hari that much. His problem is a kind of Liberal Tourette’s Syndrome, whereby he keeps inadvertently saying what Liberals really believe. Look how they wax lyrical about their opposition to paedophilia, even while they turn the outrage meter up to 11 any time anybody suggests taking any measures against nonces (and what are the odds Hari thinks these guys need rehab not prison) ? In his own way Hari is an anti-matter canary in the mine. Just as long as his foul pro-pervert rhetoric is greeted warmly by Liberals, we’ll know just how seriously to take their opposition to predators stalking kids.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Reid’s other brilliant idea is to send a junior minister to the US to see how their ‘Megan’s Law’ provisions work out. Let me save him the effort. ‘Megan’s Law’ means that the local community is informed of the location of paedophiles. That’s it. We’re not talking cold fusion here. Hey, you don’t think Reid’s trying to dodge the issue do you ?
As far as ‘Megan’s Law’ goes, the issue is simply whether or not you think the public has a right to know the location of paedophiles in their community or, as I like to think of it, whether public servants should conspire to enable perverts to stalk their prey in peace. Not that that sort of language goes down well with the Liberals. Au contraire, one of the defining features of the debate is the totally different attitude the Left adopts when it’s talking about perverts, as compared with the public.
Consider the two main Liberal objections to a British Megan’s Law, namely the idea that Joe Public is just itching to form a lynch mob, and the belief that many of the perverts who face exposure have been rehabilitated. So, we can’t trust Joe Public with the truth, but we can trust a guy with 25 convictions not to strike again. Uh huh. I guess we’re seeing why the government keeps getting skinned on those IT contracts.
Liberals think that the tidal wave of cases where supposedly rehabilitated offenders have struck again is mere anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, the few isolated cases of violence six years ago when a tabloid revealed that the government was secretly placing known perverts bang in the middle of areas full of kids are proof positive of the dangers of disclosure. You can tell how serious this violence was by the fact Liberals feel the need to lie about it. Take the most notorious case where a doctor was forced to flee her home by a rampaging mob too stupid to distinguish a paediatrician from a paedophile. Back in the day, Liberals didn’t realise they’d need this case as the centrepiece of their ‘keeping the public in the dark’ campaign, so they told the truth about it. Would that the Right had to lie about the dangers of paedophiles, but the truth is quite horrible enough.
Perhaps sensing that the public is not necessarily horrified by local communities demonstrating against having perverts foisted on them, Liberals’ fall back position is to claim that allowing predators to stalk their prey behind a veil of secrecy is actually the best way to control them. Libs claim that if perverts’ identities were widely known, they’d go underground. Actually, about six foot under would suit me fine, but as the Rotty Pup points out, isn’t that what we have now ? At least we’d no longer be paying taxes to help them stalk their prey in peace.
See, this is why I call these people ‘Liberals’. Nye Bevin might have had some stupid ideas, but you can’t imagine him and Clement Atlee burning the midnight oil discussing a Safety At Work Act for Ian Huntley. Indeed, it is Labour’s traditional supporter’s who are most disgusted with the Party’s de facto embrace of perverts.
Not that Conservative Party members have anything to feel proud about. Here’s Nu Lab getting hammered on precisely the issue the right of the Party always claimed was their weak link, and all the front bench has managed is David Davis raising the spectre of ‘mob law’(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!).
Needless to say, political parties conspiring to block a law that’s supported by the vast majority of the public is the very essence of democracy. Gosh, I can’t see why the public is so disengaged from politics.
So why are these people so determined to prevent passage of a law that’s almost universally supported ? Well, actually, that’s kind of it. This BBC report reads almost like parody, so apparently certain is the author that invoking the name of a tabloid constitutes an actual argument. Our political classes has spun themselves so far down the rabbit hole of cynical, spin-doctored, post-modernist lunacy that they’re now incapable of adopting any actual positions other than sneering contempt for anybody who takes a moral position on anything. Oppose paedophilia ? Like some tabloid-reading prole ? Think of the cocktail party invitations they’d lose!
Not to go off at a tangent, but have you ever heard of a mob demonstrating against mobile phone masts ? Well, no. Not to say that there aren’t demonstrations, but they’re carried out by ‘protestors’. So, the ‘mobs’ are the people protesting against known killers, the ‘protestors’ are the people who think mobile phones are damaging their sonic resonances or whatever. Try explaining that to a man from Mars. Personally, I’m just happy we don’t have a class system in this country any more.
This is why this issue matters, not just because protecting kids from perverts is intrinsically worthwhile (doh!), or because it’s a winning issue politically (though it is), but because it is a perfect litmus test. A politician who takes a hard line on nonces is announcing that he’s there to represent his constituents, not the chattering classes.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Liberals have spent years telling us that racism is a feature of right-wing thinking. So what’s going on in the People’s Republic of Scotland ? Politics in Scotland covers the whole spectrum from left-wing to very left-wing, to completely insane left-wing. Not only that, but in the SNP they have a party that combines loony left policies with paranoid rantings about England. Maybe it isn’t the Right after all ?
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
What brought this to mind was Newsnight’s alleged interview with Ann Coulter last night. Actually, the mere fact of Newsnight featuring Ann Coulter, in and of itself, was enough to have me checking I was in the right universe, but fortunately Paxman cleared up any doubts by adopting such a whiny, truculent attitude that it could only have been ‘our’ BBC.
Start with the intro. Yes, mention Coulter’s two most controversial comments, but mentioning them alone is like doing a profile of Ozzy Osbourne that notes he bit the head off a bat and was once convicted of burglary, without mentioning anything else.
Similarly, yes, her views on Darwinism are pretty whacked, but how about crystal healing, toxin scrubs and rebirthing ceremonies ? Aren’t they pretty weird ? What chance of Paxman starting an interview with Cherie by talking about them ? I think with five books and hundreds of columns, we’re able to judge if weird views about the primordial soup are all there is to Coulter (Clue: No!) ?
More to the point, Paxman’s follow-up was despicable, asking her if she believed life was created in six days. Huh ? In so far as alleged ‘intelligent design’ advocates are not necessarily biblical fundamentalists, that question revealed either stunning ignorance or a blatant attempt to misrepresent what Coulter actually said. For the record, in so far as fundamentalists take the Bible literally, they support intelligent design, but that doesn’t work the other way round. ‘Intelligent design’ fans aren’t even necessarily averse to evolution, they just think that instead of it involving random mutation filtered by natural selection, it involves some bloke with a beard saying ‘ah, asteroid time!’. Considering the BBC can find endless distinctions between Islamic extremists and the ‘vast majority of peaceful Muslims’, trying to lump ID fans in with folks who think there really was a Noah’s Ark is pretty poor.
Anyway, what’s with questions like ‘Do you honestly believe that ?’. Has Paxman ever posed that question to Martin McGuiness, George Galloway or any Islamic fundamentalist ? Has he ever referred to their views as ‘so extreme, so absurd’, or asked them ‘if it gets any better’ ? No – it’s only when he’s faced with an actual Conservative that he feels the need to feign shock at their views. An unapologetic Conservative ? Who’d have thunk it ?
Then there’s an old favourite coming back: the ‘ban on embryonic stem cell research’. Really ? Answer: No. The ‘ban’ simply means that Federal funds can’t be spent on this research. You can research to your hearts content using anyone else’s money. Individual states can even spend public money on it – the Governator for one has done this in Kalifornia, thereby allowing the Left to trumpet this as a schism in the American Right. So, I guess even Paxman doesn’t watch his show.
Ditto, Paxman had another - ahem! -slip of the tongue when he claimed Coulter attacked the 9-11 widows. What, all of them ? Or just the four of them who chose to leverage their loss into careers as political activists, pushing the Democrat line even on issues completely unrelated to Sep 11 (unless there were any gay marriages performed in the twin towers).
The most ludicrous statement was Paxman claiming there can’t be a Liberal media because the author of America’s No 1 book was on most of the main TV channels. Well, yes, but as Coulter herself has pointed out approximately 1 million times, she’s permitted on the shows only after a long intro to let people know she’s an EXTREME RIGHT WINGER. Meanwhile, smug Liberal snobs like Paxman are presented as objective journalists and analysts, even while they produce sneering commentary about Coulter ‘arguing, if that’s the right word’
As was revealed when Paxman tried to pose a question Coulter had already answered, he clearly doesn’t feel that there’s anything to learn from listening to actual Conservatives. The more Paxman deployed his trademark range of smears, the more you became aware that Coulter could have started reading from the telephone directory and it would have made no difference. The sole take-home message of the whole thing was ‘we hatessss her’.
But here’s the thing: Coutler rolled straight over him. Paxman’s whole reputation as a tough interviewer was built around his weird schtick as the product of a raging affair between Lord Snotty and a Valley Girl. His idea of a sophisticated argument is asking ‘Really ?’ in a silly voice. Suddenly, he was up against someone who wasn’t intimidated by his ability to garner applause from his fellow Liberal luvies, and his gameplan fell apart. While Coulter made actual points, Paxman was reduced to asking questions on the level of 'why do you smell so bad' ?
See, that’s it, right there. OK, so not every Conservative is Ann Coulter, but the lesson still holds. Simply by standing up and ignoring Paxman’s absurd sneers, Coulter was able to make her points and leave the ‘hard man of British interviewing’ flapping about. To use a Coulterism, once he realised the rabbit had a gun too, he sank like a stone.
Still, the Left will get there revenge eventually. It might take a few decades, but once Coulter is too old to answer back, they’ll be able to make a nice play in which she’s torn apart by a BBC interviewer. Still, maybe we ought to let the Left have their little fantasies ? After all, we have reality.
Monday, June 19, 2006
See, this is the thing. Libs keep on and on about the need for rehabilitation and all that, but every time we get a case that sparks them up, suddenly jail works just fine. Hey, they even celebrated the jailing of Archer and Aitkin. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don’t think people are barricading themselves in at night for fear that Jeffrey Archer will break in and commit a brutal perjury.
The only time Liberals support rehabilitation is when we’re talking about offences that they don’t think should be crimes anyway. It’s as if Conservatives suddenly started claiming that, actually, they thought Tony Martin was guilty, but that instead of jailing him, we should have tried to rehabilitate Martin by sending him on a world cruise and, oh, by the way, our refusal to condemn him proves how sofistikayted we are.
It’s more than flesh and blood can bear, seeing these people simultaneously denouncing everyone who wants a harsh line on crime as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, while reserving the right to go to Defcon One when it’s their ox being gored. The Left is, quite literally, amoral. Everything is predicated around politics. It’s all about pushing the Liberal agenda.
Weirdly, in this case, there’s no better example of this than the victim’s mother - apparently trying to leverage her status into a gig at the Guardian.
Mrs Dobrowski said outside court of her son's murder: "It should be an outrage.So there you have it: there’s no difference between opposing gay marriage and lynching interior designers. Of course. This isn’t even an argument, this is slander pure and simple. Yes, we should have every sympathy with her loss, but not to the extent of treating a recitation of every insane Left-wing talking point with anything other than total contempt.
It was a political act. It was an act of terrorism.
"Homophobia is endemic -
this is unacceptable."
The ironic thing is that this case does expose a real problem, just not the one Liberals would have you believe it does. As it happens, one of the killers should have been inside already but….Well, I’m sure you can guess the rest.
Isn’t this just the perfect microcosm of Liberalism ? People are getting killed because of their insane policies, but Liberals are busy shadow-boxing a vast army of ‘homophobes’. While the Left twitters on about ‘endemic homophobia’, we have a more direct reason why Jody Dobrowski was killed – yet again, a violent thug was let out early (the astute observer will note the absence from that explanation of any references to ‘atmosphere’, ‘auras’ or any one of the other 260 absurd words and phrases Leftards have to resort to when they want to try and blame these crimes on the Right).
It doesn’t get any easier than this. Here’s the choice: Liberals think sentences should vary wildly with the identity of the victim, and claim that the Right is to blame for this type of crime because we refuse to teach five-year olds about fisting. Conservatives think pretty much all killers should get this kind of sentence, and that the Left is to blame for letting a violent headcase out on the street - again. Need I say more ?
It’s not as if the rest of the book is uncontroversial. Coulter’s central thesis is that Liberalism is itself a religion, complete with its very own priesthood, dogma and the like. As the lady herself says, here’s a book that claims Liberalism is a godless pseudo-religion that, amongst other crimes, has destroyed education, science and social order, and the Left’s only objection is that she’s rude about four Liberal activists ? Does that mean the accept the rest of the book’s charges ?
Of course, Coulter is hardly the first to note the similarities between Liberalism and religion. What’s she brings to the table is her famous turn of phrase and her, often overlooked, ability to marshal evidence. Obviously, the cases she covers are American, but the points she raises are universally applicable. Indeed, the sheer strangeness of modern Liberalism is such that large parts of it can only be sustained by faith. If nothing else, this book certainly casts an ironic light on those Liberals who claim to despise Christianity because its ‘irrational’.
As for the controversy, it has come about as a result of Coulter attacking a group of four New Jersey women who leveraged the loss of their husbands in the September 11 attacks into fame, fortune and careers as Democrat activists. Or as Ann Coulter put it ‘I’ve never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much’.
Needless to say, Liberals haven’t detected any hidden nuances or penumbras in that line. They’re more upset about this than they were about the original attacks. Which is sort of the point. What Coulter was writing about is the Left’s way of evading discussion of their insane policies by fronting up professional victims as mouthpieces. The four New Jersey women – or as Coulter calls them, the Witches of East Brunswick – were used by the Democrats to attack Bush, while Liberals denounced anybody who replied to them as a brutal thug attacking grieving widows. Or to put it another way, the Left’s response to the charge that they hide behind professional victims is to complain that Ann Coulter is being cruel to widows.
Of course, even some Conservatives will say that Coulter’s sheer obnoxiousness outweighs any possible point she may have. On the other hand, Coulter has exposed the Left’s reliance on professional victims in a way no one else has. Plenty of other Conservatives must have been disgusted by the way the Left employs people like Cindy Sheehan, Christopher Reeve and the like, but none were prepared to call Liberals on it. While Coulter’s Conservative critics can point to the odd one or two commentator that addressed this issue without stirring up this kind of controversy, that’s kind of the point. Sure, Joe Bloke may have produced a well-argued critique in some obscure periodical, but it took Coulter to drag out Liberal policy into the sunlight. If nothing else, she’s spared the world the sight of Democrats bringing out a baby kitten to explain their tax policy.
This, of course, is the essence of Coulter. The sometimes cringeworthy rhetoric coexists with an unparalled ability to cut to the heart of the matter. Maybe her inability to dissemble is just the flip-side of her talent for exposing the basic insanity of much modern Liberal thinking. Equally, the sulphuric rhetoric allows her to set the terms of the debate in a way that few other people on the Right can do. Liberals use professional victims as front men to avoid having to talk about what they actually believe and now everyone knows that.
Leaving aside the whining from people who’ve taken time out from claiming ‘Bush=Hitler’ to complain about Coulter’s insensitive language, there really are some flaws with this book. Strangely, Coulter only tangentially covers environmentalism. True, Gaia-worship may not – depending on your definition – count as actual Godlessness, but it is here that the religious nature of Liberalism is most apparent.
More profoundly, Coulter’s sees the battle as between Judeo-Christian tradition and Liberalism. That might be true in the main, but that’s not to say that atheists can’t hate Liberals too. There are plenty of non-metaphysical reasons to reject Liberalism. This attitude is particularly evident in those chapters dealing with Darwinism.
Yes, that’s a health warning right there. Let’s just say Coulter won’t be sending any fan mail to Richard Dawkins any time soon. But hang on a minute – I believe in Darwinism, and I think he’s a prat as well.Fortunatly, you don’t have to believe in creationism to get some value out of even this part of the book. Coulter does an excellent job rounding up some of the more outrageous examples of junk science, bad politics and outright intimidation used to push Darwinism. Never mind how you think humans got to be so human, the story of, say, the peppered moth experiment, or Haeckel’s evidence for recapitulation – both notorious frauds swallowed whole by the scientific community - should give you pause for thought.
Again, it’s not obvious why the apparent readiness of the scientific community to accept almost any nonsense providing it can be recruited to the cause of Darwinism should only be a problem for Christians. Yes, of course, opposition to religion is clearly the main motivating force behind this desire to swallow almost any old rubbish that can be interpreted to support Darwinism, but that doesn’t mean the non-religious should be any happier to see science perverted to suit the needs of activists in lab coats. If you can get over the heavy-handed attempts to push creationism, Coulter does expose much that is simply bad science. Certainly, having seen how the scientific community behaves when dealing with an ultra-controversial issue like evolution, you can’t help but wonder how they behave when they’re not under such scrutiny.
Overall, the book is kind of uneven, so while, say, environmentalism is dealt with only in passing, a whole chapter is devoted to Willie Horton. The device of trying to relate facets of Liberalism to aspects of religion sometimes seems a little contrived. Nevertheless, there is much that is new and interesting in this book, the humour is as good as ever and it all comes with that Coulteresque talent for making hamburger out of the Left’s sacred cows, as exemplified in this perfect eviseceration of Cindy Sheehan:
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn’t have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on Entertainment Tonight, you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show. At that point, you’re no longer mourning, you’re ‘branding’.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
I’m telling you, reading that report – it’s a total mystery to me why the word ‘gay’ has picked up so many negative connotations. These guys could give Narcissus a run for his money. Needless to say, what it’s all about is what it’s always about: bigotry disguised as victimhood. They’re being persecuted, and the only cure is more PC terror. We’d best let them indoctrinate 5 year olds into the joys of promiscuous anal sex otherwise the kids might grow up with some warped ideas.
Of course, this is a second career for one of them. With an impressive nine convictions, including possession of an offensive weapon, it might be thought that having the police stop by might not be the traumatic experience for him that we were led to believe. More to the point, it turns out that an elder brother (yep, that one) previously resident at that address not only has convictions for offences involving a firearm, but the piece in question was never recovered.
To sum up then, the MSM told us that a perfectly ordinary Muslim family (lie) was raided by police who were armed for no reason at all (lie) but nothing suspicious was found (lie). Other than that, MSM reporting was bang on.
To use a favourite cliché of the MSM: what did they know and when did they know it ? When exactly did, say, the BBC learn that the family has links to Islamic extremists (and for the limited purposes of this argument, we’ll pretend the looney rantings of the suspects' sister weren’t something of a clue) ? When did they learn that one of the ‘innocent’ suspects had multiple convictions (for extra credit, they can also answer as to whether the suspect's long history with law enforcement strengthens or weakens his claim to be left traumatised by contact with the police) ? When did they learn that, far from being an overreaction based on bogus intelligence, the deployment of armed officers was at least in part a response to the address being known to have been used by a convicted armed robber with an unaccounted for firearm ? When did they realise that the search, which ‘found nothing suspicious’, had in fact uncovered large amounts of cash completely out of whack with the known earnings of the suspects ?
Folks, there’s only one answer: we need a public enquiry.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
It has to be said that not everyone gets the same consideration from the Left. Consider the measures brought into try and prevent hooliganism at the World Cup.
Under Operation Jardon, [police] pull people aside and check their passports for previous violent disorder convictions which could prevent their departure.
While lunatic thugs are a tough group to feel sympathy for, the police aren’t restricting their activities just to people with actual convictions.
Also sought are the peripherals who would likely step in to a fight to support the hardcore of violent offenders.
They might not have an order over their heads, but police say their history suggests they are a threat, past convictions or not.
British citizens are being prevented from travelling because their history suggests they’re a threat. Not history in the sense of actual conviction in a court of law, just the opinion of unaccountable agents of the state that they may commit unspecified crimes at some point in the future. Hello ? If the L4 (Loony Left Liberal Lawyers) ever wanted to convince us that this whole ‘human rights’ thing was anything other than a scam to wage legalistic guerrilla war on Western Civilisation, this would be the perfect case to take up. But no, they’re outraged that fugitives might be deprived of their human right to tasty chicken, but the police setting up their own version of ‘pre-crime’ ? Make sure you send him a drink up as well.
Actually, comparing this system to ‘Minority Report’ is giving it too much credit.
If people fitted the profile - men, aged 15 to 45, casual clothes, England flags poking out of bags - their journey was halted by football intelligence officers at Heathrow's Terminal 2.
You might say that it’s kind of obvious that attempts to stop English hooligans reaching Germany should concentrate on English people, but Liberals are enraged by the thought that counter-terrorist efforts should concentrate on members of a certain peace-loving religion. So a thirty-something bloke with an England flag and casual shirt can be stopped from flying, but blokes who follow the same ideology as the folks who gave us Sep 11, June 7 and the like should be given a free pass right up until they moment they run onto a crowded train with a fizzing bomb in their hands (and don’t even think of pointing out that the Forest Gate Kittens appear to share an image consultant with Bin Laden).
Is trying to start a riot in a bar really more serious than trying to blow one up ? Apparently so in Liberal La-La land.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Then there’s the other Coutler-cliché, the claim that her popularity is entirely down to her looks. It does raise an interesting philosophical question though – the charge is that she’s some kind of witch who turns men’s brains to jelly so they don’t realise how rubbish she is. Is that misogyny or is it misandry ? Or is it just Liberals being pigs again ?
But the real insight into the Liberal worldview comes courtesy of
There's a kind of daisy chain in the media that's allowed her to reach this level, with Hillary Clinton responding to her comments about 9/11 widows. Hillary Clinton shouldn't have to wipe that stuff off her shoes. The gatekeeper function of the media has entirely disappeared.
One of the most consistent characteristics of Liberals is their complete shamelessness. These are the folks who think that if families are going to have the gall to complain about the way the NHS treats their 92 year old grandmother, why, they deserve to have the old cow smeared as a racist, but they’ll profess themselves shocked that Blair might have libeled Saddam Hussain. Besides, it’s not like these people need public approval. Au contrair, the judiciaries whole self-image is built upon the idea of themselves as an Olympian elite, free from the constraints of the common herd.
That’s what’s so fundamentally bogus about this latest maneuver. Yes, the government says, nearly 10% of the country’s top judges are flicking a v-sign at the rule of law and the common morality, so we’re going to... put them on a list. That’ll teach ‘em. This is the action of a campaign group, not a government. Hey, contrary to what m’learned friends try to imply, ‘checks and balances’ is supposed to work both ways.
Power has been leeched away from the legislature and the executive and into the hands of a deranged nation-within-a-nation, but we’re all supposed to believe that Nu Lab is shocked – shocked! – at the judiciaries’ descent into madness. I guess Blair doesn’t get to meet any moobat lawyers ? So now a government which has become notorious for micro-management restricts itself to issuing little lists and making sad faces. Isn’t this just the perfect microcosm of Blairism ?
1/ Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2/ Venal; dishonest: a
3/ Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt
4/ Archaic. Tainted; putrid.
Friday, June 09, 2006
the death of heroic Al Qaeda leader will slow down the insurgency for a moment,
two or three days. but like what they say, the death of one great man will lead
us to the newborn of thousand great man. believe me, it's mean nothing but two
or three days headlines in a major newspaper.
zulhazry, kuala lumpur,
I dont understand how the UK can accept its leader saying that the death of
someone is 'good news'. I thought this country believed in Justice? Although
Zarqawi may have been a terrorist, I was under the impression that a death was a
negative thing. What message does this give to young people and the other
potential terrorists? Saying its good news does definitely not help stabilise
tom gibbs, fife
Ordinarily if we define someone as a
criminal and/or accuse them of a criminal act they are entitled to trial by
judge and maybe jury. When then did we decide it was okay to dispense with this
concept and allow the execution of citizens without the public examination of
their guilt? Compare this action to the furore surrounding Margaret Thatcher’s
alleged ‘Shoot to Kill’ policy concerning IRA suspects. Furthermore, to what
extent does this action form part of the proper gander of this ‘war’?
When any living thing dies all life is diminished. Bush
and Blair's criminal folly in their ill-judged, simplistic reaction to 9/11 has
dragged us all through the gates and we are still barely across the
What a discgrace that the picture of a dead
man is being paraded around like a trophy.Bush and Blair should be ashamed.Mr
Al-Zarqawi may not have been a particularly nice person, but to parade the
person of a recently murdered man is shocking and will fuel the insurgency even
Kevin Miller Warrington, United Kingdom
So there you have it: the difference between Left and Right in a nutshell. When the VRWC celebratres a death, at least it's some murderous scumbag who saws people's head's off. With Liberals, it's someone who kept beating them at elections.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Ferzoco's whine basically boils down to the idea that all that flag-waving creates an atmosphere (zzzzzz!) in which minorities feel they have to wave the flag or be victimized. Coming back at you, Georgie! Academics have been telling us for years that having a faculty that covers the whole spectrum of opinion from Liberal to Ultra-Liberal to Ken Livingstone in no way implies a hostility to Conservatism. How come having lecturers (also known as ‘the folks marking the assessments’) lining up to sneer at England doesn’t create a fear of exclusion amongst patriotic students ?
I think it was Robert Bork who said that the pornographic society was not one with a lot of porn, so much as one which accepted the concepts of human sexuality on which porn was based. So it is with rap. The problem is not so much that a bunch of idiots have got filthy stinking rich penning sub-literate rubbish about killing cops and raping women, it’s that huge swathes of people who should know better have bought into the concepts underlying rap. Heavily-armed idiots as exemplars of black authenticity. Insane violence as evidence of deep political thought. Sadistic mayhem as a perfectly reasonable response to the slightest frustration. Criminals as social commentators. It’s not that some moron buried under ten tonne of jewelry believes this, it’s that people like judges, politicians and the BBC all appear to believe the same.
For evidence of just how deep the poison flows, consider the response of a Liberal charity worker to an epidemic of gang rapes which mean that black women are three times more likely than others to be raped, and black males aged between 10 and 17 are eight and a half times more likely to be charged with rape:
“You have to ask - is it because the black community is the most marginalised
and pressurised, and does that lead to emotional consequences?”
See, that’s the whole problem with the Cameroonatics. They have to come up with these insanely superficial gestures because any attempt at a more reasoned argument would leave them no choice but to address the central issue of the age, the culture war, the one thing Cameron will not even acknowledge. This isn’t the type of problem that’s going to be solved by changing Radio 1’s playlist.
Given that Liberals are so riled by the possibility of families of insane Islamofascists being unjustifiably subjected to searches, the prospect of people being brought to trial on practically non-existent evidence must really rile them. I’ll bet we’ll be hearing them rage about this case any moment now. Yep, coming any time now. Just wait a bit longer….
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
What it’s all about is the charming Liberal contention that all ethnic conflict in the world is the fault of whites. Forty years of Liberalism having delivered endemic ethnic conflict in Britain – let alone more spectacular events like the Birmingham riots – that dog not only won’t hunt, he’ s curled up in his basket with a bottle of vodka.
Taking Liberal rhetoric at face value, it’s hard to see what they’re acting so surprised for. By definition, open borders means surrendering the right to stop Mohammed Al Wackjob entering the country. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly are all entitled to join us on Fantasy Island.
Ditto, multiculturalism. Even The Observer is forced to admit that the two biggest problem groups are Somalis and Afghans. Hey, it’s not like Mogadishu got that way because of an unfortunate series of earthquakes. It’s not violent mayhem, it’s keeping touch with their cultural roots. Anyway, why single these folks out ? Pakistani suicide bombers and Yardies are hardly less pathological beneficiaries of multiculturalism.
Needless to say, The Observer neatly ducks both these issues. No, the trainwreck of multiculturalism means we need even more multiculturalism. I think I’m beginning to understand why drug rehabilitation programs fail so often.
Liberals claim to be shocked – shocked! – that an immigration policy seemingly designed to seed our cities with samples of all the world’s most dysfunctional cultures has somehow resulted in chaos. People have been so unjustifiably surprised by disaster since the BBC saw Graham Norton’s viewing figures.
Of course, logic was never the Left’s strong point. Consider their complaint that ‘comments once associated with far-right white groups can now be heard among the long-established immigrant communities.’ Well, I dunno, but maybe these attitudes were never really all that ‘far right’ after all, hell, maybe they were just ‘sane’ (another social group the Left hates).
Still, at least we’ve got them pinned down. At least they’re admitting that opposition to our ‘homes for hijackers’ immigration policy is the right-wing position. The Left think think we should throw open the doors to all manner of psychopaths, rapists, terrorists and sundry other charmers. The consequences of that policy are exactly as Conservatives predicted. If the Left could show the same kind of cause and effect for climate change, Conservatives would spend parties talking about the new Raleigh they’ve bought.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
How beastly of the Israelis. An innocent aid worker. And he’s British! And what was his offence? Dropping litter on the Sabbath? Well, actually he we was shown the door for “backing a militant group”.
Israel has ordered a British aid worker to leave the country, accusing him of
backing a militant group.
Ayaz Ali, 36, originally from Bradford,...
Oh right, so he’s ‘British’. Might just be my prejudice, but I’d guess he’s a Pakistani muslim. And we all know that the only reason ‘British’ muslims go to the Middle east is to spread a message of peace and reconciliation. Ahem.
Oh I see. Sound like a pretty decent bunch.
...had been held in a top security Israeli prison for three weeks without
Mr Ali, who worked in Gaza for Islamic Relief, was freed on
Monday and given seven days to leave Israel.
Israel had accused Mr Aliof helping groups linked to Hamas. Islamic Relief, which is Birmingham-based,said his release was a relief to aid workers.
Hamas, which isthe ruling Palestinian party, runs an extensive network of social services including kindergartens and clinics.
But it is considered by the Israeli government to be a terrorist organisation.Well what can have put that notion into their heads? The fact that Hamas are sworn to exterminate every Jew who draws breath? The fact that they teach their children that Jews are ‘pigs and apes’? The fact that Hamas both preaches and practices murderous violence against innocent civilians in Israel and anyone in their fiefdom who crosses them?
The story goes on:
Islamic Relief's president Dr Hany El Banna OBE ...Excuse me? Run that by me again. OH BEE EE. And Michael Winner that this gong was only for ‘toilet cleaners’!
...said: "I am glad that this whole situation has come to an end.Why, this man shouldn’t be languishing in an Israeli jail. He should be presenting Blue Peter!
a great relief to Ayaz's family, humanitarian workers all over the world and
"We are grateful to all those individuals, international
NGOs and the UK government who helped secure Ayaz's release."
Mr Ali, is now set to return to the UK in time for the birth of his first child.
He was arrested almost three weeks ago and since then British officials have been
pressing Israel to release him, or explain why he was being held.
According to colleagues, one of his projects was a toy and book
library for young Palestinian children.
But Israel said he had been helping Hamas institutions.Typical of the merciless brutality of the Israeli regime.
A Foreign Office
spokeswoman confirmed Mr Ali's release and said consular staff had been present
at the hearing.
"An Israeli judge ordered him to be released and he has
been given seven days to leave Israel," she said.
"At the time he agreed to sign a bond undertaking that he would not returnto the West Bank and Gaza."
Don't be shocked, but in the comments 'Max' points out that some kind of weird computer virus must have deleted the most interesting parts of the BBC's report. Fortunatly, other reports have survived unharmed. Read and learn what the BBC doesn't think you need to know.
What set me off thinking about this was a viewing – wearing suitable protective clothing, of course – of the BBC’s latest effort: New Street Law. Painful to watch though it was, it showcased the BBC’s metacontext better than Shakespeare could.
In case you’ve had the luck to miss this horror, the main characters are a set of impecunious, maverick lawyers. Yes, poor lawyers – it’s just like real-life. That threw me until I realized that the BBC’s childish cultural Marxism demands that the rich be beasts, hence the heroes are the only poverty-stricken lawyers in history. Ditto, the whole maverick thing. With Law Lords like Brenda ‘BSE’ Hale and Lenny ‘No Threat’ Hoffman, just how wild and dangerous is it to preach Liberalism in the judicial system ?
Needless to say, other forms of Liberal humbuggery were present and correct. There were, for example, plenty of BIPAs there – as in blacks in positions of authority. A man from Mars could easily think Britain was 40% black. The only problem was that about the eighteenth time you met a black high court judge passing through, you suddenly realized that there was no one on the top half of the bill that would upset even the most sensitive of Combat 18 members. Personally, I could do with a lot less PC posturing from folks who are so obviously loath to let a black guy headline a show.
A heavy pall of PC also hung over one of the main plot points. Two of the characters were representing a bloke at a mental health tribunal to decide if he should be released from the nuthouse and so…. Oh, who cares ? You know what the outcome was, just as assuredly as you know what the PC homily it was trying to deliver was. Yep, it was ‘nutters are people too’ time. Well, funnily enough Beeboids, we know that too, the debate isn’t about the humanity or otherwise of people who think the toaster is plotting against them, it’s whether they’re safe to be on the streets. In evading this central question, the BBC was being wholly dishonest.
Still, all that was a mere aperitif of humbuggery compared to the other plot line. This involved two police officers charged with torturing a terror suspect. Now isn’t that special ? The BBC has been either ignoring the war or dealing with it with kid gloves for years and now they suddenly produce a program which sounds like an Abu Hamza speech ? ‘Bad Day At Black Rock’ is a good film, but it would have been less impressive if Hollywood had produced it in 1944 after ignoring WWII for years, and especially so if there were folks trying to stir up Japanese-Americans to go on the rampage at same time.
Lest we be in any doubt over who we were supposed to sympathise with, the suspect was super articulate while the baddie copper appeared to have wandered in from ‘Life On Mars’. Forget wider issues, even in the context of the story, this was absurd. Here we had a character who thinks blowing up buses is a perfectly reasonable way to advance your religion, yet the script writers saw him as a soft-spoken ‘voice of reason’ while Mr Plod was a knuckle-dragging bigot ? If nothing else, can we be spared the BBC accusing other people of using inflammatory rhetoric ?
So anxious were the scriptwriters to let us know just how much they hated cops, that they forgot to actually make any sense. At one point a prosecution witness disappeared. Cue the main characters remarking sarcastically to each other that the police wouldn’t be looking too hard for him. Twenty minutes later, we found out that the police wanted to force through a conviction to rebuild relations with the ‘Asian’ community, but that they were framing a Muslim officer as an accomplice to the torture to show even-handedness. Huh ?
Just in case we’d been rendered insensible by the previous barrage of Liberalism, one of the cast members helpfully rammed the point home, telling the Muslim officer that he’d probably be convicted as there were 'eleven white faces on the jury’. Meanwhile, the dialogue was thick with references to Muslim ‘brothers’ and ‘family’. Take home message: you can’t trust those Infidels, best stick with the Ummah. But watch out for the Right and their divisive rhetoric!
Again with the central point. No doubt the Beeboids would defend this show by claiming it was just a work of fiction that dealt with something that could happen. Leaving aside the show’s own pretensions to ‘realism’ and ‘topicality’, how come this door only goes one way ? There’s nothing theoretical about Islamic terrorism. Even in Britain alone we’ve had July 7, the attempted follow-up on July 21, Richard Reid…and so on. The BBC ignored them all. Now they produce a drama that may as well have been written by Bin Laden, so studiously did it mine every negative stereotype of law enforcement, and indeed British society in general. This is what the BBC calls balance.
It’s not just exams though. To be fair, even Hutton identifies part of the problem: our school system may as well have been designed to rid boys of any ambition ever to crack open a book again. Seriously, everyone admits that school system fails utterly to serve half the population, yet most of them will explain that it’s the fault of the boys. Tail, dog, anyone ?
The trouble is that Hutton himself provides a perfect example of the other half of the problem when he starts babbling about emotional intelligence. All this boils down to is a complaint that boys are just too boyish. Au contraire, the pathologisation of the male condition is, in and off itself, part of the problem.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
It gets better for the puffy-faced reptile. It turns out that the specially selected Class A list are so keen to serve that they’re boycotting some of the target constituencies. Who’d have thought that a bunch of media luvies would turn out to be so lightweight ?
Every so often we get these Hirohitoesque statements from the high priests of the MultiCult that concede that, actually, things may not be going 100% to plan. The latest is their admission that diverse communities turn out to be hellholes. This does raise an interesting version of the ‘who cuts a barber’s hair ?’ question, namely if they’re now going to start saying what the VRWC has been saying for years, who’s going to call them Nazis ?
In answer to the obvious question: no, they haven’t been binging on sodium penthol, it’s simply that their position has been untenable since last year’s Lozell’s riot. The sight of Islamopaths fighting pitched battles with the homeboys did rather give the lie to the idea that it was all the fault of the native Britons.
Don’t be fooled though, whatever the changes in their rhetoric, the MultiCultists still retain the same delusions as ever:
We've done work here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren't other pressures, like to live within a comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness.That’s funny because multi-racial America seems to get by alright. Maybe it isn’t about race, after all ? Come to think of it, there are only two sets of people in Britain who believe that conflict is the inevitable result of racial differences, one is the ‘far Right’ and the other are Liberals. Liberals trying to blame the failures of multiculturalism on some innate human prejudice is like the Captain of the Titanic claiming that, actually, he’s pretty sure the whole design was flawed. Maybe, maybe not, but the bulk of the blame must be the folks who steamed into the iceberg at flank speed while calling the lookouts ‘Nazis’.
Of course, you can’t expect Liberals to understand the present when they’re tied up lying about the past:
The arrival of the Huguenots or the Jews into Britain brought
significant social tensions which have largely disappeared.
Cultural difference eventually became woven into the tapestry of British life.
In other words, what we’re dealing with here is Liberals complete inability to understand the past or the present. Guess what that means for their prescriptions for the future ?
Trevor Phillips believes getting it right is vital: "We need to respect people's ethnicity but also give them, at some point in the week, an opportunity to meet and want to be with people with whom they have something in common that isn't defined by their ethnicity."Well, now Trevor, we did have that. We had something called ‘Britishness’. A pride in being part of something that had moved the world. As Laban points out, we didn’t need anybody building bridges between communities back in Windrush days. These people didn’t regard themselves as West Indian, they thought they were British, and they took pride in that. It was Liberals who waged war on British culture, rubbishing every achievement and highlighting every flaw, and it was Liberals who insisted that a complete lack of connection to, respect for, or even basic knowledge of Britain should be no bar to living here.
"If we can find a moment, an idea, an activity which takes us out of our ethnicity and connects us to other people of different ethnicities and if only for an hour in a week then I think we can crack this problem."
So now we have divided cities, bulging with mutually-antagonistic tribes. Who’d have thunk it ? And what is the Liberal’s answer ? When it all comes down to it, what they want is effectively permanent Balkanisation, but with an exchange of ambassadors.
Unfortunatly, Gazza misses the obvious answer, namely that embracing ecofreakery is the classic manourvre of a political euncuh. It provides the quickest route to Liberal deification with the least need to lay out actual, sane policies. Serious politics requires rather more than painting your backside blue and living in a tree. Acknowledging this truth is what Liberals call 'selling out'.