Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Police Screw Up D'Jour

Maybe the Poles could pitch in with this little problem too ? Still, when they finally succeed in forcing everyone onto the database, there should only be 7.8 million incorrect entries.

There's probably some deeper truth somewhere in there about the nature of liberalism, what with the obsession with grabbing the DNA of as many innocents as possible, even while the appalling quality control means the database is filling up with rubbish.

They're Investigating The Crimes The British Just Won't Investigate

They probably have a faster response time as well.

Thanks For Nothing

At first sight, it looks like at least one Beeboid has swapped coke for sodium penthol, but there's less here than it appears.

Let's pass over the slippery attempt to inject a racial element by referring to the natives as 'whites', and just think about the fact the British Broadcasting Corporation is giving British people the 'Gorillas In The Mist' treatment.

Here's one of the BBC's most annoying examples of double-dipping - if there's nothing particularly special about British culture, why have a compulsory licence fee for a British Broadcasting Corporation ? Why not just outsource the whole thing ?

Of course, this wouldn't be so bad if there was any evidence that the BBC was honestly interested in taking on board what it's critics say but, well, y'know...
[Richard Klein's] latest comments come ahead of a season of BBC2 programmes under the banner White, which he is overseeing and which he believes can play a part in easing the anxieties of that section of the community.
I'll take a shot in the dark that no Beeboid in history has ever talked of 'easing the anxieties' of 'the Islamic communidee'. Nope, no claim of 'Islamophobia' is too stupid for the BBC not to gobble up, but when it comes to white trash, it's all in their heads.

Besides, you know these people are too STOOPID to know what's really going on:
[Native Britons] are torn. They are reacting as human beings would do, to situations they don't quite understand.
Patronising, much ?

Still, by liberal standards Klein is going light on the looney. Check this out:
The season has already provoked controversy, with politicians and race campaigners claiming the BBC should not be singling out ethnic groups.
Yep - if there's one thing libs can't stand, it's the BBC singling out ethic groups.

Ditto, this:
There are fears from some that it will play into the hands of Right-wing groups like the BNP, by portraying white people as victims. One of the programmes, All White In Barking, will focus on a BNP activist.
This is so not the time for libs to be complaining about the BBC's relations with extremists. At least no one got blown up this time.


This is a great quote.

Monday, February 25, 2008

They're Killing The People The British Just Won't Kill

You know there's something gone seriously wrong when we're even having to import Life Cessation Engineers.

Police Screw Up D'Jour

You know what'll solve this ? Grabbing everyone in the world's DNA.

Actually, joking apart, read through to the end and see what the police's bold new idea really is: set up a special pen-pushing task force - same as every other time.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Another Inspiring NHS Story

It's like the dead parrot sketch in reverse. You'd think even the NHS would be able to diagnose death, but no - and all this before 'presumed consent' as well.

More Pretendey Hate Crimes

While British liberals are so short of actual hate crimes that they're reduced to inviting pyromaniacs round for tea, their Canadian counterparts have cut out the mentally-unstable middle man, and moved on up to straightforward auto-victimisation.

Outrage D'Jour: Safety At Work (Felons) Act 2008 Edition

Talking of state-sponsored lawlessness, PC Plod's continuing his jihad against that whole 'right to self-defence' thing. How come none of the civil liberties freaks are ever steamed about a law that all but requires innocent citizens to lay down their life or face years of legal harassment by the state ?

Oh wait...I've worked it out: they're all liberal kooks - much like the Nu Police. And again, note that no matter how much public money is wasted on pursuit of a law-abiding citizen, none of these low-lifes will so much as score a verbal reprimand.

Hey, Timmy, Can We Call These People Scumbags ?

In so far as cringe-con Tim Loughton claims social workers are only criticised because us proles are too stoopid to know 'what they actually do', I'd love to hear his supa-sofistikayted explanation for this latest outrage.

And, no, Mr Liberal, this isn't just an isolated incident of a bad judgement call:
Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled.

He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding.
So one of the doctors who caught the original case was cut out of the loop and, who'd have thunk it ? Turns out he was sceptical of the Child Snatchers' case. What are the odds, hey ?

More to the point, the Child Snatchers were only able to get away with it because they were able to operate free of public scrutiny. If they'd hadn't tried to bring a criminal case, they'd be home free. It's not often (ever) I agree with a judge, but this is exactly right:
Furthermore, the judge, Mr Justice Gillon - in an age where children are removed from their parents by family courts sitting in secret - took the extremely unusual step of allowing Louise to be named, and for the tragic details of her case to become public.

In a statement he said: "The workings of the family justice system in this case are matters of public interest, and do merit public discussion. Public confidence in the process is necessary, and the emergence of the changing circumstances of this case merits an open discussion."
But even being cleared in a court of law isn't enough for these people:
Even though she had been acquitted, the social workers appeared to ignore the verdict...

In 2005, a year after she had been acquitted, Louise had became pregnant for a third time.

She is reluctant to talk about the father, or name him, although they are no longer together - but at Christmas time, when she was heavily pregnant, the social workers called and told her they planned to take the latest addition away from her at birth.

"I couldn't believe my ears," says Louise.

"I had been declared not guilty in a criminal court - yet they still had both my children and were wanting my new baby. It was torture."
Indeed. Contempt for due process seems to be something of a theme with these people.

So there you have it: suppression of exculpatory evidence, secret tribunals, lawless state officials - and all with the Nu Tory seal of approval.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Liberal Smear Flames Out

See how restrained I've been not mentioning this guy ?
Kazmierczak, 27, who police said shot 21 people before shooting and killing himself, was an award-winning sociology student and a leader of a campus criminal justice group, according to school Web sites....

One of Kazmierczak's advisers said that she enjoyed having him as a student and that he was "a nice person; he was a nice kid."

"I found Steven to be a very committed student, extremely respectful of me as an instructor and adviser," said Jan Carter-Black, an assistant professor in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's School of Social Work

In 2006, Kazmierczak was a student at Northern Illinois, police said, where he worked on a graduate paper that described his interest in "corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice."
Well, technically speaking, he was interested in violence.

But no: it would be a cheap shot - as it were - to claim this proves that liberals' emphasis on hysterical denunciation of opponents and deranged conspiracy theories make these people more likely to engage in violence.

On the other hand, the left doesn't feel the same way about us - all of which brings me onto the question of the moment: Laban Tall, blogger or leader of a crazed arson cult ?

I'm guessing most folks are already up to speed on this, so all I have to say is that even by leftist standards it's impressive to have a smear which manages to combine lunacy, sleaze and outright humbuggery.

The first, and most important, point is that the narrative of 'brutal right-wing thugs attacking leftists' was a fraud right from the start. Plenty of these 'far right' atrocity stories sound bogus, but now we have proof this is a fraud, since we know exactly whodunnit. There couldn't have been any evidence that the 'right' was involved - we know who really set that fire - but the left tried to push the 'right-wing extremism' line anyway.

Hey, you can push Occam's razor too far, but when a centre catering to mentally-ill, drug-addicted criminals with convictions for arson gets torched, an honest observer does not normally leap to the conclusion that the aforementioned centre was the target of crazed extremists.

That's the second point: Laban's supposed extremism consisted of noting another case of leftist astroturfing. Of course it must be kind of embarrassing for those who claim to represent The People when the only people who'll speak up for them turn out to be on the payroll, but that doesn't make pointing that out extreme. Ditto, the public sector is meant to something other than a means for liberals to take in each other's washing (an AIDS centre with an 'artist in residence' - did they get confused about the whole 'drawing blood' thing ?)

Then there's the fact that the self-same liberals who claimed to deplore Laban's dreadful tactic of pointing out that liberal activists were pretending to be ordinary guys in the street, were also the only people in this story who really did use threatening language. Take the constant obsession with 'outing' Laban - presumably not so they could buy him lunch.

In other words, leftists lyingly tried to cast an isolated incident of public lunacy as an attack by the VRWC, and use this as an excuse to provoke violence against an innocent member of the public whose sole crime was to point out the left's tactic of trying to pass off hard left activists as ordinary members of the public.

These people are telling us who they are. Forget all the pious moralising about the horrors of life in the United KKKingdom, what really hashes their mellow is someone questioning their right to use the government as an ATM. Even then, it turns out the only way they can cobble together even a minimally plausible 'far right' atrocity story is to invite Archie the Arsonist round for tea and biscuits and unleaded.

The always-behind-the-curve MSM may still refer to Searchlight and their fellow thugs as 'anti-fascist', but here's their 'anti-fascism' in full flower: barmaids in Blackburn should be forced to pay to support their lifestyle, and if you don't like it, they'll try and hunt you down and kick your head in. Now why would anyone connect that world view to a propensity for violence ?

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Even More A-List Fun

Good to see former GMTV bimbo Esther McVey is keeping up the A-list's reputation for including only the finest political minds.

Talking of Call Me Dave's quest for 'a party that looks like Britney', he's been caught trying to fix the election for, of all things, the chairman of Conservative Future (a.k.a. the Dave Youth). Apparently, the World's Smartest Man has decided the winner has to be a laydee.

See ? That the kind of sophisticated political judgement that takes real brains to come up with. You can't just take some guy off the street and expect him to come up with something simultaneously so sleazy and so pathetic.

Quiz Time

Talking of the BBC's Pravda-like qualities earlier today reminded me of these guys. They're kind of like the BBC, except they don't demand money with menaces and their quizzes are better.

Liberals Proven Wrong On War Shocka!

Apparently, killing terrorists doesn't create new terrorists after all. If it did, Al Quida's Iraq franchise would be knee-deep in new recruits right about now, instead of having to recruit from the truly desperate demographic.

More Liberal Non-Moralising

It's says a lot about the left's vulcan death grip on our culture that they can get away with accusing conservatives of moralising. At least when the right 'moralises' it's about something that really is socially destructive, like the breakdown of the family. With liberals it's the other way round, the serious stuff they don't mind, but they're ready to wage war to rid the world of the scourge of bottled water.

It's not even just the humbug inherent in leftists using phrases like 'morally unacceptable'. The somewhat Orwellian-sounding natural resources commissioner announces that the government should campaign against bottled water. Huh ? Shouldn't they learn to 'move on' and 'embrace modern Britain' ? Maybe public morality isn't some free-floating phenomenon like the weather, after all ?

Whatever the answer is, it's nice to see that our state broadcaster has coincidentally just aired a program on this very same topic. What are the odds, hey ?

BBC: Pravda For The Electronic Age

There's an old Cold War joke about a drunken diplomatic party in some Third World country. The British ambassador is challenged to a race by his Soviet counterpart, which he then wins. Pravda reported the events thus: 'In a race between ambassadors yesterday, the Soviet ambassador came second, while the British ambassador was second from last.'

There's more than a hint of that style of reporting in this BBC report:
Danish arrests after youth riots

More than 20 people have been arrested in Denmark following eight consecutive nights of youth rioting and vandalism across the country, police say.
Dang! Those pesky yoots again! What's wrong with kids today ?

But wait... by the time we get to paragraph four, we get this:
It is not clear what triggered the riots. Reports say the youths - mainly with immigrant backgrounds - have been accusing police of harassment.
Immigrants ? But from where ?

Nope - we need to wait two more paragraphs before we get this:
Some observers say last week's reprinting by Danish newspapers of a cartoon satirising the Prophet Muhammad might have fuelled the riots.
Well, y'know, we'd know if that was true or not if we knew who was rioting...

The BBC can't even leave it there, managing one last kick at the idea of journalistic ethics:
The publication came a day after Denmark's security services arrested three Muslims suspected of plotting to kill one of the cartoonists.
Say, what a coincidence! It's almost like cause & effect, right ? Some kind of protest against thuggish attempts to muzzle the press.

Oops, apparently not - that interpreation would kind of cut the legs from under the Islamopaths claim to victimhood, so down the memory hole it goes.

Best Headline Ever ?

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The BBC: Sketchy Reporting

This report from the BBC has to be read to be believed. If dhimmitude was water, central London would be flooded right about now. Check out the opening lines:
Hundreds of Danish Muslims have been demonstrating in Copenhagen against the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad they consider offensive.

The cartoon depicts the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.

All major Danish newspapers decided to republish it after Danish intelligence said it had uncovered a plot to kill one of the cartoonists.
'Republish it' ? 'One of the cartoonists' ? Just how many cartoonists does it take to draw a cartoon ? But wait... I've just checked. Turns out there were twelve cartoons after all, and yes, the Islamopaths hated all of them, even the one with Mo as a little stick man. It's not about particular content, these people claim an omnibus right to censor any output from Infidels. It's kind of subtly hinted at in slogans like this:
Protesters marched in the capital's streets shouting "God is Great!" and "Freedom of speech is like a plague!".
No mention of bombs in turbans there. Then again....
Many carried the black and white flags of Hizb ut-Tahrir - the radical Islamic party that calls for the creation of a caliphate.
Yep, these guys. Well, y'know, if the cartoons can get even folks as chilled out as these guys all het up, well, they must be offensive.

You are reminded that we're talking about a BBC report here - the organisation that, without fail, labels everyone vaguely right of centre as 'conservative'. Isn't the fact that the driving force behind the alleged 'cartoons' protest is a group of off-the-scale Islamofascists also relevant ?
Earlier, at Friday prayers, Danish Muslims from many backgrounds expressed frustration that one of the cartoons they find so offensive could have been printed again.
'Frustration' ? Anything else ? Any other reaction ?
Many said they simply could not understand the motive unless it was hatred for Islam.
They must have been reading the BBC then (except, what with all those banners mentioning 'freedom of speech', it seems like they have grasped the issue after all).
But the overwhelming mood was not so much anger but weary resignation; a sense that they have been through this crisis once before and nothing has been learnt.
Yes, indeed. Those pesky Danes just won't learn their lesson, and submit to life as dhimmis. Somehow, the word 'implied' is not strong enough to capture the full weight of just how crudely the BBC is trying to suggest that cringing surrender is the enlightened position. Ditto, this bit:
Some Danish Muslims said they felt the problem was not the Danish people who were, if not well informed about Islam, at least generally liberal.
Hmmm... is there any evidence of a correlation between knowing the ins and outs of murdering Mo's death cult, and being pro-Islamic ? Or maybe the BBC's finally come out of the closet and admitted that snivelling absement is the default position of the 'generally liberal' ?
Instead, they pointed the finger of blame at the Danish media, saying it had stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations
File that under true confessions: our state broadcaster thinks the role of the media in a democratic society is to 'mend community relations'. That explains a lot.
On Tuesday, Denmark's Security and Intelligence Service said it had uncovered a plot by three Muslims in Denmark to kill one of the cartoonists.
I'm guessing the BBC was this close to accusing the Security and Intelligence Service of being in on this plot to stir controversy.
Two of the men, who are not Danish citizens, are due to be expelled to Tunisia rather than put on trial.

Many Danish Muslims criticised this decision, saying it would be better to examine the evidence and punish the men if they were really guilty.
Say, how come these moderate Muslims keep siding with murderous lunatics ? Don't expect the BBC to tell us. Ditto, don't hold your breath waiting to hear from any Danes - that's the end of the article.


Mark Steyn points out the essentially bogus nature of liberal tolerance. The left's support for multiculturalism is predicated on the idea that everyone else in the world is just like them, but with funny hats.

As Steyn says, our supposedly crude and imperialist ancestors at least did the locals the courtesy of learning about their actual culture. Meanwhile, liberals can only understand those pesky foreigners through the prism of their own preconceptions - which is how we end up with Senator Patty Murray praising Bin Laden's sterling work building day care centres for all those women busy juggling family and career under the Taliban.

In other words, liberal multiculturalism is actually kind of monocultural. Liberals simply can't analyse the outside world as anything other than an extension of their own parochial obsessions - as perfectly exemplified by Michael Moore's peevish complaint that the Sep 11 hijackers attacked blue states instead of red ones. Moore really can't see the war with Islamofascists as anything other than America's internal struggles writ large. Besides, who even believes in all that 'religion' stuff these days anyway ?

Outrage D'Jour

Lenin was wrong - the West won't sell our enemies the rope to hang us with - we'll give them it free.

Says It All Really

Actual Feminist Sighted

As opposed to the professional femiloons, who come down firmly on the other side here.

It's Totally Socialism, But, Like, Not

Mr E points out another case of liberal family values. As one of his commentors said, what exactly was the Guardian's beef with Derek Conway again ?

SIlence Peasants! Your Betters Speak

I've said it before and doubtless I'll say it again, but the bizarre thing about the Cameroonatics is not just that they're consistently appalling, but that they're always appalling in new and innovative ways. Which brings me neatly onto Tim Loughton, Tory shadow cabinet member who's just spoken out in favour of social workers.

No, I'm not kidding, and yes, it can get worse:
Social workers are too often vilified for creating problems rather than given due credit for the work they do with the vulnerable, a senior Conservative politician said today.
Much as drunk drivers are often vilified for the crashes they cause, rather than praised for all the times when they make it home safely.

But that's not even the best of it:
Tim Loughton, the shadow children's minister, told the National Children's Services Commissioning Conference in London that social workers are caricatured as a result of general ignorance about what they actually do.
Please. The left has been pushing the line for forty years, the argument that liberalism may seem like a brutal, thuggish abomination, but that's only cause you people are too stoopid to appreciate its finer points.

In so far as seriously believing this argument would seem to undercut the case for any kind of accountability, it's a fundamentally anti-democratic and even fascistic one. It's depressing beyond belief to hear this stuff from a member of any party, even a Cameron-led one, with 'conservative' in its title.
Loughton, who also chairs the Conservatives' commission on social work, attacked what he described as the "deeply corrosive situation where too many social workers are seen as part of the problem rather than an integral part of the solution".
So the problem isn't politically-motivated fanatics destroying lives to make trivial political points, it's the corrosive effect of people accurately reporting on what they do. Ah yes!
He told the conference, which is supported by the Guardian, that recent research by the General Social Care Council found only 40% of the population see the contribution of social workers to society as "very important".
Yes, the vast majority of the public hate them, so clearly there's something wrong with the public. How's that for a perfect microcosm of 21st Century European democracy ?
"This is perhaps unsurprising when another survey found that more than half understood little or nothing about what social work involves," said Loughton.
Well, y'know, we might not know the ins and outs, but a thug's a thug.
"Misconceptions are too often fuelled by stereotyped social worker characters as they appear in the media, ranging from slightly alternative liberal busybodies to out-and-out child snatchers.
The media let Victoria Climbie die rather than be seen to be imposing British values ? Who knew ? Well, either that or - and I admit this would be really stupid - he's criticising the press for accurately reporting stuff that happens (I told you these people hated democracy).
"Invariably they are panned, either for turning up too late after some terrible fate has befallen a vulnerable child or for intervening too early as the agents of 'nanny state'.
So the answer to the charge that the average social work department is completely unfit for purpose is to point out that not only do they let the innocent die, they also destroy families on fatuous grounds.

Well, I'm reassured.

We're back with our drunk driver, explaining how he understeered on one corner and hit a parked car, then oversteered on the next and went through a hedge, so overall he was driving OK.
Even children's computer games portray the appearance of the social worker as a 'game over' moment."
As opposed to real life, where care homes are proverbial for turning out well-adjusted young citizens.
Mounting a robust and, for a Conservative politician, eye opening defence of social work, he said little was heard about how many families are living in difficult circumstances have been held together through the dedication and professionalism of social services.
Isn't that like the manager of the local McDonalds demanding we pay tribute to his ability to serve lots of cheeseburgers ? It's called 'doing the job you're paid for'.
"But then no one is interested in hearing about the plane that lands safely," he added. "Yet a good social worker is as crucial to the wellbeing of vulnerable children or to the survival of damaged families as a doctor is to the health of his patient or a teacher to the learning chances of his pupil."
It's we're looking for aviation metaphors for social work, I'm thinking they're more towards the September 11 end of the scale. Besides, doctors rarely let their patients die rather than impose patriarchal standards of 'health' on them.
He said that in other countries, particularly in northern Europe, social workers are respected on a par with teachers, doctors and other public service professionals.
It's worse than I thought:Polly Toynbee's writing the speeches now.

Well, yes, in 'northern Europe' - possibly Europe in general - there's more inbuilt respect for the state than in Britain. Some of us think of that as a bug not a feature. With all due respect to the land of Sven and Ulrika, blind deference to officialdom does have its downsides. See, this is the kind of thing that makes people conservative - real conservatives rather than the type of conservatives who believe in the intrinsic goodness of state power - also known as 'liberals'.
"This inevitably makes for a more confident profession whose practitioners particularly question the risk-averse nature of social work in the UK," he said.
So what we have now is the result of social workers dialling down the crazee ?

I think my brain just broke from dealing with that concept, plus again with the 'huh ?' Since when did self-confident officialdom become a good thing ?
"If social workers are seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, no wonder there is concern about their morale."
And there you have it. The Tories think the public should stop holding these fanatics to account, lest we damage their morale. This isn't mere 'producer capture', this is the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
Loughton also promised that a future incoming Cameron government would not launch wholesale changes to social services but would instead look closely at how existing structures can be made to work better.

"We are not going to chuck out a whole lot of stuff that has gone before," he said. "A lot of what has happened in the last ten years has been good - there has been greater work between agencies. But we're not getting a enough bang for our buck."
Yes, indeed: vote Tory for more of the same, except more efficiently. I'll take a wild shot in the dark, and say that we'll keep hearing the time honoured phrase 'lessons will be learned'.

If nothing else, all the above nicely skewers one defence of Cameronism. Tories keep assuring us that the Cameroonatics' ideological fire sale is purely tactical in nature, that the core of the party is still conservative....

Well, no, it isn't just 'triangulation' after all. Leaving aside the remote possibility of the Millie Tants and Dave Sparts themselves voting Tory, I don't see anyone out there who was just hovering on the edge of switching their vote, but was waiting for the Tories to endorse lawless thuggery by unaccountable politically-motivated fanatics.

This speech is the perfect barometer of the Tories' ideological surrender. Not just because of specific atrocities like the aforementioned contempt for both the public at large, and the principle of democratic accountability in particular, but what it reveals about the underlying world view of this (supposedly) conservative party.

Consider Loughton's complaint that social workers have a bad reputation. Well, yes they do: it's the natural result of years of bad behaviour. The belief that bad actions should lead to bad consequences is pretty much a core conservative belief. More than that, the idea that in a healthy society there should, even must, be social consequences for dysfunctional and disruptive behaviour is an if-not-forget-it of small government.

Equally, Loughton's rhetoric betrays a tin ear for what social workers themselves say, and have been saying for quite some time. Social workers aren't well-meaning altruists just trying to 'do the right thing'. Au contrair, the majority of them are culture warriors, motivated by is a Frankensteinian mix of femilunacy, pop psychology, pink humbug and Marxoid idiocies.

To return to one of Loughton's more idiotic points, this is why we can criticise social workers for seizing kids on fatuous grounds and for leaving other kids in the hands of psychopaths. On the one hand, we have the belief that the traditional family is, by definition, an abusive environment, on the other the corollary, the promotion of the dysfunctional and the deviant as superior to those evil traditional values.

The question is whether or not politically-motivated fanatics should be allowed to destroy lives to make trivial political points ? If this strikes you as a hard question, no, you're not a conservative (oh, and one other question: why don't we need social services departments that 'look like Britain' - instead of like a fringe meeting at a Lib Dem conference) ?

Und so weiter....

To the point, the average social worker is the reification of everything that's wrong with liberalism and a conservative party that pretends our only problem is that they aren't efficient enough doesn't deserve the name.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Liberal + Truth Serum = Firestorm

People fall into three groups: those who make it happen, those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what the hell happened.

As far as the fire-storm over the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks on Sharia go, I definitely in Group III. That's not to say that I don't think his remarks were insane, just that they're just the same ol' insania. Nothing the Bish came out wasn't the logical - well, liberal anyway - extension of standard multicultural doctrines.

It's not even an Islam thing. At least as far back as the post-1981 riots era, multiculti sensitivity has been the thing. We've had a quarter century of PC Plod turning a blind eye to folks driving round with signs saying 'Road Tax Applied For In Jamaica' (and there's even a religious angle here, at least as far as it involves a certain Rasta meditation aid). And that's how the black community became the success story it is today.

Ditto, unusual though it is for a liberal to come straight out and denounce the concept of equality under law, it is the natural outgrowth of the obsession with 'diversity' in the justice system. After all, what else can all this talk of 'different viewpoints' mean, other than differing interpretations of the law depending on who gets to do the interpreting ?

Actually, that was the Archbishop's only real sin: stating liberal doctrine clearly. Liberals keep yammering about right-wing extremists, but it's not the right that has to constantly dissemble about what it really believes.

More to the point, right now, with the RoPers dialling down the insanity, 40% of them will still admit to an inquisitive Infidel stranger that they think Sharia should be imposed in Britain (real figure: who knows what ?) Add in the fact that the second most popular name for a newborn boy in Britain is Mohammed and yes, we're already on the road to Sharia.

Will The Real K W Best Please Stand Up ?

Hey, the Immigration Advisory Service has called for government to allow in thousands of immigrants from Bangladesh to ease a supposed staff shortage in the curry industry.


I guess they're serving the meals Britons just won't serve, right ? Either that or the definition of 'skilled immigrant' isn't what it sounds like. But no, get this:
It argues that attempts to get eastern Europeans to work in curry restaurants have failed because they do not have the "cultural sensitivity" required.
Not only have the open borders lobby has spent years rubbishing all talk of 'culture' as a right wing plot, the whole open borders position relies on the idea that a Somalian militia man arriving in Britain will immediately turn into a model citizen. As I understand the state of play, you can't put just anyone in a kitchen, but there's no one who isn't qualified to live in Britain.

Needless to say, every other day of the week we're bombarded with terrible stories of the social exclusion of Muslims by racists whites (who never seem to target Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians or Pakistani Christians). So which is it ? Labour shortage or mass unemployment ?

Don't expect the BBC to ask. Hell, they won't even point that, quasi-official name to the contrary, the 'Immigration Advisory Service' is not a public body, it's hard left open borders lobby group, run by convicted fraudster Keith Best. When are we going to do anything about the national shortage of journalists ?

Monday, February 11, 2008

Liberal Icon Involved In Sleaze Shocka!

Crivens! Malcolm and Cressida aren't going to like this.

That's What I Wanted To Say

A metaphor many have been grasping towards for years...
Imagine for a moment, and only for a moment, that you find yourself in 1939 America. You are by a water-cooler during a break and you hear your colleagues discussing the Nazis attacking Jewish businesses. You hear one of them say, "So what? Haven't Americans attacked Jews before? What, are we perfect?"

I know, for a moment you think you are in the Twilight Zone, so you interject, "But in Germany it is official policy that allows one to attack Jewish interests without legal consequences. In America, if such things happen, the perpetrators are arrested and punished."

Your colleagues are not impressed, "Ahhh, you're a Naziphobe and racist, what have you got against Nazis?"

You point out that the majority of Nazis either agree with Hitler's anti-Jewish Policies or say and do nothing to oppose them while in America it is only a small minority that engage in violent anti-Semitic acts and when they do they are punished. But they do not see the difference. If 99% of Nazis are evil and only 1% of Americans are evil then the two are morally equivalent.

That Don't Smell Like Smoke....

Say, does anyone know if there was some kind of fire over the weekend ? Maybe in London or something ?

Yes, indeed. Whatever the BBC's deficiencies, they're certainly well-covered on the vital 'Camden Market' beat. By the time News 24 rolled into it's seventeenth hour of coverage I was starting to detect a certain humbuggery.

If we must listen to the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular, keep yapping on about diversity, could they at least acknowledge that no one outside the M25, and probably few enough inside, actually give a toss what happens to some pretentious tat emporium ?

Here we have a chance - away from the hot button politics issues - to see what's really wrong with the MSM. The wall-to-wall coverage of a purely local story is symptomatic of the MSM's faults. There's the self-obsession, the desire to dictate the news agenda, the lack of anyone around to say 'hey, no one in Leeds cares about this stuff'. That's the central charge against the MSM, not the political bias, it's that they're just plain incompetent at their basic mission of reporting the news in the first place. Well, the news outside the M25 anyway.

Happy Fun Robbery

Shockingly, it appears less and less people are ready to stump up the cash to be berated by liberals. Fortunately for Satan's minions, they have an answer: a rebranding exercise.

In other words, to counter criticism that they're a bunch of arrogant spendthrifts, the BBC are splashing out public money to employ some yuppie scum ad agency to try and bamboozle us into thinking that being robbed is a good thing. That'll work.

Eldery Race Hustler Makes Desperate Bid For Relevance

Oh dear! Looks like someone at the BBC has finally grown a spine and yanked the feeding tube out of one of Britain's most sucessful shakedown artists:
Lenny Henry launched a scathing attack on the "Alf Garnett" generation of programme-makers last night and claimed racism still exists in TV.
Apparently racism is so deeply engrained in British TV that he can't find any examples from the last quarter century. It's that common!

Y'know, if a conservative tried to make a point by citing The Sweeney as an example of modern pop culture, we'd never hear the end of it. Maybe it's just that TV people don't want to hire a guy whose metaphors are old enough to have little metaphors of their own ?
Britain's most famous black comedian lambasted the BBC and ITV for not employing enough black staff behind the screen as well as on it.

Giving a Royal Television Society speech, he said: "TV producers of the 1960s and 1970s missed a great opportunity.
1960s and 1970s ? Yep, I'm guessing the ol' grievance mine is tapped out.
"Rather than reflect the reality of multi-ethnic Britain they chose a more xenophobic route - emphasising points of difference instead of similarities.

"If they had been more truthful in their observations, who's to say we couldn't have encouraged more young black kids at school or prevented the Brixton riots even?"
See ? He's not just another sleazy shakedown artist - giving him money will help heal our broken society.

Call it a hunch, but I'm guessing black underachievement at school might have less to do with what their grandparents watched on TV, and more with prominent black public figures tacitly excusing outbreaks of mass thuggery and continually telling kids that The Man will keep them down whatever they do.
Henry singled out 1970s comedy Till Death Us Do Part for its racist main character Alf Garnett, claiming the creation was "adopted as a hero by the very people he was satirising".

He said: "Writer Johnny) Speight tried to ensure that in each storyline, Alf came off the worst.

"But when I went to school the next morning, it was always me who came off worst.

And then I parleyed my modicum of talent and my whiny claims of victimhood into thirty years living the life of Reilly off of your licence fees
Actually, I added a bit to that quote. It's by way of making a point. OK, we'll buy into the young Lenny being traumatised by people laughing at him - at least that doesn't happen these days - but only if we can do the rest of the story, the bit about him going on to become filthy rich and having three decades plugged into the free money spigot. In Earth cultures this is known as a 'success story' but, nope, even after decades of thoroughly undeserved fame and fortune The Man is still oppressing him (and now we're back to those disengaged black kids).
Henry also criticised underrepresentation of minorities in Coronation Street and costume dramas - despite his wife, Dawn French, currently being in one - saying: "You can't move for bonnets and crinolines and the people wearing them are all white.
To say nothing of the lack of Inuits in martial arts movies.

Nope, turns out that Mr Hustler... Henry has an answer:
"By the time Queen Victoria was on the throne, this country had a sizeable black population, so where are they?"
So sizeable that no one living at the time thought to mention them. But let's pretend Henry isn't talking complete liberalism. Is he really saying that this country - the most racist evah! remember - had a large number of blacks in it back in the day, yet somehow they managed to get by without a huge race relations industry or a descent into massive criminality ? Hmmmm...... maybe homicidal insanity isn't a natural part of authentic black culture after all.
Henry told the audience that writers and producers were still using offensive discrimatory terms for other minorities - such as "chav" and "pikey".
Chavs as a victim group ? Huh ? Has this guy ever met any chavs ? Probably not - after years of living under the oppressive boot of the white power structure, Henry has somehow managed to scrape together the cash to buy a enormous place in the country - very, very far from the Hood - and from chavs too. Of course, it does mean there's one person out there ready to offer our 'travelling' friends somewhere to set up, right ?
And he called on TV bosses to use 'affirmative action' to employ more black people, adding: "And I am not talking about cleaners, security guys, scene-shifters - I am talking about decision-makers."
So the only person who's actually, provably, advocating racism in TV is Henry himself. Does recognising irony count as 'actin white' or what ?
In 2001, Greg Dyke famously described the BBC as "hideously white".

Henry said: "When I started, I was surrounded by a predominantly white workforce. Thirty two years later, not a lot has changed."
Spookily enough, Britain too is predominantly white. It's a conspiracy!

I thought these guys wanted a workforce that 'looks like Britain' ? Besides, I'm wondering if Henry sees a lot of brothers in his local village ? I guess racial arson is more rewarding when you're insulated from the consequences.

Again, back to the point I made above. This is a true rags to riches story, but no: Henry is still a really huge victim. He might have made his pile off of a mostly white audience, but Britain still sucks and whites are still scum. This goes beyond black culture's death spiral into victimhood, and it's broader than just Henry's desire to hang a 'No Natives' sign on the doors of the BBC. It's the same phenomenon Jonah Goldberg identifies here.

This where we are in the culture wars: a guy can stand up and spout insane conspiracy theories while proposing racist recruitment practices, and he's hailed for his courage in fighting racism.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Liberals 4 Immigration Control

I've always said that I don't like people talking about the 'immigration debate'. We don't object to immigration, we object to open borders. The left thinks even being a murderer is no reason to lose the right to reside, while the right thinks that we should insist, as a minimum, on the absence of homicidal insanity.

Mind you, we already know from past form that there are some people too loathsome even for liberals to let into the country. Now it turns out liberals have found another group of undesirables they want to keep away from our shores.

Yep, it took effort but the libs might just have found a victim group even less deserving of sympathy than doctors. Meanwhile, bar maids, bus drivers and painter & decorators can all suck it up. Got to keep things vibrant, doncha'know ?

Liberal Self-Awareness: Still Not Getting Any Better

The BBC Pioneers continue their cataloguing of the revolving door between the BBC and Labour, including this classic quote from Martin Sixsmith, during his spat with the Blair:
"Over the 10 years since 1997 there has been this chipping away at the confidence of the civil service, and I don't think it's the impartial, honest organisation it used to be....."
Yep, Mart, y'know, there's a lot of it about....

Civil Liberties 101

What Worries Civil Liberties Freaks: Surveillance on a terror 'suspect' (ho, ho!) picks up a meeting between the scumbag-in-question and an MP

What Doesn't Worry Civil Liberties Freaks: Agents of the state kidnap a newborn child without any legal authority whatsoever.

See ? I don't know why anyone thinks these people are a bunch of liberal kooks.

Mind you, I am just shocked to find that a surveillance operation aimed at dangerous subversives ended up taping a Labour MP. Seriously though, you have to question the strategy here: if they wanted to catch him making pro-terrorist statements they should have just listened to his speeches.

Needless to say, even the folks responsible for all manner of weird and wonderful interpretations of human rights laws can't find any actual law that have been broken. The nearest the left can get is a weenie convention from the Sixties that only mentions phone tapping and commits the government not to do it, unless they really need to, in which case they'll inform Parliament, sometime.

Call it a hunch, but I'd guess an MP hanging out with the mad bomber is what these guys had in mind when they made the language used so flexible - and that's before you consider the likely response if conservatives started citing conventions from forty years ago. We'd be accused of wanting to chain homosexuals to the kitchen sink and force women back into the closet. Or something.

I guessing we're not allowed to ask what it means when a supposed moderate pals around with jihadis, and I'll guess we're definitely not allowed to wonder what it means that Mr Moderate has no qualms about revealing this to the public. Say what you like about MPs, but they're masters of reading public opinion. I guess his constituents must be equally moderate, right ?

Meanwhile, even as liberals revel in ostentatious angst over the fact the security services treats MPs like ordinary people (socialism's not as straightforward as you'd think), the case of the Nottinghamshire baby napping disappears down the memory hole.

Let's check the scorecard here: agents of the state tapping what the victim assures us was just a conversation with an old pal: scandal! Agents of the state abducting a child: business as usual.

If nothing else, in so far as the left has reconciled themselves to the idea of an unrepresentative and unaccountable group of fanatics, protected from public scrutiny, using the power of the state to destroy families, could they at least stop warning darkly about the 'thin end of the wedge' and the like - we're pretty much up to the middle of the wedge by now. Ditto, they can drop the portentous references to Pastor Niemoller as well. For the average citizen, if they do come for you, they're more likely to be social workers than anyone in the security services.