Oil/Water, Left/Right, Liberals/Self-Awareness

The left is super sulky about GB News, accusing it of stoking bigotry and prejudice. True, GB News hasn't actually made any programs yet, but leftists just know what those people are like. 

Nope, the left much prefers the BBC, which works hard to build social cohesion and racial unity... by covering racial atrocity stories from over a quarter of a century ago. 

As you do. 

(Say, does anyone know who was PM when this groundbreaking initiative to tackle racism happened anyway? The Guardian normally mentions this sort of thing). 

Still, you have to admire the flexibility of the Guardian: it recounts lurid stories of racial harassment from back in the day then seamlessly pivots to pointing out that the lack of this harassment now just means white people are still totes raciss but in a different way. 

Think of it as the Full Metal Jacket rule:

Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC! 

And yet the Guardian claims to be shocked - shocked - that white police officers make sure to get all their ducks in a row before dealing with black subordinates. Really?

Why might that be Guardian?

More to the point though, what is the Guardian really complaining about? Black officers are bought up on disciplinary charges then cleared. And? Doesn't that mean 'the system works'? Isn't that what the left always tells us when people on the right are targeted by deranged PC witchhunts? They might have had their reputation ruined, have run up six figures legal bills and spent the better part of two years with their lives on hold but, hey - they were cleared in minutes just as soon as the jury got involved, so stop whining you wimps!

Make a note of the date the Guardian published this piece. It's the closest we'll ever get to them admitting that the right was right and yes, indeed, the process is the punishment....

High Priest Loses Faith

Guido is uncharacteristically gentle with the now-ex Cameron groupie Peter Oborne when he deserves much worse, and not just because Oborne's rose-tinted specs only seem to come out with MPs from a certain demographic.

Oborne is shocked - shocked - to find sleaze going on here, but who was hiding that from Petey in the first place? On the contrary, Oborne spent years writing about the question marks over Cameron's integrity. Which is to say he spent years sliming anyone who raised questions about Cameron's integrity. Now he's finally where the bumpkins and bigots got to years ago, he wants us to admire his integrity.

Oborne wasn't just wrong about Cameron, he was the opposite of right. You'd have been better off listening to just about anyone in the conservative base instead of Certified Deep Conservative Thinker Peter Oborne.

Even now Oborne doesn't get it. The Coulson thing doesn't just undermine Cameron's moral posturing, it also undercuts the main excuse for Cameronism in the first place. We were assured that whatever Cameron's ideological shortcomings, he was a political genius. Now he's landed himself in a completely unnecessary scandal, where's all that genius gone?

Planet of the Conspiracy Nuts

Say what you like about Russell T Davis, but at least his latest effusions are thought-provoking, even if the thought is 'hey, I never knew his stuff was ghost-written by a drunk, homeless guy'.

Second thought: how come whenever ones of the staff at the ever-unbiased BBC goes feral, they all go feral in the self-same way? They never suddenly announce that Cast Iron Dave should slash housing benefit and use the savings to bolster the RAF, or that we should have our own Second Amendment. No, it's always some guy who think the right is, like, totally evil.

Where's the diversity?

On the plus side, at least he is unusually candid about how he reached his diagnosis: he thinks the right is too harsh on media luvvies. Yep, these people are all about the hospitals & schools & long lunches at chintzy restaurants. He probably thinks the right are selfish too, all poncing round Barnsley with their coal-mining friends.

But that's not it. Liberals have always been leeches. No, the real question is this: in so far as the head honcho has now outed himself as an off-the-scale loon, are you still a tin-foil hatted kook if you complain about liberal bias in his shows?

Church of Liberalism Rocked By Murderous Priest Scandal

And talking of elite articles of faith that never actually stand up to scrutiny, loveable scallywag Learco Chindamo is back in the pen. What are the odds, hey?

Probaly quite a bit better than any of those sneery creeps who defend the rehab industry ever retracting all those editorials denouncing anyone who questioned the whole farce as some kind of tabloid-poisoned peasant driven mad by a combination of cheap lager and daytime TV.

Yes, and they can stow all that 'the dog ate my resources' garbage too. This case, just like Jon Venables, was another flagship case, with guaranteed public scrutiny. If Chindamo had gone on to win the Nobel prize or a VC, we'd never had heard the end of it. Instead, it turns out that rehab works perfectly, except in every case we ever hear about.

Again, I repeat, in so far as elite opinion demands faith in something which keeps failing every time we look at it, in what sense is this the smart position to take?

Quote of the Day

Janet Daly gets it mostly right:

George Osborne – who was once a proud Eurosceptic himself – has rounded on the sceptic tendency within his own party. “I told you so,” he says sulkily, “is not an economic policy.”

Well, no but it’s a start. It is, in the present crisis, a necessary precondition for any realistic economic policy: we need some brutal honesty here about the staggering mendacity and utter stupidity of those who concocted this conspiracy against the peoples of Europe, this folie de grandeur which appeared to be based on ideological wishful thinking and economic illiteracy. Those of us who were pilloried and ridiculed by the political establishment of the day and its camp followers at the BBC are demanding apologies, not because we enjoy the sight of people on their knees (well, maybe we do in this case) but because we want definitive proof that the lessons have been learnt.

The thing is, if the Certified Super Geniuses keep screwing up, in what sense are they actually, y'know, smart?

The fabulousness of the Euro wasn't some side issue these guys occasionally referred to in passing. Until five minutes ago you couldn't shut these guys up about the single currency. More to the point, the whole Euro thing was a litmus test: there were the smart people who supported the Euro and then there were the knuckle-dragging morons too thick to get it.

Anyone who claimed the Emperor was 100% deficient in the drapery department was told in no uncertain terms that he was, in fact, clad in a very finely-woven cloth. Now it turns out that there really was no there there, we're still morons for being crude enough to point it out. Win , lose or draw, it turns out these people are better than us.

Top Gear > Liberalism

Back to a central theme of this blog: conservatives conceding the intellectual high ground to liberals even where it's the left's position that's stupid and bigoted.

Consider this latest example.

Yes, indeed: no longer blindly enforcing arbitrary limits does not, in fact, cause the streets to look like a Mad Max movie. Who'd have thunk it?

Just about everyone in the country actually. The liberal media cast critics of their goofy auto jihad as crazed boy racers, but now it turns out that it was Professor Smugentool and pals that were full of it after all.

Just what definition of intelligence are we using here?

Shock New Report: Britain Sux!!!!!!

On the plus side, I think we can now safely say beyond a shadow of doubt that liberals hate Britain. What other interpretation is there for the reverence with which the BBC reports on this load of old pony?

Anti-British psychopaths led by a member of a foreign cult blew up British citizens, and this proves Britain sucks? Even from first principles, that'd be a stretch, but the logic on show makes 'I wouldn't start from here' sound like genius:

Al Hutchinson's report, published on Tuesday, found that by acquiescing to a deal between the government and the Catholic Church to move Fr Chesney to a parish in the Irish Republic, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was guilty of a "collusive act".

He said this had compromised the investigation and the decision "failed those who were murdered, injured or bereaved" in the bombing.

Hey, think how the bombers feel: they missed out on the chance to become Ministers of the Crown like Machine Gun McGuinness and pals.

Seriously, let's check the scorecard here: police follow the lead of the elected government in 1972 and go easy on Father O'Semtex = Bad Pigs! Headcases holding public office right now = hooray for the peace process!

Apparently, there's appeasement and there's appeasement!

Meanwhile, liberals supported the IRA all the while it was murdering civilians, but now it's all moot, they claim what they actually meant was 'let justice be done though the heavens fall'.

For further evidence of humbuggery, consider the BBC's description of Sinn Fein as 'the political party closely identified with the IRA'. That's how the BBC describes them right now. In 1972 the police were under political pressure and dealing with a background of sectarian lunacy, what's the BBC's excuse?

Indeed, if there're any parallels between 1972 and modern life, they lie mainly with the BBC's determination to duck the tough questions.

All of which leads to the wider issue: for years the left in general, and the BBC in particular, depicted Ulster Unionists as crazed bigots with some wacky, irrational fear of Irish Catholicism. Now we know the truth: the Catholic Church in Ireland was exactly what the Unionists said it was. True, the bowler hat thing is kind of weird, and the Pope probably isn't the Anti-Christ after all, but objecting to being ruled by people who think True Christianity means murder and ethnic cleansing, well, that used to be what the Left claimed to stand for.

But that was in the old days, before the Left was born again and liberals learned to accept the joy of hating Britain into their lives.

Da Moreonz Wuz Rite

On the plus side, I guess we now know why the Legal-Welfare complex was so anxious to stop anyone reporting on the case of John Venables, the completely rehabilitated murderer now back in jail.

Yes, indeed: Venables has gone down for nonceitude, and plenty of would-be emperors are facing a charge of indecent exposure.

Hell, even after Venables got picked up and the story of his drug-fuelled odyssey of violence started to leak out, our betters were busily explaining how, while they found these allegations 'troubling', one should resist the temptation to be seduced by the partial and subjective reporting of the so-called 'tabloids' into somehow questioning the carefully-calibrated process of...

GUILTY!

The results are in, and it turns out that the tabloid-reading, coupon-clipping, Ford-driving, Tesco-shopping, chip eating, TV watching, semi-owned-on-a-mortgage-dwelling scum were right. 100%, take it the bank, straight in the x-ring, bang on. Our self-appointed betters? Not so much.

All of which raises a philosophical question: if all the alleged super-geniuses were wrong, in what sense are they actually smart? Isn't superior cerebral functioning meant to prevent you talking rubbish?

Then again, there was always an essential tautology in their arguments: if you believed in the rehab industry, you were clearly super-smart, because only super-smart people could understand why the rehab industry was worth supporting.

Ah huh!

Now, in a carefully-controlled experiment, Certified Liberal Big Brains were given a metaphorical, and indeed literal, blank cheque to rehabilitate a loveable scallywag, and it all went a bit Pete Tong. Then they lied about it for years on end, claiming Brer John was both being closely monitored and under tight parole conditions - neither of which can possibly be true in the light of his ability to indulge in a consequence-free, coked-up brawlathon.

Indeed, the readiness of liberals to proclaim their faith in rehab, even absent any actual scientific basis, confirms what we always knew: liberalism really is a Godless cult.

All of which throws new light on liberal criticism of real religion. Transmutation might sound a little strange, but it's no sillier than maintaining that a convicted killer who gets out of his face on drugs and brawls his way round the one city he's banned from, is actually a pillar of the community. More to the point though, I guess it wraps it up for the whole 'paedo priests' thing.

The charge against the Catholic Church is that instead of punishing pervert priests they preferred to send them to therapy, then move them to a different parish where they could strike again. Sound familiar?

Of course, there is one obvious difference: in one case therapy was based on a load of superstitious nonsense, in the other it was based on Christianity. Then there's the other thing: at least the Church didn't announce that any pervert priests it moved where obviously completely cured and anyone who said otherwise was clearly some kind of subhuman monkey.

And let's not forget the other unlovely member of the hipster's pantomime cow. Yes, indeed: libertarians claim people should hire their own air force, crack should be available over the counter and the Royal Mail is part of a conspiracy to get people used to state employees intruding on their property. Meanwhile, state employees bleed the tax payer dry to provide bogus therapies, release dangerous lunatics out onto the streets, then lie about it for years?

Nope, nothing of interest there.

Consistent libertarians might claim it says something about the untrustworthy nature of state employees operating behind closed doors, but that would means rubbing ideological shoulders with the proles. Nope, if it came to a choice between opposition to statism and class loyalty to their fellow elitists, that was never going to be a tough one for libertarians.

The bottom line is that this is issue is the perfect microcosm of the divide in modern politics. For years the right - the real right - has allowed liberals to cast this as a debate between the unenlightened rabble and the sofiticayted elite. We were assured that the ability to put sneer quotes around words like 'evil' was, in and of itself, a brilliant argument. Meanwhile, to suggest that some things really were beyond the pale was evidence of near-retardation.

The point is not just that the right was right - these days, that pretty much goes without saying - it's that the left wasn't just wrong, their whole claim to intellectual supremacy was based on pseudo-scientific drivel and outright fraud. Liberalism is Scientology without Tom Cruise.

The Paras Killed Stephen Lawrence

They said if I wasted a vote on UKIP, a military hating freak might get into No 10 and they were right!

Yes, indeed: an enquiry set up to appease leftist fanatics and grievance farmers, headed by a liberal judge and making up the rules as it went along has found that everything the Left ever said is right. Who'd have thunk it?

Besides, any enquiry that involves this guy is clearly well-founded.

The Good Doctor reminds us of the previous winner of 'Best in Show':

Perhaps the fact that the inquiry was open to the public had something to do with the nature of the resulting report. The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation....

At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote. A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when one Mr. Gompertz, the counsel for the police, was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely Mr. Gompertz desisted.” In short, only the accused could be questioned.

This is how the left rewrites history: they wait until all the sane people have died, got old or otherwise moved on with their lives, next they hire Judge Skippy to hold an enquiry to prove that everything they said is right, then they announce that the subject is closed and it's time to 'move on'.

Give it twenty years and Judge Euan Blair will be presiding over an enquiry into the Orgreave Massacre of striking miners by Thatcher's SS.

All of which shows how useless our nation's Certified Conservatives actually are. Every time the left announces one of these bogus enquiries, they fall for it hook line and sinker. They're like Charlie Brown trying to kick that ball, while Lucy the Leftist suddenly announces that solicitors for the nominated patsy will only be allowed to question witnesses through the medium of mime.

Still, in its own way, it's kind of reassuring that no matter how predictably awful the mass of career conservatives are, The Great Dave always manages to find new and exciting ways to be even worse. The only good thing you can say about Cameron's Jane Fonda act is that at least we're not engaged in any wars at the moment. Otherwise, throwing the Army under the bus would be the height of irresponsibility.

Hey, I guessing this means all this grovelling to the left wasn't just about The Electability after all. Prime Minister Dave turns out to be just like Candidate Dave, and his whole philosophy of government is of public office as the continuance of campaigning by other means.

But while we're on the subject, I'd like to follow Dave's example and apologise to the nation for the Tories electing this pillock as leader. True, I've never been a party member, don't know how the Party's organised and think 90% of the members are drones, but that doesn't mean I can't sincerely pay tribute to these fine upstanding citizens, aside from their role in helping to destroy our nation.

Of course, some may say I'm being a little harsh but, fortunately, as Chairman of the House of Dumb Inquiry Into Actual Conservatism, I rule their evidence 'inadmissible'.

More seriously though, this case is just another example of the toxic nature of Cameronism.

We're supposed to admire how Cameron's nifty theft of the left's talking points has neutralised the political effects of Saville's ranting, but consider the wider issues - aside from stabbing the troops in Helmand in the back.

Saville claimed that the troops - acting as agents of a democratically-elected government in support of local law enforcement - acted provocatively by entering an area that a bunch of thugs in balaclavas had decided should be a no go area for cops. Moral equivalence isn't even the half of it. Any public servant accepting the supposed right of lunatics to declare de facto independence from the rule of law would be bizarre, but a judge? And if it's provocative to insist that the law is enforced everywhere in the country, why can't the Paras opt from Saville's nasty witch hunt, held years after the fact?

It turns out that the medium is the message. Whether it's Macpherson announcing that the lack of any evidence of racism is itself proof of racism, Saville claiming that there's no reason to believe a terrorist with a tommy gun was up to no good, or any of the other bazillion atrocities against reason over the last few years, the common theme is the left's ability to force through its own narrative as the accepted version of events. The whole point of these freaky show trials is that even as they debase the justice system, they establish the left as the guys who own the mint.

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

Zoe Williams in the Guardian 04/03/2010:

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

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

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

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

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

MSM Journalist Admits: We Suck!

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

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

Nigerians On A Plane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad News: his reasoning is a complete train wreck.

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

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

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

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

Or we could just kick them off the bench?

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

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

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

Race Hustling Pseudo-Con In Fraud Shocka!

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

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

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

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

They Probably Think Elvis Is Dead Too!

Conspiracy theorists, hey? What will they think of next?

Police are arresting innocent people in order to get their hands on as many DNA samples as possible, senior Government advisers revealed last night.

Who'd have thunk it? Apart from 'everyone', anyway.

They have a genuinely good idea, too:

They also called for all police - including support staff - to place their own DNA on the national database in a show of solidarity with a public being routinely placed under suspicion.

Hey, why not? Suck it up Plod, I make that a lawful order under Section 7 of the Sauce For The Goose Act (2009)

Actually, no, that won't work. In so far as police officers have been shown to have deprived citizens of their liberty on bogus grounds so as to obtain their DNA unlawfully, merely requesting DNA from serving officers won't work. No, siree, Jack: at the least, they should be seized at random on their days off and held in cells for 72 hours before their DNA is taken, just to level things up.

A Few Quick Comments On B-BBC

.... since, hey, it's not like I can comment over there. Not without Bill Gates stopping by to talk me through it so away we go:

That Was Then, This Is Now: Two weeks ago, the Beeboids were explaining in their usual charming way that, doh!, of course they didn't cover some stories. Obviously, their job was to filter the news, and only report truly important stuff.

Now suddenly, it turns out that they're just simple reporters, and so they report the news without comment, even if it's obviously garbage.

Guess That Wraps It Up For The Human Rights Act: Yes, indeed: Beeboids do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time slobbering over dictatorships. But how come all this never applies to Britain? After all, the NHS is 'the envy of the world' so we should be able to get by with even less rights than Cuba. We certainly have plenty enough social problems, but Universal Shami is never off the BBC. So how about it Beeboids? How about we take the kind of bold, decisive action the Chinese government is rightly famous for and string up the Law Lords before they invent another 600 human rights?

Context Now Racist: Wasn't it great to hear every Radio 2 news bulletin yesterday report that French Police had cleared a refugee camp of 'men, women and children'?

Seriously, when have you ever heard that phrase used outside of a war crime or similar atrocity?

In fact, the BBC was so anxious to cast this as an Oradour Sur Glane for the new century, they went with this line even though there weren't, strictly speaking, any women there.

Of course, it would be tempting to wonder how the BBC's bonkers invocation of the 'men, women and children' line meshes with its normal, snooty attitudes about bloggers and their 'inflammatory' language. But that would be to neglect the other chunk of humbug: what about the all-important context that professional journalists are supposed to supply, as opposed to the nasty 'shoot from the lip' world of blogging? Or, to put it another way, how come no one mentioned this?

Hey, that right there exposes the left's line as a load of bull. These people weren't cutesey victims who just wanted to make a life for themselves in Britain. Staggeringly enough, it turns out that illegal immigrants are criminals with absolutely no respect for our nation's laws or its people. The BBC chose not to suppress this story because, even in the BBC bubble, they know that complaining that our 'cruel' immigration laws keep sexual predators out of the country is not a winning strategy.

Inflammatory

What I want to know is why, if it's the right that's stoopid, it's the left that keeps falling for obvious hoaxes.

Actually, one reason might be that truth has never been a big seller with the left. As Ross points out, when it comes to racial incidents, reality is purely incidental. Still, that does raise one important point.

The left has spent years whining about supposedly inflammatory language - even to the point of absurdity - but now we have a case of an extremist who really is trying to stir up trouble with a fraudulent atrocity story and it turns out the bad guys are the ones who are pointing that out. Apparently, inflammatory language is OK providing you don't use it to describe stuff that actually happened.

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

I can't help thinking that in so far as liberals keep telling us that 'open borders' is a myth, wouldn't screening out murderous lunatics be pretty much a basic requirement for a functioning immigration system?

Today's Non-Mainstreaming Story

Like the man says, this case is beyond satire. Still, three things bear repeating.

Firstly, we have another entry for the 'Tory cuts' file. The left keeps telling uas that any cutbacks in government spending means people dying in the streets, then we find that the taxpayer is stumping up for aphrodisiacs for perverts.

Second, there's this from probation service spokesman John McAngus:

We could not and would not restrict the use of prescription medication, be it Viagra or anything else. What we do is our utmost to help sex offenders address their offending behaviour.

Hmmmm.... so absent 'offending behavior' - I think he means child molestation - what would be the other use for Viagra?

I'm kind of getting a mixed message here. We told parents shouldn't worry about known perverts walking the streets because they're closely monitored by Brer John and pals, but now it turns out an unrepentant predator has been stockpiling powerful aphrodisiacs and that's just yawnerooney.

All of which brings me onto my final point: this is a perfect example of liberal projection. You can't open the paper without seeing some hipster douche whining about so-called 'paedo panic'. Well, here we have one of the poor, suffering nonces and it turns out he's not only been allowed to offend again and again, public servants are all but acting as his accomplices. Or, to put it another way, everything the right said was, well, right. Meanwhile, the hipsters are whining about non-existant atrocities committed against paediatricians. Just who's peddling hysteria and myths here?

Unicorn Arrested!

Not really - it's the even-rarer creature, the sexual predator released to strike again.

At least, I assume they're rare, judging by the way the hipsters whine and complain when anybody raises this issue. See, now I'm wondering - are we still lager-swilling idiots, sucking our brains out with daytime TV, or is the fact that this kind of thing keeps happening exactly as we predicted proof that it might just be our eye-rolling pals who are the idiots?

This isn't passive smoking or mobile phone towers. A dangerous predator was set free and struck again almost immediately. Conclusion: releasing predators is a bad idea.

At this point you're probably wondering just what kind of idiot judge could set a known predator free. Well, keep wondering:

The judge, who cannot be named for legal reasons....

Hey, I think the idea of giving convicted criminals anonymity is an legal and moral outrage, but judges? These people hold public office but we're not to know how they choose to perform their duties? Say what?

Like I keep saying, judicial independence means independence from political influence, it doesn't mean independence from the wider culture. Judges are meant to reflect the common morality, not just the warped morality of our fashionably disengaged hipster class. Still, in so far as they feel the need to hide behind anonymity, at least they can't deny knowing where the public really stands on this issue.