A Loser Speaks

Yowser! 82% of the public support the Conservative Party's proposed immigration reforms. Normally, you can't get that much agreement on whether the Sun will rise in the East. Amusingly enough though, support falls when people are told that these are Tory policies. Who'd have thunk that associating an idea with a cesspit of sleazy, vile, corrupt, amoral, perverted, snobbish, treasonous, lazy, deadbeats would tarnish it ?

You may be able to guess which aspect of this the ever-unbiased Beeb emphasises. Equally, experienced Beeb watchers should be able to guess who they went to for a quotation on this situation. Yep - if you guessed Stephen Norris, you are a WINNER. .. Oops best make that 'Leading Tory Steve Norris'. Leading what exactly ? The 'Association of Media-Friendly Potemkin Conservatives' ?
Anyway, Norris sez what the Conservatives really need is a fat, fatuous Northern Uncle Tom to show that they're "different from the party of the past". Considering that the Party of the past won elections, it seems like they're already doing a pretty good job of differentiating themselves.

Needless to say, the not-so-great man's prescriptions are equally asinine. "I worry that some of the issues prioritised so far, like immigration and tax cuts, are designed to appeal to our loyal supporters and won't be enough to persuade the unconvinced." I mean, excuse me Fat Boy, but 82%! Either Tory core support is a lot larger than you'd think, or Norris defines an 'unconvinced voter' as a pot-smoking social worker in Lambeth. Or possibly Norris's talking garbage. Again.

How exactly is Norris qualified to talk about winning over voters anyway ? Norris is the living embodiment of the media/human divide, he's feted in the press as the very model of what the Conservative Party should be, but every time actual, real people get a chance to give their verdict on him, they give him a good kicking. The Conservatives are the biggest party in the London Assembly and they have MEPs in London, so there's no reason why a Conservative can't win, yet every time Norris goes for it, he gets annihilated. Those little sermons about electability would have a lot more credibility if he could ever get, y'know, elected.

Amusing though it is to consider the Grand Canyon size chasm between Norris's posturing and his actual achievements, we shouldn't let the epic scale of his failures blind us to the absurdity of his actual points. Norris would have us believe that we live in a post-ideological world, where the public is turned off by conviction politicians, in favour of politics as therapy and managerialism. Hey - there's not much you can say in favour of Ken Livingstone, but at least he's no Tony Blair. Not only is Livingstone an unabashed moonbat, but his most significant (nay, only) achievement in his first term was to introduce a whole new tax on commuters. If you wanted to test the hypothesis that the public prefers touchy-feely managers over angry and divisive ideologues, then you couldn't do better than a match-up between Norris and Livingstone. So far, the experiment been carried out twice, and both times Norris has been exposed as a flatulent babbler.

Here's the bottom line: Conservatism is popular, Conservatives aren't, so Norris has decided that the answer is to throw ideas overboard and base strategy on charm and personality. Doubtless some would dispute this characterisation, but what else is left after Norris's 'Everything Must Go' modernisation ? A Norris Conservative Party wouldn't argue on the basis of policy, they'd argue on the basis that they would the same stuff as Labour but, y'know, differently. But, again, we should not let the absurdity of the specific position blind us to the moronic nature of the underlying thesis.

Compare and contrast the most successful Conservative leader of the past fifty years with the most successful Labour leader. No one doubts Mr Blair's thespian talents, nor his ability to read the nation's mood, but when it comes to areas such as public sector reform, what exactly has been achieved in the last eight years ? Liberalism has no answer to the failings of, say, the NHS, other than more of the same. Conservatism, on the other hand, really does has something meaningful to say about how to improve public services, yet the modernisers would disavow all that. That's the irony here, for all their supposed devil-may-care radicalism the modernisers shrink away from engaging with the realities of politics. Want to know how to improve schools ? Don't ask Norris. Improving cancer care ? Sorry, he's on his coffeee break. Slag off Baroness Thatcher ? Now you're talking. Then again, Baroness Thatcher was almost a mirror-image of Norris: unabashedly ideological, genuinely radical and straightforward….oh yes, one other thing - she actually won elections.

In Praise Of Plagiarism

The Educrats are worried. Plagiarism is on the rise, and not just on blogs. Personally, I've never seen the problem with it - I always looked upon plagiarism as condensed research. Besides, the educrats can't hardly complain, as even their own report admits:

If these students enter programmes where the 'rules of the game' are unclear, they might continue to use tried and tested approaches and thereby, inadvertently, plagiarise

Yes, indeed. Education is so mired in bureaucracy and sloth that plagiarism is the only logical answer. Take mark schemes, for example - lottery or what ? Instead of setting out an actual logical argument, students instead find themselves trying to guess exactly what it is about the English Civil War that Prof Smith thinks is important. Forget all that talk of learning to think independently, true success goes to those able to guess the contents of the examiner's check sheet.

Anyway, who's better equipped for life in the real world ? On the one hand, we have a guy dedicating hours to tracking down one specific report in a 1997 issue of Journal of Molecular Biology, on the other we have people setting up informal working groups amongst their peers, establishing relationships with students from previous years, outsourcing to subcontractors and the like, using a variety of communication strategies and technologies.

Doubtless, the traditionalists may claim students learn more from their time in the library, but is it stuff anyone needs ? I doubt even the average PhD student actually uses more than 10% of what they learned at undergrad level, but there'll always be a job for the man who can find a way to get to the pub quicker.

Weasel Happy Hour: Two4One Deal

Has there ever been a more pathetic lobbying body than the Portman Group ? Supported by the major drinks companies, these people are the Vichy Government of hooch. Supposedly representing the industry, their MO is to throw themselves on the mercy of the court on even the most insane of charges. On one side we have the Neo-Prohibitionists, lying, deranged, fanatics every one of them, while on the other there's the Portman Group, hand-wringling, snivelling appeaseniks.

Yet, just when you thought they'd hit rock bottom, they call in the blasting crew. Or rather the no-blasting crew. Yep - what's worse than appeasing Neo-Prohibitionist loonies ? Appeasing Neo-Prohibitionist loonies and hoplophobes.

Remember, if this sort of thing isn't stamped out now, then.... what exactly ? Will citizens of previously good character be driven to start hosing down pubs with automatic weapons ?

Actually, of course, there is a link here. Both the Neo-Prohibitionist and the hoplophobes - where they are not, in fact, the same people - deny human agency. Vitamin XXX makes people kick other people to death, just like the rays from a Beretta can drive even the most pacific of individuals into a killing rage. Evil doesn't exist - except in the form of Big Business and certain inanimate objects. We're all victims, and only Big Government can save us. But where does the Portman Group fit into the wider picture ? Well, here we have a body that has tried to adapt to the onslaught of absolute fruitcakes by internalising the whole laundry list of criticisms haurled at it. No charge has been too silly for the Portman Group not to take seriously, and no opponent has been too deranged for them not to reach out to. The results ? Ludicrous charges have been given spurious credibility and dyed-in-the-wool fanatics have been allowed to posture as respectable commentators, and what exactly has the Portman Group got in return ? Nada. In short, the Portman Group is the perfect example of the philosophy of the Tory modernisers in action, and about as succesful too.

Dept Of WTF ?

Via the Englishman comes news of another special interest group making its way up to the trough:

Cycling is not being promoted or funded well enough by the government, a sustainable transport watchdog says.

Get a bike, ride it. That's about it really.

Actually, I think the whiners themselves sensed they had a weak case, hence their reliance on that well-known tactic, the ludicrous comparison with Europe:

The National Cycling Strategy Board said the level of cycling in Britain is among the lowest in Europe with only 2% of journeys being made on two wheels.

Mr Justice Humpty Dumpty

Liberals often claim Conservatives are prejudiced. This is their attempt to pass off their complete inability to learn from experience as an asset. The goldfish-like collective memory of the Liberals causes all sorts of trouble - take the Parole Board, for example - yet it does have the advantage that Liberals trying to con the public into accepting their latest piece of moonbattery frequently forget the presence of a large elephant in the room. Which bring me neatly onto the question of self-defence.

Last week, the Government announced a bold new policy on self-defence, namely keeping everything the same. Apparently, we're all deluded. Actually, the law is just fine as is, it's just us lager-swilling imbeciles who don't understand it. The Government loves the idea of people defending themselves. Really.

Call me cynical, but the fact that they chose to announce this policy as meaning that people could kill burglars suggests that the leopard hasn't exactly put in for a whole new set of spots. That's what we want, of course. We want to kill burglars, and put their heads on spikes. Every person who ever spoke out against the current laws is a slavering sadist with an uncontrollable bloodlust. Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, but Liberals, here's a tip: if you're trying to bamboozle people into thinking that you're taking their concerns seriously, you may want to avoid stereotyping them as a bunch of Hannibal Lecters.

As it happens, the supposed revelation that it's lawful to kill a burglar is absurd. The L3 remind us that it's legal to kill intruders providing you're using 'reasonable force' - well, yeah: by definition, if it's ruled as 'reasonable' then it's legal. The point is that what's 'reasonable' is so loosely defined it can mean almost anything - and what it means with the current legal establishment is that 'reasonable force' is a virtual oxymoron. That's what the public wants - not the right to rack up huge bodycounts, just the right to defend themselves free of the risk of a bunch of activist twerps spending 18 months to 'prove' that they acted unreasonably.

As long as the law is drawn up so loosely, then it offers opportunity for an agenda-driven legal establishment to push the party line. For proof of that, look at all the pots and pans thrown at those who do defend themselves. From the blank cheque given to the initial investigation, to the elastic definition of admissible evidence, all bets are off. Ever taken drugs, met a BNP member or been in naughty chat rooms ? Defend yourself against a criminal and this'll all be brought out in court. But now these people want us to trust them.

As it happens, we have the perfect litmus test available to determine how serious these people are. When first the subject of changing the law was broached., the CPS helpfully released figures showing that there were very few actual prosecutions of householders for defending themselves. Take that, Conservatives! Only problem was that the figures were completely bogus. Never mind Civil Service impartiality, isn't there a problem with prosecutors who make up evidence ? Apparently not.

That's the key point. Even while they're on their best behaviour they can't stop lying. They claim there's no institutional bias against self-defence even while producing bogus figures designed to weaken the case for a change in the law favouring those who defend themselves. Just as long as these people are allowed the latitude inherent in 'reasonable force' then they will continue to use the law to punish those who defend themselves. Of course, that's a good reason to change the law, but what of the wider issues ?

The way the legal establishment has connived to deprive members of the public of their basic right to protect themselves is symptomatic of a wider phenomena. The old joke says that the Left is quite happy for things to be settled democratically, providing only twelve people get to vote. We can make whatever changes we want to the law, but as long as it is left in the hands of an unrepresentative group of agenda-driven hacks the best we can hope for is a delaying action. As with much else in Britain, we are faced with a Gramscian assault the nature of which the Conservative Party shows no sign of comprehending.

Start The Clock

The tension is all consuming. Who'll be the first L3 journo to pen a hand-wringing article about this ? And how many times will the Liberal media refer to it in the next six months ?

Speaking personally, I think His Lordship nails it.

Oh, That Bias!

Check out the headline on this Beeb story. Yes, indeed. It's the logical conclsuion of the Liberal fliratation with post-modernism: robbing banks is peaceful, but pointing out that someone is robbing banks, why, that's just mindless thuggery.

MSM Unhinged

Apparently the election was the last straw: the MSM have let go of their last grip on sanity and gone right over the edge. Needless to say, the Freepers are a scream over this.

How Liberalism Works (Or Rather Doesn't)

Peter B points to a perfect example of modern government. Indeed, it is a perfect microcosm of how the Left works. They conjure up abstract rights out of thin air - without regard for such trivia as common sense, practicality and the like - then assert that everyone else has to find a way to accommodate their posturing.

In some cases, this sort of thing is just stupid, but when it comes to healthcare it can be deadly. Take one of the cases quoted:

In 2001, a 36-year-old man with learning disabilities died of organ failure two weeks after being discharged into the care of his wife from Darlington Memorial Hospital in Co Durham. John Atkins had a heart condition but neither he nor his wife, Helen, who also had learning disabilities, had understood how serious it was.

Well, yeah. I mean, how can one put this ? Not to get too technical, but they were 'tards. Literally. Of course, they couldn't deal. That's their disability right there. But no - we're in a whole new world now, and the village idiot has a right to use the threshing machine. And if it all goes horribly wrong ? Why, blame some other guy for not rescuing the situation you yourself created by insisting that people should be given rights even when they can't possibly handle the associated responsibilities.

But even that's not it. If Liberals had proposed policies such as deinstitutionalisation on the grounds of cost savings or the like, then it would at least be possible to argue that it was a trade--off. After all, the 1980s Conservatives bought into the whole concept for precisley this reason. What makes all this the perfect metaphor for Liberalism is their moral posturing. True, their policies may have lead to misery for both the afflicted and the community that has to live with them, combined with scapegoating of the professionals every time they fail to square the circle, but that won't stop the L3 paying tribute to their own heroism in pushing through bold new policies that stand at 180' to all previous tradition, good practice and common sense.

In Liberaland, being radical always beats being effective.

Talking Of Fatuous Lawsuits....

Interesting report from Right Wing News about legal reforms in Ireland. Much though it pains me to praise anything in that cesspit of terrorist-coddling trash, they do have some great ideas. In particular, I've always wondered why plaintiffs can score huge payouts AND then another huge payout for costs. As long as the people who hire the scumbag lawyers aren't the ones who have to pay for them, of course legal fees are going to keep heading through the stratosphere. That's common sense.

Battle Of The Sleazebags

In the political equivalent of the Iran-Iraq war, Labour MP Candy Atherton is embroiled in a dispute with her former aide - or, as the BBC would have it, Cornwall MP Candy Atherton is embroiled in a dispute with her former aide.

Showing a commitment to high-minded ideals worthy of the Dear Leader himself, the Honourable Member is alleged to have asked an aide to find mud to throw at a Tory opponent. Mr Phillips, the now former aide, claims to be shocked - shocked! - that he was asked to dig the dirt on an opponent. What else would a research assistant be doing ?

All this would be funny enough if it only offered an insight into how sleazy Nu Lab really is, but there's more. It turns out that it's not just a sudden attack of high-mindedness that's struck down this individual. What's really teed him off is that he was asked to....no, it's too shocking, it's.... he was asked to investigate a fellow gay man.

Terrible, I know.

Guido says all that need be said about this outbreak of self-dramatising queeny rhectoric. To steal an old line, appropriately enough from Oscar Wilde, you need a heart of stone to read it without laughing.

As far as wider issues go - it's still absurd. Mr Phillips claims that it's unfair to ask a gay man to investigate a gay man (who'd he prefer, Ann Widdicombe ?). OK, then - let's give him that, conditional on reciprocation. No hetrosexuals should have to investiate each other. Ok, mmmmm ?

Somehow, I think not. So - again - all this talk of equality turns out means anything but. Phillips had no qualms about working for a party which could smear a 92 year old woman, regard Sep 11 as a good day to bury bad news, put out an APB on rail safety campaigners it had embraced when they'd served its needs, try to use the Queen Mum's funeral as photo op..... Hell, half of Labour's campaign in 1997 seemed to be based on the Cabinet's sex lives. But, now - now he's developed a moral streak and made the bold step of abandoning his lucrative £10 000 pa job. And the press wants to cast him as Joan of Arc. Puuuuuleaze.

That's yet another thing wrong with all this equality BS - we keep having to listen to losers come out with this kind of self-glorifying drivel.

Busted!

This post at Highway 99 is starting to get a lot of attention - deservedly so, since it's a perfect example of both BBC bias and the way bloggers are finally bringing some much needed accountability to the MSM.

Wisdom From Honest Abe

Lincoln once claimed that the thing which kills a skunk is the publicity which it attracts. He was talking about slavery, but it also applies to a certain peace-loving religion. JohnJo passes on the latest from the RoP, read and enjoy as Khalid Mahmood MP offers a insight into Islam that you won't get from Auntie.

Another Return Of The Golden Age Again Part II

Laban Tall points out that the L3 are still claiming Conservatives are obsessed with a non-existant Golden Age. This from the people who blame Thatcher for everything, and then some. Listen to the average Liberal and you could be convinced that the only social problem we had in the Seventies was finding enough patients to fill all those hospital beds. Conservatives may do stupid things, but at least we've never had anything as flat-out weird as Liberals taking out onions over the kids cruelly deprived of the chance to follow their fathers down pit. Really - however awful the economic effects of pit closures were, you notice Metropolitan Liberal scum aren't taking up coal mining as a weekend hobby ?

There are at least as many L3 who think the years 1963-79 were an Earthly Utopia as Conservatives who think the Fifties were grand, but you'll notice Conservatives don't hail each other as iconoclastic heroes for pointing out that most of the population in the Seventies had cripplingly low aspirations. Yet this is pretty much where Liberalism is at these days. Thirty years of near-monopoly control has destroyed their ability to construct actual arguments, so instead they spend their time debunking stuff that no one believes anyway.

That's why it matters. For all the L3 jeering at supposed Conservative obsessions with a Golden Age, look who's really lying down in front of the bulldozers these days. NHS reform ? Remaking education ? If it's throwing money at the problem or pushing nihilistic garbage of the 'who needs chemistry anyway ?' type, Liberals are all for it, but actual, meaningful reforms ? Forget it! All the innovation is coming from one side of the spectrum, while the other is full of people patting themselves on the back for being daring enough to point out that there was a lot of poverty in the Fifties.

It Depends Where You Stick It

Ah yes, the modern Conservative Party. It's hip'n'happening, with no more hang-ups about the ol' lifestyle issues. In Conservativeville, you can be as blue as you want, in every sense. Anything goes, dude. Hey - if you want to hook up with some hunky guys, disappear into the woodland with them so you can enjoy the feel of something hard and heavy against your cheek while you squeeze off a couple, then in this Party you know you can....shove it, actually.

Yes, indeed. Apparently, mere contact with certain objects is, in and of itself, grounds for the old heave ho' in the modern Party. JohnJo passes on one theory. Me, personally, I'm thinking about the bigger picture. My suspicion is that Howard has placed an enormous spread bet at the bookies, with less seats meaning more winnings. It's the only explanation. There's no other reason why a Conservative Party would want to do things like introduce ID cards. Once you accept that Howard is actually trying to destroy the base, then things make a lot more sense. He's actually doing a great job, by the time the election comes round they'll be able to hunt down voters on an individual basis. Expect the broadcasts to feature lines line "Andrew Parker of Blackburn, you smell!".

Where's Lord Hoffman When You Need Him ?

Given that even the most L3 of media have decided that Robert Jackson MP isn't such a catch after all, I was going to let it go, but there are still some folks prepared to defend him. Of course, you shouldn't expect too much of a site amusingly named after a mass-murdering dictator, but still, that line of argument betrays what Mary Archer would call 'a talent for precis'.

Apparently, Wacko Jacko is being persecuted just 'cause he "supports the EU and defended the Palestinians in an Economist debate." Even from first principles, that explanation doesn't hold water. Jackson served under the not notably Europhile Lady T, while Conservative policy on the Palestinians is exactly the same as Labours. Then again, we do know a little more about Robert Jackson than that.

Take, for example, his statement that a Jew could not be considered a loyal British citizens unless he denounced Ariel Sharon. That's it right there: if your mother's maiden name was Goldblatt, then you're not necessarily a true Briton. No, rotten Robbie doesn't have any actual evidence of treason being committed by hook-nosed persons. Simply, the fact of having the wrong bloodline is grounds for suspicion.

As it happens, not too long ago the Left was partying like it was 1999. The High Court had ruled against detention of foreign terrorists in Belmarsh because they ruled it was illegal to discriminate against non-citizens. Well, here's comes Robert Jackson MP, he wants to discriminate against full British citizens even if they can trace their line back to the Protectorate, and for no better reason than their ancestory. What shall we call it, if not bigotry ?

This Is Brilliant

Michelle Malkin passes on a link to this wonderful ad.

As Opposed To What Exactly ?

Contary to expectations, it appears there are limits to PC outrage, after all. The BBC must have fired off all its ammo at Prince Harry, so now they're being forced to give floor-crossing weasel Robert Jackson a pass. That is the reason, right ?

After all, it's not as if you need to be Fox Mulder for this case to start twitching the ol' antenna. Melanie P points out a few highlights from Jumping Jack's CV. Given all that, we are surely justified in raising a few eyebrows over Jackson's comment that he's pleased to have a Christian PM. Why ? So that we have at least one day a week when he isn't screwing up the country ? Or is it his tasteful Christmas cards that do it for Jacko ?

In the light of the Prince Harry debacle it's almost as if the L3 are taunting us: look what you can get away with if you're one of us! Still, on this single issue, I agree with the republicans. As they said about Prince Harry, let them carry on behaving that way - it just makes the case for abolition ever stronger.

Jihadis Second, Coalition Second From Last

This essay has rightly been linked too all over the place. Just in case you haven't seen it, here's LTC Ryan on media bias and Iraq:

I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Batchelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Damage Control

Here's hoping all the criticism doesn't drive Harry to try and appeal to Liberals with his next choice of costume. Think what could happen:

• Dressing as popular 'agrarian reformer' Osama Bin Laden leads to Harry being mistaken for Aaron Barschak.



• Harry attempts to disguise himself as a High Court Judge, but can't manage the right degree of haughty arrogance and contempt for the public.



• Harry tries to reach out to the Jewish community by dressing as a famous Hebrew figure. Surprised to find that Pope is actually Catholic.



• In an ironic hat tip to the race-hustling community, Harry tries to dress as Trevor Phillips, but doesn't have a large enough clothing budget.



• The Gerry Adams look works fine except that a communication breakdown leads to Harry being made NI's First Minister.



• Harry makes a surprisingly good Ozzy Osbourne, but can't manage the verbal fluency of the original.



• The choice of a 'Count Dracula' costume draws further fire from Michael Howard.



• Harry attempts the 'NUT member' look, but gets so into character that he stays home and calls in sick.



• Harry gives up whole idea of fancy dress and instead concentrates on getting blasted, thereby ensuring he spends the night being mistaken for Charles Kennedy.

Question D'Jour

So, on the one hand we have a 'tard wearing a swastika armband, on the other we have a gang of knuckle-dragging Prussian thugs trying to bend all Europe to their will. Which is most reminsicent of the Nazi era ?

Diversity Found To Be Overrated

Laban Tall points out the criminal justice system's Soylent Green-like recruitment policies.

L3 Take Bold New Stance: Opposed To Hitler

If modern life proves one thing, it's that the Sixties didn't kill morality, it just caused it to mutate into ever weirder and more sanctimonious forms. Which brings me neatly on to the news that the country's favourite 'tard turned up at a fancy dress party in Nazi uniform. Needless to say, the media have gone ape. The Beeb was particularly upset, opening bulletins all day with this case. If there's one thing the Beeb can't stand, it's people exploiting the Nazis for humour. The press weren't much better, going ballistic in between filing puff pieces for 'The Producers'. Things could have been worse though - there was a rumour that Prince William also turned up wearing the uniform of a totalitarian dictatorship, but fortunately it turned out he was only dressed as a KGB officer, so that's OK then. Still, it's nice to see that the L3 able to take get at least one thing right: they're against Nazism. It's reassuring that sixty years after we win this war, the Left will come out and denounce Al-Quaida.

What today has thrown into sharp relief above all else is the absurdity of multiculturalism. Take, for example, the Harry haters featured at Don't Have Your Say. The main complaint is that it's offensive and…. well, actually, that's it. 'Offensive' - the modern day, catch-all, damning verdict. Let no man say that thirty years of near-monopoly control of our institutions has left the Left unable to argue. Of course, you can't have Liberals prattling about offensive behaviour without them also demanding that the offender carry an insane act of self-abasement. In this case the favoured form of retribution appears to be a trip to Auschwitz - it being axiomatic amongst the Left that failure to join them in their ostentatious moralising can only be the result of ignorance. Actually, Harry can commemorate genocide without leaving London. He can mark what was per-capita the greatest genocide on record by visiting Grosvenor Square, to show his gratitude to all those Liberals who protested there in 1968 in support of the US forces fighting to save Cambodia from the Khymer Rouge. That was what they were doing, right ?

So, you'll understand if I cast a somewhat jaundiced eye over the L3 moralising about mass murder. But, saith the L3, you can't possibly know. You're not Jewish, you can't understand what it all means. But what of blacks ? Surely you can make the same case over slavery ? After all, Britain really was involved in the slave trade. In fact, I hear a familiar whining sound in the distance. Yep - somebody's squawking about the 'pain of homophobia'. That's the thing. Everybody's got there something. Multiculturalism - in the broadest sense - not only divides people into mutually squabbling groups, but it encourages an arms race of victimhood, with each group competing to mau-mau the most privileges out of everyone else.

This sort of thing is absurd at the best of times, but hearing - as we have today - that Britain is actually a seething hot bed of anti-Semitism really takes the cake. What if we weren't so anti-Jew ? Would Michael Grade have got a really important job in the media ? Peter Mandelson might have survived two resignations and still got a top EU job. Tesco would be a big company, and so would M & S. Ben Elton might get the odd show on stage and Michael Howard would be a credible party leader.

Well, OK. That last one is maybe going too far. But today has proved the sheer shamelessness of the multiculti crowd. These people spend 364 days a year claiming that under-representation of Kenyans in the plumbing profession proves that Dynorod is just like the KKK, yet when presented with a victim group that's actually doing alright….. we're still all guilty. A vote of thanks too for the many members of the Jewish community who took the opportunity to wave the bloody shirt again. Of course, it is possible they were motivated by something other than ethnic self-interest, in which case it would be interesting to know how they react to the sort of attitudes revealed in this comments thread over at the animal house.I mean, I'm not setting the bar too high here. There's a thread of opinion in the Jewish community that supports the nuking of Europe, how do you feel about that ? This shouldn't be a tough moral dilemma. After all, an airburst over Headingley would really affect property values in Alwoodley, but no - the folks who need sedating when Prince Harry dresses like a prat don't have any actual opinions on whether their fellow countrymen should be turned into charcoal briquettes.

But that's the magic of multiculturalism. Ask not what you can do for your country, just bitch and whine about what your country has done to you.

MSM Pin-Up Boy

Further to the subject of the MSM coddling scum, Peter the C points out an epic case of scum worship by journalism's bright young thing Johann Hari. Hari not only comes out with every IRA talking point imaginable, but he specifically states that 'There were no Catholic representatives elected because of gerrymandering'

Say what ?

You can believe what you want about Ulster, but even a moment's thought shows this is absurd. No matter how you draw up the lines in, say, South Armagh, you aren't going to get a Loyalist majority. The point is, quite literally, nonsensical. To be sure, when tackled about this, Hari rows back later on (apparently, the AWARD WINNING JOURNALIST got his words mixed up - hey, it's not like he's a professional communicator or something, is it ?). Still, it throws an interesting light on the MSM's famous journalistic standards.

In so far as press freedom goes, using your position to pass on pro-terrorist propaganda is mightily close to the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Even if we accept Hari's moronic explanation, we are still faced with a supposed star journalist who freely admits to not being able reality from terrorist talking points - and has no apparent inclination to try.

The irony is, of course, that Hari is above all else a whiny pusher of PC. In particular, Hari can't go more than 48 hours without waving the bloody (or possibly just pink) shirt of homophobia. We're supposed to believe that someone calling George Michael a fat queen is an outrage, yet Hari acting as a PR man for a gang of terrorist thugs, why, that's award-winning journalism.

Sun Rises In East

So, after an extensive investigation by Lord Goldsmith, it has been determined that the law on self-defence is just ducky.

I know, I was as surprised ay anyone to find that a report by a Kool Aid drinking senior lawyer into whether the law has sheared off into Never-Never land produced a negative result. Apparently, the whole 'independent inquiries' thing has been blown out of proportion. We really need judges to tell us whether Major Anderson should have requested more fire support while raiding a house in Basra. Ditto, without m'learned friends how would we ever know whether Dr Jones should have dealt with the chest wound before the head injury ? But, when it comes to the law, if they're happy so should we be.

Apparently, we're all just deluded. They're going to educate us again. Of course, some of the more fascistic elements will point out that the problem is not only what the law says, but how it's interpreted - given that one of the country's top law officers has just told the public they're hallucinating, I don't expect progress on this front anytime soon. But even that's not it. The problem with the law is that it treats crime as a part of society, rather than aa a renunciation of it. Here's the truth: when a householder awakens at 4 AM to find his family home is under attack by a gang of savages, that's not 'one of them things', that's a complete breakdown of the social contract. Big Government has failed him, and should therefore kindly STFU until he has saved his family from their incompetence.

Thugs R Us

While the Beeb is justifiably famous for it's sterling work helping to promote global terrorism, we shouldn't forget its everday, bread and butter work of helping to promote domestic thuggery. Take this report, for example.

A group of fanatical ecothugs decide to disguise themselves as public servants. in order to, at the least, harass people who are a) disproportionatly likely to be female b) certain to have young kids in their veichle, and the Beeb wets itself. Never mid the disgraceful whitewashing of these scumbags as 'activists', what other conclusion is there to draw from phraseology such as 'Drivers at a junction in Belsize Park, north London, were stopped in their tracks by members of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s.'. Yes, indeed. Can anyone - anyone - imagine the Beeb reporting gleefully that 'asylum seekers were stopped in their tracks by members of the BNP' ? Not in this lifetime, and rightly so, yet when the thugs have the right politics, then our friends in the BeebBubble decide what we really want our telly tax spent on is PR for a group of degenerate thugs.

But don't call it bias.

World's Worst Weviewer

So now we know: last night BBC viewers will have seen Jonathan Ross, the reification of the concept of being famous for being famous, reviewing Team America and concluding that it was a satire on Neoconservatism. Also, it mocks the paranoia of the American right.

Say what ?

Apart from anything else, if that were true then the final speech at the UN makes no sense. But, of course, it isn't true. Parker and Stone are hip, funny and cool - ergo, they can't possibly be on the same side as the BushChimpler, and anyone says they are...why, the L3 will stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly.

Having being proved wrong on virtually every issue of importance in the last thirty years, the L3 are forced to rely more and more on a single line of argument: the Right is old, ugly and boring. Yet there's a problem with this line of attack: no one wears bowler hats anymore, the last few aristocrats survive mainly as the butt of humour on reality TV shows and the latest Who's Who includes an entry for Nicole Kidman. These days, the true subversives are the ones who mock Michael Moore and his ilk, while there are few better examples of a smug, bloated, complacent bastion of the establshment than the BBC, of which Mr Ross is such a perfect poster boy.

Why We're Losing The War

Here's the headline from the Times covering the Ulster bank job: 'Ulster peace under threat as IRA is blamed for £22m raid'. So that's it then. It wasn't the actual raid itself that caused the problems (and never mind asking whether a place where this sort of thing goes on can be considered peaceful anyway). Nope - it was the Police's fault for telling the truth. Ah huh.

The thing is that this kind of absurd chop logic holds such a death grip over much of the media that it's a genuine relief to find someone who prepared to acknowledge that the terrorists are, in fact, independent actors, after all. Terrorism 101 says that the terrorist aims to influence the political environment by the use of violence. That's a truism, of course, but it also means that the relationship works both ways. Terrorists use violence to shape the political environment, but the political environment shapes the violence used. Both elements feedback into each other. Which means the media can forget all this posturing about 'objectivity'.

It is less fashionable now for media panjandrums to refer to themselves as 'opinion formers', nevertheless, the media does still play a role in shaping the debate. More to the point, the astute terrorist must take into the role of the media in helping him achieve his objectives. Isn't it about time journalists returned the favour ?

Yes, I'm aware that journalists like to blather on about press freedom and the like. But consider the case of the BNP. Here, journalists preen themselves over their refusal to 'offer a platform' (or whatever) to these loons, while indulging in ostentatious agonising over whether their coverage strengthens those naughty ol' right wing extremists. Yet the media have no qualms about acting as virtual PR agents for other, more PC, terrorists.

Consider Iraq. Surely, simply by the law of averages, a small proportion of Coalition fire must hit baddies ? But try and find evidence for that in the media. Yes - plenty of Coalition casualties. Ditto - plenty of kitten hospitals hit by Coalition bombs, but dead Jihadis ? Nada. Could the terrorists have wished for anything more than a media that insists on presenting our troops as blundering incompetents, seemingly defenceless against these ninja -like Jihadis while constantly blowing away orphanages ? Talk all you want about objectivity, but when the media cover Coalition casualties and civilian casualties caused by the coalition, while barely mentioning dead terrorists or the civilians they have murdered, then there's an agenda at work.

Of course, some folks have gone all the way to the dark side. Which brings me onto the BBC. Natalie Solent is exactly right: the BBC can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre then claim status as a dispassionate observer of the subsequent stampede. Still - with the significant difference of the licence fee - the Beeb is just the worst, rather than the only offender.

What afflicts the media is just a more extreme case of what's affected much of modern society. They've brought into the whole PoMo garbage, whereby up may be down, black white and cannibalism is just an alternative form of diet. These people live in the richest, freest and most comfortable civilisation in history and can't decide if there's any difference between the people who defend it and those who want to destroy it. Just as long as we're prepared to believe that an inability to distinguish between someone trying to blow up a school bus, and someone trying to kill terrorists is a mark of sophistication, we're going to keep losing the war, and deservedly so.

The Best Analogy Ever For US Foreign Policy

All Your Kids Belong To Us

Apparently, it's not all lessons on fisting and necrophillia in the modern state school. There's a school down south where they stick things in the pupil's mouths then wave them about. Disappointly for the 'progressives', it turns out they're just taking mouth swabs for drug tests. Yep - drug tests in schools. SATs, key stage testing and OFSTED inspections are a pointless imposition on the school environment, but checking for Bolivian marching powder, now that's what teaching all about. So how does the head justify this buffonery ?

The head teacher, Peter Walker, said children were looking for an excuse to say no to drugs, against peer pressure, and the scheme would give them that excuse.

"One of the difficulties we have got in our society is that the government has tried so hard and so much to try to improve levels of prevention, yet we are not meeting with enough success," Mr Walker said.

Yes, indeed. Without Big Edukayshun sticking things in your gob, there'd be no incentive not to get hooked on crack. Personally, I can't think of anything more likely to drive kids to drugs than this kind of obnoxious, obtrusive nannying, as perfectly exemplified in this next quote:

Paul Carter, Kent council cabinet member for education, said random drug testing was fraught with legal problems so the council had issued guidance.

"I believe the tests will be a strong deterrent to youngsters dabbling in drugs at parties on the weekend," he said.

Yes, the weekend. Also known as the time when there is no school. Yes - if a kid turns in high as a kite then the school does indeed act in loco parentis, but suggesting that schools have a role in regulating what their customers do at the weekend is an outrageous example of mission creep. Still, at least some of the kids have escaped the effects of the psychic beacon:

There were differences of opinion among students arriving on Wednesday.

One 16-year-old said his parents had refused permission for him to take part.

"I don't agree with it. It's an invasion of privacy. It should be up to your mum and dad to sort this kind of thing out," he said

Personal responsibility ? In Blairland ? Surely not!

A 14-year-old girl said she supported the measure because it could reduce drug-taking.

"I don't have a problem with taking a test. It depends if you've got anything to hide," she added.

How many secret kids has Blunkett got ?

Charities

That would be charities in the sense of 'activist groups who score huge sums off the government to push their own L3 wordlview'. Anyway, where was I ?

Charities are sceptical. Drugscope chief executive Martin Barnes said there was no proof random drugs tests had a deterrent effect.

"Testing risks driving drug use further underground and could result in an increase in truancies and exclusions," he said.

Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said "intrusive" random tests were not needed to give children an excuse to say "no". They needed accurate information.

But also such tests were only for illegal drugs - whereas alcohol, tobacco and solvents were far more harmful, he said.

Do you get the feeling that getting the kids to say 'no' isn't exactly Stevies first priority. Leaving aside the not insignificant point that fags, booze and glue are all illegal for kids anyway, how exactly is driving an illegal activity underground a bad idea anyway ? Isn't that the point ?

That's the bottom line here. While HMG claims the war on drugs is so seriously we've got to put our rights through the shredder, the self-same body is funding nutball activist loons who claim a glass of the house red is worse than crack. 'Mixed message' doesn't quite cover it. No wonder drug czar's usually end up getting tied in knots. Take Keith Halliwell, there's a man who was too honest to try and even pretend the Government's drug policy made sense. Even now, he can't help but tell the truth about where all this leads:

Former government drugs adviser Keith Hellawell said that if those tested had consented in advance, and again at the time of the test, then clearly they knew there would not be drugs in their systems.

There had to be some penalty for failing to take a test, he argued.

Actually, I believe the current phrase d'jour is 'the voluntary option has failed'. Is there anything else wrong with this policy ?

Concerns have also been raised in part because the scheme is being sponsored by a tabloid newspaper and the drug test health firm.

Well, yeah.

Truly, in years to come, when people study the collapse of Britain, this will make a perfect case study. Can anyone - outside the Kool Aid drinking asylum of Big Edukayshun - really think this is a good idea ?

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said Conservatives would "support, encourage and accelerate" random drug tests.

Which says it all both for drug tests and the Conservative Party.

Fully Detatched

One thing I'm continuinaly struck by is the extent to which modern Liberalism exists in the abstract. Large numbers of L3 seem unable to process information at anything other than the most detatched level. They're the type of people who when they heard about the Harold Shipman case, their first thought was worry that it would strengthen the case against the NHS. Or, in the case of the tsunami, they worry that US aid may be weakening the UN. Yes, that's the first thing everyone thinks of when they hear about a tidal wave deverstating large parts of south-east Asia - the risk to the UN.

The Cracker Barrell Philosoper is all over this, with a good link explaining just what the UN offers the victims. Now that's moral authority in action!

Case Closed

And thus was ended the debate over whether the Police had been captured by crazed hopolophobes.

Dogs That Don't Bark

Excellent article in the Spectator about Nazi Nick's Yorkshire misadventures. The whole thing is well worth reading, but there are a couple of issues Rod Liddle touches on in passing that I think are well worth expanding on. First up there's this:

This programme was shown in July last year and, in a statement following the arrests, West Yorkshire police proudly announced that it had deployed a team of officers on the case ‘five days a week, ten hours a day’ ever since. Now at this point in the article, a really good journalist would tell you how big that team of policemen was. And how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer. And also cross-referenced it with how many burglaries, muggings, etc., had been carried out in the West Yorkshire area from July to 12 December. Especially unsolved ones. But I haven’t been able to find that stuff out: the police won’t tell me.

This is increasingly true these days - public bodies telling the public to shove it. Given the pressure on business to be more transparent, we may know more about how BP operates than the average police force. Yet journalists, with honourable exceptions such as the above, raise nary a peep. They'll go to court to assert their right to tell the public about bonking goalies, while passing on verbatim Islamic propagancda is apparently a vital function of a free press, but reporting what public servants do with all that money ? Pssss... they've got shagging strikers to cover.

Of course, the press never were big on principle, but check this out:

Curious to find out a little more about the mechanics behind the arrest of Mr Griffin, I spoke to the magistrate who signed the warrant for his arrest. That’s Mrs Valerie Parnham, who lives near Bradford.

A man answered the telephone. I told him I was a journalist and wanted to speak to Mrs Parnham. He shouted down the hallway: ‘Valerie? VALERIE? I told you this would happen!’

Then a timorous Mrs Parnham came on the telephone. ‘I can’t say anything about this. I could get into trouble.’

Well, I just wanted to know if you were happy to sign the arrest warrant, I said, as plaintively as possible.

‘(Long pause) I can’t say anything about this. I’m sorry.’

Their Lordships can't hardly get out of bed without giving a long speech about the sanctity of the judicary. Well, here's a judge who admits to feeling under pressure following a decision. Can we be sure that this pressure only occured after the decision was made ? How does judical independance stand now with a judge admitting to feeling intimidated ?

Similarly, what of the old cliche about justice needing not only to be done, but seen to be done ? An arrest warrant has been produced with even the woman who signed it refusing to discuss it, so where are their Lordships now ?

It's only a couple of weeks since Lord Hoffman became the toast of the chattering classes for claiming that the government's refusal to grant Access All Areas passes to members of the Islamic Popular Front of Egypt was more of a threat than Islamic terrorism. Well, if the principles of British law are so precious as to require that we allow Khalal D'infidels to enter the country, score full welfare benefits and a taxpayer-rented house next to a synagogue, they surely must have something to say about people being arrested on nonsensical charges. Where are the ringing declarations in this case ? Or, if judges don't have a problem with government steamrollering through cases against people who aren't PC enough, why exactly should we take them seriously on any question of principle ?

We Need Some Neo-Conservatives

I don't know what's most characteristic of the Nu Police in the latest goings on at Canning Place, as pointed out by PC DC. Is it the fact that Merseyside Police ("Cops for hire or rent") have had the bright idea of forming a specialist squad to target criminals (as opposed to who ? Mimes ?), or is it that this idea appears to be such a hot potato that they've got to try and hide it under some truly Sir Humphreyesque English ?

As for the name, well, it's as good a metaphor as any for modern policing.

The Classy Left

Satire ? Or The BBC ? You Decide

December 25, 2004. An earthquake measuring 9.0 on the richter scale strikes deep in the Indian ocean, moving the entire island of Sumatra 100 feet southwest and sending 50' tidal waves crashing into Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Thousands of muslims die in Indonesia alone, saving Bush the trouble of bombing them. Thousands more perish as waves hit the poor fishing villages of Tamil, where dwell the peaceloving Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In the wake of the disaster, thousands of Christian missionaries posing as "relief workers" descend upon South Asia to convert the survivors. Bush and his cronies, in a thinly-veiled effort to hide their involvement in the catastrophe, pledge over $15,000,000 in aid.

Not So Smart, After All

The always interesting Majority Rights brings us news of the latest developments in the culture wars. Schools are being 'encouraged' - as a precursor to 'the voluntary option has failed' no doubt - to promote Gay Pride. Incidentally, that's all schools - so now nursery schools will be forced to promote the gay agenda. Hey - is it just me, or does it imply a certain self-awareness amongst the L3 of how awful their doctrines are, when they seem obsessed with trying to indoctrinate people earlier and earlier. Bad enough though it is that six year olds are being taught about felching, rimming and golden showers, note too that special schools have also been targeted. Don't these people think that the staff have better things to do ?

No, they don't. It is entirely characteristic of both the narcissism and the arrogance of these loons that they really don't believe that even people dealing with seriously disabled kids should be allowed to get on with their jobs without having to prostrate themselves at the altar of gay self-aggrandisement.

Needless to say, the excuse is what it always is - yep, 'homophobia'. Speaking personally, I remember back in the day when you often couldn't get across the playground for all the bodies of dead La-Las, cruelly murdered on the way to Maths. As ever though, the Pink Posse is too busy goose-stepping around to get their story straight. In fact, the feline exits the bag spectacularly at one point. Recall that gay activists have always tried to portray their situation as being roughly equivalent to that of blacks in Alabama in the 1950s (funnily enough, never while blacks are around) with their critics being equivalent to the KKK, mindless bigots persecuting the innocent merely because they're different. The implication is that homosexuality is a mere quirk, part of life's rich tapestry and the Gay Right's agenda is just an unobjectionable attempt to clamp down on stupid prejudice, to which those of us on the Right reply 'come off it!'. From the start, the Gay Rights mafia has had an agenda to both promote a very specific lifestyle and to delegitimise criticism of that lifestyle. To return to their own metaphor, it's as if someone tried to claim critics of the Yardies must be motivated by racism. These people have been quite successful pushing that line, so it may be over-confidence that led them to include in these new guidelines the suggestion that schools should invite in gay visitors and speakers to act as ‘sexual minority role models’. Ah, huh. Sure sounds like a matter of lifestyle to me. After all, to take their own rhetoric at face value, a bloke may be born gay but it's just a quirk so why does he need role models, if not to give him something to, well, model himself on ?

Gay Rights activists were only transiently, if ever, concerned with lynch mobs prowling the streets in search of hairdressers. From the start, the idea was to promote a specific lifestyle. Never mind that this lifestyle is at odds not only with that of the vast majority of the population, but also that of a good many of the people they claim to represent. Could anyone, outside the Pink Wedge, find common ground between Freddie Mercury and Nigel Hawthorne ? More to the point, there's no doubt who's lifestyle these people aspire too. Yet, despite promoting a way of life which most people reject, these people have managed to infiltrate themselves into the education system to such a degree that not only do they get public money to try and indoctrinate kids barely out of nappies, but they are allowed to harass those who don't drink the Kool Aid.

You'd think someone would have said something. Wait….now I remember. We did say something., in fact there was even a law passed to prevent this very issue. When clause 28 was repealed, Social Conservatives across the country predicted exactly this sort of thing, and were told at great length what a bunch of brain dead Nazi morons we were. Our alleged intellectual betters amongst both Tory modernisers and Libertarians rolled their eyes and told us that government couldn't dictate morality, they wanted government out of the bedroom and people had to be free to live their own lives and blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before, no doubt. Well, here we are today. Those naughty old Social Cons turned out to be bang on, after all.

So, here's where we are today. Youngsters whose parents are attempting to bring them up in accordance with any of the major religions are now to be subject to disciplinary measures in school. Money is being coercively extracted from nurses in Nottingham and security guards in Scunthorpe to pay for activists to talk dirty to six year olds. . Teachers are to record the names of pupils expressing the wrong opinions. This is freedom ? Where stands the supposed Libertarian objective of limited government now ? What form of Conservatism is it which supports the overt harassment of the religious and forced endorsement of particular ideologies ?

Doubtless, we'll soon be hearing from Libertarians why promoting leather biker wear is a core government activity, just as Tory modernisers will be telling us all that there is no freedom more basic than freedom from dissenting views. Still, it's to be hoped some of them have absorbed the more general lesson: the L3 mean what they say, they have set out their agenda and the Social Conservatives have set out ours, choose whichever you want, but don't try claiming that you didn't know that Kool Aid can give you one Hell of a hangover..

If It's Completely Stupid, It Must Be The EU

About Those Fick Conservatives

Say what you like about the BBC, but at least they're slowly becoming aware of their true capabilities.

Hey, It's Not All Bad News

Dhimmis D'Jour

Ah yes, Christmas: traditional season of goodwill and bad news burying:

THE Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine “family friendly” representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran.
Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. The Revenue has been asked to relax this so that a husband’s estate can be divided tax-free between several wives.

The move is bound to create controversy if it leads to a change in the rules. It is seen as a breakthrough by Muslim leaders who have been campaigning to incorporate sharia into British domestic law.

Well, let's not go over the top with that last little bit. The breakthrough was when the Government decided not to prosecute these bigamists in the first place. After all, given that the DSS pays out welfare benefits to them on the basis of marriage, it can't hardly be argued that the government doesn't know what's going on. So this latest outrage is just another attempt to chip away at the secular basis of British law.

Sadiq Khan, a leading Muslim politician, said: “I am pleased to see the Inland Revenue applying common sense to the application of Islamic law on uncontroversial matters such as inheritance.

“There are some other uncontroversial areas of Islam law which could easily be applied to the legal system we have in the UK.”

He insisted there was no question of pressing for the introduction of sharia’s criminal code “where people are flogged or have their hands chopped off”. He said: “This is not the thin edge of the wedge.”

No, it's getting pretty thick right now, so I'm hope the exploding classes won't be offended if I take their assurances about not aiming at full sharia with a large pinch of salt.

Here's the bottom line: the idea of incorporating sharia into British law makes about as much sense as Kosher black pudding. There are the obvious diffrences, for example the concept of equality under the law is central to our legal system, while sharia overtly discriminates against women and infidels. Equally, British law is passed by a democratically elected parliament and refined by the judicary, while sharia - supposedly - sprung fully formed from the mouth of Allah, perfect and immutable, about 1400 years ago, and so on... But this all avoids the central issue. Islamic law can't be incorporated into British law because Islam doesn't recognise British law. Islam is the law. Secular law is a factor to be worked around or with on a purely tactical basis until sharia can be imposed on Britain.

There it is right there in the article. This is just another step towards bringing Britain into the Dar Al Islam. No doubt, some L3 will regard this latest move as a fair attempt to meet Islam's 'last territorial demand', to coin a phrase. Well, this is about as likely to be successful as Munich, and for the same reasons.

How About This One, Fi ?

You can always rely on Channel Four. These people really are the poster boys for Liberal Tourette's Syndrome. Other folk - the Beeb for one - can at least simulate normality when tactically necessary, but with C4 they just can't help themselves. Take the question of Christianity. Everyone knows the Left hates it, but try getting them to admit it. OTOH, you just know C4 can't let Christmas pass without unleashing its inner Linda Blair. Yes indeed - at 20:30 on Dec 25 itself, C4 will screen a program called 'Who really wrote the Bible' ? I mean, really. Yes, the exact provenance of the Bible is a subject worth discussing, but choosing that date to air the show is just an delibrate attempt to offend.

As it happens, the revelations themselves are asinine. Not for the first time, C4's revelations turn out to include nothing that anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the field in question didn't know anyway. C4 expects us to be shocked by the idea that the New Testament isn't a contemporaneous report. So the gospels aren't admissible in court ? Also, Church doctrine doesn't necessarily always reflect the contents of the Bible - although if people making bizarre interpretations of original texts offends Liberals so much, why aren't they protesting outside the High Court ?

Based on the trailers, there's little reason to suspect that C4 will actually be offering anything particularly enlightening - all of which just supports the suspicion that this program is being produced for no better reason than that Liberals enjoy beasting Christians. No surprise there, but the real question d'jour is this: if some nutball decides to cap a C4 scheduler, will Fiona Mactaggart be sure to point out that it's actually a good thing in the long-term ?

Dept of Sour Grapes Reports

Or, to put it another way, how to go from a rag-tag bunch of unhinged idiots to a sinister conspiracy to pervert democracy. But, for now, sit back and enjoy the idea of Nu Lab's house journal coming out against excessive marketing in politics.

Walking Without A Licence

JohnJo has set us his 1952 Committee - bloggers who refuse to vote Conservative because of the Party's support for Walking Licences. I can well understand that, but what I can't understand is why anyone would see this as a reason for voting Lib Dem.

About the only evidence in favour of ID cards as a weapon against terrorism is that the Treason Party opposes them. Nevertheless, as Lib Dem Watch reminds us, t'was not always so. I'm sure the Lib Dems actually support the principle of ID cards, it's just that they're uncomfortable with the idea of trying to defeat terrorists and criminals. If the cards were being brought in to nail Christians or entrepreneurs, then I'm sure the Lib Dems would be all for them.

As it is, Lib Dem opposition is something of a mixed blessing. The Lib Dems think we don't need ID cards to win the war ? Well, yeah, but they don't think we need to fight in the first place. A party whose policy boils down to 'Surrender Now!' is not necessarily the best ally for those who seek to prove that you can win the war on terror without beasting old ladies who pop out for cat food without carrying their Walking Licence.

Meanwhile, if you really are teed off with the Conservatives support of ID cards, there is a party which opposes them and really is serious about national defence. So if you want to remind the Conservative Party that freedom covers more than mere economics, without giving aid and comfort to the residents of Moonbatia, you know what to do.

Of Nonces And Nokia

To paraphrase St Ann, it must be great being Liberal. Whereas those of us on the Right wake up in the morning able to predict 90% of the day's event in advance, for the L3 every day is a journey into the unknown. Take the knuckle-dragging Marxist thugs at Searchlight: they've recently made a shocking discovery - the BNP is doing best in traditional Labour areas. What ? You mean Burnley isn't a Conservative stronghold ?

Of course, the Yin to the Yang of Liberal's goldfish memory is their gold star inability to learn from experience. The self-same article accuses Conservative voters of voting BNP as an 'anti-Asian protest vote'. Anti-Asian ? Conservatives have a downer on the Druze ? We terrorise Taoists ? Or possibly - and I know this is a stretch - it's not actual Asians per se that we oppose, it's just that minority of them who are members of a certain Religion of Peace. But the L3 won't admit that. They won't admit that there are legitimate grounds for anyone to oppose the death cult (y'know trivia like murder, slavery and the like). That's your answer right there, the doctrine of the modern Left: people who fly planes into buildings need to be understood while people who vote the wrong way need to be exterminated. Gosh, anyone know why people aren't buying into the L3 version of equality ?

The Left's support for overt discrimination against native Britons is just a symptom of a wider change in the modern Left . Compare and contrast the differing treatment of concerns about phone masts and paedophiles. A bunch of middle-class ecoloons decide to take against phone masts - without, in the technical sense, any actual evidence - but we're all supposed to take it seriously. Meanwhile, the chattering classes are outraged that folk on the council estate don't like the way their alleged betters have not only conspired to allow child molesters to infiltrate their estates, but they then deny parents the right to know if the bloke next door is a convicted killer. There's no junk science required here. WARNING! - 100% of child molestation is carried out by paedophiles. Even the psychodrivelers - the blokes who make a life and a living out of the alleged rehabilitation industry - will admit two things: paedophiles usually offend again, and when they do they usually escalate the severity of the offence.

What is true of paedophilia is true of crime generally. The Left is unable to process crime as anything other than a purely abstract phenomenon. That real people are having their lives destroyed by crime - both literally and figuratively - doesn't feature on their radar. Ditto education. Bright kids with massive potential are being screwed over almost from birth because the local schools are awful. The Left's response is to strangle school choice even further - while actual Leftists pull strings for their kids, hire tutors or go private. Und so weiter….

A man from Mars would conclude that, quite simply, modern Liberals hate the working man. The non-working man they love. Provided he's prepared to be a good Underclasser, they'll go the extra mile for him, but woe betide any bloke from Burnley who wants something better for himself. For proof of that look no further than Nu Lab's enemies list: farmers (of course), gun owners (always), truckers…..Truckers ? No matter how much Kool Aid you've drank, there's no way a guy who works sixty hours a week driving from Glasgow to Milan and back counts as a bloated plutocrat, yet the mere thought of men with HGV licences turns the L3 purple with rage.

So ordinary, decent working folk are abandoning the party of scumbag lawyers, prancing thespians, thuggish union bosses and lardarsed bureaucrats. Kein scheisse, Herr Einstein. People are starting to realise that if they want to get anywhere in life, they're not going to get any help from a group of people who think everywhere outside the M25 is the Cursed Earth. That's a failure of Nu Lab - albeit a failure of their ability to keep fooling folk. But it's also a failure for the Conservative Party. There was a time when people didn't have to flock to a bunch of Neanderthals to protest L3 scumbaggery, when the Conservative Party provided a natural home for those who wanted to escape socialism's big plantation. Of course, that was under the woman who got fired because she was an embarrasment.

Outsourcing Liberalism

In a stunning rebuttal to those who suggest near-monopoly control of Britain's institutions is having a negative effect on Liberal debating skill, Charles Falconer warned that the people who oppose the Human Rights Act support "the legal values of the dark ages". So that's us Conservatives - no longer just Nazis, but also Vikings. Viking Nazis, like in the well-known Wolfgang Peterson film Das Langboot.

Not that anyone would support going back to the dark ages. Just think what that would mean - we'd have a King appointing barely-competent cronies to top jobs and wasting public money on huge vanity projects. Let's hope that never happens. Then again, of all the many things wrong with the dark ages, the lack of town cryers shouting 'Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Hast thou been injured by means of witchcraft ? Call upon Jack D'Weasel and partners this very morn for no win, no levy legal advice!' probably wasn't one of them.

In actuality, the main objection to the Human Rights Act was illustrated perfectly by the self-same conference Fatty was attending in the first place:

A research fellow from the thinktank Frances Butler said: "It's hardly known that the Human Rights Act can be applied outside the courtroom to help vulnerable and socially excluded people. Voluntary organisations are well placed to seek changes from public authorities on behalf of vulnerable people without necessarily having to go to court.

The Human Rights Act is a misnomer - it should be the Human Entitlements Act. You might be entitled to something, under some arrangement or other, but to assert a fundamental 'right' to coerce someone else into buying you something is to destroy the whole meaning of the word. Or to put it another way, the right to press freedom doesn't mean the newsagent has to pay for your newspaper.

The HRA is an attempt to outflank democracy. There are a whole raft of policies the L3 support but know they would never be able to achieve via the ballot box. By asserting these things as rights, the Left manages to move the issue under the aegis of, reliably Liberal, judges. PC victim groups get to assert their supply of free money as a right, while those less favoured get to pay for it.

Of course, this sort of thing is hardly limited to the HRA. There is a whole raft of laws which would be radioactive at the ballot box, yet have been foisted on Joe Public by activist judges. Which brings me onto self-defence.

Liberals can have no illusions about public support for the current law, otherwise why else have such Liberal face cards as Sir John 'Sock Puppet' Stevens at the Met and the DPP claimed to have had road to Damascus conversions on this issue. Gosh! The Liberal Establishment aren't a bunch of effete snobs after all.

But wait…. What's this ? Attorney General Goldsmith must not have got the memo. Here he is frankly admitting that HMG's review of the law is a farce:

Goldsmith, the Prime Minister's chief legal adviser, said he was obliged to carry out the review, but remained unconvinced of the need for new legislation.

Newsflash! - member of Liberal Establishment finds that Liberal Establishment approach to home invasions is perfect already. There's a certain irony here, of course. The slightest suggestion that the courts may like to restrict their rulings to stuff that's actually on the statute books, rather than what they think should be, provokes the lawyers into a hissy fit about the sanctity of judicial independence. Similarly, these weasels justify the ever-expanding reach of the courts with a load of sub-Marxian drivel about 'standing up for the little guy', 'protecting people from big corporations' and other emetic phrases. The courts, they scream, provide an independent tribunal where justice can be pursued free of vested interests. Well, there are few corporations or bodies which are richer or more powerful than the legal establishment, yet when questions are raised about whether they are truly serving the public interest their response is to appoint one of their own to oversee the review.

That's the bottom line. Our system of checks and balances is broken. Our hyperactive courts are supposedly checking the power of Parliament, but who checks them ? No one. The power of the courts is growing like turvy and with less oversight than is required for an ordinary citizen to obtain a shotgun licence. We can't do anything about the judges, but we can do something about the people who acted as a deaf-blind watchman while the judges carted away the store. Why do we pay for 650+ MPs when they just sit there like lemons ? Actually, it's because most of them are all in favour of outsourcing imposition of the Liberal agenda, but what of the Conservatives ? Do they really intend that a future Conservative government should acquiesce in a situation in which it is, once again, in office but not in power ? And why exactly would anyone want to vote for them if they did ?

The issue of judicial activism is a perfect litmus test for the modern Conservative Party. As long as they refuse to address this issue, they refuse to seriously confront one of the major - even the major ? - issue which a future Conservative government would face. The Conservatives can babble on all they like about policy, but the refusal to take on these people betrays either a chronic lack of vision or a lack of courage. Either explanation speaks badly of the modern Party.

Pro-Slavery Activist Gets Free Ride

The BBC's political bias is proverbial, but equally annoying is the ubiquitous cultural bias, the unthinking regurgitation of the attitudes and prejudices of north London as though they constituted the laws of physics. As far as this form of bias goes, there is no greater exemplar than Jeremy Vine's eponymous show on Radio Two. Five days a week, poor, dumb country bumpkins from small villages such as Leeds and Glasgow have the chance to learn from their betters how to make their hamlets every bit as civilised as Islington.

Take Friday for example: there was a debate on jury service. On one side there was a barrister who, staggeringly enough, thought that allowing him and his fellow cultural Marxoids the right to seize formerly free citizens and coerce them into to taking part in bizarre State worship ceremonials was just ducky. On the other side was…. Well, no one actually. Then again, to judge by Jeremy Vine's opening comments, there was nothing worth discussing after all. Apparently, jury service is 'our most important civic duty'. Also, forced labour in the service of the State is a 'vital role'.

Given that opening, you may wonder what they managed to talk about for nearly a hour. Indeed, even Auntie appears to recognised the essential difficulty in holding a debate where all the main points are ruled off limits. While occasional comments from actual, real citizens were allowed into the bubble, the main momentum to the piece was provided by - I kid thee not - an actress reading out what opponents of forced labour might say. Needless to say, a convention of scarecrows features less straw men, but that wasn't the worst part of it. Nope - what really grated was that each straw man was introduced by means of the actress saying 'Why do I have to do jury service [when I might get abducted by killer dwarfs or some such nonsense] ? in such a whiny, teenage brat kind of voice as to suggest that those of us opposed to slavery were only against it because we think that forced adoration of the State is, y'know, kind of a drag, and like we were hoping to go and get our nails done, and it's soooooo boring, dude…… That there is a moral case against the right of the State to seize individuals and force them to take part in ceremonial worship of its own power is apparently inconceivable at the Beeb.

The Beeb might not have allowed dissenting voices, but at least Jegsy was prepared to go for the throat with questions such as 'do you think it is a good system or is it a little cumbersome' ? Can you imagine a Conservative getting that kind of question ? Scratch that - can you imagine an adult getting that question ? Nevertheless, under the pressure of no opposition at all, our barrister friend still managed to collapse into a heap of absurdities.

We were told that the jury system was the 'last protection against an authoritarian state'. Really ? Does Cromwell know that ? To say nothing of Ghandi and George Washington.

Also, forced labour is justifiable because it's important to have a complete 'cross-section of society'. As it happens, in 1987 Lady T won by a landslide. What proportion of judges voted for her ? The legal establishment ain't saying. Apparently, the need for a complete cross-section justifies slavery, but there's no need to go as far as hiring anybody to the right of Tony Blair.

But surely some people just aren't suited for the job ? Ah yes, but a 'jury is often greater than the sum of its parts'. But if that's true of a group of twelve, how much more so for a group of forty million, so how come the legal profession isn't clamouring for more democratic oversight ? How about confirmation hearings for High Court judges, mandatory sentences and the like ? Hey - it would mark a great improvement if these people could just stop with their whining every time the press exposes their latest insane decision. Apparently, random people seized off the street is a fine way to staff a jury, but laws passed by the democratically elected tribunes of the people are mere suggestions. There is no greater proof of the ineffectual nature of the jury system than that this bunch of elitist snobs support it.

The essential snobbery of these people was shown by the truly Antoinettesque approach of said barrister to the question of people who simply can't take time off to take part in their little pantomimes. A dental technician phoned in, he was part of a two man practice that would be unable to operate while he was being forced to attend these stupid ceremonies. Of course, he and his partner would not earn any money during this time - that's bad. Equally, the public would be deprived of the services of a vitally needed dentist - or to put it another way, people in pain were being refused treatment merely to satisfy the megalomania and arrogance of our legal system. Ratboy's answer to that was to claim the victim could apply to defer his service so he could do jury service instead of taking a holiday - the sort of suggestion which when uttered by a CEO to an employee usually results in one of ratboy's colleagues ramming in a £10 million lawsuit. Another listener pointed out that her husband had been forced into bankruptcy by being enslaved by the State. The barrister in question responded that this was 'a tough one' - you are invited to consider the media reaction if a Conservative MP had come out with something so blindingly insensitive.

As ever, the S-Switch was in full operation - the deliberate confusion of the State with society, such that anything which the State needs - or claims to - is by definition good for society at large. History suggests the opposite is more likely to be true. Then again, what can be said about people who can state without any apparent shame that jury service is the 'most important civic duty'. For these people, the Battle of Britain was kind of important, but only in the sense that it offered opportunities for suing on behalf of Luftwaffe pilots shot down without due process.

Then again, let's take these fiends at their word. They claim forced labour is the price of a free society - much as chain smoking is the price of health. Let's go the whole way and adopt the Starship Troopers model: two years military service as the price of citizenship. After all that pious rambling about 'our (ie other peoples) duty to society', doubtless the lawyers will be first into the recruiting office, no ? Or at least, given that lawyers find nothing strange even in members of our volunteer military suddenly claiming to be pacifists when the shooting starts, allow those of us who think the courts need reforming with a flame-thrower to register for our own form of conscientious objector status.

The reason why these people feel the need to babble on about 'service' - even while bending over backwards to shaft those who really do serve - is to distract from the threadbare nature of the arguments for jury service. Hypocritical moralising drivel aside, there are really only two excuses for it. One is the belief that a representative sample of slaves will serve better than a group made up of volunteers. Or to put it another way, the State believes that no one, on an island of sixty million, with an IQ above fifty, would ever want to support our court system - which clearly means that there's a problem with everyone else in the country. Funnily enough, there is an organisation that is staffed entirely by volunteers, and socialists do indeed claim that it's full of the dregs of society, so that's what we're risking: a court system that only works as well as the British Army. Quelle horror!

The other argument is even stranger. The idea is that the jury acts as a brake on bad laws. Jurors supposedly refuse to convict and the law is subsequently overturned. The obvious flaw in this cunning plan is that juries can just as easily strengthen bad laws by convicting as vice versa (see Martin, Anthony for further details). Leaving aside that, isn't there something fundamentally bizarre about all this ? Some of the most elitist trash in the country go all misty-eyed at the thought of Joe Public striking down laws ? No, the whole thing is profoundly undemocratic. The best defence against bad law is an alert and active legislature - the very thing the legal establishment fears most. Bad laws should be ruthlessly enforced - let the error of those laws be seen clearly and unequivocally.

Still, the idea of jurors ignoring the law of the land does hint at one of the real reasons why lawyers really support the jury system, it's the random element. Try this little thought experiment: the Truthomatic 2010 system is invented, providing 100% accurate judgements - in this scenario, what role is there for lawyers ? Nada - the whole point of hiring a lawyer is to tilt the system your way. As long as the jury stem exists, they'll be hope for even the most blatant of felons (and fear for the most honest of citizens).

The other reason though is even more sinister. Quite simply, the coercion of individual citizens into performing roles in legal ceremonies is a blatant exercise in judicial supremacism. The seizure of innocent citizens to serve at the behest of the judiciary is an exercise in ramming home the point as to who really runs Britain. Judges will whine about terrorists being held in Gitmo while waxing lyrical of their own ability to seize citizens for their own needs, with no appeal, accountability or anything else these people claim to find so vital when dealing with paedophiles.

To return to an earlier point, what of the Army ? One of the arguments for a volunteer army is that it acts as a brake on the excesses of foreign policy. A ready supply of slave soldiers would make it all too easy for government to ignore the consequences of fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons (e.g. Viet Nam). The analogy is obvious. Is it any surprise that the arm of government that jealously protects it's ability to abduct members of the public is also the one that is the most corrupt, the most worthless and the most conspicuously contemptible of the self-same public ?

At best, the jury system is an inadequate and untrustworthy safeguard against the excesses of government. More commonly, the jurors simply act to conceal just how little input the public has into the judicial system. The Hell with it all. There's plenty wrong with the judicial system (in much the same way that the Sun is somewhat hot), but the first step to fixing it is easy enough. Let's not pretend that the jury system is anything other than a farce. Let these scum know they can - for now - seize citizens, but the citizens themselves at least have no illusions about what's happening. We should be prepared to say it out loud: if you're an ordinary, decent member of the public, then the courts are the enemy.

Liberal Pretends To Care About Crime

The annoying thing about Liberals is…

No, wait, everything's annoying about the L3. Nevertheless, one of the most annoying things is their habit of tormenting kittens while loudly proclaiming that they're taming lions - perfectly exemplified by Sock Puppet's latest effusion.

The Filth are under pressure. For some reason, the yuppie scum have stopped proclaiming that crime is an invention of the tabloids. Meanwhile, the Bill are under pressure for their own, unique, interpretation of reasonable force. There's an election coming up and Nu Lab's strategy is to pretend to be 'tough on crime' - to coin a phrase. Against this background, Sir John Stevens calling for the law to give more rights to householders is about as daring as criticising Dubya at the Guardian Winterval Party - and that's even without taking into account the fact he's retiring anyway.

It is the perfect metaphor for Sock Puppet's career that even while attempting such a blatantly tactical manoeuvre as this, the changes he advocates are so limited as to be pointless. Here's the nub of it:

My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.

'Necessary' rather than 'reasonable'. Not exactly the latter day equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. Even Sock Puppet can't hide the basic problem with that approach:

The test at the moment is that you use reasonable force in the circumstances. You do not use excessiveness."

He said that was too imprecise for people to consider in extreme circumstances, when they needed to be clear about their legal rights.

Indeed. 'reasonable force' wouldn't be so bad if it was interpreted, well, reasonably. On the contrary, since virtually the day the statute passed, the legal establishment has been tightening the ratchet until now where we've reached the point that failure to offer intruders a range of beverages and a light snack constitutes a criminal offence.

Yes, it would be a good thing if an incoming Conservative government restored the right of citizens to defend themselves against members of the Criminal Community, but it would be little more than a gesture without a determined effort to root out the type of Neo-Marxist culture warriors perfectly exemplified by Sock Puppet.

The Ratchet Turns

The prohibitionists have won a significant victory recently. Not only that but it's a textbook example of how these people argue. What's happened is best summed up in the quote below:

Local councils take responsibility for licensing from February and are keen to introduce "saturation zones" in areas that are already packed with bars and blighted by trouble...

Within a saturation zone, no licence will be granted unless the applicant can prove that they will not contribute to the violence blighting many city centres.

One objection, from the public or the police, would be enough for a refusal.

Yes, indeed. One objection. It's a fanatics charter. But even if it were not so ludicrously unbalanced, it would still be objectionable, both practically and morally. If we believe in the free market, then we believe people have the right to trade. To announce that this right exists at the whim of politicians is to announce that it's no kind of right at all.

As for the practical objections, this kind of system exists in Sydney and it has produced all the effects basic theory would lead you to expect. Artificially restricting the supply of something far below demand simply means two things: the price will shoot up and consequently, once obtained, the resource must be ruthlessly exploited. So expect to see the landlord of the Red Lion sell out to the big pub chains. Or to put it another way, this legislation will see the market tilt even further towards exactly those 'drinking factory' establishments where trouble is most likely.

But that's not what really annoys me. Look at the headline and text of the story that quote came from. The word 'implied' is not strong enough to describe the suggestion here that drinking and violence are inevitably linked, as though it's an outrageous demand for people to be expected to have more than two drinks in the same week without glassing someone.

No wonder the prohibs are in the ascendancy right now. Their rantings mesh perfectly with modern Liberalism: the demon drink climbs out of the bottle, hurls itself down someone's throat and forces - forces! - them to give someone a good kicking. The L3 were never big ones for personal responsibility anyway, even without considering the embarrassing fact that many more plausible causes for the current wave of urban chaos trace back to policies vigorously advocated by the L3.

Not only does the demon drink make a good scapegoat for personal failings, it also takes the rap for corporate ones. As if to prove the hypothesis of a direct correlation between how awful a public service is at its real job, and the readiness of its top brass to pontificate on side-issues, here's Steve 'Gunsmoke' Green, the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire and the chief member on licensing for the Association of Chief Police Officers:

We are in favour of saturation zones as I am not satisfied that the industry will restrain itself, because its intention is to make a profit.

Is there no end to this evil ? The brewers are giving the public what they want and getting paid for it. How do they sleep at night ? Ol' Gunsmoke may not be able to do anything about Nottingham's high-velocity lead pollution, but he's sure got whining about the demon drink off to a fine art.

But this is the genius of the prohibs position. On the one hand, just as the anti-smoking fanatics - many of them the same people, of course - had to pull a passively-smoking rabbit out of the hat, so the prohibs have realised that they can't lead the public on a witch hunt against boozers without convincing the sane majority that some blokes down the White Lion constitute a grave threat to all right-thinking people. It works - consider that the article above is from the Telegraph, supposedly a Conservative paper, yet the terminology used seems to border on the hysterical. Too many G & Ts down the nineteenth hole and your family GP will be roaming the streets torching cars.

Yet, amongst the hysteria, there's something fundamentally reassuring about the prohib's position. Let's not worry that our society really is becoming more violent, let's not worry that increasingly large parts of the public think it's OK to behave like animals. Nope - it's all the fault of Scottish & Newcastle and the rest of their fellow low-lifes. They make people put shop windows through. Let's not blame the criminals. They're victims too. They need lurrrrve, and a big hug, and a ….

No, enough already. Let's hear no more about the epidemic of 'binge drinking'. Contrary to enemy propaganda, there was never a time when working men went out for a night and returned home after two lager shandys. The story of Britain is a story of collective drunkenness. We could have stayed sober, we could have built the kind of exemplary society now to be found in Iran, but we didn't. We got hammered, but never in their most drunken moments did our ancestors think that downing a few pints was a reasonable excuse for getting together with six mates and kicking some guy to death. Now, it appears, we increasingly do. Yet, staggeringly, violence has gone through the roof. Who'd have thunk it ?