Liberals: Sick Or Evil?

Evan Sayet is bang on about the militant nihilism at the heart of modern liberalism. The only thing I'd add is that liberals also love the feeling of superiority they get from sneering at those bumpkins with their stupid 'morals'. Consider their latest baby seal: Gary Glitter.

Liberal elitism is plenty annoying at the best of times, but supporting child rape is a new low even for them. Needless to say, that's not quite how the left describes their position. The liberal butt monkeys are out in force - so called because of their habit of penning articles announcing that 'of course, we all agree that child rape is bad BUT....'.

Personally, I'm thinking 'of course, we all agree...' is the liberal equivalent of 'I'll be honest with you...'. Maybe the right should start using the same formulation for addressing issues we have no intention of doing anything about, as in 'Of course, we all agree arts funding is too low/class sizes are too big/social workers don't get enough respect'?

Actually, that's giving the left too much credit. It's not just that they don't want to turn up the heat on nonces, they objectively side with the paedophiles. Look at the proportion of liberals in the MSM (approximately 100%) who denounce anti-paedophilia activism as 'hysteria'. Really? What would be the correct reaction to child rape? Apathy? Ironic detachment? Warm applause? And if the abduction and subsequent sexual torture of a child doesn't raise any hackles on the left, what would? The assailant having a cigarette afterwards?

Incidentally, I'm thinking that if you're are intending to cast yourself as an iconoclast standing up to the mob, that probably requires more than spouting the self-same talking points as everyone else in the MSM. Just how much uniformity does it take for liberals to stop pretending to be Henry Fonda in 'Twelve Angry Men'?

Ditto, with the left's other moronic talking point, claiming the anti-paedophile effort is all a 'witch hunt'. Really? Wouldn't that characterisation be dependent on the hunters in question not continually capturing huge numbers of witches?

Hmmmm... you know, I'm thinking that if the liberal elite could denounce paedophiles with nearly as much passion as they denounce the folks who call for stronger action, the public might actually start to have some confidence in their commitment to dealing with the threat. Instead, we get what we always when liberals confront evil: stupid hair-splitting and absurd PoMo "what do you mean by 'evil' ?" arguments. Consider that the lefty blogosphere has hailed this piece of dreck as a modern day Gettysburg Address - only better!

Sarler's retarded point is that we can't take any action against paedophiles without deciding whether they're evil or mad (also, we can't read with the light on until we solve that whole wave/particle duality thing).

Well, no room for misquote there anyway. Never mind the need to protect the innocent it's all about the perp. Meanwhile, sane people answer the question like this: who cares? Whether bad, mad or vessels of demonic entities, they're a threat and they need to be dealt with.

Speaking personally, I'll start to believe the illness made 'em do it just as soon as someone can show me a case where these crimes were committed in sight of a uniformed police officer. Until then, it seems like they can resist their impulses just fine when they need to.

Sarler's argument would set new levels for stupidity, except that the rest is is even worse. She claims to be shocked - shocked! - at the revelation that predators can face other punishments in addition to jail time. Wait until she founds out this is only the tip of the iceberg - take drunk drivers losing their licence or fraudsters being disbarred from company directorships, for example. For that matter, would Sarler claim wife beaters denied shotgun licences are also victims?

All of which neatly answers Sarler's other asinine point. Sarler tries that most trite of liberal charges: it's all about the hypocrisy! Why, asks our learning-impaired elitist, are people enraged by paedophilia but not crimes of violence? Well, coming back at you libs! Why aren't liberals penning long articles calling for more understanding of tax evaders, firearms offenders or folks accused of hate speech?

Paedophilia is a live topic because this is where the left has decided to concentrate its latest efforts on defining deviancy down. If the liberal elite spent its time taking out onions for violent sociopaths, then there would be 'hysteria' (also known as 'public outrage') over that too. As it is, they don't, so there isn't.

That's the thing. However leftists try and hide it, it's quite obvious that they just don't think paedophilia is that bad. This is why they denounce critics as hysterical, while degenerate filth gets hailed as artistic genius. True, they can't yet get the age of consent actually wiped off the statute books, but they can give the law the death of a thousand cuts.

The only problem is the one the liberal agenda always faces: public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the lumpy, dumpy citizenry isn't yet onboard with our sofiticayted friends and their attempts to rebrand child rape as just another 'alternative lifestyle'. In fact, so frustrated has the left been by the failure of attempts to mainstream the sexual exploitation of children, they're starting to sound kind of... what's the word? Ah yes, hysterical.

As a rule, the more over-heated liberal rhetoric, the more ludicrous their arguments. In this case, the near-lunatic ranting can't hide the sheer weirdness of their position. The right's position is simple enough: every predator who ever lived isn't worth the life of a single innocent child, but what's with liberals? How did the folks who keep jibber-jabbering about standing up for the weak and the vulnerable end up proposing policies that objectively help sexual predators, and in particular, demanding that captured perverts should face nothing more serious than a brief term of none too uncomfortable imprisonment alongside fellow enthusiasts, after which they should be permitted to return to their vocation with the tacit support of the left?

As Sayet would sayet, there is no objective criteria by which you can place the rights of a pervert over those of his victim, yet that is what the left is doing. Never mind the predators, what's with liberals? Sick or evil ?

The Victimhood Is Weak In This One

Victimhood poker in the Five-oh? You betcha!

JuliaM administers a righteous kicking, so I've only got one thing to add. Let's just check the scorecard here: airport screeners are forced to screen 88 year old grandmothers, paraplegics and toddlers, lest they be accused of profiling, but it's OK for PC Plod to pick up a black dude on the grounds that he's driving a blue car. Hey, how many blue cars can there be out there?

But no: women don't lie about rape, so I guess this must all be another Right-Wing Myth.

Nazis, Nazis Everywhere!

You'll miss this type of quality reporting when the BBC is gone! As a matter of interest, does anything out there not remind them of Nazis? Well, apart from a totalitarian cult that wants to take over the world and exterminate the Jews - that's just pure coincidence.

But let's not let the superficial idiocy hide the deeper stupid. A shocking BBC report finds pedigree dogs are frequently unhealthy? Who knew? Well, apart from everyone, obviously.

Yes, a narrow gene pool can lead to weird mutations spreading through the general population, but this is GCSE science. Ditto, breed standards are frequently weird and unnatural. Take the slopping back of the German Sheperd - or rather don't, it should be straight, and the quest for bent back dogs has lead to endemic hip problems in the breed. Both issues - and does the BBC even know the difference between the two - are well known.

But even that's not it. What's the BBC accusing dog breeders of? They only select from a tiny pool and insist on criteria that totally screw up the ability to perform even basic functions? Hmmmmm... I believe the phrase that pays is something about 'motes and beams'.

They Weren't Sensitive This Time

Another day, and another plot by those sinister Men Of No Appearance. But wait... I see a possible clue further down:

Ch Supt Andy Rhodes, of Lancashire Police, said: "These arrests and subsequent searches of the nearby premises will be conducted with sensitivity and carried out as quickly as possible to ensure minimum impact on the three areas concerned.

Say, you don't think...

But don't accuse the police of pandering to ethnic minorities. Nope, it's only certain - riot prone - minorities that get Chief Super Sensitive stopping by. Other minorities get this.

Yes, I'm sure suicide is an extreme reaction, but that's the thing - the police's carpet bombing approach makes it inevitable that vulnerable people like this will be caught up in one of their muscle-flexing exercises in low-level thuggery. Bottom line: if the victim had topped himself shortly after being beaten senseless by freelance thugs, no one would blink at connecting these two events, so why the reluctance now?

Yes, the police have to investigate complaints - even ones made by loonies - except they clearly didn't actually do any investigating here. There was never the slightest evidence against the victim, excepting the testimony of a known nutcase, but that was enough for these thugs to destroy a man's life.

Incidentally, even if you're an uber-authoritarian this should still worry you. These people are paid to prevent and detect crime, yet it now turns out that they're really spending their time giving random Chinese guys a hard time. Forget the specifics, these guys were given public money to do a job, but instead they were busy dealing with bogus make-work. How exactly is this different from dodgy builders who knock on the door to tell 80 year olds they've got some slates missing?

Back in the day, this would have been the point where I'd have written 2000 words on how the obsession with harassment of the innocent was both the perfect mirror-image of the left's belief that actual criminals were just citizens exploring an alternative lifestyle, and the natural result of their goal of decoupling the law from morality, in favour of law as the arbitrary exercise of state power. But that was then, and this is now, so instead I'll leave it to Ayn:

It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.

We Are Winning

Who'd have thunk it? A bare plurality of the public support the BBC. Hmmmm... do you think the same Beeboids who sneer at the massive margins for the death penalty and against the EU constitution will suddenly embrace the concept of majority rule after all? At least until their support finally drops below 50% anyway (which on current trends will be next Tuesday)?

No subject shows BBC bias like the BBC itself. Here we have almost half the country opposed to the idea taking money off poor people to give to Metropolitan lovies, but you wouldn't know it if you only watched the BBC. On the contrary, not only does the BBC treat its opponents as Unpersons, it regularly airs long promos publicising its own brilliance in terms that would make Kim Jong-Il blush.

Add in backing vocals from the left's choir insensible and never in history has there been such a wall of noise in support of a bad idea, but they're still losing.

Also losers: our potemkin conservative party. Under the divinely inspired leadership of the Ayatollah Khameron, the Tories haven't just refused to attack the BBC, they've even started stroking it. Opponents of the BBC have found themselves shunned by the conservative establishment, but it's the Tories that have been left on the kerb. While Official Conservatives were arguing that you had to go along to get along, grass roots activists were cutting the ground out from under the BBC.

Equally important, the campaign against the BBC was, and is, a virtual anti-matter version of Khameronism: instead of smug elitists issuing forth carefully-tailored messages aimed at C1 football fans who eat pizza, the BBC's getting battered by ordinary folks who's main source of evidence is the BBC's own reporting, and main tactic is simply fact-checking that appalling rubbish.

There's nothing sophisticated about the campaign against the BBC, and doubtless the BBC would claim the folks involved aren't nearly as exciting as Shami and the rest of their activist pals - in fact, all things considered, there's only one positive thing you can say about the anti-BBC folks: they're winning!

Social Conservatism In A Nutshell

It all comes down to this:

There are saints, there are people who know that there are saints, and there are people who don’t know. One should aspire to rise at least to the middle condition.

Certifiably Liberal

To adopt a Coulterism, the dividing line in politics is no longer between right and left, so much as between sane and crazy.

Today's 'Trust Me, I'm A Doctor' Story

Ooops - forgot to check: are we allowed to mention this without being accused of hating doctors?

Hey, You Know What Schools Need More Of? Feminism!

Why, yes, that idea does come from a wacademic, how'd you guess?

Of course there is one rather large problem with the theory that schools aren't drinking enough of the femiloon kool aid:

Dr Ringrose said most schools see gender equality in terms of exam results, where girls now outshine boys in most subjects.

Well, quite. In so far as the best objective data of school performance indicates that it's boys who are getting the shaft, this would tend to blow Little Miss Victim's thesis clean out of the water. But no - La Ringrose has an agenda to push and she sure as hell isn't going to waste time arguing about 'facts'

She called for teachers to discuss feminism and suggest positive role models, who could include figures such as Virginia Woolf, suffragettes' leader Emmeline Pankhurst and even the cartoon character Lisa Simpson.

Well, I'm all in favour of telling kids the inspiring story of how a socialist weasel recovered and blossomed into a fanatically pro-war social conservative, but I'm not sure about the other two, what with one being a loony who topped herself and the other being a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

Gosh, it's a real mystery why feminism is being laughed out of the public square!

Teenage chicks may not be, like, totally smart but even they can recognise a bunch of losers when they see them. After all, Paris Hilton may be the definitive example of a celebutard, but at least she's more fun than Ringnose and the rest of the freaks babbling on about how Virgina Woolf drowning herself really stuck it to The Man.

That's the real knock on feminism. Sure, amongst other things there's the irrationality, the deranged hatred of men and children, the immaturity and the obsession with victimhood, but the real problem with feminism is the problem with liberalism in general: it's just so brain-grindingly miserable.

Victory In Iraq!

Yep, guess the fighting must be over.

It's not clambering for position over the bodies of better men, it's moral authority, right?

Liberal Jounos Mugged By Reality Chinese

Hey libs, how equal are all cultures looking right about now?

Hoplophobes In Hell

OK, now can we say these people are crazy?

Exactly

On the subject of movies, this is equally true in Britain:

This is exactly where you and every other supporter of Canadian arts and film blows their argument. These are - not - our stories. Our stories as a nation would never be funded. If they were our stories people would see them. That's how that works.

No, these are the stories of a fringe group of largely well-off white, liberal elites in the Toronto, Vancouver arts scene. That is why they are terrified about losing funding...because then they would have to tell our stories which is exactly what they do - not - want to do.

But What Is The Artist Trying To Say?

I think Dirty Harry does not approve of the 'Tropic Thunder' protest, but who can tell?

Neo-Prohibitionists Vs Femiloons

Yep, the two most humourless bunch of lemon suckers in modern Britain are facing off.

Don't be too hacked off though - the mistake was made 'in good faith'. That's OK then. If they'd told a naughty joke about Sir Elton, they'd be gone, but slandering the victims of serious sexual assault is just part of the rough and tumble of modern politics. Ditto, this insane policy may have been revoked where sexual offences are concerned, but rest assured that if a man is kicked senseless on his way home after a lager shandy, that too will turn out to be a contributing factor.

FAT SWAT

The government's decision to send outreach workers from the Minstry of Strength Through Joy nurses out to harass people guilty of Category 5 Fat Crimes gets even weirder.

Yep, unannounced visits. So PC Plod has to check with 'comunnidee leaders' before taking down Bin Laden's hideout, but having Frau Flick of the Health Gestapo suddenly hammering on some fatties' door is just ducky. Priorities!

This Isn't The Diversity You're Looking For

The People's Party strikes again!

Two things occur to me about this. The quid pro quo for working for nothing is that the kids will be getting the first foot on the ladder to becoming MPs - or, to put it another way and diversity! blather to the contrary, Labour has given up on hiring real people as MPs, in favour of recruiting obsessed wonks who've never held down an actual job.

The other thing is this: successful candidates will be expected to work for nothing in the most expensive city in the known universe. I guess no working class Northerners need apply?

Back When Adults Ran Foreign Policy

For an example of how transnational lunacy has stripped us of the ability to confront evil, consider how pop history deals with the US decision to nuke Nintendoland totally for no reason at all.

Georgia In Flames, Transnationalism In Ruins

The great thing about calling your blog 'House of Dumb' is that you don't feel under any pressure to feign knowledge. I don't mind being the only blogger in the UK who admits he has no idea what's going on in the former USSR. Either the barbarians are clawing at the door of western civilisation once again, or a great nation has found a leader who puts bonds of blood and honour over the self-serving rationalisations and slippery legalese of the degenerates who make up the world's permanent ruling class.

Whatever this invasion reveals or doesn't reveal about the Motherland, it sure throws new light on modern liberalism. Consider the reaction of the alphabet soup NGO's - as neatly summarised here by PM - apparently, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't as Universal as you'd think. Either that, or condemning anyone outside the Anglosphere or Israel doesn't get the donations rolling in. Not since UNICEF produced an advert supposedly lamenting the suffering of children in war which featured jets raining down death on innocent villagers has the anti-American monomania of these people been so blatant.

Then there's Europe. As the true extent of Russian thuggery sinks in, an outraged continent has risen as one and shouted 'The US should do something!'. Not that the EU is afraid to spend money on big defence projects. After all, they are spending a bundle on the Galileo satellites which will duplicate America's GPS system. So soon you'll be able to drive to Uncle Mike's without being exposed to US mind control transmissions but the whole EU doesn't have a single armoured division to put between the Russian border and Kiev.

In fact, from a study of EU strategy and the order of battle for the European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps und so weiter, it looks like the only scenario in which these forces can and would fight is a Martian invasion of Bruges - and even then the Belgians wouldn't turn up.

Don't be shocked, but it looks like having 'soft power' is the same as being 'differently rich'. But that's not even the half of it. The decayed state of Europe's defences is just a symptom of a more general malaise. After all, why spend money of arms when the will to use them is absent anyway?

The EU is the latter day equivalent of Victorian aristocrats getting together to pass resolutions announcing that only the profits made from land count as proper money. It is denial as foreign policy. Do these people really think being excluded from the group photograph at summits will deter Putin? Or, as the most notorious Georgian of them all would have said, how many divisions does international law have?

Rightists Publish Stuff, Liberals Outraged!

In so far as leftists always claim to be devill may care rebels and iconocalsts speaking truth to power! in the face of the Evil Right-Wing Oppresion, it's always illuminating to see their hysterical reaction to actual right-wing thought.

This one from the Indie is a classic of the genre. They're shocked - shocked! - by the thought that there are people out there campaigning for lower taxes. Who knew? Not our tolerant friends, that's for sure. They keep trying to cast the TPA's activities in sinister terms, but can't help but come off as kind of, well, lame actually. As I read it the charge sheet is as follows:

1. The TPA does research
2. It then publicises it

What warped genius could have come up with such a plan? Well, off the top of my head: Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Greenpeace and NACRO., all of whom have used the self-same tactics - and with far less scrutiny. Of course, the TPA has never allied itself for murderous savages, so I guess it's not the same after all.

...Except No One In Britain Ever Died From Nuclear Waste

It occurs to me that if environmental law worked like criminal law, you'd be able to dump nuclear waste in the middle of a city, provided you agreed to stop by and check up on it once every fortnight.

The BBC Goes Feral

As I understand it, even 24 hour coverage on all channels isn't forcing enough people to watch the BBC's Olympic coverage. As a result, they've decided to escalate: from tomorrow they're sending out teams to break into people's homes and duct tape them to a chair in front of the TV. It's the only way they can justify the budget for sending 18 000 people to Beijing.

Don't Blame Me!

Yes, indeed: truly that Gove speech is the gift that keeps on giving. Still, for all that I've enjoyed seeing one of our betters out himself as a total retard, there's a lingering sense of unease here. Just why is everyone blaming it all on social conservatives?

If the argument is that Gove's speech was an example of the Cameroonies reaching out to social conservatives, all it proves is how utterly divorced these people are from what socio-cons are actually saying. On the contrary, Gove's attack on Nuts and the like, based as it was on one part femilunacy to one part snobbery, is exactly the sort of chattering class fan service the Cameroonatics have made their own.

You Think That's Big?

You should see the size of the solar panel it takes to power it!

I believe the phrase that pays is 'Maybe I'll believe it when they start acting like they do'.

FFS!

Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show is running what it calls its alternative Olympic coverage. Meaning what? Interviews with druggie sleaze Dwaine Chambers, then with 'China enthusiast'.... George Galloway.

It's an interesting philosophical point which is worse: the BBC's obsession with promoting that scumbag or Galloway's own determination to ally himself with every anti-Western force on the planet, no matter how evil.

Kill Da Pigs

As a rule of thumb, I'm thinking that if someone's claiming it's the sight of shields and helmets that drives people to indulge in riotous insanity, they may not be moderates after all.

How does that work anyway? Are cops rampaging round threatening to throw their helmets at peace-loving ecoloons? How do you intimidate someone with protective clothing? And does Mad Bob freak out when he sees doctors wearing white coats? Admittedly, he's probably well used to that by now.

It's not even as if there's not already evidence of mayhem being planned. Actually, that's the bit that sticks in the throat. You just know that in almost any other context Bob Marxist-Andrews would be taking out an onion for those poor workers denied proper protection by the eviiiil bosses.

MONA Minor

Are MSM journalists completely lacking in self-awareness? Let's just consider that sub-genre of writing where a hackette writes a hand-wringy article about whether or not citizens should tackle yobs, even while she herself hides behind wheenie euphemisms like 'kids'. Who knew the Men Of No Appearance had a youth wing?

To the point: folks tackling 'youths' are risking being stabbed to death. All these girls are risking is whiny criticism by the usual suspects. Isn't it time these bints 'took a stand'?

Outrage D'Jour: Now With Extra Dhimmitude

The moronic convergence continues! Further evidence that all the bad things in the world are converging in one big stupid: Europe, Islamofasicsm and the lawless courts all in one big ball of stupid! It's the hatrick of badness.

Another One Bites The Dust

You know it sure is lucky that The Dave purged the candidate lists and imposed his own set of Dave's Drones - otherwise something embarrassing might have happened.

This is why it matters: no Tory leader in history has exercised such control over the choice of candidates. Equally, the purge was a key example of Cameroonacy in action. Long-serving conservatives with local roots were replaced with Nu Tory robots. The whole process was a defining moment in Cameroonacy. The obsession with centralisation, control freakery, contempt for traditional values and local communities, and also for the role of MPs as anything other than avatars of diversity, are all examples of Cameroonacy in action.

As more and more examples of lunacy emerge amongst The Dave's New Elite we're entitled to wonder what it all says about both Cameron's judgement and his underlying ideology.

Even More On What Social Workers 'Actually Do'

Now that we've got to put up with all that liberal triumphalism over the release of convicted sexual predator Barry George, it's worth reminding ourselves just how things work under the left's preferred model of tribunal.

Or rather don't: the average leftist would rather have a shower than let the public know just how they operate:

Secondly, there were often additional reporting restrictions. Some of these were sought by local authorities as soon as I called them to try to get their sides of the stories. Some of these orders were so badly drafted that our lawyers simply could not tell what we could say. Some bore no relation to the draft that we had been sent before the hearing. It costs money to fight such orders, money that local media may not have and nationals are reluctant to commit.

Then again, these guys really do have something to hide. Sample quote:

As soon as a care order is made, the local authority controls all communications between parents and children. In many cases contact is gradually reduced, sometimes from a few hours a week to an hour or so a month, at which point social workers can return to court and claim that the child no longer has a strong bond with his family.

This is a key point: it's not about anything as benign as bad judgement, poor management or the like - these tactics are so twisted and sick that anyone who uses them simply should not be employed in the first place.

Or consider the quote JulieM highlights. Again, there's no possible defence for either the sadism or the social engineering.

Ditto, it is a simple fact that these courts are protected from public scrutiny. Not even Rumpole of the Bailey could argue his way round that. As Camilla Cavendish rightly points out, the media is able to respect the anonymity of rape victims without a blanket reporting ban. This isn't a complex issue: you're either happy with secret courts or you're not.

To the point: while feral leftists claim that recent events in the real courts prove.... something, the self-same folks are perfectly happy with courts that violate just about every principle of justice. It's the perfect barometer of how seriously to take their rantings about Barry George.

Work Hard

Guys like this are depending on you.

The Libs' New Baby Seal

Don't be shocked, but it turns out that Barry George is a violent sexual predator.

Who'd have thunk it, hey?

Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily make him a murderer, but it does kind of cut the ground from under the left's point that anyone - maiden aunts, small children, pet cats - can find themselves fitted up by the filth. Ditto, it's always interesting to see how fast the femiloons can ditch their alleged principles when they conflict with the tactical needs of the moment. Maybe they need a new slogan: zero tolerance for violence against liberalism?

At least liberals are taking this revelation with their usual charm, good humour and originality. Highlights from the comments thread of that article:

Is she sniffing the compo.

- will smith, Rochester England, 2/8/2008 14:08

Why didn't she report it earlier.Coming out the woodwork now so she can have a bit of compensation from him.Ka ching!

- Mark, Wigan, 2/8/2008 15:41

It funny how she is so traumatised now there is the chance to make some money.

- Afro Lady, wolverhampton, 2/8/2008 17:08

So now they come crawling out the woodwork at the mention of compensation.....

- Jo, Paignton, 2/8/2008 16:08

And thus was ended the debate over whether or not liberals were talking point spewing zombies.

But let's not overstate the case. Liberals aren't just morons endlessly parroting the same asinine lines. They're also liars:

Fancy that, man in line for a big pay out is a rapist 25 years ago, why did'nt she come forward years ago instead of now

- Paul Downey, Liverpool, 2/8/2008 15:45

If Mr George is in line for compensation watch out for hordes of traumatised women to come out of the woodwork with lurid tales of how the scheming oddball ruined there lives. Nothing can make up for what they went through - apart from large sums of money that would help bring closure (and early retirement).

- Chubbarow, Nottingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:48

Where's the proof of these allegations?

- N Brown, UK, 2/8/2008 15:53

Marvellous now the poor man's been accused of rape, its got to do with going for compensation-if you were raped wouldn't you have reported it when the incident happened not wait 8 years, Ms Gray wants a chunk of his compensation no doubt.

- Dee, Hampshire, England, 2/8/2008 16:28

Yep, I guess even liberals can see that defending a self-confessed rapist might be a tough sell. Of course, if they had any integrity at all they'd admit he'd already been tried and convicted for the rape, but then again, if they had any integrity they wouldn't be liberals. As it is, we get this:

Just as I expected. As soon as he is acquitted, the newspapers dig up all the dirt they can to attempt to justify his wrongful conviction. Whatever else he did he did not kill Dando and that is the relevant point.

- James Danvers, London, 2/8/2008 16:27

"He was very strong but it was all pretty pathetic..".
This sounds very suspicious to me. I suppose all the dirt that the police can dig will now be offered to the newspapers who will use it with avidity.

- D James, Lancashire, UK, 2/8/2008 16:33

'Digging up dirt' = making public information that's embarrassing to the left.

Meanwhile, here's the dark side of the left's worship of victimhood:

Was he arrested and convicted of an offence ? She seems to have gotten over her shock and trauma sufficiently to speak to the newspapers !!

- John Williamson, Birmingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:54

Yes, the fact a victim of a serious sexual assault has put her life back together over the following quarter of a century means she's clearly wasn't raped.

Hello? Just for the sake of clarity, could the left define how victims of rape are supposed to behave? Alcoholism? Suicide attempts? Just what do they need to qualify as genuine victims?

Oh yeah..... don't get in the way of liberal talking points.

I think this case gives us the right metric to judge femiloon charges that the right doesn't take rape seriously enough.

But the winner of best in show is this one, with my comments in square brackets:

Why can't they leave the poor man alone [a 'poor' convicted rapist]. He's suffered enough [two and a half years for a serious sexual assault?]. Now it looks like all sorts of women will be jumping on the bandwagon saying he did this or that [and it looks like the courts agree: he did do it!]. They are just after some fame and money. [or possibly they're just sickened by liberals presenting a dangerous pervert as some kind of victim]

- Steve, Worcester, England, 2/8/2008 15:35

And there you have it. Liberalism in a nutshell: a rape victim is unfairly persecuting her attacker by publicly calling him what he is.

Chicks, hey?

All this hate comes down to one thing: the victim has got in the way of the canonisation of Barry George. Liberals love cases like this because it gives them a bloody shirt to wave when the subject of crime and punishment comes up, and capital punishment in particular. This is why liberal activists will spend years insisting on endless appeals and retrials until they can get the baby seal d'jour off the hook.

Even most liberals wouldn't normally attack a rape victim, but hey, if she didn't want to get slimed, she shouldn't have got in the way, right?

Outrage D'Jour: Special Open Borders Uber Alles Edition

The courts have backheeled the rules on bogus marriages. That was depressingly predictable, but the logic on show is a classic of the 'constitution as an ink blot' genre:

Baroness Hale said: "Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy."

Let's ignore the sleazy sleight of hand - the whole point is that these relationships are not genuine - and consider the sheer brass neck of Hale's comments.

Hale is not resolving an ambiguity, filling in a gap in the law or interpreting statute. Her own justification makes it clear that she's not ruling on legal grounds, she's ruling on whether or not she think the existing policy is - to use her own words - proportionate or rational - an overtly political decision. She might have some worthwhile views on this, but there's no reason to privilege her views over any other citizens just because she has a good technical knowledge of the law, rather than, say, aviation, insurance or gas fitting.

To the point: Hale claims her legal status gives her the right to overrule a democratically-elected government, yet the self-same law makes clear that her position is a constitutional abomination.

It gets worse:

She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Except no one is arguing against the right to marry. It's the right to marry then get an automatic 'access all areas' pass that's the problem.

But here's the real insight into modern liberalism:

"My Lords, this scheme is an arbitrary and unjust interference with the right to marry," she said.

Arbitrary? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is anything but arbitrary. It's central to the whole point of having a country. You might as well argue for a right to joyride since 'ownership' is such a vague concept.

Forget the specifics of the case: Hale's position is a clear as day endorsement of the whole open borders position. In fact, she's so committed, she's even ditched her trademark femilunacy. Compare her current position...

"Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings."

...with her original one:

This is exactly what Dame Brenda was doing when in 1980 she made her now infamous remark about marriage. ‘Family law’, she wrote, ‘ no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage…Logically, we have already reached a point at which…we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.’

All of which exposes the other piece of humbuggery here. Hale and the rest of the open borders advocates argue that the whole 'nationality' is so over, so last year, but what other issue could cause a howling mad femiloon to ditch her principles like a red hot porcupine? The lengths to which the left will go to try and destroy ideals like citizenship and patriotism in and off itself is proof that these concepts still have power and relevance even after forty years of culture war.

Testing The Hypothesis

The Dawk speaks:

[Dawkins] is also a member of the Brights, a group who out themselves as atheists. But he is not too keen on the name. “The word Brights gets a lot of ridicule. A lot of Americans think it’s arrogant, that it’s saying non-religious people are cleverer than religious people. On average they probably are, but you’re not allowed to say that.” He grins.

A-huh.

Libs 4 Torture

Harriet Harperson's latest attack on the state of holy matrimony has already been ripped apart by all and sundry, so I only have a few things to add:

1. In so far as this new legislation is based on the theory that there are 'male killings' and 'female killings', how does that mesh with the femiloon rantings about Amy Winehouse being cruelly deprived of the chance to serve as a Marine ? If these loonies are finally accepting that boys and girls are different, doesn't that mean some jobs are best done by one or the other ?
2. On the plus side, at last they've finally outed themselves. They want to make it easier to convict men and harder to convict women. No room for misquote there. It ain't about the equality, it's about misandry.
3. Also outing themselves: our watchdog MSM, all of whom swallowed the femiloon line that the law would favour women who kill abusive men, rather than the truth, which is that the law would favour women who kill men even where the only evidence of abuse is the killer's hardly disinterested say so.
   
4. If these laws go through as planned, a women will have less right to use force against a rapist than she does against her husband. A women facing a predator in a balaclava will only be permitted to use reasonable force to escape (and no weapons neither - that would be evidence of premeditation). Anything else would be 'taking the law into her own hands' - presumably unlike killing your husband long after any alleged abuse has occurred and merely because she claims to fear future violence.
   
5. In so far as the reforms to the law on provocation are based on the idea that adultery is no big thing, this says all you need to know about liberal marriages (hmmm... maybe someone should tell this bint) ?
   
6. How exactly does this mesh with the libs' last great assault on marriage? Will gays have to register which of them is the wife and which is in the wrong ?
   
7. At least there's one good thing: if violence is allowed where there has been a history of violence and the possibility of violence in the future, doesn't that pretty much cover most Jihadis? We don't even want to kill them, just connect them up to the National Grid.

Candid!

So much for all those leftists - both inside and out of the Tory Party - who claimed that they weren't anti-American, they just thought being a real ally required the British government to be reflexively anti-American a 'candid friend', instead of a slavish poodle like that poodley poodle Tony 'poodle' Blair. Compared to the abject grovelling that greeted the visitation by the Obamamessiah, Tony Blair was practically Bin Laden.

What about Obama's flirtation with protectionism? Or his apparent support for the great over-mountain invasion of Pakistan? Then there's the deranged racial politics (sample quote: Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.')'. How come our candid friends on the left didn't feel the need to raise any of these points?

The real test is this: ask any of the Obama fans to quote one of his speeches over here. Nada. This was never about actual policy. Nope, the Euro-left's love of Obama is based on one thing: they both hate America.

Another Reason Why Tories Suck

I can't be the only one reading this who's reminded of the Red Dwarf line about the Hitlers being great hosts, providing you keep him off politics.

Apart from anything else, can we at least do without all the lickspittle tributes to Benn's integrity? He's an avowed socialist whose family treats seats in Parliament like the family silver and uses the public purse like a piggy bank.

But anyway, for the limited purposes of the Tories' absurd argument, let's pretend that Benn is a shining example of personal integrity: how come Nick Griffin doesn't qualify for this special 'don't mention the ideology' get out clause? After all, he certainly speaks his mind, stands up for what he believes, blah, blah, blah.

Benn's dream was Marxist tyranny just as much as Griffin's was racist dictatorship. And not even nasty Nick can match Benn's record of over half a century spent vigorously agitating for every form of sadistic lunacy imaginable, providing only that it was leftist and/or anti-British.

By the 1950s Stalin's crimes were common knowledge, yet Benn was - and remains - an unrepentant advocate of Marxism. Nothing, not the Great Leap Forward, not the Killing Fields, not Kim Jong Il could dim Benn's enthusiasm for tyrants. Whether it was striking miners killing uncooperative taxi drivers or the liquidation of whole classes of people, Benn was a tireless advocate for evil.

No doubt as cheerleaders for murderous savagery go, Benn is one of the more eloquent and has a fancy accent, but no amount of polysyllabic wordplay can conceal the basic truth that here's a man who regards mass slaughter as a perfectly reasonable part of politics. To see such a man lauded on Centre Right is the perfect barometer of both the moral void and the snobbery at the heart of the Nu Tories.

The Fish Rots From The Head

You really can't spend too long slamming chavs, but let's not confuse symptoms with causes. Our cultural death spiral started on the nice side of town, as this piece of garbage clearly demonstrates. Key quote:

He was a distressed young man who loved his wife and was having a crisis. This was a cry for help that was ignored.

See, the rich are different! If it had been an painter and decorator shot while blazing away at passers-by, we wouldn't have had any of this.

For the record: a cry for help is where you shout 'Help!' and the various statutes dealing with shooting up the town do not include any references as to whether or not the sniper in question loves his wife.

It gets better:

She describes the police negotiator, believed to be operating from a flat roof nearby, as ‘bland’.

She adds: ‘The negotiation, in my opinion, was very controlled, very slow, very boring. Maybe they have a way of negotiating, but I felt there was no ability to see what had gone wrong that day.’

Yep, the negotiations were kind of dull.

You know what they needed? A comedian. Some one to warm the crowd up with a few jokes, then maybe a singer.

Who knew flogging over-priced footwear gave you so much insight into the psychology of gunmen ?

Oh - there's this too:

Mrs Winkworth, who owns the freehold to the Saunders’ property, was dismayed that her suggestions to rectify the situation were disregarded.

Here's a little thought experiment: what do you think would happen if you dialled up her office and claimed that orange wellingtons were next season's must have? Do you think she might ignore your suggestions?

Hey, I know the police are 'public servants' and all, but that doesn't mean they'll fetch you a drink, do your laundry or break sieges to order.

The old aristocracy get a lot of stick but at least they had a sense of obligation to the country that had given them so much. All you need to know about the collapse of British civilisation is contained in the long journey from young aristocrats setting off for the Somme to our new elite demanding that people like them not be held to the same laws as the little people.

EU: Remember That Stuff We Don't Do ? We're Stopping Doing It

The EU has finally realised that one way to counteract food price inflation is to stop throwing away perfectly edible fruit on aesthetic grounds.

Nothing passes these guys by.

The only thing is, as TW points out, the EU has spent years denying that it ever did that. Indeed, the quest for the perfect banana has always been cited as the epitome of a 'right-wing myth'. Now suddenly we're supposed to praise them for not doing something stupid that they always claimed they never did anyway? How does that work exactly?

Dhimmis D'Jour: Supporting of the Troops Edition

Gosh, who can this mysterious 'minority group' be? I'd take all this whining about Islamophobia more seriously if the vast majoirty of peaceful bombers Muslims didn't react like Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist' every time someone showed support for their fellow countrymen rather than head chopping loons.

One Civil Right Liberty Will Never Support

Gotcha Liberals! These people keep giving us long, patronising lectures about how of course they think citizens should have the right to self-defence. Really? Can anyone imagine the Guardian running a similar nudging & winking article celebrating the government's sleazy denial of any other civil rights? How about an article titled 'Don't Vacuum That Baby's Brains Out' ?

Indeed, the article is the perfect exemplar of the liberal's deranged attitude to self-defence:

Many people hoping for an unrestricted green light to beat up or shoot their burglars or robbers, even unto death, will be disappointed.

Yep that's it. Liberals genuinely believe that people who smash their way into an occupied house at 4 AM are all loveable rogues called 'Lefty' but householders are psychopaths just waiting for the chance to torture people to death. From this bonkers worldview all else follows.

If you truly believe that the real danger with legalising self-defence is that it will allow respectable, middle-aged businessmen to persecute 21 year old smackheads then, yes, the current laws make perfect sense. Hence why Berlins clearly regards the following as a Good Thing:

Nor would the new law help anyone who, warned of a possible break-in, lies in wait and takes forceful action against the burglar. Such conduct has been premeditated. To avoid being prosecuted, it would have to be an instinctive reaction.

Leaving aside the question of just how someone would know in advance they were due to be burgled - a ludicrous red herring if ever there was one - the bottom line is that, by the left's own description, citizens can defend themselves, but only if they're completely unprepared. This is just the legal equivalent of the old line that anyone can eat at the Ritz. Never mind the problems of a family man confronted with a burglar, what are the prospects for a petite twenty-something blonde confronted with an 18 stone rapist with a knife?

The central question hidden in all this is what is the nature of crime? Liberals think crime is just one of those things, and criminality is just another lifestyle choice. There's no outrage there, no sense that criminality eats away at the very basis of human society.

This is the real problem with the whole concept of 'reasonable force'. As DT points out, a smackhead breaking down your door at 4 AM is not a 'reasonable' situation. Suggesting that the courts should consider how householders defend themselves and their families against home intruders in the same way, and using the same criteria, as they consider the fairness of contracts is absurd. Criminals are not part of society, they have voluntarily chosen to place themselves outside the normal restraints of civilisation. The normal assumptions of good faith don't apply. All proponents of self-defence really want is the right to treat them as what they are.

Image Vs Reality

Image

Reality

Hooray for Multiculturalism!

Let's reach out and embrace African culture.

Late-Term Abortion

Hey, it's a woman's right to choose, even if she's a little slow off the mark.

She'd Still Be Alive If She'd Stuck To The Top Shelf Stuff

When neo-prohibitionism meets snobbery, absurdity often results.

MONA Mob

Re: the Men of No Appearance stiking again, is there any connection between between a mob of thugs being confident enough to attack a pair of police officers in broad daylight, and police management so weak and PC that they can't even call a mob what it is?

You Know What We Need More of Round Here ?

Some of this, plus a a bit of this.

Enriched Enrichment

Ross notices a totally amazing series of coincidences.

Clearly, they're stealing the money the British just won't steal. But hey - at least they didn't kill anyone. Then again, neither did Courtney Bryan the first two times, but practice makes perfect. All of which means we have another example of the Climbié Effect whereby even the most totalitarian liberals turn into minarchists just as soon as they have to deal with a dysfunctional effnick family.

The DLF: Our Time Has Come

Regular readers will know that one of my dearest ambitions is to become a victim, and now it seems my dream is coming true. The trouble is it seems like a 'monkey's paw' deal. Victimhood is within my grasp but, staggeringly enough, my fellow passengers on the gravy train all turn out to be loonies.

In the comments to this post, JulieM correctly notes the Telegraph's spectacular double entendres, but actual comedy can't compete with this level of sheer weirdness.

As the WALL-E controversy hit the headlines, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (Naafa) was last week holding its annual convention in Los Angeles, a celebration of so-called "flabulous figures", seminars on fat discrimination, a fat fashion show, podgy pool parties and entertainment from weighty singing group The Fatimas.

OK, so that's merely eccentric, but it soon tips over into full-on hustling:

Fighters for fat rights are calling for legislation to ban weight discrimination in the workplace, denouncing airlines that demand they buy two seats and car manufacturers whose seat belts are too small.

Yes, it's a real mystery why it's so hard to find a seatbelt with real freedom of movement, although not as much of a mystery as why employers are reluctant to employ folks who are just enraged! by having to buy two tickets just because they occupy two seats.

They are also battling doctors who won't treat patients who refuse to lose weight and companies that won't insure them.

Now is that just the perfect summation of modern life or what ? Being a bloater brings health risks, so clearly the answer is to sue your doctor.

Actually, this seems to be a common theme:

Miss Wann (41 years in age and 20 stones in weight) is America's best known fighter for fat rights. She developed her motto - "free your ass and your heart and mind will follow" - and a magazine called "Fat!So?" after being turned down for health insurance because she was "morbidly obese".

Yep, she gets told she's on Guest List for intensive care, so she starts a magazine to protest against people warning her that she's going to suffer hideous health problems.

You just know that in a parallel world she's suing her doctor for not warning her about her health problems, right ?

Anyway, none of that matters. In a completely unpredictable move, my fellow sumos are claiming that calling fat people fat is just like The Racism!

Miss Wann said the film company would never have considered stereotyping black people "dancing a jig" in the way they have done so with fat people.

She added: "Pixar should be out of business for portraying this level of prejudicial bigotry-mongering. These are 19th-century hatreds repackaged in modern animation. It's amazing."

Haven't blacks suffered enough without being conscripted by every goofy victim group out there ? Besides, the tubby whiners could probably do with some healthy, outdoor exercise like picking cotton.

I don't want to be pushed up against a thin passenger sitting next to me any more than they wants to be pushed up against me," she said. "But the seats keep getting smaller. I don't need all of the chairs in coach to be available to fatties in a comfortable way but I do think fat people have the right to interstate and international transportation just like everyone else."

Yes, and they have the right to pay for it too.

This next bits even weirder:

Fatima Parker, UK spokesperson for the International Size Acceptance Association..

No, not just that.

Fatima Parker, UK spokesperson for the International Size Acceptance Association says the government ought to campaign against "anti-fat" attitudes as much as obesity.

"Fat discrimination is even worse in this country than in the US because you see more big people and hear their voices over there," she explains.

This is certainly true.

"Fat people here are constantly told that we are failures: as people, as parents, as role models."

Ms Parker's argument is that overweight people are less likely to become morbidly obese, if they are allowed to feel comfortable about their bodies. She believes derogatory language and stereotypes about fat people as greedy will only make them eat more.

Yes, the only way to discourage bad behaviour is to accept it. It works so well everywhere else.

Hmmmmm.... doesn't that mean the way to discourage people from abusing the gravitationally-challenged is to encourage them to 'feel comfortable' about screaming abuse at the lardy ?

"On TV shows such as You Are What You Eat and The Biggest Loser, we are made out to be disgusting and less than human - called cows and whales.

It's hardly going to make me go and eat carrots and run around the garden.

"I would rather have cancer or diabetes than serious depression about how I look."

And thus was crushed the stereotype of human zepplins as slow-witted hysterics.

But that really is the crux of the argument. Leaving aside the more hysterical health nazis, no one disputes the right of these people to stage dive into the dessert trolley. It's just that freedom doesn't usually mean forcing over airlines to give free seats away, and banning people from calling things what they are. What these people really want is the right to live an insane lifestyle without consequences.

Actually, my real problem with it all is this: these people consume way too much food and so they claim victimhood. What about those of us who got fat through consuming non-solid energy sources ? How come no one ever takes out an onion for us persecuted drunks ?

Maybe that could be my breakthrough into victimhood: the Drunk Liberation Front. It's an idea who's time has come.

Been There, Done That

Laban wonders whether the Tory policy of compulsory sentences for 'knife crime' - whatever that actually means - would lead to police and CPS hassling easy targets while the real maniacs slide (see 'gun crime' for further details).

Actually, I think Laban is dead wrong. These people don't need any encouragement to do that, Operation Harass The Law-Abiding is already in progress, check out this and this for example.

Bent Coppers

Read this and tell me we don't need an Integrity in Public Office Act.

If you pulled a stunt like this with your tax return, Revenue & Customs would go for a death sentence.

Intergalactic Racism

This is what happens when you give idiots the right to determine the bounds of acceptable public discourse.

Shocka! New Immigration Rules A Farce

Liberals just won't stop. Turns out the tough (not really) new immigration rules have a honking great loophole:

Tens of thousands of migrants will be offered 'fast-track' British passports every year in return for doing voluntary work.

The foreign nationals will be allowed to slash up to two years off the time it takes to win citizenship, in return for completing community work, charity fundraising, working as a school governor or running a children's sports team.

So do a bit of work for the Mohammed Siddiq Khan Travel Scholarship Fund and get fast-tracked for a passport.

Need you ask what the motivation is ?

It will also say that every migrant settling in Britain should apply for citizenship rather than keeping his or her own existing nationality.

The move is likely to increase the number of Labour voters by 250,000 every year.

Actually, I might have made a little change to that quote, but only a little one. Yep, the government really has decided to dissolve the people, and elect a new population.

No Wonder Liberals Like The EU So Much

They both have the same attitude to public accountability. Compare and contrast the EU's 'Yes Means Yes, And No Means Vote Again' policy, to the lib's latest big idea: letting victim impact statements influence sentencing, but only if the victim asks for a lower sentence.

Outrage D'Jour

As the saying goes, the courts aren't anti-crime, they're just on the other side.

Guardian of (Some) Public Morals

Am I the only person unimpressed by David Cameron's sudden discovery of morality ? Sure, it is nice to see a soi-dissant conservative prepared to speak out on moral issues, but not when the speech itself reads like the rhetorical equivalent of a chimps tea party.

If nothing else, this should at least dispose of the argument that The Dave is a political genius. Poor people deserve what they get ? Liberals have spent years twisting Lady Thatcher's line about society, now Cameron has done all but claim poor people are evil losers ? Apart from anything else, has he seen what's happening to the economy ? Are those folks evil now, or will they just become so when they lose their jobs ?

But aside from the bad politics, there's also the bad philosophy. Take the yawning great hole in his speech. What, for example, does our new moral leader think about this ? Having people demanding that local councils refrain from landscaping parkland so they can continue to perform lewd acts in public seems like a fair old barometer of moral decline, but somehow Dave's own Henry-V-At-Agincourt speech forgot to address it.

There's the obvious point here about Dave's supposed conversion to social conservatism. As his refusal to confront you-know-who shows, his morality is really just about him boldly confronting stuff he doesn't agree with anyway. Hey, if he's going to denounce smackheads, why not spare some condemnation for those meija luvvies who promote drug abuse as glamorous, rebellious and hip ? Nope - too close to home.

There's a wider point though. Take the usual suspects. As the Bristol fiasco shows, what's so toxic about the gay rights movement is not the actual specifics of boys-who-like-boys, it's their wider philosophy of life. The gay rights movement argues that the most important thing in the world is their right to act out, and the hell with anyone else. It's hard not to notice a certain philosophical incoherence in a man who attacks fat people even while defending folks who argue that they have a right to perform oral sex on each other in the High St and if anyone objects, they should be arrested for 'homophobia'.

Quote Of The Day

On the BBC's Robin Hood

One can, of course, reply that "it's just a stupid TV show." True. But that's the point: Most people spend most of their time watching stupid TV shows, going to stupid movies, and reading stupid books. It's what people know. And that means they don't know anything approaching history. Nothing else accounts for the fact that a staggering percentage of people think The Da Vinci Code gives us profound insights into the origins of Christianity. No wonder they're filming a sequel. Those who don't know bogus history are doomed to repeat it -- and brag about how much smarter they are than suckers who believe the "official story."

Exactly right. At least with the supposedly 'factual' programs, there's at least some token recognition that not everyone agrees with the BBC. With the overtly fictional output all bets are off. It's always handsome, heroic liberals and moustache-twirling, conservative baby eaters.

Shea also hits on another aspect of modern liberalism, the obsession with proving their superiority over the common herd. The same phenomena is in action here. There are arguments for and against elitism, but rarely in history can a group of people have based their sense of superiority on so much rubbish.

The MSM: Even Sleazier Than We Thought

I realise pretty much everyone reads Laban anyway, but there may be some folks who didn't catch an incredible quote over over there a few days ago:

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - Tameside holds regular meetings with local newspaper editors to gather information and stop sensationalist reporting which might otherwise start or add to rising tensions, e.g. in response to a Kick Racism out of Football campaign, an extremist political group wanted to picket a local football stadium. A local newspaper was going to print the story on its front page – an action that was likely to bring unwanted publicity to the picket and fuel rising community tensions. The intervention of the Community Cohesion Partnership prevented the story from being run and in the event no-one turned out for the picket.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council - The Berwick Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) is working with the local press/media to vet stories involving migrant workers from eastern Europe and Portugal employed in the food processing and agricultural sectors to prevent stigmatisation.

No room for misquote there. Government officials are scrutinising the media's output to prevent reporting of the wrong truth.

If nothing else, I hope folks in Tameside and Berwick aren't paying full price for their newspapers. After all, they're only getting half the news. But where are the usual suspects ? Amnesia Intentional ? Libertard ? Human Wrongs Watch ? These folks have spent years talking about the looming night of fascism, but now we have state functionaries defining what can and can't be reported, that's apparently not oppressive at all.

I guess this is what leftists mean when they talk about the Blogosphere being used for irresponsible rumour-mongering: people reporting stuff what happened without proper authorisation from the authorities.

A Politician Is For Life, Not Just The Election

On the subject of liberals using racism as a civilisational blood libel, Cranmer notes a certain contrast in how allegations against members of Boris Johnson staff are handles depending on just who's in the sights at the time.

All too true, which is why it's particularly ludicrous for the Reverend Dale to claim the mantle of victimhood for Ray Lewis. None of the charges have been seriously disputed. True, there's nothing here that rises to the level of criminal - or even civil action - but then no one wants to take him to court: we just don't trust him with our money or our rights.

Spending other people's cash and telling them what to do is pretty much what politicians do, so it's hardly unreasonable if the public doesn't accept 'not convicted of any actual crimes' in and of itself as a plus point for the job. It's not like the Tories aren't repeat offenders here, and that's without considering the rest of the A-List dross.

Like I've said before, the Cameron approach of filling the candidate list with a slasher movie cast of stereotypes is inimical to our system of government. MPs aren't just a chorus line, it's their job to hold government to account. The number of empty vessels on the Tory candidate lists is the perfect barometer of just how much a serious political party has degenerated down to the Cult of Dave.

Matthew Hopkins Just Phoned To Say He Thinks These Guys Are Going Too Far

OK, as I understand the latest rules from the left, any child who doesn't like spicy food is a witch racist. Also racist: anyone who points out that this is insane.

Never mind the basic lunacy of the left's position, just remember that these are the people who are just enraged! at the thought of anyone discriminating against a 42 year old man with multiple convictions for child molestation. Believing that convicted paedophiles are likely to strike again is paranoid nonsense, but claiming a dislike of Brussles sprouts reflects a hatred of the Flemish, why sir, that's hard science.

Actually, it's not completely wacky. Some scientists are fairly sure of a connection between avoiding certain foods and violent insanity, for example terrorists are surprisingly likely to avoid pork-based products.

But no: as ever where racism is concerned, only the natives can are guilty.

Not that it's all bad news. On the contrary, reports like this, combined with the sterling work of undercover VRWC operatives, helps throw into sharp relief what 'racism' really means for the modern left. For liberals, racism is the west's Original Sin. You don't have to provide any evidence of actual racism, westerners are guilty be definition and that's all there is to it.

Still, I did like the Tory comment on this issue:

"





"

If the state using ludicrous criteria to denounce innocent children doesn't raise your hackles, just what kind of conservative are you ?

(A wave of the pricking pin to Rob for pointing this story out in the comments to this post)

But It's True!

See, I couldn't have said this without looking like a bitter Northerner.

Wall*E - Now Getting Sill*E

Oops - guess we can call it a leftist movie after all.

Like DH's tipper says, leftists want to have it both ways. They all but dislocate their shoulders backslapping themselves over how skilfully they slip liberal points into their stupid little plays, but if anyone on the right points out leftist subtext, it proves we're all paranoid obsessives (see any episode of Dr Who for further details).

It's just the same as this stuff. I guess liberals will let us know when we're allowed to comment on the cultural influence of movies

MONA Strike Again

You don't have to read the MSM long to realise that Tim Blair's Men Of No Appearance obviously have branches in this hemisphere too. Take this report:

Two security guards were stabbed by alleged shoplifters in broad daylight on Britain's busiest shopping street today, police have said.

The guards chased a group of about eight teenage boys after they allegedly stole clothes from the Nike Town store on Oxford Street in central London at around 7pm...

The teenager who produced the knife and attacked the pair lost his t-shirt in the fight.

He was last seen running topless up Oxford Street towards Tottenham Court Road.

Clearly, another gang of rampaging Inuits.

I Told You We Needed More Testing

Like I keep saying, teachers tell us they're under too much pressure to do anything except 'teach to the tests' (also known as 'teaching what's on the curriculum'), but there's always time for stuff like this.

Oops - guess that must be another one of those right-wing myths. Well, two of them actually. Liberals keep insisting that indoctrucation and dhimmitude are both inventions of eeeeevil right-wing bloggers, but - who'd have thunk it ? - we keep running into these cases. Clearly, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is more productive than you'd think.

Actually, I'm going to adapt a Labanism, and start filing these under 'The Myth of Right-Wing Myths'.

Forget all the liberal noise. What is all comes down to is this: children were forced onto their knees, and made to recite Islamic chants. If you heard about this happening to hostages in Iraq, you wouldn't be surprised. More to the point, this wasn't just an isolated failure of taste. Children who failed to comply were threatened, then actively victimised. It was deliberate decision: the kids would be forced to kneel and submit to Allah, and no resistance would be tolerated. Firing is the least that should happen to the teacher concerned. She should certainly be struck off the teaching register, and should probably face criminal charges as well.

Of course, all this does raise two questions. In so far as libs will claim that performing Islamic rituals is a necessary part of teaching about Islam, what happens during sex education lessons ?

Then there's the other question: is it really 'multiculturalism' if it's always the same culture ? You know the kids will never be asked to wave torches round to celebrate Diwali, right ? Nope, it's only the religion of loud bangs that gets liberals all a quiver.

I guess the cow coddlers are their bearded friends from the Punjab will have to get off their backside and start killing people before they get any respect from the left. So maybe that's a third question. could there possibly be some connection between liberalism's fetishisation of violent insanity (and the corollary, their contempt for the non-violent) and the epidemic of mayhem in modern Britain ?

Yep, That's The Point

File this under 'Missing The Point': an educrat is complaining that the testing regime in schools is forcing teachers to concentrate on teaching their subjects, instead of educating the kidz about how the Bushchimpler and his corporate masters bombed the Twin Towers so the Jews could invade the Amazon rainforest and steal the oil.

All too true, but it's a feature not a bug. Forget all this talk of 'setting teachers free to teach'. They don't want to teach, they want to indoctrinate, and the moment we take the sword from their throat, photosynthesis will be out the window and 'global literacy' will be in.

Judges Against The Law

Don't be shocked, but one of the guys who keeps inventing new reasons to release terrorists turns out to be an enormous dhimmi.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain...

Liberals 4 Self-Defence

Talking of the law, at least one judge has come round to the idea that when a young woman is confronted by a felon breaking in, she's justified in using force. Or at least she is if by 'felon' you mean 'ex-boyfriend' and by 'breaking in' you mean 'drinking down the pub'.

Actually, this case does raise an interesting question: is it still domestic violence even if it happens down the Dog & Duck ? On the other hand, in so far as the DV ranters only ever talk about 'zero tolerance for violence against women', you can't say they're being inconsistent when they come out with absurd justifications like claiming the victim broke up with his psycho girlfriend 'quite suddenly'. Why ? How much notice are you supposed to give ? Besides, who knows what she'd have bitten off if she'd had more warning ?

Liberal Morality: Like Whatever

Stan makes an important point here: it can't hardly be a coincidence that our civilisational collapse has coincided with the hollowing out of public morality.

True, there may be no a priori reason why a society has to be based on Christian morality, but nothing so far has come close to replacing it, least of all the kind of slippery, situational ethics currently dominant. Consider, for example, the Cameroonatics' position: they support traditional values, except for the values they don't support. Who couldn't sign up to that ? Who would ever be inspired by such an obviously tactical position ?

Still, there's more to it than just the vacuums at the centre of our society. Law is supposed to be the codification of public morality, but our political elite has instead adopted the culturally Marxist position that the law is merely the means by which those with power impose their views on those without.

Once you accept the Marxist view of law, then all bets are off. Government is free to do whatever it wants. Consider this case. No one disputes that this money was obtained by deception, but they don't think they should pay the money back anyway. Apparently, fraud is OK, providing your pay cheque comes from Her Majesty.

Ditto, this case. Incidentally, in so far as senior officers can qualify for bonuses by reducing the crime figures, this surely would be fraud in almost any other context.

The trouble is that if the law is simply the means by which those in power impose their agenda on those without it, then absent that power the law has no force. Or, as Sir Robert Peel put it: 'Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.'

Of course, Peel assumed that the role of the law was to uphold the values of society, not to change them. Marxists seek to totally remake society and so the power they require must be total too. The law must be used a tool to impose the new order and if that pesky morality gets in the way, it'll just have to go.

Drys: Still Mad, Still Stupid

Neo-prohibitionists and ecoloons joining forces ? Expect a big bunch of stupid.

Good. We always knew they were a miserable bunch of losers, and now they're confirming it. It's not even like there's any penguins to run over. The only problem is with the navigation: keep going down the snowy bit, then turn left at the snow, and you're looking for a whole bunch of snow on the right....

Tory Patriotism (And Other Popular Myths)

Another Dr Strangelove ('Gentlemen, Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!') moment in Middle England. No flying England flags in England. Like I keep saying, if the sight of a flag causes you such stress, it might be you with the problem. Ditto, if something similar had happened in 18th Century Scotland, the Scot Nats would still be staging plays about it.

Hmmm... which has more extremist baggage anyway ? Flying an England flag in England, or parading round wearing full Islamic regalia ?

Note where this happened: Henley, true blue Tory country. Clearly, the Nu Tories' definition of patriotism is kind of like their definition of 'family', namely the complete opposite to what any sane person would define it as.

The MSM On Drugs

This is great: down in the comments to this post, Squander Two points out the Daily Mail's unique approach to chemistry.

They've hidden the evidence now, but it's still available here.

You'd think all that stalking would have taught them something.

Imperial Court

Interesting suggestiopn here from Jonah Goldberg: is the rise of the imperial courts in the anglosphere not only a result of, but also a cause of, the shambolic state of anglosphere politics ?

It's to be hoped not, otherwise we'd seem to be heading into a death spiral. Then again, there are few politicians out there who appear that 'checks and balances' is supposed to work both ways. The whole point of separation of powers is that each element is supposed to counteract the expansionist tendencies of the others.

This is more than just bad politics. As long as MPs refuse to deal with judicial power grabs, they are utterly failing to carry out their constitutional duty.

They're Not 'Anti-Dog', Just 'Anti-Kennel'

Gotcha!

See, this is the problem the left has. I'm sure the Liberal Islamofascist Excusing Squad is even now working on some absurd rationalisations, claiming that these remarks have been taken out of context and it's all a right-wing myth anyway, but it's all too late. Whenever people get to hear Muslims explain their ideology directly - as opposed to white liberals telling us what Muslims would say - the first thought that crosses their mind is this: these people are crazy!

True, you'd think the rantings about world domination, genocide and slavery would be something of a giveway, but this is an unserious era, and so even the most straightforward statements of Islamic toltalitarianism can usually be brushed off as mere rhetorical flourishes. That's not an option the apologists have here.

This issue really is as simple as it sounds. Islam hates dogs. Or, to put it another way, if you're arguing that we have to respect the Islamopaths ideology, you're arguing that a pathological hatred of cute puppies is perfectly reasonable.And no, you can't blame it all on Israel.

He Should Try Living Here

Victor David Hansen on America's descent into quiverly paralysis:

The causes of this paralysis are clear. Action entails risks and consequences. Mere thinking doesn't. In our litigious society, as soon as someone finally does something, someone else can become wealthy by finding some fault in it. Meanwhile a less fussy, more confident world abroad drills, and builds nuclear plants, refineries, dams and canals to feed and fuel millions who want what we take for granted.

In our present comfort, Americans don't seem to understand nature. We believe that our climate-controlled homes, comfortable offices and easy air and car travel are just like grass or trees; apparently they should sprout up on their own for our benefit.

It's not just ecolunacy. It seems to me that, above all else, liberalism requires an enormous sense of entitlement. Just as electricity just happens, so does social order and prosperity. There are never any sacrifices to be made, or trade-offs to be judged, well, not unless evil conservatives have ruined it for everybody else.

This is why liberal rhetoric is so overheated. It's an endless attempt to evade responsibility for the entirely predictable consequences of stupid ideas by blaming it all on an ever-expanding series of scapegoats.

Weakest Slam Evah!

It baffles me that liberals go all Gordon Ramsey over the Daily Mail when on some issues the Mail is pretty much indistinguishable from the left. Take the war - not only has the Mail been pushing the 'Surrender Now!' line since approximately 09:35 on September 12, but there are no limits to the lengths the Mail will go to try and slam US troops. Which brings me neatly onto this.

They can't even keep it up till the end of the first paragraph:

Afghanistan's snow leopards have barely survived three decades of war. But now the few remaining mountain leopards left in Afghanistan face another threat -- foreigners involved in rebuilding the war-torn country.

Uh huh. Foreigners.

Maybe the smoking gun is in the second paragraph:

Despite a complete hunting ban across Afghanistan since 2002, snow leopard furs regularly end up for sale on international military bases and at tourist bazaars in the capital. Foreigners have ready cash to buy the pelts as souvenirs and impoverished Afghans break poaching laws to supply them.

Und so wieter...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you're looking for atrocious behaviour in conflict zones, the US Army is a losing bet. On the contrary, here as everywhere else, Americans have gone the other way:

Since August last year, [US Embassy official] Miller and the [New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society] have been educating military and civilian staff, in particular those in charge of mail services, on how to recognise endangered and threatened animal furs as well as conducting "raids" on U.S. military bases.

The raids have yielded products from endangered species including snow leopards, said Miller, but he stressed the U.S. military was very "cooperative" in trying to combat the trade.

Within two weeks of their first training session on a U.S. base just outside Kabul, the military had managed to "virtually eliminate" any trade of these products on the base, he said.

Not only that but there's this:

Anyone caught knowingly transporting a fur across an international border is liable to a large fine. In the United States, it could result in a $100,000 fine and one year jail term.

So the only evidence for US troops being involved in the fur trade is that the US has clamped down on troops being involved in the fur trade. I guess if they'd ignored it, it wouldn't be a problem. Hey, it seems to work for the UN.

Capitalism Vs Socialism

I thought this story was a cute example of courage under fire, but it also shows a big difference between a functioning country and modern Britain - over here, they'd probably have got marks for it.

Libs Against Robophobia

It's not just murderous lunatics that liberals fawn over. There's also robots. Apparently, there's no political subtext at all to new Pixar movie 'Wall-E' but if you don't like it, libs will call you a fascist!!!!!.

See, no political overtones whatsoever.

We're Just Lucky There're No Virgins To Sacrifice In The Music Biz

At least we can take one thing from last weekend's nightmare - apart from a lingering sense of regret over never buying that 'Hang Nelson Mandela' T-shirt when we had the chance - never again can these people deny that liberalism is a religion. After seeing the folks who can't let Christmas Day pass without running documentaries asking whether Jesus was a cannibal slobbering over Mandela, libs have now surrendered the right ever to mock evangelical Christians again.

Indeed, I understand the centrepiece of the festivities was to be the unveiling of a statue paying tribute to South Africa's key industries of agriculture and mining, but at the last minute it was decided that a Golden Calf would be too 'on the nose'.

Of course, you can kind of see why the left has gone so bananas for Mandela. After all, he's probably the only liberal icon out there with a body count below five figures. Still, it's hardly through lack of trying. For all the liberal euphemisms aired over the weekend, Mandela wasn't jailed for 'his stand against South African apartheid', he was jailed for engaging in a murderous campaign of bombings. You get jailed for that even in Sweden.

And no, it wasn't all in a good cause. Mandela's vision for South Africa was Marxist dictatorship, with himself as El Comandante.

True, after release Mandela was marginally less loopy than before (see, libs, prison works!), but for a supposed liberator, he's proved himself quite comfortable with the oppressive practices of the old regime and their absurd racial obsessions (see here and here, for examples), and indeed both at once, which brings us onto Mandela's unbelievably weak, and belated, condemnation of Mugabe.

Forget all the liberal swooning: in so far as Mugabe is a genocidal tyrant, 'failure of leadership' doesn't quite cover it. For that matter, it doesn't even make factual sense: say what you like about Mugabe, but he sure can make things happen. Evil things admittedly, but he's no Gordon Brown.

Of course, back in the day, Mugabe too was a liberal icon. After all, even he took some time to completely wreck Zimbabwe. Ditto, it's nice that liberals have finally managed to denounce The Bob, but it works better when the self-same people aren't simultaneously slobbering over the architect of the bigger and better sequel.

Actually, I take it all back. We can take something else from last weekend. Here we have the epitome of modern liberalism: a bunch of filthy-rich, western, celebutrards paying homage to an unrepentant thug presiding over the disintegration of his country. That's why I'm glad it got so much coverage. Ten years from now, having being at the Mandela concert will be as fashionable as flashing your gold medal ten years after the Berlin Olympics. But that's OK - we'll be there to remind liberals of the time they looked at the slowly disintegrating infrastructure, sky high crime rates and endemic corruption of modern South Africa and paid tribute to the man who more than anyone else made it happen.