Notes From Animal Farm

The Eurabian Times notes the latest emission from the Association of Chief Police Officers. As Matt notes, the advice boils down to 'Do not arm yourself with legal weapons. Do not approach people who violate your home. Do not prevent them from stealing your property. Lock yourself in the closet and let the state handle it.' All that I would add to that is remember to take a flashlight into the closet with you so you can write your last will and testament while you're waiting to die.

Seems like some animals are more equal than others though. Householders finding Hannibal Lecter breaking in at 3 AM are warned not that police are "definitely not" advising people to have weapons in their homes. "We would not tell the public to arm themselves with any weapon, legal or illegal." But when it comes to dealing with Joe Public leaving the Dog & Duck, Mr Plod not only gets armed to the teeth, he thinks public execution is the only way.

Hey, say what you like about Tony Martin, at least the guy he shot really was a burglar, not someone who merely looked like he might be.

Yes, standard disclaimer follows: the two officers in question may have been justified in firing. It possible to feel some sympathy for these people as individuals - history shows they'll be thrown to the wolves. But how much sympathy can you have for them compared with this guy ? Does anyone think that if it had gone the other way, he wouldn't have been crucified by the state ?

That's the reality: people being slaughtered in their own homes, people being persecuted for not being slaughtered in their own homes. Now two of our touchy-feely social workers in blue, heavily-armed, wearing the latest body armour, and with reinforcements on the way, panic and gun down an innocent man and we're supposed to bring a bottle to their pity party ?

At least they had something Robert Symons and Tony Martin never got: a choice. They chose to wear that uniform, chose to serve the system which claimed Martin and Symons as its victims - yet now they lay claim to our sympathy for their sudden reversal of fortune, from hunter to hunted. That's it, that the central arrogance of the modern police - they cry foul when they're treated as though they were just ordinary citizens.

No Bias Here!

No doubt about it, not everyone likes lgf. But why exactly did the Beeb decide the libellous ranting of lunatic were worthy of a link ? And from the page on 'religion & ethics' of all things.

Odds On

What are the odds that, should the World's Oldest Terrorist sign off, the Beeb's (Don't) Have Your Say will run a thread entitled: 'Yasser Arafat: Your Tributes' ?

UPDATE

Should've known you can never beat the Beeb in a race to the bottom. Down in the comments you can see some edited highlights from the Beeb's Thugfest

Not Getting It

Sounds like the reality check has finally cleared in Brussels:

Romano Prodi, the outgoing European Commission president, has described the EU's attempt to become the world's most competitive economy as a "big failure".

Any thoughts that this may lead to the EU considering the flaws in its basic model are swiftly dispatched:

Mr Prodi said the use of vetoes by EU states had undermined the reform agenda agreed at the Lisbon summit in 2000.

Yes, that's it! Not enough centralisation in Brussels. Of course, once you need clearance from the EU to open a packet of crisps, why, we'll be drowning in diamonds.

Mr Prodi told the Financial Times that EU member states had blocked progress in implementing the Lisbon agenda, which focused on cutting red tape and improving competitiveness.

Yes, they had a massive summit on cutting red tape. I think the basic flaw in this theory is becoming appparent. Here's hoping the EU rolls out a program to deal with drunkenness.

According to the FT, Mr Kok's report will call for the number of performance indicators set out in Lisbon to be reduced from more than a hundred to fourteen.

Is that a perfect testimony to the EU's Frankenstein approach to economics or what ? Eurocrats sitting in Brussels, carefully watching the output of olive oil, carefully fine-tuning subsidies and taxes to produce just the right amount.

Greater emphasis will be put on member states to draw up their own economic action plans.

Given that having British people run the British economy is marginally less stupid than having them try and run the Greek one, this is progress of a sort, yet it still misses the point: the economy isn't a machine, you can't pull a big handle and 'create jobs' or 'foster innovation' anymore than you can get a plant to grow 10x faster by dumping that much more fertilizer on it (even with the quality of fertilizer produced in Brussels).

But what really lies at the heart of the EU's failure is this:

In Lisbon, the EU set itself the target of overtaking the US economy by 2010.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get filthy, stinking rich, but that isn't what they're aiming for. They're still obsessed with the zero sum paradigm. These people can't understand the idea that you can get rich by building a better mousetrap. To them, there's only so many slices of pizza available, and if those Yanks eat too much, why, it's no wonder that Europe is so often left eating the box.

Europe has a problem with innovation because the EU doesn't even recognise the concept of making money. To them, it's all about getting it from the other guy. It a sad, stupid, cannibalistic approach to economics - but it does have one advantage. If all we can do is keep swapping round the same old money then we surely need a referee to ensure that everyone gets their fair share. I'm sure the EU will help us out with that, right ?

I Always Pick Ones That Start With A 'B'

Doubtless, the usual suspects will say this proves that the US is hopelessly corrupt. Yet, the only reason we can reach this conclusion is that the evidence is out there for the public to see. What chance this sort of information being made available in Britain, far less in Brussles ?

Boris & His New Friends

Sounds like not everyone buys into the story that Boris Johnson was really writing about the Dianification of Britain. He must be so proud to welcome these folk on board.

Bias At 40 000 ft

It's a bias hatrick at the Beeb today. Our final entry concerns the latest US fighter, the F-22 Raptor. You can tell Auntie is teed off with Uncle right from the headline: US rolls out most expensive jet - I thought the Left was in favour of public spending, but no, not this time. The people who speak out in favour of art therapy think the most important thing about a revolutionary aircraft is that you can't buy one and get change from a fiver (but Concorde was still a technical marvel).

In case you missed the headline, the first sentance rams the point home:

The first of a fleet of the world's most expensive fighter jet, the FA-22 Raptor, is being commissioned into the United States Air Force.

The US military has ordered 277 planes, the first of which was due to roll out onto the tarmac at its manufacturing base in Georgia on Wednesday.

It is to join a fighter squadron based close to the capital, Washington DC.

That would be the city which came under air attack three years ago - yet still the Yanks insist on defending it.

But doesn't the F-22 have any striking features other than the cost ?

The FA-22 stealth fighter can fly at 1500 km/h and still remain undetected by radar.

It fires precisely targeted smart bombs and can engage hostile aircraft far beyond the pilot's vision.

Or to put it another way: every other aircraft in service today is now obsolete.

Impressive, hey ?

That is the impressive part of the story.

Y'know, I'm not sure he's being entirely sincere here.

The other part is that, at a cost of about $260m (£142m) each, the Raptor is designed to fight a potential Soviet enemy that no longer exists, and a Third World War that - if it ever happens - will be very different from what could have been imagined in 1981.

Yes - in this kind of war it's a positive disadvantage to be able to blow the enemy out of the sky and then deliver a 2000lb bomb more accuratly than if you sent it via UPS. Mind you, the Soviets have gone (just like the Beeb said they wouldn't) and it's not like there are any other massive communist dictatorships with aggressive foreign policies and year on year double-digit increases in military spending (talking of which, I'm betting a search of BBC Online won't bring up any cases of the Beeb tut-tutting about China's military expenditure).

Some years ago there was a serious attempt in the Congress to scrap the whole project, especially as the revised cost exceeded four times the original estimate.

You mean the Democrats want to slash military spending ? Surely not!

It failed largely because of pressure from military contractors and labour unions in states that will directly benefit from this multi-billion dollar programme.

It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy after all. If there's one thing the BBC can't stand, it's companies leeching off the public purse to produce rubbish.

The introduction of the new fighter jet comes in the same week that its manufacturer, Lockheed-Martin, announced a 40% rise in profits as it processes orders for its next generation of fighter aircraft, the F-35.

An arms company making money during time of war ? Who'd have thunk it ? This sort of complaint doesn't exactly kill the theory that the licence fee prevents BBC employees from having any grasp of business reality.

So that's it then. A revolution in military aviation has occured and the Beeb's contribution is to carp. But don't call them biased.

So What Was That You Said About Buttiglione ?

The Englishman flags up a five-star example of the Beeb's ever-objective reporting staff.

A Fair Cross-Section Of The Manhattan Community

BBC Bias ? As if, check this out, and see their commitment to cover the full spectrum of the moonbat community:

LONDON - BBC World, the BBC's global commercial service, has unveiled details of its US election coverage.

The 24-hour news and information channel will provide analysis over the next two weeks, with live election night coverage fronted by David Dimbleby.

BBC World will also broadcast a special edition of 'Question Time' featuring film-maker and author Michael Moore, columnist Richard Littlejohn and former Bill Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal.

Other discussion programmes feature guests such as Madeleine Albright, George Soros and former CIA director James Woolsey.

Yep - the Moonbat's favorite manufacturer of faux documentaries, Madam Hillary's house boy, Clinton's former Sec State, the guy who bank rolls MoveOn plus a constellation of other Loony Toons and a bureaucrat from the organisation that's waged a low-level guerilla war against the Bush administration. Oh yeah - and for balance there's a British Paleocon.

We should consider ourselves lucky they couldn't get Saddam out on bail.

Crooked Little Finger

Regular readers - both of you - will know that I'm sceptical about the whole "Conservatives are where Labour was in the 80s meme". Mrs T didn't spend the 80s telling all and sundry how important she felt unions were. OTOH, to listen to Nu Lab rhectoric, you could almost find yourself wishing they were in power instead of the current bunch of losers. Thing is though, just like in all the best 50s sci-fi, the invaders from the Planet Nulab certainly sound like actual humans, but they give themselves away eventually. They look at the Sun without blinking, hold the newspaper upside down or propose an asinine policy that's almost like a caricature of Conservative thought.

Let's get this straight: yes, Conservatives aren't happy when some nonce with eight billion previous convictions walks free from court, but most Conservatives are onboard with the principle that the prosecution must present evidence that a person committed a specific offence at a specific time, rather than that they merely possess a tendancy to commit crime, which will surely be the result of allowing previous convictions to be disclosed.

Indeed, Blunkett's proposals are just another example of what infuriates Conservatives about the legal system. Blunkett says that now a pervert who strikes again faces having his convictions brought up in court, since - hey, if they've done it once, they'll do it again. SO WHY NOT NAIL THEM FIRST TIME ROUND ?

That's what sends the public up the wall. Seeing convicted paedophiles get away with less jail time than Jeffery Archer got just for molesting the court system. Is raping a child more or less serious than lying on oath ? Gosh, that's a toughey, I'll get back to you on that.

This new policy makes no kind of sense unless it is argued that a nonce is a nonce is a nonce. Yet, the justice system is dominated by people who believe that all a predator really needs is the mental equivalent of an oil change and they'll be right as rain. This is the central issue but, as ever, Blunkett avoids taking on these entrenched culture warriors in favour of a headline-grabbing displacement activity.

We can consider ourselves lucky that Blunkett wasn't PM in 1982. If the Argies had invaded the Falklands on his watch, he'd have blockaded the Isle of Mann and shelled Anglesey.

Predictable

Oh, That Bias!

Surely, even the Beeb wouldn't put tourists at risk by whitewahing the nature of life in the Ummah ? Would they ?

The Ratchet Turns

Uh oh. Looks like HMG is going to try to bypass the need for actual trials to deal with undesirables. No doubt we'll be hearing from Liberty, the Wicked Witch and the whole rest of the civil rights ball of wax, protesting the despicable short-circuting of the rule of law.

Oops - perhaps not, after all -it involves GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNS:

11.41 Where the police have been called to an incident, which
involved the misuse of an air weapon, the FCC recommends that the
forfeiture of the weapon should be considered irrespective of whether
criminal proceedings are instituted. [Paragraph 9.22].

Now, isn't that nice ? Notice what's missing - it surely should be alleged misuse of an air weapon. Apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply where GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNS are concerned.

The only circumstances where the Filth won't proceed with criminal proceedings in relation to a air weapon are.... well, forget it, these days Mr Plod could bust the Archbishop of Canterbury for carrying a water pistol and the Liberal establishment and the MSM would still hail him as a hero. Ergo, this legislation will only be used in cases where even the most Liberal of judges can't hold his nose long enough not to throw out the case. Which means Kool Aid drinking hacks will be allowed to seize private property with nary a hint of oversight. Meanwhile, our alleged civil rights watchdogs are screaming and ranting about lack of massages in Gitmo.

Tip o'the hat to JohnJo

Chutzpah Defined

Refusing to employ somebody over their private, religious beliefs, claiming you're doing so because you're opposed to prejudice.

Moonbat Latest

Crivens! It looks like the Yanks are trying to close the Lunacy Gap with us:

A Seattle-area school district has banned Halloween activities partly because the celebrations and costumes might be offensive to real witches.

Real witches.

Anyway, what about offending werewolves, vengance demons and vampires with souls ? Who speaks for the rest of the Buffyverse ?

Mind you, some things are too nuts even for San Francisco:

The world's whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue President George W Bush over the US Navy's use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court has ruled.

OTOH, sharks will still be welcome in all major law firms.

Meanwhile, Down On The Pig Farm

It's one thing to have firm views about politics and ideology but actually supporting a political party is a sign of mental illness. From time to time, there may be politicians whose policies are slightly less disasterous than than their opponents but, when all's said and done, they're all weasels - as exemplified by the revelations about MP's expenses.

Here's Britain's most expensive MP on her shafting of the taxpayer:

Merseyside MP Claire Curtis-Thomas.....

And the rest of you can STFU. She's a foreigner, born in Wales and all her previous experience was there and in Birmingham.

....topped the first published list of expense claims paid out in 2003-4 with her total of £168,889.

On Friday, the Labour MP said she was pleased the public could see the list.

"It is an irony that the MP who spends more will be working hardest for their constituents," she said.

"I ensure that I fully represent the community I have been elected by and therefore require high operating costs.

"I always have and will continue to work the hardest I can for my constituents."

Leaving aside the question of how she defines irony, how come these people never say this about the Army or the Filth ? The same freaks of nature who babble about 'effiency savings' are now trying to convince us that them taking a blowtorch to our cash means they must be doing a good job. What if she spent twice as much ? Would Crosby be a paradise on Earth ? And why does working hard mean your travel costs go up anyway ?

It gets better:

The expenses claims for all MPs totalled £78m - some £20m higher than two years ago.

But, of course. Clearly, the price of stamps must have increased 40% in that time.

The payments were defended by Sir Archy Kirkwood MP, from the House of Commons Commission, who said MPs faced greater workloads than ever before.

"They now deal with issues, and communicate in ways unheard of a few years ago," he said

...with words and everything.

"They require more back-up staff, more computer resources, and more allowances to enable them to travel back and forth to Parliament, living away from home for days at a time, while keeping in touch with the problems and issues of their constituents."

Well, Hell - let's dump all the IT then you won't need all the extra staff, right ? I'm starting to grasp why technology policy is such a train wreck in this country. Meanwhile, crack researchers are investigating when it was that MPs didn't need to travel back and forth to Parliament. It's just a hunch, but I'd guess things are a little easier now that, for example, ol' Platinum Card Claire can travel from London to Liverpool in less than three hours by train. Maybe it's the same syndrome which means office automation means they need more staff ? Back to the horses and buggies!

But former Conservative MP and journalist, Michael Brown, says the money spent overall is reasonable, costing every voter about £3 a year.

Shortly before announcing that the public should eat cake. Honestly, with political instincts like that, these guys should ready to sweep back into government by about 2278.

Labour MP David Winnick, who claimed £75,000, said MPs should submit their tax returns to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for checks - as happens in America.

Not in our lifetime. Transparency is for the little people.

He suggested the Freedom of Information Act would mean BBC journalists would have to reveal their expenses claims and he argued newspaper editors should follow suit.

Fantastic! Two sets of arrogant parasites get nailed by the same piece of legislation. Of course, it's still worth asking why we need the FOIA to force a publicly-owned Corporation - one which keeps preening itself on its supposed exposes of everyone else - to reveal where our money goes.

Paging Mr Johnson

Hey - it's a double header. Not only do we have Ken Bigley II (and with someone who makes Bigley look like Sir Winston) but we have a super sentimentality binge over in Robin Hood Country. Doubtless, the Fearless Boris is even now winding up to denounce these happenings. Anytime now.

Really.

Just you wait a minute, and he'll cut loose.

Hmmm......

Surely it wasn't something else he found objectionable about the Ken Bigley case ?

Boys In Red

I've written before about my contempt for the L3 charge that those of us on the right are 'judgmental' - ask them about City salaries and see what they say. No, when Liberals complain that Conservatives are judgmental, they really mean 'judgmental about the wrong things'. They can't say that though, that would undercut one of their most cherished tactics, namely claiming that Conservatives seek to exclude people while the L3 seek to bring everyone together in a happy-clappy comunidee. You can tell how the Left hates to exclude anyone - look at the wide cross-section of political outlooks represented by the BBC.

With all that in mind, it's interesting to note this report from Laban Tall. Now, Christian Voice are not necessarily people you would want to live next door to, but they are citizens raising points with public servants. Quite simply, some of the replies they recieved are vile. People who claim we need to be 'sensitive' when dealing with paedophiles have no qualms about sending out offensive rubbish to those they deem not to be worthy of a place in Nu Briatin.

Doubtless, the last thing most Chief Constables want to do is deal with the fruiter end of the Christian spectrum. Well, funnily enough, the last thing most Conservatives want to do with their money is give it to a bunch of neo-Antoinettes, disgracing their uniform with their shameless promotion of a partisan political agenda. This would be easier to take if these people were any good at their jobs, but they have presided over the collapse of law & order, all the time being ready to prostitute their forces to Left whenever needed (free tip: if you wake up and find someone breaking into your house, don't phone 999 and call it a burglary, claim you're holding a Labour Party function instead). Yet, still these people live the life of Reilly sponging off the taxpayers money while occasionally leaning out the chauffer-driven car to spit at passing members of the Great Unenlightened.

That's what's so infuriating about the decision to let Police Officers march in uniform - it is an endorsement, and one given to a worldview that - in relation to issues such as gay marriage - is nowhere near universal (or even necessarily a majority view). This event marked the moment when Dixon of Dock Green gave way to Millie Tant.

Guess Who

This letter, believe it or not, was written by election-losing Aussie moonbat Mark Latham. It's scary when other people's loons make more sense than our own alleged Conservative Party. Here's a sample (but you should read the whole thing):

Your correspondence repeatedly refers to social justice but at no stage does it seek to ground this concept in any kind of factual analysis. Anyone can claim to be principled and compassionate. But if these are nothing more than abstract concepts, removed from real-life circumstances, they are unlikely to have a tangible impact on people's lives. They will lapse into the politics of symbolism...

In my experience, the strongest supporters of the rights agenda are those who do not have to face the daily consequences of irresponsible behaviour. They have the resources to buy themselves away from social problems, to purchase private security, private education, private health insurance and private transport. This gives them the luxury of being able to talk about human rights without the need for social responsibility

Saint Receives Fatwa

Sometimes, the Left is so transparent. Consider the case of 'Sir' Bob Geldof and his lemming-like trajectory from secular saint to ranting whackjob. Oops, no - 'ranting whackjob' is how the L3 would like us to think of him. They haven't got there yet, but not for want of trying. Take this latest missive from the Beeb.

In two television documentaries, Geldof launches a tirade against the evils of the 1960s and the country's high divorce rate.

Geldof doesn't argue, suggest, propose or support, he 'launches a tirade'. Clearly some kind of unbalanced fanatic then.

And it don't get much better. Try this further down:

He has seized on statistics that women initiate 70% of all divorces, suggesting they should lower their expectations of men.

Again, he doesn't quote, cite or point to - he seizes these statistics. When, exactly, was the last time - for the sake of argument - an environmentalist was accused of 'seizing on' statistics ?

Geldof's authority to speak about these subjects (or lack of it, say his critics), stems from the very public breakdown of his marriage to Paula Yates and its messy aftermath.

Ye - Geldof is short of qualificatons to talk about the family, as opposed to Bono, U2 frontman and Professor of economics at Harvard, apparently. To say nothing of any number of thespian experts on counter-terrorism.

Note too the labelling at the end. All three supportive comments come from people who the Beeb is careful to tie to the Conservative Party, yet all three critics are quoted sans any warning labels. This is what lies at the core of BBC bias - the idea that (for example) family campaigners are partisan fanatics, while their opponents are just talking common sense. That's what grates - not the fact that the Beeb pushes a Liberal agenda - though at times it surely does - but the fact that for much of the rest of the time it merely assumes that all the smart, nice people must be Liberals anyway. Dissent from the Liberal agenda is therefore proof of insanity, stupidity or evil and so the gloves come off. Geldof took the courageous decision to take on the Liberal establishment's prejudices when it comes to family issues, and so the Beeb has set the dogs on him - using our money to smear a man for expressing opinions a large part of the country would agree with.

And that's what so objectionable about the BBC.