Muslims living in Coton Park, near Rugby, are kicking up a fuss (not like them, is it?) about a planned pet food factory being built near their homes. Apparently, they're unhappy that the food produced in the factory will include pork-based products, and that, in consequence, pork will "rain down" upon them. Now, for me, that conjures up images of sausages, bacon, and pork chops flying through the air, as hundreds of terrified Muslims run for cover. But apparently, the real concern is that the factory's chimney will pump tiny pork particles into the atmosphere, and that Muslims will inhale the said particles, causing them to become "unclean".
Now, it sounds to me as though they're taking the prohibition on consuming pork just a little too far. After all, they also have a prohibition on alcohol. I wonder if they know that all human bodies produce a small amount of alcohol naturally. Perhaps we should tell them: it might have amusing results.
Personally, though, I suspect that this fuss is simply yet another Muslim effort to intimidate the infidels. They don't really care about microscopic pork particles, but they do rather like the feeling of power that comes when they say, in effect, "we're Muslims, and you'd better do as we command, or else". I hope that, for once, the local authority and the pet food company turn round to them and say, that if they're really that scared of the pork particles, then they can move. A new factory will, presumably, bring jobs to those local residents who do not follow the cult of Mohammed, and that should count for rather more than the whining and utterly irrational demands of those who do. In any event, I see no reason why anyone should go out of their way to assist the practitioners of the religion which, of all religions and ideologies, poses the greatest threat to the survival of this country.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
Monday, 30 July 2007
Going private?
The Tory peer Lord Young has suggested that if, as now appears almost inevitable, the government denies the public a referendum on the new EU (absolutely not a) constitution, then Eurosceptic businessmen should fund a privately-organised referendum of the general public. There is some precedent for this, in the form of the private referendum on the future of Section 28 organised and funded by the multi-millionaire Brian Souter in 2000. While Souter's referendum was limited to Scotland, it would surely not be impossible, with substantial funding and efficient organisation, to organise a UK-wide poll on the considerably more important question of the EU "treaty".
The practical effectiveness of any private referendum would be a different matter, however. In spite of an overwhelming 87% vote against abolishing Section 28, Souter's referendum failed to prevent the ultimate removal of the clause. I suspect that a private referendum on the constitution would be similarly unsuccessful.
One of the significant problems that Souter's referendum faced, was that anti-Section 28 groups boycotted the poll. As a result of this, supporters of abolition were able to depict the poll as unrepresentative of the public, despite the fact that it attracted a 32% turnout among Scottish voters, a figure approximately equal to the average turnout in local elections.
The same problem would be likely to afflict any private referendum on the EU constitution. It is highly unlikely that pro-constitution forces would actively participate in any such referendum; indeed, like the anti-Section 28ers in Scotland, they would probably seek to reduce its legitimacy by boycotting it. And, it cannot be denied, that a boycott would, to some extent, diminish the poll's legitimacy. After all, a vote organised by anti-constitution activists, and boycotted by supporters of the constitution, could never claim the same legitimacy as an impartially organised referendum in which both sides participated. It would simply not be seen as a fair fight. That principle held true for Souter's referendum, and it would hold true for Lord Young's proposed referendum.
Where such a referendum could prove useful, would be as a display of strength. If several million people voted, and voted overwhelmingly against the constitution, then, even if that vote could not be said to be an exact representation of public opinion, it would nonetheless possess importance, as a representation of the views of a very large number of people. As such, it could be considered equivalent to a protest march: if a protest march attracts hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people, then it can strengthen the position advocated by the marchers, by clearly showing that their views do have substantial support.
The problem here, is that the government must surely already know that, not only are a very large number of people opposed to the constitution, but that the vast majority of people are. After all, it is because they know that they would lose any referendum, and lose heavily, that they will not allow a referendum in the first place. A large anti-constitution vote in a private referendum would do no more than re-emphasise this, and would, in all probability, be ignored.
This is not to say that it would be a waste of time organising a private referendum on this matter. Anything that gave the public an opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to this latest sell-out of our country by its leaders would be a good thing. But we must be realistic in our expectations: the politicians are hardly unused to ignoring the views of the public, and doing it on one more thing is unlikely to cause any of them a sleepless night. No, I think that the most likely way in which Britain will be saved from the constitution is by its rejection by a nation whose government does allow it a referendum.
The practical effectiveness of any private referendum would be a different matter, however. In spite of an overwhelming 87% vote against abolishing Section 28, Souter's referendum failed to prevent the ultimate removal of the clause. I suspect that a private referendum on the constitution would be similarly unsuccessful.
One of the significant problems that Souter's referendum faced, was that anti-Section 28 groups boycotted the poll. As a result of this, supporters of abolition were able to depict the poll as unrepresentative of the public, despite the fact that it attracted a 32% turnout among Scottish voters, a figure approximately equal to the average turnout in local elections.
The same problem would be likely to afflict any private referendum on the EU constitution. It is highly unlikely that pro-constitution forces would actively participate in any such referendum; indeed, like the anti-Section 28ers in Scotland, they would probably seek to reduce its legitimacy by boycotting it. And, it cannot be denied, that a boycott would, to some extent, diminish the poll's legitimacy. After all, a vote organised by anti-constitution activists, and boycotted by supporters of the constitution, could never claim the same legitimacy as an impartially organised referendum in which both sides participated. It would simply not be seen as a fair fight. That principle held true for Souter's referendum, and it would hold true for Lord Young's proposed referendum.
Where such a referendum could prove useful, would be as a display of strength. If several million people voted, and voted overwhelmingly against the constitution, then, even if that vote could not be said to be an exact representation of public opinion, it would nonetheless possess importance, as a representation of the views of a very large number of people. As such, it could be considered equivalent to a protest march: if a protest march attracts hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people, then it can strengthen the position advocated by the marchers, by clearly showing that their views do have substantial support.
The problem here, is that the government must surely already know that, not only are a very large number of people opposed to the constitution, but that the vast majority of people are. After all, it is because they know that they would lose any referendum, and lose heavily, that they will not allow a referendum in the first place. A large anti-constitution vote in a private referendum would do no more than re-emphasise this, and would, in all probability, be ignored.
This is not to say that it would be a waste of time organising a private referendum on this matter. Anything that gave the public an opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to this latest sell-out of our country by its leaders would be a good thing. But we must be realistic in our expectations: the politicians are hardly unused to ignoring the views of the public, and doing it on one more thing is unlikely to cause any of them a sleepless night. No, I think that the most likely way in which Britain will be saved from the constitution is by its rejection by a nation whose government does allow it a referendum.
Sunday, 29 July 2007
Ah diddums
Just yesterday I wrote about the government's plans to build Muslim-only jails, in the light of the alleged "Islamophobic" bullying of incarcerated Muslim terrorists. Now I read the following heart-rending tale of woe:
The wife of Abu Hamza, the jailed Muslim cleric, has complained about her husband's treatment in a high-security London prison.As another famous jailbird very nearly said, "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh".
Hamza, 49, dubbed the "preacher of hate", is serving seven years for inciting the murder of non-Muslims.
In a letter to a London-based Islamic organisation, Nagat Mostafa, 46, said her husband claimed to be the victim of racist bullying and Islamophobia in Belmarsh jail.
Hugh Fitzgerald on demography
There's an interesting post by Hugh Fitzgerald at Dhimmi Watch, on the subject of the demographic war being waged by Muslims against the infidels. Of course, I doubt that there can be many people reading this blog who are unaware of the extremely high Muslim birth-rate in Britain, and in Western Europe as a whole, but Mr Fitzgerald also demonstrates that the tactic (and there can be no doubt that, at least for the imams in charge, it is a tactic, and a very successful one) of turning themselves into a majority by simply outbreeding rival religious or ethnic groups is one that Muslims are using across the world. Of course, once their numbers become sufficiently large, then the next step is incessant low-level violence against non-Muslims, something that we are already beginning to witness in France and Sweden, for example.
Another point that Mr Fitzgerald makes is that the bloated Western European welfare state means that we are actually supporting the vast families that so many Muslims have. It is bad enough that these people are living and breeding in our midst, ready to take over our country. But the fact that we are paying for them to do so really is sickening.
It is imperative that we prevent the Muslim population in Britain growing much further. If we do not, we risk ending up like the Christians of Lebanon, now an oppressed minority in a land which once was theirs. For this reason, I believe that we need to take drastic action to make the breeding up of big families less appealing to Muslims. And the best way to do that, is to hit them in their wallets. Specifically, I believe that Muslims should be denied access to the various social security payments upon which so many of them rely for financial support when raising their numerous children. They should not, for example, be entitled to child benefit payments: if they want to raise an invading army within our country, let them finance it themselves, if they can. Or let the much-vaunted Ummah pay for it. But leave the British taxpayer out of it. I imagine that if Muslims were made to suffer genuine financial hardship in consequence of their habit of breeding vast families, then they would be much less keen to do it, and the Muslim birth-rate would fall significantly.
Another point that Mr Fitzgerald makes is that the bloated Western European welfare state means that we are actually supporting the vast families that so many Muslims have. It is bad enough that these people are living and breeding in our midst, ready to take over our country. But the fact that we are paying for them to do so really is sickening.
It is imperative that we prevent the Muslim population in Britain growing much further. If we do not, we risk ending up like the Christians of Lebanon, now an oppressed minority in a land which once was theirs. For this reason, I believe that we need to take drastic action to make the breeding up of big families less appealing to Muslims. And the best way to do that, is to hit them in their wallets. Specifically, I believe that Muslims should be denied access to the various social security payments upon which so many of them rely for financial support when raising their numerous children. They should not, for example, be entitled to child benefit payments: if they want to raise an invading army within our country, let them finance it themselves, if they can. Or let the much-vaunted Ummah pay for it. But leave the British taxpayer out of it. I imagine that if Muslims were made to suffer genuine financial hardship in consequence of their habit of breeding vast families, then they would be much less keen to do it, and the Muslim birth-rate would fall significantly.
Saturday, 28 July 2007
Muslim-only jails?
I read that the government is considering building a Muslim-only prison, in order to better ensure the safety of Muslim prisoners, particularly those of the terrorist persuasion. This follows attacks on the jailed terrorists Dhiren Barot (which I discussed here) and Hussein Osman, and the alleged receipt of death threats by Omar Khyam. Aside from protecting these terrorist lowlife from the justified anger that they arouse even in criminals' hearts, it is expected that the special Muslim-only prisons will enable staff to better cater (or should that be pander?) to Muslims' dietary and prayer requirements.
Well, screw that! Personally, I really couldn't care less if "people" like Barot or Osman are getting attacked - indeed, as my comments following the attack on Barot show, I am more supportive of than opposed to prisoners (or anyone else) giving such creatures the beating of a lifetime. So what if they suffer in jail: it's no more than they deserve.
Neither do I see why Muslims, or anyone else, should have their unusual dietary requirements catered to. If you're a law-abiding person, you have every right to insist on keeping Halal, or Kosher, or on being a vegetarian. But when you're in prison, then your right to deviate from the expected norm vanishes: beggars can't be choosers, and neither should prisoners. That's one of the purposes of having prisons, and punishments for those who break the law: you lose some of your rights, and some of your freedoms. In my opinion, prisoners should be given the cheapest, most low-quality food available, and told that if they don't like it, they can, to coin a phrase, lump it.
Equally, while I would generally say that religion in prisons is a good thing, I think that it is clear to all thinking people, that Islam is an exception to this rule. After all, if you've been sent to jail because of terrorist offences committed because you are a Muslim, then I would think that the last thing anyone should want is for you to be further exposed to the religion that has driven you to commit such actions. The worryingly high number of young Muslim men who are radicalised while in prison is a further reason to be suspicious of a plan to put them in an environment where their religious demands are catered for in every conceivable way, and where, indeed, they would only be in the company of their fellow Muslims.
Indeed, the only possible reason that I can think of for wishing to segregate Muslim prisoners from non-Muslims, is to protect the non-Muslims. After all, there have been reports of Muslim inmates forcibly converting non-Muslim prisoners to Islam. But a better solution to that problem would be to simply split up Muslim prisoners, so that, rather than mixing exclusively with other Muslims, as the government seems to wish, they mix almost exclusively with non-Muslims. Then, not only would they be unable to form themselves into gangs and intimidate other inmates into converting, but they would also be unable to radicalise young Muslim inmates, or to plan further terrorist atrocities. And if Dhiren Barot gets his neck broken, well, that's just a price we'll all have to pay.
Postscript: Some readers may recall that in the aftermath of the latest efforts by followers of the Religion of Peace to slaughter hundreds of people, Yusuf al-Qaradawi's favourite dhimmi, Ken Livingstone, claimed that "Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims". I wonder, in that case, how he accounts for the fact that, while Muslims currently make-up for just 3% of the total UK population, they constitute fully 12% of the UK's prison population. Don't seem to be quite so law-abiding after all, do they?
Well, screw that! Personally, I really couldn't care less if "people" like Barot or Osman are getting attacked - indeed, as my comments following the attack on Barot show, I am more supportive of than opposed to prisoners (or anyone else) giving such creatures the beating of a lifetime. So what if they suffer in jail: it's no more than they deserve.
Neither do I see why Muslims, or anyone else, should have their unusual dietary requirements catered to. If you're a law-abiding person, you have every right to insist on keeping Halal, or Kosher, or on being a vegetarian. But when you're in prison, then your right to deviate from the expected norm vanishes: beggars can't be choosers, and neither should prisoners. That's one of the purposes of having prisons, and punishments for those who break the law: you lose some of your rights, and some of your freedoms. In my opinion, prisoners should be given the cheapest, most low-quality food available, and told that if they don't like it, they can, to coin a phrase, lump it.
Equally, while I would generally say that religion in prisons is a good thing, I think that it is clear to all thinking people, that Islam is an exception to this rule. After all, if you've been sent to jail because of terrorist offences committed because you are a Muslim, then I would think that the last thing anyone should want is for you to be further exposed to the religion that has driven you to commit such actions. The worryingly high number of young Muslim men who are radicalised while in prison is a further reason to be suspicious of a plan to put them in an environment where their religious demands are catered for in every conceivable way, and where, indeed, they would only be in the company of their fellow Muslims.
Indeed, the only possible reason that I can think of for wishing to segregate Muslim prisoners from non-Muslims, is to protect the non-Muslims. After all, there have been reports of Muslim inmates forcibly converting non-Muslim prisoners to Islam. But a better solution to that problem would be to simply split up Muslim prisoners, so that, rather than mixing exclusively with other Muslims, as the government seems to wish, they mix almost exclusively with non-Muslims. Then, not only would they be unable to form themselves into gangs and intimidate other inmates into converting, but they would also be unable to radicalise young Muslim inmates, or to plan further terrorist atrocities. And if Dhiren Barot gets his neck broken, well, that's just a price we'll all have to pay.
Postscript: Some readers may recall that in the aftermath of the latest efforts by followers of the Religion of Peace to slaughter hundreds of people, Yusuf al-Qaradawi's favourite dhimmi, Ken Livingstone, claimed that "Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims". I wonder, in that case, how he accounts for the fact that, while Muslims currently make-up for just 3% of the total UK population, they constitute fully 12% of the UK's prison population. Don't seem to be quite so law-abiding after all, do they?
Friday, 27 July 2007
"Attempts to Islamise the West cannot be denied"
It will not surprise readers to hear that I fully agree. Islam is spreading through Europe at an alarming rate. In Germany, for example, 184 mosques are currently under construction, aside from the planned mega-mosque in Cologne. At the same time, across the continent, churches of all denominations are closing down. Some are even becoming mosques. Every new mosque that is built is yet another symbol of the Islamic conquest of Europe, and every church that is shut down is an indicator of the supplanting of Christianity by Islam. If action is not taken soon, to prevent the further growth of the Islamic population, and to restrict the further creation of visual symbols of the Islamic religion, then we may find that it is too late to do anything.The Pope's private secretary has given warning of the Islamisation of Europe and stressed the need for the continent's Christian roots not to be ignored, in comments released yesterday.
"Attempts to Islamise the West cannot be denied," Monsignor Georg Gaenswein was quoted as saying in an advance copy of the weekly Sueddeutsche Magazin to be published today.
"The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness," the magazine quoted him as saying.
[...]
Recently, Joachim Meisner, the influential archbishop of Cologne, said in a radio interview that the "immigration of Muslims has created a breach in our German, European culture".
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
"Space Invaders is fun. Discuss"
The schools secretary Ed Balls has announced plans for a new vocational qualification, which will, if pupils follow it to its highest level, be deemed equivalent to an A-level. The subject towards which pupils studying for this diploma will direct their minds will be "the historical development of computer games". Actually, that's not the only thing that they'll have to do in order to get their hands on an "Advanced Media Diploma". They'll also have to "critically respond to a range of computer games" (presumably that means playing them and saying whether they liked doing so), and discuss why people like playing computer games. And they may even have to print banners for a party, or perform a stand-up comedy routine. Sounds challenging, and really just as difficult as an A-level in English, History, or Maths.
The proposed diploma is one of a range of fourteen, and it may be that some of the others will be rather more valuable than this one. Well, they could hardly be less valuable. The reason behind the creation of these diplomas, which will begin to be phased in in 2008, is that, since the government plans (wrongly, in my opinion) to start forcing pupils to stay at school until the age of eighteen, there should be a middle way between the current options of A-levels and going off to work, whereby pupils do a vocationally-orientated course at school. And that's a perfectly reasonable idea (with the caveat that it would be a lot simpler just to continue letting children leave school at 16), although I can't see what value the "skills" taught by the Advanced Media Diploma could possibly have to an employer.
But the government also wants to give children "more choice". Specifically, the choice between going to university at the age of eighteen, and getting a job. And thus the government also wishes to endow the diplomas with equal value to A-levels, when it comes to university applications. So, in theory, one could apply to Oxford with one's straight As at A-level, or one could turn up with one's top-graded diploma in computer games, and it would make no difference one way or the other.
And herein lies the problem. Because the fact is, that as I have written above, discussing the merits of Space Invaders does not equate, on an intellectual level, to discussing the merits of The Canterbury Tales, or Romeo and Juliet. A-levels may have become easier, but they're not that easy! Giving equal credit to the new diplomas will simply undermine the value of A-levels.
That is not to say that vocational qualifications are necessarily worthless. However, it should be remembered that they are vocational qualifications, and therefore (ideally) qualify you for a
vocation. Not for academic study. A-levels, by contrast, are academic qualifications, and are of course more likely to qualify you for academia. It is as ludicrous to say that studying for a diploma in construction work necessarily qualifies you to do a degree, as to say that studying for an A-level in English necessarily qualifies you to be a builder.
I doubt, in any event, that these qualifications will be treated as being equal to A-levels by universities. Admissions tutors will surely see the difference in quality, even if Ed Balls doesn't, and will act accordingly, whether they're meant to or not. So, what Ed Balls has essentially produced, is a set of qualifications which won't help those taking them to get into university, but which, if the Advanced Media Diploma is anything to go by, won't equip school-leavers with any skills that would interest an employer (and certainly with none that couldn't be got by two years of actual practical experience, which they could have got, had they left at 16). Balls says of his little project:
Update: It looks like my prediction about the response of university admissions tutors to these diplomas was correct: only 38% see them as a suitable alternative to A-levels, according to the BBC.
I think it would also be interesting to know which universities these 38% come from. Because I wouldn't mind making the further prediction, that they are significantly more likely to come from the ex-polys (which tend to have substantially lower entrance requirements anyway), than from Oxbridge or the Russell Group.
The proposed diploma is one of a range of fourteen, and it may be that some of the others will be rather more valuable than this one. Well, they could hardly be less valuable. The reason behind the creation of these diplomas, which will begin to be phased in in 2008, is that, since the government plans (wrongly, in my opinion) to start forcing pupils to stay at school until the age of eighteen, there should be a middle way between the current options of A-levels and going off to work, whereby pupils do a vocationally-orientated course at school. And that's a perfectly reasonable idea (with the caveat that it would be a lot simpler just to continue letting children leave school at 16), although I can't see what value the "skills" taught by the Advanced Media Diploma could possibly have to an employer.
But the government also wants to give children "more choice". Specifically, the choice between going to university at the age of eighteen, and getting a job. And thus the government also wishes to endow the diplomas with equal value to A-levels, when it comes to university applications. So, in theory, one could apply to Oxford with one's straight As at A-level, or one could turn up with one's top-graded diploma in computer games, and it would make no difference one way or the other.
And herein lies the problem. Because the fact is, that as I have written above, discussing the merits of Space Invaders does not equate, on an intellectual level, to discussing the merits of The Canterbury Tales, or Romeo and Juliet. A-levels may have become easier, but they're not that easy! Giving equal credit to the new diplomas will simply undermine the value of A-levels.
That is not to say that vocational qualifications are necessarily worthless. However, it should be remembered that they are vocational qualifications, and therefore (ideally) qualify you for a
vocation. Not for academic study. A-levels, by contrast, are academic qualifications, and are of course more likely to qualify you for academia. It is as ludicrous to say that studying for a diploma in construction work necessarily qualifies you to do a degree, as to say that studying for an A-level in English necessarily qualifies you to be a builder.
I doubt, in any event, that these qualifications will be treated as being equal to A-levels by universities. Admissions tutors will surely see the difference in quality, even if Ed Balls doesn't, and will act accordingly, whether they're meant to or not. So, what Ed Balls has essentially produced, is a set of qualifications which won't help those taking them to get into university, but which, if the Advanced Media Diploma is anything to go by, won't equip school-leavers with any skills that would interest an employer (and certainly with none that couldn't be got by two years of actual practical experience, which they could have got, had they left at 16). Balls says of his little project:
I want to see the brightest and the best taking diplomas which will give them more choice and allow them to get the careers they really want.To which I say: "Ed, balls!"
I'm confident that when people study the draft content now available, they will see how far we've come in developing a credible alternative for all young people.
Update: It looks like my prediction about the response of university admissions tutors to these diplomas was correct: only 38% see them as a suitable alternative to A-levels, according to the BBC.
I think it would also be interesting to know which universities these 38% come from. Because I wouldn't mind making the further prediction, that they are significantly more likely to come from the ex-polys (which tend to have substantially lower entrance requirements anyway), than from Oxbridge or the Russell Group.
Another efficient use of police time
Following on from such triumphs as arresting a schoolgirl for refusing to work with pupils who did not speak English, sending two police officers to reprimand a ten year-old who used the word 'gay' in an e-mail, and threatening a shopkeeper with arrest for selling golliwogs, PC Plod continues his run of good form as he deals with an 'abusive' parent.
To be specific Plod, in the form of Bedfordshire Police, sent an officer round to the Luton home of mother-of-two Ruth Ball, to upbraid her for scolding her daughter in a newsagents in Dunstable. Apparently, Ms Ball was in the newsagents, when her four year-old child, Leigha, began demanding sweets. When these were refused, she started screaming, and Ms Ball took her outside to her car, and shut her in there for a few minutes while she calmed down. Ms Ball and her other child stood a few feet away while Leigha was in the car. Nothing, one would think, out of the ordinary in any of this: the child misbehaved, she was subject to mild and wholly appropriate punishment by her mother, and everything was quickly back to normal.
But, one interfering busybody did not feel this way. Some cretin or cretins unknown noted down the number of Ms Ball's car, and called the police. Why they did this is anyone's guess, but there are some people who enthusiastically buy into the modern culture whereby parents cannot discipline their children without a police investigation, and who happily facilitate such investigations and, indeed, demand that they take place. They are the kind of people who would absolutely love to be transported into the world of Orwell's 1984, just so that they could inform on those who went against Big Brother.
Anyway, one such creature called the police, and, in typically idiotic style, they sent an officer round to Ms Ball's to tell her that, particularly in light of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, she should not have chastised her daughter in the manner that she chose. Quite what the disappearance of Madeleine McCann actually had to do with it is unclear - does Plod believe that Leigha would actually have been abducted from a car with her mother standing a few feet away?
More important, though, is the question of what business it was of Plod's in the first place. It is quite clear that no crime was committed, and that Ms Ball did nothing even remotely wrong. On the contrary, she is to be congratulated for bringing her children up to behave like decent people, accepting rules and limits, in sharp contrast to the many parents who seem to just give their children whatever they demand. And, I would add, that the officer sent to Ms Ball's house would have been much better employed patrolling the streets in an effort to prevent crime. You know the kind of thing the police used to do, in the bad old days...
To be specific Plod, in the form of Bedfordshire Police, sent an officer round to the Luton home of mother-of-two Ruth Ball, to upbraid her for scolding her daughter in a newsagents in Dunstable. Apparently, Ms Ball was in the newsagents, when her four year-old child, Leigha, began demanding sweets. When these were refused, she started screaming, and Ms Ball took her outside to her car, and shut her in there for a few minutes while she calmed down. Ms Ball and her other child stood a few feet away while Leigha was in the car. Nothing, one would think, out of the ordinary in any of this: the child misbehaved, she was subject to mild and wholly appropriate punishment by her mother, and everything was quickly back to normal.
But, one interfering busybody did not feel this way. Some cretin or cretins unknown noted down the number of Ms Ball's car, and called the police. Why they did this is anyone's guess, but there are some people who enthusiastically buy into the modern culture whereby parents cannot discipline their children without a police investigation, and who happily facilitate such investigations and, indeed, demand that they take place. They are the kind of people who would absolutely love to be transported into the world of Orwell's 1984, just so that they could inform on those who went against Big Brother.
Anyway, one such creature called the police, and, in typically idiotic style, they sent an officer round to Ms Ball's to tell her that, particularly in light of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, she should not have chastised her daughter in the manner that she chose. Quite what the disappearance of Madeleine McCann actually had to do with it is unclear - does Plod believe that Leigha would actually have been abducted from a car with her mother standing a few feet away?
More important, though, is the question of what business it was of Plod's in the first place. It is quite clear that no crime was committed, and that Ms Ball did nothing even remotely wrong. On the contrary, she is to be congratulated for bringing her children up to behave like decent people, accepting rules and limits, in sharp contrast to the many parents who seem to just give their children whatever they demand. And, I would add, that the officer sent to Ms Ball's house would have been much better employed patrolling the streets in an effort to prevent crime. You know the kind of thing the police used to do, in the bad old days...
Scumwatch Update
In Ashton-in-Makerfield, Greater Manchester:
A pensioner died from a heart attack after mindless yobs blocked in and attacked the ambulance called to help him.
Paramedics rushed to help the 75-year-old man, who has not been named, after he collapsed playing bowls with friends at a social club.
But as they loaded the man into the ambulance, three youths blocked the car park exit with their motorbikes, stopping it from leaving for hospital.
And the terrified ambulance crew were briefly chased away from the scene as the gang yelled abuse at them and pelted the vehicle with stones.
Police have launched an investigation after it emerged that the man died in hospital after the ambulance was delayed for at least five minutes.
Five minutes may not seem a particularly long time. But, I would imagine that in a case such as this, every second is vital. We cannot be sure whether this man would have lived or died had the ambulance not been delayed, but his chances of survival would surely have been higher.
And, in any event, what manner of worthless creatures attack paramedics as they respond to a 999 call? I would imagine that even most of the low-life and thugs that I occasionally have cause to write about would shy away from doing something like that. The subhuman vermin in this story really are particularly depraved.I also wonder, since children do not generally go straight from being good kids to attacking ambulances, what the antecedents of these low-lifes are? I would imagine that there must be at least something of a pattern of indiscipline at school and in the community, even if they do not actually have criminal records. One has to say, that if such filth were brought up better, were taught to behave in school, and were dealt with harshly by the police and the local community when they did show signs of coming off the rails, then they probably wouldn't have ended up the way they have. But, of course, I doubt that anyone has ever tried to teach them respect, nor given them a clip round the ear. They are the bastard children (in any sense you like) of a society which on the one hand pampers young thugs, and on the other hand punishes anyone who dares to stand up to them.
I would hope that after this, they will be dealt with very severely. But, knowing our "justice" system, I hope to see this, but do not expect to.
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Poor kids
Imagine going through life bearing the name Princess Tiaamii Andre. Because that's the name that animated blow-up doll Jordan and her husband Peter Andre have chosen for their newborn child.
Still, I suppose it's arguably preferable to being called Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence, as Michael Hutchence and Paula Yates named their daughter.
Thankfully, however, the efforts of a couple in New Zealand to inflict the unutterably awful name 4Real Wheaton upon their son were blocked by officials. The imaginative Mr and Mrs Wheaton are not celebrities - they can't give their children stupid names.
Looking back into the pages of history, one name that springs out of the page is that of the seventeenth century economist Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon. But at least he was able to call himself plain Nicholas Barbon. There will be no such escape for Princess Tiaamii.
Still, I suppose it's arguably preferable to being called Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence, as Michael Hutchence and Paula Yates named their daughter.
Thankfully, however, the efforts of a couple in New Zealand to inflict the unutterably awful name 4Real Wheaton upon their son were blocked by officials. The imaginative Mr and Mrs Wheaton are not celebrities - they can't give their children stupid names.
Looking back into the pages of history, one name that springs out of the page is that of the seventeenth century economist Nicholas Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon. But at least he was able to call himself plain Nicholas Barbon. There will be no such escape for Princess Tiaamii.
Monday, 23 July 2007
Stoical British Reserve
The Evening Standard billboards that sit outside virtually every newsagents in London are this evening bearing the headline:
Thames Floods: Prepare to FleeA tad melodramatic, perhaps?
Not very NICE
Usually, when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the body charged with rationing out NHS funding, appears in the news, it is when it has refused treatment for people who suffer from diseases such as cancer, or Alzheimer's, on the grounds that the treatment is not cost-effective. Now, however, I read that NICE is recommending that the NHS adopts a system for the treatment of drug addicts, whereby they will be rewarded with iPods, DVDs, and televisions, should they succeed in staying off drugs.
This is idiotic in so many different ways. For a start, if drug addicts are capable of being motivated to give up drugs by means of inducements, then isn't the possibility of turning their lives around, and away from utter worthlessness, inducement enough? That's actually rather a big point: most addicts don't like being addicts, but they are. Being addicted to drugs means that they do not exercise a fully rational choice when it comes to drugs. They know that their lives would be better without them, and yet they still take them. Will it really make a big difference if they know that their lives will be better without them, and that they will have an iPod?
The second point is that made by Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association:
I would also remind readers of the story that I wrote about in April, that misbehaving schoolchildren were being given rewards such as mountain bikes and iPods if they turned their behaviour around. Personally, I deplore the apparently increasing moves towards paying Danegeld to those who disrupt society, in the hope of making them better behaved. It is the mark of a pathetic and weak society, and will come to no good in the long run.
Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW
This is idiotic in so many different ways. For a start, if drug addicts are capable of being motivated to give up drugs by means of inducements, then isn't the possibility of turning their lives around, and away from utter worthlessness, inducement enough? That's actually rather a big point: most addicts don't like being addicts, but they are. Being addicted to drugs means that they do not exercise a fully rational choice when it comes to drugs. They know that their lives would be better without them, and yet they still take them. Will it really make a big difference if they know that their lives will be better without them, and that they will have an iPod?
The second point is that made by Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association:
Why should these people with self-inflicted problems be given priority over people who have a genuine illness? Some people with genuine disease are being forced to sell their homes for the medicines they need.Exactly. This is public money being spent here, and frankly, I would far rather see the finite resources of the NHS being spent, so far as is possible, on the more deserving cases, such as cancer patients, rather than on people who have, like it or not, brought their problems on themselves.
I would also remind readers of the story that I wrote about in April, that misbehaving schoolchildren were being given rewards such as mountain bikes and iPods if they turned their behaviour around. Personally, I deplore the apparently increasing moves towards paying Danegeld to those who disrupt society, in the hope of making them better behaved. It is the mark of a pathetic and weak society, and will come to no good in the long run.
Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW
Latest ATW Post
Have you seen that James Bulger's killer, Jon Venables, is getting married. And that his fiancee is ignorant of his true identity?
Personally, if I were getting married to a child killer, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?
Anyway, this is all just a roundabout way of saying, that I have written a post on this theme over at ATW.
Personally, if I were getting married to a child killer, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?
Anyway, this is all just a roundabout way of saying, that I have written a post on this theme over at ATW.
Sunday, 22 July 2007
"Buddhaphobia" in Durham!
It looks like Matthew Carter, the Burnley binman reprimanded for wearing a Cross of St George bandana, has an equally unlikely competitor in the contest for Wicked Racist of the Week:
A Buddhist businessman who wants to call his Chinese restaurant Fat Buddha has angered council chiefs - who claim the name will upset Buddhists.
Eddie Fung's £1.3million restaurant will open in Durham next month, creating 60 jobs.
But the restaurateur was astonished when Tracey Ingle, the city council's head of cultural services, demanded he change the name because it was 'provocative'.
Mr Fung, 39, said: "I cannot believe that this woman should go to so much time and trouble to take issue over an inoffensive name like Fat Buddha.
"No Buddhist is going to be offended by this. The fat Buddha is a symbol of health and happiness. It is political correctness gone mad."
And a spokesman for the Buddhist Society said: "Buddhists regard the fat Buddha as lucky. To suggest this is offensive is to misunderstand the faith."
Hmm. Is anyone else thinking, that since Miss Ingle has made false assumptions about Buddhism, and broadcast those assumptions to the world, it may in fact be she who is guilty of "Buddhaphobia"? Perhaps she should apologise for this.
She is certainly guilty of speaking without thinking, and of making an idiot of herself into the bargain (although, what more can one expect of anyone bearing the title "head of cultural services?"), and she should definitely apologise for that.
A crack in the ice?
David Cameron faces calls to resign from a handful of Conservative MPs who have lodged formal requests for a vote of no confidence in his leadership.Well, I consider myself to be an enemy of Cameron (what else could any decent person be?), and I am seizing upon this as evidence that his project is unravelling. Not, of course, that I believe this to be the beginning of the end; this isn't Thatcher on the steps of the Paris Embassy time. Far from it: I believe that Cameron will lead the Tories into the next election.The bid to destabilise the Tory leader comes after months of dissent over his modernising strategy, including a revolt over grammar schools, and his party's humiliating third-place defeat in two by-elections last week.
At least two MPs, and possibly as many as half a dozen, have written to Sir Michael Spicer, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, to call for a vote of no confidence, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
The letters are the first concrete evidence of rebellion since Mr Cameron took over in December 2005 and will be seized on by his enemies as evidence that the Cameron project is unravelling.
But this move, even coming from a small minority of MPs, shows that at least some Tories are beginning to see what they've let themselves in for. For the first year and a half of his reign, Cameron seemed to be a winner, someone who could beat Brown, Blair, or anyone else at the next election. For that reason, the majority of Tories allowed their lust for power to override their principles, and accepted a leader who made no attempt to hide his disdain for conservatism. Now, however, behind in the polls, and with a Hamas supporter who believes that illegal immigrants have too few rights sitting in the shadow cabinet, they are in the invidious position of witnessing their party spinning ever closer to left-wing insanity, while at the same time (and, in part, because of the descent into liberal madness) its poll ratings slide. Without the prospect of impending electoral success, those Tories who sold out their principles in the search for votes have no further reason to accept Cameron. For this reason, I predict that over the coming months and years he will face increasing, and increasingly vocal, resistance from within his own party. And when he loses the next election - as he will - he will find himself swiftly and unceremoniously dumped.
Personally, I greatly look forward to that day. While the Tory Party has problems which go beyond Cameron (ultimately, I do not believe that they have anyone in their senior ranks with the vision and ability that this country desperately needs), the damage that this man personally does to political debate in parliament and in the country, by shutting down discussion of so many vital issues, and taking the whole debate substantially to the left, is particularly dangerous, and the whole country will be better off once he's sent packing.
Saturday, 21 July 2007
Brilliant!
American talk-radio host Neal Boortz chews up and spits out a whining Muslim, who called into his show to complain about criticism of Islam. It's seven and a half minutes long, but it is well worth taking the time to listen to:
Hat-tip: Jihad Watch
Hat-tip: Jihad Watch
A wicked racist
Matthew Carter, a binman in Burnley, has been issued with a verbal warning from his employers at the Lib Dem controlled Pendle Council. His crime: he wore a Cross of St George bandana. And, according to Pendle Council, this particular item of headgear "could be considered offensive and racist".Well, I suppose it could be considered offensive and racist. And so could pretty much anything else. The question, however, is whether it actually is, and I personally fail to see how any rational person could be offended by the Cross of St George, or could consider it to be in any sense racist.
What makes this particularly stupid is that Mr Carter is a black immigrant. While that does not, of course, preclude him from being a racist, it would seem to preclude him from practising the type of racism with which the liberal-left seeks to associate the Cross of St George: racism against non-whites, and, particularly, immigrants.
This is not the first time that the PC mob has waged war against the Cross of St George: in 2005 prison officers were ordered to desist from wearing tie pins bearing the cross, as a result of fears over its supposed "racist" connotations. We must surely be the only country on Earth in which the authorities regard the national flag of our largest constituent nation as a symbol of hate, necessitating censorship. Well, I find such prohibitions of England's flag sickening, and that is why the Cross of St George is proudly displayed at the top of this post.
Recommended Pub
The Happy Scots Bar, Blackpool.
No, I haven't been there, but I see that the landlord, Hamish Howitt, is facing a £17,500 fine for allowing his customers to smoke. As a strong opponent of the ridiculous ban - if a landlord chooses to allow people to smoke on his property, whose concern is that but his own? - I applaud his stance, and would suggest that anyone in the Blackpool area joins him in sticking two fingers up at the interfering nanny statists, by drinking a pint or two in his pub.
By contrast:
Not a recommended pub:
The Prince of Wales in Earl's Court. Light up in there, and a screaming harridan swiftly descends upon you, as Mr Smith, Paul Weston, and myself discovered to our cost recently.
No, I haven't been there, but I see that the landlord, Hamish Howitt, is facing a £17,500 fine for allowing his customers to smoke. As a strong opponent of the ridiculous ban - if a landlord chooses to allow people to smoke on his property, whose concern is that but his own? - I applaud his stance, and would suggest that anyone in the Blackpool area joins him in sticking two fingers up at the interfering nanny statists, by drinking a pint or two in his pub.
By contrast:
Not a recommended pub:
The Prince of Wales in Earl's Court. Light up in there, and a screaming harridan swiftly descends upon you, as Mr Smith, Paul Weston, and myself discovered to our cost recently.
Friday, 20 July 2007
"He doesn't speak any community language!"
In the by-election thread at ATW, a commenter referred to a rather interesting little story about the Ealing Southall contest, which I thought worth sharing with you. It centres around the following quote, from an article on the Respect website (don't say I didn't warn you!):
Postscript: As exercises in self-delusion go, the headline of the article on Respect's website, "Respect rules the streets of Ealing Southall", must fall among the most extreme cases. Given that their candidate picked up a mere 588 votes (1.6% of all those cast), I think that Respect can be said to "rule the streets of Ealing Southall" in much the same way that the Emperor Norton I ruled America.
Already shamed by revelations that he gave £4,800 to Labour days before his nomination, Tory Tony Lit made a further fool of himself tonight on the community [i.e. Indian - FR] Venus TV station (Sky Channel 807). Following a phone-in with our candidate Salvinder Dhillon in Hindi and Punjabi, the presenter invited Mr. Lit to speak in a community language, as his whole contribution had been in English. Lit just kept speaking English. He doesn’t speak any community language! Yet he claims to be a local.Doesn't that just sum up multicultural Britain today? A candidate in a British election being vilified as an auslander for not speaking Hindi. True, this is only the Respect website, but what business has the TV presenter even asking Tony Lit to speak in a "community language"? Despite what visitors to Southall may think, it is not in India, but in England, and those who seek to be elected to represent Southall in the British parliament should speak English. So, indeed, should all immigrants who have come to Britain. The fact that British-based Indian TV stations are conducting phone-ins in Hindi and Punjabi is, in my opinion, just further evidence of the failure of large numbers of immigrants to even attempt to integrate or assimilate.
Postscript: As exercises in self-delusion go, the headline of the article on Respect's website, "Respect rules the streets of Ealing Southall", must fall among the most extreme cases. Given that their candidate picked up a mere 588 votes (1.6% of all those cast), I think that Respect can be said to "rule the streets of Ealing Southall" in much the same way that the Emperor Norton I ruled America.
Bad night for Tories
Up late to keep track of the by-elections in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall. Both Labour holds, and both poor results for the Cameron Tories, who came in third in both seats. In Sedgefield, they fell from second last time, being overtaken by the Lib Dems, while the result in Ealing Southall was, perhaps, even worse. There, despite the presence of the much vaunted ten-day Tory Tony Lit, they stayed in third place, some way behind the Lib Dems.
The Ealing Southall result can, I think, be viewed as a particular rebuttal of David Cameron, personally. In most constituencies, when one has a Tory candidate, he is simply listed as a "Conservative". But in Ealing Southall, Tony Lit stood, not as a "Conservative", but expressly as the candidate of "David Cameron's Conservatives". Not to mention the fact that the Tories put a huge amount of effort into the constituency - Cameron himself visited five times. And for all that, their share of the vote went up a mere 0.9%.
In two constituencies tonight, voters have rejected the Tory Party, and, it would appear, David Cameron personally. Given that the most recent opinion poll showed the Tories 7% behind Labour, one has to ask whether, having sold themselves out to a leader who makes Labour look right-wing, the Tories have actually achieved anything at all. Personally, I believe that they would be doing substantially better if they had a leader who actually had principles, and who was prepared to talk about the issues, such as immigration and crime, which really matter to people, rather than an unprincipled low-life, who drivels on in a sanctimonious cant about minor concerns such as the terrible threat posed by illegal logging. Feel free to quote this back at me if I'm proved wrong, but unless the Tories replace Cameron pretty damn quickly, I really can't see any result at the next general election other than a fourth successive Labour victory.
I also noted that in Sedgefield, approximately 21% of the vote went to minor parties, or independent candidates. Of particular interest to me, were the comparative results of UKIP and the BNP. UKIP scored 1.9%, a marginal increase from last time, but still an essentially insignificant figure. By contrast, the BNP, who didn't even stand last time, took 8.9% of the vote, finishing in a comfortable fourth place. To me, this provides further evidence that UKIP really cannot achieve a significant result outside of the European elections. And, at a time when all three main parties are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, and when not one of them is willing to listen to the views of the public on such issues as crime, immigration, and the EU, then this result suggests, once again, that the best option for those of us who really wish to see real change in the way this country is run, is to vote for the BNP. Even if they don't win, a vote for them is by far the best method of applying a sharp kick to the fatted posterior of the political elite.
The Ealing Southall result can, I think, be viewed as a particular rebuttal of David Cameron, personally. In most constituencies, when one has a Tory candidate, he is simply listed as a "Conservative". But in Ealing Southall, Tony Lit stood, not as a "Conservative", but expressly as the candidate of "David Cameron's Conservatives". Not to mention the fact that the Tories put a huge amount of effort into the constituency - Cameron himself visited five times. And for all that, their share of the vote went up a mere 0.9%.
In two constituencies tonight, voters have rejected the Tory Party, and, it would appear, David Cameron personally. Given that the most recent opinion poll showed the Tories 7% behind Labour, one has to ask whether, having sold themselves out to a leader who makes Labour look right-wing, the Tories have actually achieved anything at all. Personally, I believe that they would be doing substantially better if they had a leader who actually had principles, and who was prepared to talk about the issues, such as immigration and crime, which really matter to people, rather than an unprincipled low-life, who drivels on in a sanctimonious cant about minor concerns such as the terrible threat posed by illegal logging. Feel free to quote this back at me if I'm proved wrong, but unless the Tories replace Cameron pretty damn quickly, I really can't see any result at the next general election other than a fourth successive Labour victory.
I also noted that in Sedgefield, approximately 21% of the vote went to minor parties, or independent candidates. Of particular interest to me, were the comparative results of UKIP and the BNP. UKIP scored 1.9%, a marginal increase from last time, but still an essentially insignificant figure. By contrast, the BNP, who didn't even stand last time, took 8.9% of the vote, finishing in a comfortable fourth place. To me, this provides further evidence that UKIP really cannot achieve a significant result outside of the European elections. And, at a time when all three main parties are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, and when not one of them is willing to listen to the views of the public on such issues as crime, immigration, and the EU, then this result suggests, once again, that the best option for those of us who really wish to see real change in the way this country is run, is to vote for the BNP. Even if they don't win, a vote for them is by far the best method of applying a sharp kick to the fatted posterior of the political elite.
Mega Mosque Petition Update
Just a brief note to say that the petition against the East London mega mosque closed on Thursday, as the most popular petition on the 10 Downing Street e-petitions website, with 277,041 signatures. Clearly, this is a very sizeable demonstration of the widespread public opposition to this project, and it is to be hoped that the government will take the views of the public on board. Hoped, I say, but not expected.
The execrable terrorist-supporter Inayat Bunglawala is not best pleased with the petition's success. He would much rather that the British people sat quietly and submissively by while their country was taken from them, and is angered by their failure to be good, obedient, dhimmis. Rather amusingly, he seeks to present, as a justification for the mosque being built, the fact that it will "only" have room for 12,000 worshippers. So that's just four times the size of England's largest Anglican cathedral then...
Some readers may also recall that there was a pro-mosque petition. At the time of writing that has surged in popularity to 1,039 signatories. Only another 276,000 to go, and they'll catch the anti-mosque petition! To put that in context, given that the pro-mosque petition has attracted about 800 signatories over the past two months, then, if present trends continue, they should catch the anti-mosque petition towards the end of the year 2064.
The execrable terrorist-supporter Inayat Bunglawala is not best pleased with the petition's success. He would much rather that the British people sat quietly and submissively by while their country was taken from them, and is angered by their failure to be good, obedient, dhimmis. Rather amusingly, he seeks to present, as a justification for the mosque being built, the fact that it will "only" have room for 12,000 worshippers. So that's just four times the size of England's largest Anglican cathedral then...
Some readers may also recall that there was a pro-mosque petition. At the time of writing that has surged in popularity to 1,039 signatories. Only another 276,000 to go, and they'll catch the anti-mosque petition! To put that in context, given that the pro-mosque petition has attracted about 800 signatories over the past two months, then, if present trends continue, they should catch the anti-mosque petition towards the end of the year 2064.
Thursday, 19 July 2007
A nation with no history
Pupils are leaving school with a poor understanding of history, Ofsted inspectors warn today.
The watchdog said the crucial subject was seen as irrelevant and marginal in too many schools.
Instead of giving youngsters a chronological overview of history, lessons had been reduced to a random collection of topics.
This meant that pupils' knowledge of key events and historical figures was patchy or non-existent.
Most primary children were taught history by staff who had barely studied the subject themselves since the age of 14, meaning lessons "lacked rigour".
Secondary pupils are so bored by the subject more than two thirds opt out at the earliest opportunity and never study history when they are mature enough to understand it.
Seventy per cent of pupils drop history before GCSE, according to the report, titled 'History in the Balance'. Ofsted's indictment is embarrassing for ministers. They are already trying to play down the decision to remove Winston Churchill from the recommended secondary school curriculum.
Ofsted said the curriculum from infants onwards needs revamping to ensure pupils leave school with a proper sense of "Britain's story".
But inspectors said many teachers were resistant to the idea of teaching Britishness, even though it could help pupils grasp the country's common values as well as appreciate its diverse cultures.
Indeed. Those who have been reading this blog since its early days may recall that in early April I wrote about Baljeet Ghale, the head of the National Union of Teachers, who, for highly spurious reasons, considers teaching "Britishness" to be racist.
Personally, I consider teaching "Britishness", at least as it is perceived by the government, to be a ridiculous idea. Because the government wishes to boil down "Britishness" into a series of broadbrush "values", such as, according to the former education secretary Alan Johnson, "free speech, tolerance, respect for the rule of law". While these are all valuable, they do not come close to encapsulating what it is, particularly, that makes Britain British.However, I do consider the teaching of history to be highly important, and believe that history - and by this I mean British history - would ideally be a compulsory subject to the age of 16 - like English and Maths - and that at the very least a majority of children should study history to that age. Because one of the key aspects of inculcating a sense of nationhood in our children, is to teach them where they come from. This is teaching Britishness in a true sense, rather than in the anodyne, multicultural, and ultimately meaningless manner envisaged by the pathetic buffoons of the government. Only when the nation's children have a sense that, not only do they happen to be living on a piece of land that has somehow acquired the name of Britain, but that the people of this land have for centuries past been among the leaders of the world in technology, productivity, morality, and cultural achievement, and that they are heir to a great legacy, only then will they begin to develop a sense of truly 'being British'. Until we are able to do that, we will continue to raise generation after generation of children who believe that, as one schoolgirl put it, they "come from nowhere", and who consequently grow up with no awareness of their heritage, no sense of identity, and no national pride.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Now this one made me angry!
Police are seeking a former Exeter cabbie, Noorullah Seddiqi, in relation to an incident of rape, and a series of sexual assaults on women. He failed to answer bail on January 9th, and has been unheard of ever since.
Now, as you might expect with a bail-jumping suspected pervert on the loose, old Plod was quite keen to get his hands on any information that might help find the said bail-jumping suspected pervert. So, it was decided to stage a reconstruction of the various incidents of which Seddiqi is accused, and put that reconstruction on the ITV programme "Manhunt", together with an appeal for any information. Sounds pretty sensible, doesn't it, even if it did take Plod six months to think of it.
Unfortunately, Plod had reckoned without the Devon Racial Equality Council (DREC, or should that perhaps be, drek). Now, as you might guess from the name, Noorullah Seddiqi is not a native of Devon. In fact he comes from Afghanistan. And the DREC claim that publicising the fact that an Afghan immigrant is a suspected rapist will lead those wicked white people to indulge in their favourite past-time, "racism". As evidence for which, they claim that when, in April (only three months after he went missing - well done lightning-quick Plod!), the police made an effort to publicise Seddiqi's alleged crimes, "twenty or so attacks and assaults" occurred in Exeter as a direct result of this. Quite how they can know that these attacks and assaults, if they actually occurred, were a direct result of the publicity surrounding Seddiqi is unclear. But they claim they do, and as a result they put pressure on Plod to cancel the reconstruction of the crimes, lest more "attacks and assaults" follow on from this. And Plod gave in.
So, because of the whining of a provincial branch of the race relations industry, the effort to hunt a man who is, in all probability, a serial sex offender, is to be undermined. Which might be understandable, if showing a reconstruction of the crimes on "Manhunt" was actually going to lead to pogroms, lynchings, and the total breakdown of society in every town and village from Dawlish to Barnstaple. But it wouldn't. Indeed, I doubt that any of the "attacks and assaults" which allegedly happened as a result of previous publicity surrounding the case actually amounted to anything more than verbal abuse, and spitting. If it did amount to more, don't you think the DREC would be screaming about it to high Heaven? And while spitting and swearing are not pleasant, they are nothing compared to rape. I would add, that in a city like Exeter, with a population of about 120,000, twenty minor assaults is really not that many.
The race relations industry has sunk to a variety of new lows over time, but I think that actively seeking to protect a suspected rapist - which is what they are doing - must be a peculiarly reprehensible action, even for them. I wonder if they feel proud?
Now, as you might expect with a bail-jumping suspected pervert on the loose, old Plod was quite keen to get his hands on any information that might help find the said bail-jumping suspected pervert. So, it was decided to stage a reconstruction of the various incidents of which Seddiqi is accused, and put that reconstruction on the ITV programme "Manhunt", together with an appeal for any information. Sounds pretty sensible, doesn't it, even if it did take Plod six months to think of it.
Unfortunately, Plod had reckoned without the Devon Racial Equality Council (DREC, or should that perhaps be, drek). Now, as you might guess from the name, Noorullah Seddiqi is not a native of Devon. In fact he comes from Afghanistan. And the DREC claim that publicising the fact that an Afghan immigrant is a suspected rapist will lead those wicked white people to indulge in their favourite past-time, "racism". As evidence for which, they claim that when, in April (only three months after he went missing - well done lightning-quick Plod!), the police made an effort to publicise Seddiqi's alleged crimes, "twenty or so attacks and assaults" occurred in Exeter as a direct result of this. Quite how they can know that these attacks and assaults, if they actually occurred, were a direct result of the publicity surrounding Seddiqi is unclear. But they claim they do, and as a result they put pressure on Plod to cancel the reconstruction of the crimes, lest more "attacks and assaults" follow on from this. And Plod gave in.
So, because of the whining of a provincial branch of the race relations industry, the effort to hunt a man who is, in all probability, a serial sex offender, is to be undermined. Which might be understandable, if showing a reconstruction of the crimes on "Manhunt" was actually going to lead to pogroms, lynchings, and the total breakdown of society in every town and village from Dawlish to Barnstaple. But it wouldn't. Indeed, I doubt that any of the "attacks and assaults" which allegedly happened as a result of previous publicity surrounding the case actually amounted to anything more than verbal abuse, and spitting. If it did amount to more, don't you think the DREC would be screaming about it to high Heaven? And while spitting and swearing are not pleasant, they are nothing compared to rape. I would add, that in a city like Exeter, with a population of about 120,000, twenty minor assaults is really not that many.
The race relations industry has sunk to a variety of new lows over time, but I think that actively seeking to protect a suspected rapist - which is what they are doing - must be a peculiarly reprehensible action, even for them. I wonder if they feel proud?
Criminal objects to looking like a criminal
A judge at Gloucester Crown Court has altered a convicted criminal's sentence, removing a requirement that he wear an electronic tag, and substituting a requirement that he carry out thirty hours unpaid work. Why did he do this? Well, because the criminal asked him to.
To be precise, Lewis Beer, who in April pleaded guilty to carrying out an assault at a nightclub in Cheltenham, asked that he be spared tagging, on the grounds that wearing the tag "made him look like a criminal", and that he was, as a result of this, finding it hard to gain employment as a gym instructor.
Well, I have news for you, Lewis: you are a criminal! That's kind of what having convictions for ABH and common assault means. And I'm afraid that the fact that people will now regard you with distaste is entirely your own fault. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you attacked someone.
I am also somewhat surprised to see the judge apparently assisting a criminal in covering up his crime. Presumably any employers he may go to for a job will be able to find out about his conviction, even without the tag. But people who he might be instructing in the gym, should anyone give him a job, would only be alerted to this fact by the tag. Understandably, they might not be overly keen on the idea of having a gym instructor with a recent conviction for violence. Now that the tag has gone, however, they just won't know, and they won't, therefore, have the chance to object.
There must also have been some reason why Beer was required to wear the tag in the first place. If unpaid work was the most appropriate sentence, why wasn't he given that right away? The reasons that led to him being tagged have apparently been disregarded in this decision.
There are, of course, circumstances where a sentence can reasonably be altered. But I really don't see that sparing a criminal from the social stigma that attaches to being a criminal is among them. And, as I said, if I were going to be in close proximity to a man with two assault convictions, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?
To be precise, Lewis Beer, who in April pleaded guilty to carrying out an assault at a nightclub in Cheltenham, asked that he be spared tagging, on the grounds that wearing the tag "made him look like a criminal", and that he was, as a result of this, finding it hard to gain employment as a gym instructor.
Well, I have news for you, Lewis: you are a criminal! That's kind of what having convictions for ABH and common assault means. And I'm afraid that the fact that people will now regard you with distaste is entirely your own fault. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you attacked someone.
I am also somewhat surprised to see the judge apparently assisting a criminal in covering up his crime. Presumably any employers he may go to for a job will be able to find out about his conviction, even without the tag. But people who he might be instructing in the gym, should anyone give him a job, would only be alerted to this fact by the tag. Understandably, they might not be overly keen on the idea of having a gym instructor with a recent conviction for violence. Now that the tag has gone, however, they just won't know, and they won't, therefore, have the chance to object.
There must also have been some reason why Beer was required to wear the tag in the first place. If unpaid work was the most appropriate sentence, why wasn't he given that right away? The reasons that led to him being tagged have apparently been disregarded in this decision.
There are, of course, circumstances where a sentence can reasonably be altered. But I really don't see that sparing a criminal from the social stigma that attaches to being a criminal is among them. And, as I said, if I were going to be in close proximity to a man with two assault convictions, I'd want to know about it. Wouldn't you?
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Where is the Love?
Readers may remember that in June I wrote about Andrew Love, the somewhat inappropriately named "shock blogger" who had just pleaded guilty to causing a "racially-aggravated breach of the peace", by posting offensive comments on his blog. At the time he was told that he might go to prison.
Thankfully, he has not been jailed, but has been sentenced to 160 hours community service.
Now, I have to say that much of what Love wrote does sound somewhat offensive. Notably, he mocked the Falklands veteran Simon Weston. No doubt many of his comments about, variously, blacks, Muslims, the Irish, homosexuals, and disabled people were also in poor taste. And his action in publishing his boss's e-mail address and home postcode were certainly unacceptable. Morrisons supermarket, where he was employed, would have been quite within their rights had they sacked him.
However, he was not inciting violence, or criminality: he was just indulging in juvenile "humour". If anyone imagines that equally offensive comments aren't made on a daily basis in schoolyards across the country, then they are probably a long-term resident of Nephelokokkygia. The right to free speech does extend to the right to cause offence. If it did not, it would be completely meaningless. While Andrew Love certainly behaved poorly, perhaps unacceptably, this was not something that merited a criminal conviction. The unacceptability of his actions could easily have been brought home to him through the displeasure of his peers, and possibly through disciplinary action by Morrisons.
Update: According to The Scotsman, this website (warning: website contains flash intro) is Love's. I can't see anything even remotely offensive there, from a cursory glance round, although I suppose that the offensive comments could have been removed. Or, alternatively, The Scotsman could have got it wrong, and this could be some poor innocent guy getting associated with a wicked thought criminal.
Thankfully, he has not been jailed, but has been sentenced to 160 hours community service.
Now, I have to say that much of what Love wrote does sound somewhat offensive. Notably, he mocked the Falklands veteran Simon Weston. No doubt many of his comments about, variously, blacks, Muslims, the Irish, homosexuals, and disabled people were also in poor taste. And his action in publishing his boss's e-mail address and home postcode were certainly unacceptable. Morrisons supermarket, where he was employed, would have been quite within their rights had they sacked him.
However, he was not inciting violence, or criminality: he was just indulging in juvenile "humour". If anyone imagines that equally offensive comments aren't made on a daily basis in schoolyards across the country, then they are probably a long-term resident of Nephelokokkygia. The right to free speech does extend to the right to cause offence. If it did not, it would be completely meaningless. While Andrew Love certainly behaved poorly, perhaps unacceptably, this was not something that merited a criminal conviction. The unacceptability of his actions could easily have been brought home to him through the displeasure of his peers, and possibly through disciplinary action by Morrisons.
Update: According to The Scotsman, this website (warning: website contains flash intro) is Love's. I can't see anything even remotely offensive there, from a cursory glance round, although I suppose that the offensive comments could have been removed. Or, alternatively, The Scotsman could have got it wrong, and this could be some poor innocent guy getting associated with a wicked thought criminal.
"It's exhausting being fabulous"
The best argument against knighting David Beckham:
His odious wife.
Bearing in mind the titular quote, spoken by Mrs Beckham on an American TV show, can you imagine the size to which her utterly empty head would swell, were she to become 'Lady Beckham'?
On the plus side, there is always the possibility it might explode...
His odious wife.
Bearing in mind the titular quote, spoken by Mrs Beckham on an American TV show, can you imagine the size to which her utterly empty head would swell, were she to become 'Lady Beckham'?
On the plus side, there is always the possibility it might explode...
One-eighth of thirty-two is...?
A survey of 2,000 adults has revealed that one in fourteen (roughly 7%) do not know that the answer to 32 divided by 8 is 4. That sounds bad enough on its own, but the question they were given was multiple-choice, and is one which would normally be given to an eight year old child.
The problem was particularly severe among the younger generation. While only 4% of those aged over fifty-five found the question to be beyond them, a staggering 12% of those in the eighteen to twenty-five age range couldn't answer it. That's 12% of people in that age group who are actually innumerate.
Why is this, I wonder? Perhaps the present generation is just stupider?
It wouldn't surprise me, but for now I'm going to go with the quality of teaching that children are receiving in our schools as being responsible for the fall in standards. In the past, the basics of literacy and numeracy were rigorously inculcated in the minds of schoolchildren. Whereas now, we live in an age of "progressive teaching methods" and "child-centred learning", which simply do not work. The problem isn't just in mathematics: a great many people under the age of thirty or so have no real understanding of spelling, punctuation, or grammar either, while many young people lack a basic knowledge of British history.
What our schools are busily doing, is turning out a generation of children who are, in essence, ignorant sheep. Who are incapable of writing a letter, or of performing any meaningful mental arithmetic. Yet who are fully paid-up members of the Church of Liberalism, having been indoctrinated by their teachers into all of its central tenets (white guilt, gay rights, the benefits of multiculturalism, the evil demon global warming, and so on) since the age of five. They may not know their five times table, but they certainly do know that the BNP is evil! Perhaps liberals like that. They probably believe that they are creating a wonderful, tolerant new society, where we will all join hands and sing Kumbaya. Whereas, in point of fact, they're just creating a nation of philistines.
Well done prisoners!
A man jailed for plotting synchronised attacks in Britain and the United States is "scarred for life" after being attacked in prison, his lawyer said on Sunday.Mudassar Arani told British broadcaster Channel 4 News that Dhiren Barot, who was imprisoned for life last November, had "lost all hair on his head and he's got scarring all over his face up to his neck".
"Somebody threw hot oil and hot water on my client, whereby he's been scarred for life," she said.
"He's being detained in healthcare at the moment and is receiving medical care."
Channel 4 said the British prisons service confirmed that an inmate was scalded on his head and back, and the police had been informed.
Arani said the attack supported her argument that Muslim inmates should be given special protection because they were "being targeted".
Yes, Miss Arani. It's "Islamophobia" at work, isn't it? And, of course, this attack has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this man had actively worked to inflict unbelievable suffering on the people of this country, and of our ally, America. No, it's just irrational hatred.
Personally, I am quite glad to see that Barot has been given a good thrashing. If our government had any guts, then people like Barot would not be in prison at all: they would be executed. If he is to be in prison, then he should be as miserable and unhappy as possible while he is there, and should suffer a small taste of what he tried to do to others. So well done to the prisoners: anyone who does this to a terrorist can't be all bad!Sunday, 15 July 2007
More pressure for migrant amnesty
I see that, following on from the Mass for Migrants celebrated by the Archbishop of Westminster in May, and the rally of liberal idiots that accompanied it, another leftist organisation has come out and called for criminals to be rewarded for their crime.
The criminals in question are, of course, illegal immigrants. Today the left-wing think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has come out and demanded that an amnesty be granted to half a million illegal immigrants, allowing them to remain in this country permanently. Danny Sriskandarajah of the IPPR justified this call on the basis that illegal immigrants supposedly benefit the economy by, to coin a phrase, "doing the jobs the British won't do". He added, that in any event we won't catch all these people, so we might as well stop trying.
As for the first argument, I would point out that there are a million unemployed British people in this country, who would, or at least, could, do the work these illegal immigrants are doing. But, in any event, as I have repeated time and time again, the principal danger posed by immigration is not economic, it is cultural. When you bring people from all over the world to a country, then you will ultimately create a fractured society. How could you do otherwise, when every conceivable race, religion, and culture under the Sun are existing within a few feet of each other, and competing directly with one another? We hear a lot these days about the importance of "community cohesion", but what people like Sriskandarajah don't seem able or willing to understand is that this only becomes an issue in a heterogeneous society. Immigration is, and has been, the single biggest destroyer of homogeneity (and, therefore of "community cohesion") in British society, and the more you have of it, the greater the damage will be.
Sriskandarajah's second argument is one we hear a lot, and it is as ridiculous as it was when it was first made. The fact that it is difficult to hunt down all illegal immigrants should not mean that we should give up. Should we give up attempting to stop murder, or rape, or terrorism, because it's difficult? Equally, I think that the difficulty of catching illegal immigrants is overstated. If our government actually wanted to, I believe that it could.
I would also point out, as I have done before, one simple thing: these people are criminals. They have entered this country illegally, and in doing so they have shown an utter contempt for Britain, its laws, and its people. What Sriskandarajah is proposing, is that simply because these criminals have, besides breaking the law, succeeded in evading punishment for a sufficiently long time, they should now be rewarded. Which sounds to me rather like saying that if you kill someone and then evade the police for ten years, you should get a knighthood, and all charges dropped.
The shadow home secretary, David Davis, also points out that, if you grant an amnesty for illegal immigrants who evade capture long enough, then you will simply encourage more people to commit this crime. At a time when this country is literally swamped with immigrants, the last thing we want is to encourage more of the worst kind of immigrant to come here.
The move towards an amnesty worries me. Since the Mass for Migrants last month, both Harriet Harman (now, of course, Labour deputy leader) and Alan Johnson, have come out in support of such a move. There is thus support for such an action at the highest level of government. The amnesty must now be an increasingly real possibility.
But any government and any politician who passed such an amnesty into law would not merely be going against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people, but they would actually be committing moral treason. Because mass immigration will, if it is not stopped very soon, result in the destruction of Britain. And what can a politician be, who actively promotes the destruction of the country they are supposed to serve, but a traitor?
Not, of course, that either public opinion or their duty to Britain matters very much to many of the scum in parliament.
The criminals in question are, of course, illegal immigrants. Today the left-wing think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has come out and demanded that an amnesty be granted to half a million illegal immigrants, allowing them to remain in this country permanently. Danny Sriskandarajah of the IPPR justified this call on the basis that illegal immigrants supposedly benefit the economy by, to coin a phrase, "doing the jobs the British won't do". He added, that in any event we won't catch all these people, so we might as well stop trying.
As for the first argument, I would point out that there are a million unemployed British people in this country, who would, or at least, could, do the work these illegal immigrants are doing. But, in any event, as I have repeated time and time again, the principal danger posed by immigration is not economic, it is cultural. When you bring people from all over the world to a country, then you will ultimately create a fractured society. How could you do otherwise, when every conceivable race, religion, and culture under the Sun are existing within a few feet of each other, and competing directly with one another? We hear a lot these days about the importance of "community cohesion", but what people like Sriskandarajah don't seem able or willing to understand is that this only becomes an issue in a heterogeneous society. Immigration is, and has been, the single biggest destroyer of homogeneity (and, therefore of "community cohesion") in British society, and the more you have of it, the greater the damage will be.
Sriskandarajah's second argument is one we hear a lot, and it is as ridiculous as it was when it was first made. The fact that it is difficult to hunt down all illegal immigrants should not mean that we should give up. Should we give up attempting to stop murder, or rape, or terrorism, because it's difficult? Equally, I think that the difficulty of catching illegal immigrants is overstated. If our government actually wanted to, I believe that it could.
I would also point out, as I have done before, one simple thing: these people are criminals. They have entered this country illegally, and in doing so they have shown an utter contempt for Britain, its laws, and its people. What Sriskandarajah is proposing, is that simply because these criminals have, besides breaking the law, succeeded in evading punishment for a sufficiently long time, they should now be rewarded. Which sounds to me rather like saying that if you kill someone and then evade the police for ten years, you should get a knighthood, and all charges dropped.
The shadow home secretary, David Davis, also points out that, if you grant an amnesty for illegal immigrants who evade capture long enough, then you will simply encourage more people to commit this crime. At a time when this country is literally swamped with immigrants, the last thing we want is to encourage more of the worst kind of immigrant to come here.
The move towards an amnesty worries me. Since the Mass for Migrants last month, both Harriet Harman (now, of course, Labour deputy leader) and Alan Johnson, have come out in support of such a move. There is thus support for such an action at the highest level of government. The amnesty must now be an increasingly real possibility.
But any government and any politician who passed such an amnesty into law would not merely be going against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people, but they would actually be committing moral treason. Because mass immigration will, if it is not stopped very soon, result in the destruction of Britain. And what can a politician be, who actively promotes the destruction of the country they are supposed to serve, but a traitor?
Not, of course, that either public opinion or their duty to Britain matters very much to many of the scum in parliament.
Saturday, 14 July 2007
Trevor Phillips: Britain's Greatest Living Idiot?
Well, it's between him and Madeleine Bunting, with Rowan Williams a distant third. In his latest bid for this supreme honour, Trev, as I affectionately call him, has attacked Gordon Brown over the composition of his new cabinet. Well, nothing too wrong with that: they're all a bunch of bloody idiots! But Trev's complaint has nothing to do with the quality of Brown's cabinet. Rather, it is to do with who is in that cabinet.
Specifically, Trev thinks that there are too many of those evil white men in the cabinet. Apparently, the cabinet is now 100% white, and the number of female cabinet ministers has fallen from eight, under the Blessed Tony, to five, under Prime Minister Clunky Fist. Trev, who was described as being "hopping mad about this", has even threatened to resign his position. A nation prepares to mourn...
Really, though, I'm unsure what it is that Trev actually wants. Does he believe that blacks should be guaranteed at least one post in each cabinet, regardless of merit? Because that's what it sounds like.
That would, of course, be idiotic, as would any form of affirmative action programme, in government or anywhere else. What we want from a government is a group of people who will do what is best for Britain. Any policy which required that higher quality candidates for office be passed over because they didn't conform to the requirements of some "equal opportunities" directive would be idiotic in any situation, and potentially disastrous if applied to appointments to the highest governmental posts in the land.
I would add the point that Trev should get his own house in order before he lectures anyone else on diversity and representation. After all, in 2004, when Trev was head of the Commission for Racial Equality (he now heads the Commission for Equality and Human Rights - plus ca change), a mere 38% of CRE staff were white, as against over 90% of the total population. If one didn't know any better, then with under-representation of that degree, one might almost feel that the CRE was "institutionally racist".
Specifically, Trev thinks that there are too many of those evil white men in the cabinet. Apparently, the cabinet is now 100% white, and the number of female cabinet ministers has fallen from eight, under the Blessed Tony, to five, under Prime Minister Clunky Fist. Trev, who was described as being "hopping mad about this", has even threatened to resign his position. A nation prepares to mourn...
Really, though, I'm unsure what it is that Trev actually wants. Does he believe that blacks should be guaranteed at least one post in each cabinet, regardless of merit? Because that's what it sounds like.
That would, of course, be idiotic, as would any form of affirmative action programme, in government or anywhere else. What we want from a government is a group of people who will do what is best for Britain. Any policy which required that higher quality candidates for office be passed over because they didn't conform to the requirements of some "equal opportunities" directive would be idiotic in any situation, and potentially disastrous if applied to appointments to the highest governmental posts in the land.
I would add the point that Trev should get his own house in order before he lectures anyone else on diversity and representation. After all, in 2004, when Trev was head of the Commission for Racial Equality (he now heads the Commission for Equality and Human Rights - plus ca change), a mere 38% of CRE staff were white, as against over 90% of the total population. If one didn't know any better, then with under-representation of that degree, one might almost feel that the CRE was "institutionally racist".
Robert Spencer Interview
The Catholic Herald has an interview with Robert Spencer, editor of Jihad Watch. Those readers who are regular readers of JW will already be familiar with much of what Mr Spencer says, but I would still recommend the interview as being well worth a read.
Hat-tip: Damian Thompson (editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, incidentally) at Holy Smoke.
Hat-tip: Damian Thompson (editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, incidentally) at Holy Smoke.
Masters of Nature
Via Jihad Watch, I read that the Iranian government has recently arrested fourteen western Imperialist crusader spies within Iran's borders. Not only that, however, but these are spies with a difference. In particular, they are squirrels!
Yes, squirrels. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency:
In fact, it rather reminds me of the recent claims that British troops had released man-eating badgers (!) into the environs of Basra, in an effort to spread panic among the people living there. Which gives rise to the intriguing question, has the animal kingdom thrown its weight behind Western civilisation, in the war with Islam?
Because the only other explanation is that many Muslims are utterly insane, and that couldn't possibly be true, could it?
Yes, squirrels. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency:
The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services.So far as I can see, this is no joke.
In fact, it rather reminds me of the recent claims that British troops had released man-eating badgers (!) into the environs of Basra, in an effort to spread panic among the people living there. Which gives rise to the intriguing question, has the animal kingdom thrown its weight behind Western civilisation, in the war with Islam?
Because the only other explanation is that many Muslims are utterly insane, and that couldn't possibly be true, could it?
Nonces Czech-Mated
I have long believed that castration is an appropriate method of dealing with at least some sex offenders (by which I mean, the ones that we don't actually execute). So I was pleased to read that in the Czech Republic sex offenders are often sentenced to both chemical and surgical (i.e. real, physical) castration. It is wonderful to know that at least some European nations continue to apply proper punishment to paedophiles, rapists, and other related scum.
If only we had something similar here. Sadly, however, the sentences that some of our judges give out give me the impression that they've actually had the operation themselves.
Of course, the liberals are none too happy to see their beloved criminal perverts suffering. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture has raised the objection that some of those who were physically castrated did not give full and free consent, because they were told that if they did not so consent, they would face indefinite detention in a psychiatric institution.
Now, in my opinion, the Czechs are being rather soft in allowing these perverts (who, incidentally, need to have actually killed someone before they can be physically castrated) a choice. Rather, I believe that the only choice should be for the judge, and that should be, do you execute, or do you just physically castrate him? When you commit offences, you lose the right to object or consent to what is done to you in condign punishment for those offences.
But, notwithstanding my view that the Czechs are being a bit soft, I still envy them their way of dealing with these scum, and for the people at the Committee for the Prevention of Torture to kick up a fuss about this is disgusting. If they are really serious about stopping torture, perhaps they should take a look at saving more innocent people from sex offenders, rather than looking after the rights of these perverts. Really, words are inadequate to express my contempt for anyone who wastes their time or that of others complaining about anything that is done to a rapist or child abuser. Such vermin are just not worthy of our concern.
Update: On a related note, The Telegraph has a story about Jonathan King, one child abuser who definitely merits the application of the Czech method. Apparently, in his latest display of utter moral bankruptcy, King has released a music video on Youtube, praising Harold Shipman. At the time of writing, it's still up there, but I think I shall pass on linking to it myself.
If only we had something similar here. Sadly, however, the sentences that some of our judges give out give me the impression that they've actually had the operation themselves.
Of course, the liberals are none too happy to see their beloved criminal perverts suffering. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture has raised the objection that some of those who were physically castrated did not give full and free consent, because they were told that if they did not so consent, they would face indefinite detention in a psychiatric institution.
Now, in my opinion, the Czechs are being rather soft in allowing these perverts (who, incidentally, need to have actually killed someone before they can be physically castrated) a choice. Rather, I believe that the only choice should be for the judge, and that should be, do you execute, or do you just physically castrate him? When you commit offences, you lose the right to object or consent to what is done to you in condign punishment for those offences.
But, notwithstanding my view that the Czechs are being a bit soft, I still envy them their way of dealing with these scum, and for the people at the Committee for the Prevention of Torture to kick up a fuss about this is disgusting. If they are really serious about stopping torture, perhaps they should take a look at saving more innocent people from sex offenders, rather than looking after the rights of these perverts. Really, words are inadequate to express my contempt for anyone who wastes their time or that of others complaining about anything that is done to a rapist or child abuser. Such vermin are just not worthy of our concern.
Update: On a related note, The Telegraph has a story about Jonathan King, one child abuser who definitely merits the application of the Czech method. Apparently, in his latest display of utter moral bankruptcy, King has released a music video on Youtube, praising Harold Shipman. At the time of writing, it's still up there, but I think I shall pass on linking to it myself.
Friday, 13 July 2007
Second Class Citizens
In the Daily Mail, I read that Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service (and former Tory MP), considers that immigrants are better citizens than the native-born British. To be exact, he said:
Rather, they are of course here for - wait for it - the money! This country has it, their countries don't, and they can make a lot more of it here, doing even the most menial task, than they could in comparatively high status jobs back home. British citizenship simply serves to cement immigrants in the UK, so that they can keep on getting the money without any risk of deportation.
Well, Mr Best may very well think it is. Because according to Wikipedia, which, while not perfect, is generally pretty accurate, Mr Best is himself the proud holder of a criminal record, obtained in 1987 on account of his involvement in share-cheating. Although his four month prison sentence was quashed after he had spent five days behind bars, there is nothing to indicate that the conviction itself was ever overturned. To my mind, not only does this criminality cast doubt on Best's own reliability, but it puts the judgement of those at the Immigration Advisory Service who were responsible for appointing him into question. Not that this should astound anyone, of course.
Besides Keith Best's own dubious antecedents, there is the fact that the IAS is publicly-funded. In addition to the fact that I don't really think public money should go to pay the salary of a convicted fraudster, I would also agree with Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch and Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance, who ask why the British taxpayer should pay money to an organisation whose head proceeds to insult them in this manner. Well, I suppose there is at least precedent for this. Personally, though, I can't see why the government gives money to the IAS at all, regardless of who leads it, or what they say.
Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW
These people have actively sought British citizenship because they want to make a contribution to the UK.Now, that's not really true, is it? I doubt very much that people in the third world, or indeed, in Japan, France, America, or anywhere else in the first world that sends us immigrants, wake up in the morning and think, "well, what I really need to do today is go and make Britain a better place". Not least because the third world, from where most of our immigrants are drawn, has more than enough problems of its own for would-be philanthropists to be getting on with. Dreamy-eyed liberal gap-year students may want to go to Africa to help the benighted natives; I don't think the reverse is true.
Rather, they are of course here for - wait for it - the money! This country has it, their countries don't, and they can make a lot more of it here, doing even the most menial task, than they could in comparatively high status jobs back home. British citizenship simply serves to cement immigrants in the UK, so that they can keep on getting the money without any risk of deportation.
I am not sure how many people born in this country have the same commitment.Does he have any evidence to back up his claim that we don't give a damn? Or is he just making unsubstantiated allegations?
The tests for citizenship are greater than they have ever been.According to a woman I spoke to who had actually taken the test, one of the more challenging questions was 'Where is York?'.
We are now turning immigrants into better citizens than people born with a British passport.Again, does he have any evidence to back up this assertion? Leaving aside Muslim fundamentalists, and other assorted nutters, who admittedly constitute an extreme case, what about, say, Somali immigrants? Only 12% of those actually have a job at all, which leaves 88%, more or less, who are scrounging off the native taxpayer. Are they "better citizens" than those who pay for their food, clothing, housing, their children's education? Or what about the disproportionate number of criminals who are immigrants or of immigrant stock? Is it a mark of being a good citizen that one has a criminal record?
Well, Mr Best may very well think it is. Because according to Wikipedia, which, while not perfect, is generally pretty accurate, Mr Best is himself the proud holder of a criminal record, obtained in 1987 on account of his involvement in share-cheating. Although his four month prison sentence was quashed after he had spent five days behind bars, there is nothing to indicate that the conviction itself was ever overturned. To my mind, not only does this criminality cast doubt on Best's own reliability, but it puts the judgement of those at the Immigration Advisory Service who were responsible for appointing him into question. Not that this should astound anyone, of course.
Besides Keith Best's own dubious antecedents, there is the fact that the IAS is publicly-funded. In addition to the fact that I don't really think public money should go to pay the salary of a convicted fraudster, I would also agree with Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch and Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance, who ask why the British taxpayer should pay money to an organisation whose head proceeds to insult them in this manner. Well, I suppose there is at least precedent for this. Personally, though, I can't see why the government gives money to the IAS at all, regardless of who leads it, or what they say.
Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW
Thursday, 12 July 2007
Burn the heretics, and all their works!
Readers may recall that at the beginning of last month, I noted that efforts were being made to remove the iconic French cartoon character, Asterix the Gaul, as the face of a campaign promoting children's rights, on the grounds that it was "too French" for a multicultural society such as France.
Well, now another well-known cartoon character has fallen foul of the multiculturalists and "anti-racists". Yes, Tintin, the Belgian cartoon character, has been denounced as "racist" by the ever-cretinous Commission for Racial Equality, which wants him banned. The particular offence comes in the form of the book Tintin in the Congo, first published in 1946. Apparently, the depictions of black Congolese in the book are deemed demeaning.
Another point that comes to mind is, why pick on this rather innocuous comic book? Why does the CRE not concern itself with, for example, the deeply racist lyrics directed by certain black rappers against white people? After all, I don't think that Tintin ever expressed his desire to kill blacks, did he? As ever, the CRE's behaviour just serves to illustrate the double standards which permeate all discussions of race in this country today.
Well, now another well-known cartoon character has fallen foul of the multiculturalists and "anti-racists". Yes, Tintin, the Belgian cartoon character, has been denounced as "racist" by the ever-cretinous Commission for Racial Equality, which wants him banned. The particular offence comes in the form of the book Tintin in the Congo, first published in 1946. Apparently, the depictions of black Congolese in the book are deemed demeaning.
Tintin may not be politically-correct. It may even be offensive to some people (what isn't?). But that is absolutely no reason to ban it. Children can, presumably, enjoy Tintin without becoming wicked racists with a mission to wipe out all black people. And surely, if this is a book which children shouldn't be reading, then that is a matter for their parents to decide on, rather than race relations industry honchos.A spokesman for the CRE said: "This book contains imagery and words of hideous racial prejudice, where the 'savage natives' look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles.
"It beggars belief that in this day and age Borders would think it acceptable to sell and display Tintin In The Congo. High street shops, and indeed any shops, ought to think very carefully about whether they ought to be selling and displaying it."
The spokesman said the only acceptable place for the book was "in a museum, with a big sign saying 'old fashioned, racist claptrap' ".
Another point that comes to mind is, why pick on this rather innocuous comic book? Why does the CRE not concern itself with, for example, the deeply racist lyrics directed by certain black rappers against white people? After all, I don't think that Tintin ever expressed his desire to kill blacks, did he? As ever, the CRE's behaviour just serves to illustrate the double standards which permeate all discussions of race in this country today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
