Britain's youngest thought criminal?

The race hustlers are really out in force at the moment. I'm not quite sure why - there isn't a full moon or anything. But out in force they are, and here is their latest good deed:

A headteacher has defended her decision to investigate an allegation that a four-year-old boy was guilty of racism during a game of chase.

Anne Phipps acted after Rocky Smith spat at a 10-year-old black boy on the school's playing field. She said she had no choice but to pursue the accusation, despite the child's age.

The investigation, at Bedenham Primary School in Gosport, Hants, has angered Rocky's parents.

How very intolerant they must be!

Mrs Phipps said: "When a child makes an allegation of any kind, whether it's bullying, racism, or general unhappiness, we investigate by talking to them. We couldn't dismiss this.

"A nursery nurse spoke to Rocky and I spoke to the older boy. We talked to them about what happened and why it might have happened. That's what an investigation is in a primary school.

"In this case, a little boy did think something had happened and felt he had been singled out. But after investigating, I decided this was not the case – it was just naughty behaviour."

Note that even professional race hustlers are mystified by Mrs Phipps's behaviour:

Tunde Bright-Davies, the chairwoman of the Racial Harassment Forum, said: "A very young child can hate another person because of the colour of their skin – I have met with a boy of six who said he used to be racist."

Of course, one might wonder whether the testimony of a six year-old can be considered conclusive proof of anything, other than, perhaps, the suggestibility of six year-olds. Nonetheless Ms Bright-Davies is quite correct when she adds:

"But with the circumstances of this incident, there was no name calling, no racial connotation, no 'get away from me', so you can't found racism on just spitting.

"I don't know why it was investigated as a racist incident."

The only explanation that I can think of, is that a white child did something very mildly unpleasant to a black child. In such circumstances, a certain kind of race-obsessed liberal will infer that, because the "perpetrator" was a designated oppressor, and the recipient a designated victim, the action must have been racially motivated. Thus I was once accused of "racism" by a grossly obese, utterly humourless, and terminally liberal German, simply for telling a joke at the expense of an Indian, even though the joke had nothing to do with race. This attitude, whereby racism is specifically sought out in even the most innocuous of situations, is clearly one possessed by Mrs Phipps. Such a wonderful thought, isn't it, that this is the kind of person in charge of our children?

I do note, however, that Mrs Phipps implied that a complaint of racism had been made by the ten year-old black boy. If so, then I must say that he is a child of very promising genius in the art of race hustling. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that he could even be the new Keith Vaz, and to express the hope that his parents will do all they can to nurture his undoubted talent. It really is quite impressive for a ten year-old to be so well acquainted with the magical properties inherent in accusing someone whom one dislikes of the heinous crime of "racism". Of course, it is somewhat less impressive for a ten year-old to go running to teacher over the actions of a child less than half his age, but I suppose that the value of playing the victim is now being instilled in Britain's children almost from birth, and that this, at least, is a lesson many are learning.

Gathering the kindling: thoughts on the fascism of "liberals"

I see that the Wicked Dr Watson has now been suspended from his job as director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, as a result of his heretical comments on race and intelligence. He has also been banned from the Bristol Festival of Ideas, where he was due to give a talk next Wednesday. According to the festival's organiser Andrew Kelly, "James Watson's opinions were unacceptably provocative". Interesting, isn't it, that we now live in a society in which people talk openly about the need to silence "unacceptable" opinions? Meanwhile, I'm wondering how long it's going to be before the liberal lynch mob does what it clearly wants to do, and burns Watson at the stake...

Of course, to call these people liberals is perhaps somewhat misleading. After all, whatever else liberalism stands for, the word does imply a belief in the importance of individual liberty. And it is patently obvious that people who attempt to impose limits of acceptability upon freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, who have people removed from their jobs for transgressing those limits, and who seek to make the expression of opinions inimical to their own illegal, are not in any sense advocates of liberty. What they are is unclear. There are many words that might describe them - some of which are rather colourful - but the most accurate that I can think of is 'fascist'. So far as I can see, the people who are hounding Dr Watson today, the people who hounded Frank Ellis out of his job last year, and the people who, in the future, will no doubt hound many others for expressing the same opinions as Watson and Ellis, or for expressing other views that they dislike, are nothing other than fascists. Certainly they are deeply evil.

It is to be hoped that Dr Watson will not lose his job over this. As I understand it, America has laws designed to protect the right of citizens to express their opinions, without the threat of punishment, legal or extra-legal, hanging over their heads - surely these should operate in Watson's favour. But, whatever happens, I hope that this whole sorry business will cause at least some people in Britain to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee: to see to what extent freedom of speech and conscience has been eroded in this country, and to see the extent to which those we call liberals, are more commonly deeply authoritarian, and utterly opposed to liberty.

Update: The white-hating racists at BLINK, satisfied that Watson now appears likely to lose his job for his thought crime, have demanded that he also return his Nobel Prize as a mark of his contrition. Not because he did not earn it, but simply because these scum wish to extract as much blood money as they can from the wicked heretic - to bring him down to his knees in supplication before them - and because they wish to do all they can to intimidate anyone else who might harbour any politically incorrect thoughts into suppressing them. After all, if they can bring down a Nobel Prize-winner, who else is safe from their evil machinations? One wonders whether, should Dr Watson inexplicably refuse to return the honour, they will seek to have him stripped of it? As I said, these people are fascists, plain and simple.

Racial Quotas Watch

On Sunday I wrote about Vivienne Westwood's desire to force fashion magazines to put a certain percentage of non-white models on their front covers. As I wrote at the time, I thought that this was a particularly bad idea, particularly since there was not even any actual evidence to establish that widespread discrimination was taking place. However, Westwood's authoritarian demands were positively benign, when compared with recent comments by Britain's only black High Court judge:

Mrs Justice Dobbs also raised the idea of quotas to increase the numbers of women and non-white judges. She challenged the Judicial Appointments Commission - which believes that quotas would undermine the principle that judges are appointed on merit - by arguing that merit would not be an issue if there were enough good candidates from the ethnic minorities.

Of course, there is nothing to suggest that the introduction of quotas would have the effect of increasing the number of good non-white or female candidates. Rather it would have the effect of artificially increasing the number of successful non-white or female candidates, which is a very different thing altogether.

I am not aware that Mrs Justice Dobbs has alleged that any discrimination against non-white and female candidates is occurring during the appointments process. Certainly she does not appear to have produced any evidence of discrimination. As such, it can only be inferred that the reason non-white/female applicants are not being appointed in large numbers to the High Court bench is that, for one reason or another, an impartial appointments commission is deeming them to be inferior to other candidates. On this basis, it would appear that Dobbs's proposals would result in the appointment of judges who at present are being turned down as inferior candidates, while superior candidates were rejected, for no reason other than that they were white men. Clearly, this would have far more significance than simply turning down a would-be Vogue cover girl for being white. The notion of inferior candidates sitting on the bench as a result of racial quotas has profound implications for the administration of justice. Justice requires that the best candidates be appointed as judges. It is questionable whether this is what happens at the moment, but it is patently obvious that this is not what will happen if Mrs Justice Dobbs has her way, and, as such, it is to be hoped that her proposals will be strongly resisted.

Amis condemns Islam, Muslim Nobel laureates stunned

The author Martin Amis has claimed he feels 'morally superior' to Muslim states which are not as 'evolved' as the Western world.

Responding to long-running accusations that he is Islamophobic, Amis launched a fresh invective against the Muslim faith and many of its followers.

He admitted his late father and grandfather had been racist but then claimed radical Muslims were the real racists, misogynists and homophobes.

Surely not! Everyone knows Muslims are the most tolerant people on Allah's green Earth, don't they?

In an interview with Jon Snow on Channel Four News, Amis declared: 'I feel morally superior to Islamists, by some distance. I feel an intellectual distance to Islam.

'There are great problems with Islam. The Koran recommends the beating of women.

'The anti-Semites, the psychotic misogynists and the homophobes are the Islamists.'

Well, what can you say? It's all true.

Days earlier, Amis shocked festivalgoers in Cheltenham with claims that Muslim states are less 'civilised' than Western society.

He "shocked festivalgoers"? I don't know about you, but I'm sure that I can think of a couple of revelations that might shock me rather more. The revelation that bears shit in woods, for example.

Ultimately, you'd have to be severely mentally ill, or, which is much the same thing, Muslim, to dispute the supremacy of Western Civilisation over Islam. What great technological, cultural, or social advances have come out of the Islamic world in the last century, for example? Or in the last five centuries, even? None that I can think of. And to pretend that Islamic states, almost all of which are impoverished third world despotisms, are not vastly more backward than any nation in Europe, is simply grossly dishonest.

But of course, if there is anyone out there who disagrees, anyone who believes in the great wonders of modern Islamic civilisation, then they are always welcome to pack their bags and move to such an Earthly paradise as Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

Definitely not goodthinkful

I am indebted to Mr Smith for bringing the following story to my attention:

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full".

Is that a threat? As Mr Smith puts it:

Somehow I can't shake the feeling that 'studying the remarks in full' translates to 'seeing if we can jail this one after the Nick Griffin fiasco'.

Personally, I doubt that even the EHRC would go so far as to seek the prosecution of a Nobel Prize-winning scientist for making comments that have at least a degree of support among those who have done research in this area. But you never know with these race relations industry nutters. Each time you think that they have reached the absolute nadir of sanity and decency, they manage to surprise you by going lower still.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".

Similar comments were made by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics in a paper published last year. That sparked a bit of a row as well, although at least no one tried to prevent him from expressing his views. Dr Kanazawa should perhaps have counted himself lucky. Earlier in 2006 Leeds University's Dr Frank Ellis had been forced out of his job by left-wing student groups for asserting a link between race and intelligence (Dr Ellis, a lecturer in Russian, made his comments in an interview with a student newspaper). Thankfully, the evil racism of Doctors Ellis, Kanazawa, and (particularly) Watson is being challenged by a far more eminent scientific expert, exemplar of moral perfection, and all round good guy:

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

To quote Mr Smith again:

Isn't it nice when unelected race-agitators of such prestigious background know better than Nobel-winning scientists?

Meanwhile, the 1990 Trust, which publishes the virulently racist Black Information Link, has also got its oar in:

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

And, reportedly, they will be backing up their arguments with a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal early next year...

As I said above, I doubt that even the EHRC will go so far as to prosecute Dr Watson for making these remarks. But the fact that the 1990 Trust is even putting forward the suggestion that he should be prosecuted (a suggestion which, I would point out, even Vaz appears to have shied away from making) really does highlight quite what a bunch of little fascists they are. What other word can describe people who wish to have academics prosecuted for expressing a view, however controversial, on a scientific issue?

Regarding the substance of Dr Watson's claims, I think it more likely than not that he is correct, although I appreciate that arguments have been raised by scholars on both sides of the debate. What I would point out, though, is that while there are those who do not believe that race and intelligence are linked, and who have attempted to disprove such a link by means of calm and rational argument, the far more common reaction, as demonstrated by Keith Vaz and his fellow race hustlers (as well as by PC white liberals), is simply to scream "racist" at anyone who suggests that there could even possibly be such a thing as inherent racial differences. Sadly, the word 'racist' is probative of nothing: it is simply not a rational or objective argument, no matter how often it is repeated, with what vehemence, or at what volume. The fact that we may not like what Dr Watson and others have said about this issue - the fact that we might be happier if what he has said were untrue - does not mean that it is untrue, and simply expressing one's dislike of Dr Watson's views with the cry of "racist" does not disprove anything that he has said. If Keith Vaz or anyone else disagrees with what Dr Watson has said, then let them debate with him on the issues. The attempts of those on the left and in the race relations industry to shut down debate on this issue simply serve to undermine their own position, by suggesting that they are not sufficiently confident in their own arguments to hazard them in debate with their opponents.

Update: Another great scientist has now weighed in on the issue:

The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has today condemned the comments made by scientist Professor James Watson, reported in the Independent newspaper today.

Mr Livingstone said:

'Professor James Watson’s comments about the genetic inferiority of Africans, and of black people being less intelligent than white people, represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.

[...]

That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succour to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought.

'His offensive and grossly inaccurate comments will no doubt be seized upon by extreme right wing groups to fuel their campaigns of hatred.

'Such views are not welcome in a city like London, a diverse city whose very success demonstrates the racist and nonsensical nature of Dr Watson's comments.'

Quite how London's success disproves Watson's views is unclear to me, I must say. Indeed, the fact that a successful city like London is situated in Britain, a European country, rather than in, say, sub-Saharan Africa, would seem to give support to Dr Watson's claims, insofar as it has any bearing on the matter.

I'd also point out that, his remarks about London aside, Livingstone also makes no attempt at argument, but simply repeats and rephrases the word 'racist' over and over and over again.

Update (2): Now, via Pub Philosopher, I see that the Wicked Watson has been banned from the Science Museum. Despite the fact that the talk that he was due to give on Friday had sold out, the museum cancelled the event, on the grounds that the evildoer's comments had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate". Personally, I'd always assumed that science was about the fearless and impartial search for truth, and that a museum dedicated to science would be the last place to be intimidated into censorship by the squealing of an irrational lynch mob. Clearly I was wrong.

Racists, racists, everywhere...

...or so Keith Vaz does think.

Really, I am starting to wonder whether there is any profession, institution, or organisation which is safe from unjustified and unevidenced accusations of "racism". Apart from organisations set up solely for the benefit of non-whites, of course. The latest "racist" organisation, as identified by Keith Vaz and other race hustlers, is the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The SRA's crime is that they have investigated and closed down a disproportionately large number of black and Asian solicitors' practices. Reportedly, 62% of solicitors investigated by the SRA in 2006 were non-white. This prompted complaints and threats from the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) and the Society of Black Lawyers (SBL), and Vaz, himself a former third-rate solicitor of sorts, has now followed suit, asking the justice secretary to investigate the practices, not of the solicitors who are being found to have committed breaches of conduct, but of the regulatory body which is making these findings.

Now, one would expect Vaz, and his friends in the AML and the SBL, to have produced some evidence of actual discrimination taking place, before they started throwing accusations of racism around. However, they have completely failed to do this. Rather, they base their claim that there is widespread racism solely on the fact that a high number of non-white solicitors are being investigated. As the AML's Mahmud al-Rashid put it: "the figures show there must be discrimination at the SRA".

No, they don't show that. Rather, they show that a disproportionately high number of non-white solicitors are being found guilty of incompetence or dodgy dealing by an impartial tribunal. Now, Vaz, the AML, and the SBL may dispute that the SRA is an impartial tribunal, but their arguments are entirely circular, consisting as they do solely in the fact that the SRA is investigating a high number of non-white solicitors, therefore it is racist, therefore the fact that it is investigating a disproportionate number of non-whites is down to discrimination, therefore it is not an impartial tribunal. In the absence of any actual evidence showing discrimination, this argument simply does not stand up. As lawyers, those kicking up a fuss here ought to be able to work that out for themselves. As race hustlers, however, they clearly have no need of such bigoted and Eurocentric things as logic and reason.

Anyway, as I was saying, all that the SRA's investigation really shows is that non-white solicitors are disproportionately likely to be found to be incompetent or ethically dubious. Now, in the circumstances, I would suggest that it would behove both the AML and the SBL to do a bit of soul-searching, and wonder why it is that their members are disproportionately useless or bent. Perhaps it's down to the fact that a lot of those specifically black and Asian law firms that are getting closed down are restricting their recruitment to blacks and Asians (and, indeed, to those blacks and Asians who are either committed race hustlers, or who are unable to get jobs at proper firms), and, in consequence of this severely restricted recruitment policy, are recruiting people of a lower than average standard. Maybe there are other reasons for the discrepancy. But in any event, the SBL and the AML would do well to consider those other reasons, and possibly to consider what they can do to help their members improve their, apparently deficient, professional standards, before they start accusing others of being at fault. Of course, this is never going to happen. Being race hustlers, they adhere to the race hustler's mantra, that whenever a non-white does anything wrong, the first (and, indeed, the only) response should be to scream "racist" at the nearest white person, until they cave in and submit to the race hustler's demands. It is to be hoped that the SRA, and the Law Society, of which it is part, will stand their ground.

Today's thought criminal

A priest has been interviewed by police on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for expressing his Christian views in his parish newsletter.

Father John Hayes, 71, was quizzed for more than an hour after commenting on the case of a Muslim girl who went to court over her wish to wear a full veil in class.

A sergeant and community support officer turned up without warning at his presbytery after an allegation was made to a Scotland Yard 'hate crimes' unit.

[...]

Last night the priest said his 'offending' remarks had concerned Shabina Begum, who, represented by Cherie Blair QC, claimed unsuccessfully that it was her human right to be allowed to wear her jilbab, a loose gown, in class.

After hearing an interview with the girl, Mr Hayes suggested in his internet bulletin to his parishioners that it was never possible to convince anyone by argument in matters of religion.

"My point was that you have to demonstrate what it means to be Christian through your actions," he said.

"Apparently someone in my congregation was unhappy with my comments and, after waiting a year, went to the police to say he had been 'disturbed' by it."

A fortnight ago officers knocked on the door of his home next to St Mary's Church, Hornchurch. They said they had been sent by a superintendent.

At least the matter ended there, and Fr Hayes was not arrested. Nonetheless, one has to wonder about the mentality of the person who complained about this. Possibly the complainant was motivated by personal animosity towards Fr Hayes, but I find it more likely that they were just another member of the self-appointed liberal thought police, who delight in setting the cops on those who express views they disagree with, all in the name of 'diversity' and 'respect'. In any event, prosecution for wasting police time would seem to be well merited.

As for the police: well, what else did you expect? A proportionate response? Objectivity? A focus on preventing or solving real crime rather than harassing septuagenarian clergymen for making vaguely non-PC remarks? If so, then I'm afraid that you're living in the past.

Hat-tip: Laban Tall, who also makes some interesting observations regarding the comparative importance attached to Ramadan and Lent by the media-political elite.

The manager has the full support of the chairman...

That's what football clubs say when they're in real trouble, isn't it? It usually heralds the impending ignominious sacking of the manager. This story put me in mind of it:

Sir Menzies Campbell's position as Lib Dem leader is "under discussion", his deputy Vincent Cable has told the BBC.

But Mr Cable said he did not think Sir Menzies' job was under threat, despite some in the party wanting him to go.

He urged the party not to panic over recent poor opinion polls in what was currently an "extremely febrile and volatile" political environment.

Mr Cable said he thought Sir Menzies would reflect on the position and "probably" would want to stay in post.

I suppose he might just last until the New Year. Then, if not before, we should see yellow blood upon the snow.

Update: Okay, "until the New Year" was evidently out by about two and a half months. Had I said "until dinnertime", I might almost have been accurate. I assumed that he'd try to cling on for at least a month or so, though.

The Counterbalance to Al Gore's Propaganda

THE tormentors of Al Gore, who last week won a legal victory against his film, An Inconvenient Truth, are to step up their battle by sending British secondary schools a documentary attacking the science of global warming.

Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle has become one of the most notorious documentaries of the year, attracting complaints from dozens of scientists and viewers.

This weekend, however, the campaigners behind the High Court case said they planned to send copies to 3,400 secondary schools “to counter Gore’s flagrant propaganda”.

Gore is a joint winner of the Nobel peace prize for his efforts to educate the world about climate change. An Inconvenient Truth has also won two Oscars.

The distribution of The Great Global Warming Swindle is being funded by Viscount Monckton, who is part of a counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

Monckton was one of the backers of Stewart Dimmock, the Kent lorry driver and school governor who took the government to court for sending copies of Gore’s film to schools.

The two are connected through the New party, a right-wing group whose manifesto was written by Monckton and of which Dimmock is a member.

[...]

Monckton has obtained funding from a right-wing Washington think tank, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), to create a second film that will also be sent to schools. Entitled Apocalypse No, it parodies Gore, showing Monckton presenting a slide show in a vitriolic attack on climate change science.

Much as I applaud anyone who takes on the ridiculous puffball of pomposity that is Al Gore, and while I believe that the introduction of his film into secondary schools is nothing short of flagrant brainwashing, I have mixed feelings about the decision to send these two films to schools. The first reason for this is that I imagine that it will, in the main, simply be a waste of good money. After all, what, realistically, is the chance that either film will be shown to pupils when it arrives at the school, and, more specifically falls into the hands of the overwhelmingly left-wing members of the teaching profession? My guess is that in most cases the DVDs will go straight into the bin. Surely the money would be better spent on challenging Gore's propaganda in other ways: an advertising campaign to publicise the criticisms that Mr Justice Burton made of his film, for example.

My second problem is that, whatever the merits of The Great Global Warming Swindle, it is, like An Inconvenient Truth, intended less as an impartial analysis of the science of global warming, and more as a tool for the promotion of a certain viewpoint. As such, it is hardly the ideal viewing matter for children in schools. Of course, this problem is not so much the fault of Viscount Monckton and his supporters, as of the government, since it was they who decided to transform science classes into brainwashing sessions, when they chose to send Gore's film to every secondary school in England. As such, one could perhaps say that showing the children The Great Global Warming Swindle would simply have the effect of achieving balance. But it would be preferable if neither film were shown to children, and if they were simply given an objective introduction to the scientific issues.

The evil of Vogue

I see that Dame Vivienne Westwood, described by the Telegraph as the "founder of punk style", has opened a new front in the war on "racism". Apparently, the fashion industry is institutionally racist, and fashion magazines such as Vogue are among the worst offenders. According to Westwood, non-white models are not used in sufficient numbers on the cover of such magazines.

Well, that may be true, although, like so many of those who claim that non-whites are being under-represented (Jimmy McGovern, anyone?), she has not actually produced anything beyond anecdotal evidence in support of her claim. This anecdotal evidence, such as it is, consists in the fact that the editor of a fashion magazine told her that she tried to limit the use of non-white models on the front cover of her magazine, because when they were used, sales fell. Perhaps that is true: after all, I would imagine that people generally are more likely to buy a fashion magazine if it has a cover picture of someone who bears a resemblance to them, and Britain is a majority white country, for the present. There are also a number of magazines, and probably some fashion magazines among them, specifically aimed at a black or Asian audience: how often do they feature white models on their front covers, I wonder?

In any event, this is all speculation, in the absence of any hard evidence of widespread discrimination. However, if Vivienne Westwood had her way, widespread discrimination would soon become commonplace in the fashion industry. Discrimination against white models, that is. Because Westwood's solution to the alleged problem of discrimination, is to force the editors of fashion magazines to use a certain proportion of non-white models on their front covers. Because, as any fule kno, racial quotas are the solution to all of society's problems.

So, to sum up: Vivienne Westwood decides, without any evidence, that there is a massive problem of institutional racism in the fashion industry. She then decides that the best solution is the one that bears the closest resemblance to the smashing of the proverbial walnut with the proverbial sledgehammer, and demands that private companies be compelled to adhere to fixed racial quotas in the photographs they print in their publications. In so doing, she would appear to be advocating the restriction of free speech, since it is, of course, an inherent aspect of free speech that one can publish what words or images one chooses (subject to a very small number of restrictions, such as libel laws). I would add that in making this rather authoritarian demand, the multi-millionairess nobly expressed her willingness to sacrifice other people's profits in pursuit of her goal. What an obnoxious, sanctimonious, little cretin she appears to be!

Elsewhere in the interview in which she made her accusations, she announced that she has switched her political allegiance from Labour to the Tories, on the grounds that the current government is "the most autocratic we have ever had". Well, she may well be right about that, but I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for someone who advocates the imposition of compulsory racial quotas on private publications to kick up a fuss about anyone else's real or presumed authoritarianism.