The last refuge of a (black) scoundrel

Dr Johnson famously remarked that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". He was, of course, referring to ostentatious displays of false patriotism, and the enduring truth of his statement is evident in the "Britishness" agenda of the present government. However, if you are a scoundrel who happens not to be white, then you have available to you a far more effective last refuge: the groundless accusation of racism. This is demonstrated in the recent remarks of two disgraced "celebrities":

Naomi Campbell last night blamed racism for her outburst on a British Airways jet, claiming she had been called 'a golliwog supermodel'.

In an interview with Sky News, Miss Campbell said she was not going to apologise to BA as they were "disgusting."

She said: 'I was called a racial name on that flight. And that was part of my reaction. Again, nothing to do with the police but yes from British Airways.'

'I was called a golliwog supermodel, I don’t think that’s really fair do you?'

The supermodel did not say exactly who had called her the name only that it was not one of the passengers.

When asked who called her the name, she replied: 'Someone on the flight, not the passenger.'

[...]

Miss Campbell avoided jail yesterday despite admitting kicking, hitting and spitting at police officers on board the jet at Heathrow.

Extraordinary details of the supermodel's vicious assault on two officers emerged in court as she was sentenced to a 200 hour unpaid community service order.

Magistrates told the model that the community service was part of a 12-month order.
They also ordered her to pay compensation of £200 each to the two police officers she assaulted, and £150 compensation to the aircraft captain, Miles Sutherland.

In addition she was ordered to pay fines for committing a public order offences totalling £2,300 and a £15 surcharge.

[...]

In court, Melanie Parrish, prosecuting, told how flight crew said initially that Campbell was very friendly and professional.

But after she discovered a bag of hers had gone astray, Campbell became upset and demanded to know where her bag was. Meanwhile the captain began to go through her options with her.

Miss Parrish said: 'To say that this process was difficult would be something of an understatement. Miss Campbell made no attempt to listen to him and talked over him, stating: "I don't want to hear".'

The court heard Campbell continued to shout at Capt Sutherland, saying: 'I can't believe you have lost my f***ing bag. Bring me my f***ing bags now.'

Miss Parrish said: 'She instructed him to personally get off the aircraft and get her bag and show it to her.

'The captain explained this wasn't going to happen. He repeatedly tried to take control of the situation and asked if he could get a word in.'

The magistrates were told that when Capt Sutherland tried to explain her options, Campbell snapped: 'How dare you tell me what my options are? You are not leaving until you find my f***ing bags.'

As the captain walked away Campbell shouted after him: 'You are a racist, you wouldn't be doing this if I was white.'

[...]

The court heard that police were called and three officers arrived.

The officers made no attempt to touch her but Campbell seemed to 'completely lose control', screaming 'You can't f***ing touch me' and shouting down her phone to 'make sure the press know'.

'She said: "You can't arrest me, my cousin is in Scotland Yard."

'When PC John Eastick moved towards her, she went berserk, striking PC Eastick on the arm with her mobile phone.'

Campbell continued to struggle violently and she was described as throwing her right leg back and thrusting forward, striking another male officer, PC Campling, on the thigh.

Miss Parrish added: 'At the time she was wearing formidable platform boots with stiletto-style heels.'

The court also heard how Campbell kicked PC Eastick and PC Charles Campling both in the groin area with her heeled shoes.

'Then she spat and hit PC Eastick on his arm,' said Ms Parrish.

As the continued to kick out indiscriminately, she caught PC Eastick on the right shin and left thigh before slumping down in her seat.

The court heard she continued to shout and swear and then pulled her head back and threw it forward, spitting at PC Eastick.

As they tried to remove the model from the aircraft she continued to be abusive and became increasingly violent, shouting at the officers: 'Don't touch me.'

Campbell then shouted at the officers: 'It is because I am a black woman, you are all racists. I am going to sue you. I am going to f*** you,' and continued to kick out as they tried to remove her.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a violent thug.

Still, it is quite impressive that Campbell - who may now face libel action from the BA cabin crew whose reputations she has impugned - was able to eke three entirely separate accusations of racism out of this one incident. Although, according to some reports, the shoe was rather on the other foot:

While Naomi Campbell claimed racism was the cause of her arrest after pitching a hissy at London's Heathrow Airport last week, it was she who allegedly hurled the epithets. Cops claim the patience-challenged supermodel screamed, "F-ing white honkies!" at them and called a female officer a "white bitch".

And let's not forget this:

Naomi Campbell's former maid is suing the battling supermodel over claims that she called her a "dumb Romanian", the New York Times reports.

Gaby Gibson, 40, filed papers on Tuesday in a New York court which allege Campbell subjected her to "repeated discriminatory assaults based on national origin". Specifically, Gibson claims Campbell asked her: "Romanians are not usually as dumb as you?"

Gibson described Campbell as a "violent super-bigot" who "called her names and threatened to press charges for theft when the model was unable to find a pair of Stella McCartney jeans".

Meanwhile, via Barnsley Nationalists, I see that Linford Christie has also been playing the race card:

Former Olympic champion Linford Christie has claimed there is "institutionalised racism" in Britain.

And Christie, who won 100 metres gold at the 1992 Olympics, is adamant he should have carried the Olympic torch on its way through London in April.

"I think there's institutionalised racism in this country," Christie told BBC Radio 4. "How many black knights from British athletics do you know?

"I've achieved more single-handedly than any other sportsman in (Britain)."

Christie was banned for life by the British Olympic Association in 1999 after he failed a routine drugs test.

Is it cos I is black? No, it's cos you is a cheat.

Alan Bennett: Chippy little fascist

I read that the writer Alan Bennett has called on the government to ban independent schools. Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he explained that his opposition to such institutions began in 1951, when, at the age of seventeen, he attended an entrance exam at Cambridge:

It was the first time I ever came across boys from public school. They were so confident. We were timid grammar school boys but they were very much at ease.

They hogged the bread and slurped the soup - things were very much still rationed in those days.

They were just louts, but I also realised that they had been better taught than I had. I thought that was unfair when I was 17, and that view has never changed.

So, to sum up, Oiky Bennett had a chip on his shoulder as an unpolished teenager, and the passage of more than half a century has failed to remove it. I suppose that this might be mildly interesting to a psychologist, but it's not exactly a very sound or rational basis for policymaking.

The prime motivating force behind Bennett's opposition to public schools, and, I suspect, behind the opposition of a great many people to public schools, or grammar schools, or faith schools, or private healthcare for that matter, is envy, plain and simple. It is pure tall poppy syndrome, the desire to cut down anyone who is any way "privileged", not because their "privilege" actually does any tangible harm to anyone else, but simply because they are "privileged".
It is true that many state schools offer an education that is markedly poorer than that available at most public schools (although there are also many good comprehensives, and many appallingly bad minor public schools). But the weakness of many state schools is not caused by the existence of public schools, and closing down public schools will not actually improve the education of one state-educated child.

Rather, Alan Bennett, and other antiquated class warriors, would, if allowed to put their ridiculous ideas into practice, do considerable harm to the education of millions of children. Indeed, it appears that harming the education of the 615,000 children who are currently privately-educated is the primary, if not the sole, purpose behind attacks on fee-paying schools. After all, Alan Bennett wants to force those 615,000 children to move from public schools, which he believes offer a superior education, to state schools, which he says offer an inferior one. If this is not indicative of a desire to harm their education, then I don't know what is!
But if public schools really were abolished, then that would also harm the education of children who are already being educated in state schools. The cost and logistics of transferring an extra 615,000 children into the state sector would be enormous, and would strain the resources of many state schools, which are often already overstretched, beyond breaking point. How would this improve the education of any child?

The way to improve overall standards of education is not to attack those schools which are actually functioning well. That may perhaps be the path to ensuring that everyone has an equal education, but it would only be an equally bad one. If we want to ensure that as many children as possible have a good education - even if the exact quality varies from school to school - then the answer is to improve the state education system. Reintroducing grammar schools (which, lest we forget, were sufficiently effective that they allowed a working class boy like Alan Bennett to get into Cambridge, possibly in place of the bread-hogging toffs who left such a lasting impression upon him) would be a good start.

Of course, the other point that stands to be made is that, as the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council pointed out, it would be a gross infringement of parents' rights for the government to begin dictating precisely how and where they should educate their children. That Bennett seems prepared to totally disregard this is simply another indicator of the almost fascistic authoritarianism of many socialists, who, it seems, regard children as the property of the state, to be dealt with solely as the state wishes. I suppose that we should at least be grateful to him for demonstrating this, and also the extent to which socialism is so often little more than rationalised resentment.

"Worth 1,000 BBC journalists"

That is how Jonathan Ross described himself last night, in response to criticisms of his £6million annual salary. The secretary-general of the National Union of Journalists has responded by calling his remarks "obscene". A bit like the conduct of the NUJ, then...

Personally, I'm surprised to discover that Jonathan Ross has such a low sense of his own worth. After all, a thousand times zero is still zero.

Note: For an example of what I mean when I call BBC journalists worthless, read this story at Biased BBC, as flagged up by Homophobic Horse.

"Say goodbye to the Britain you once knew"

Singer Morrissey has sparked controversy by claiming British identity has disappeared because the country has been "flooded" by foreigners. The 48-year-old former Smiths star, whose parents were Irish immigrants, suggested that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain.

Morrissey, who has spent most of the last decade living in LA and Rome, told NME magazine that countries like Germany still had their own identity and complained of not hearing "British accents" on the streets.

Asked whether he would move back to Britain, he said: "Britain's a terribly negative place. And it hammers people down and it pulls you back and it prevents you.

"Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears.

"So the price is enormous. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are.

He added: "It matters because the British identity is very attractive. I grew up into it, and I find it quaint and very amusing. But England is a memory now."

He agreed that immigration was enriching the British identity but added "you have to say goodbye to the Britain you once knew".

In a follow-up phone interview, Morrissey told the magazine: "I just think that it could be construed that the reason I wouldn't wish to live in England is the immigration explosion.

"And that's not true at all. I am actually extremely worldly and there are other reasons why I would find England very difficult, such as the expense and the pressure."

He said: "My favourite actor is an Israeli, Lior Ashkenazi, and my favourite singer was born in Iraq and now lives in Egypt. So I'm not a part of Little Britain. And by that, I don't mean the show, obviously."

Asked about his parents moving to Britain, he said: "It's different now. Because the gates are flooded. And anybody can have access to England and join in."

Admitting that he would be "pilloried" for his comments, he added: "You can't say, 'Everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.' It wouldn't work."

NME wrote: "Morrissey, the son of immigrants who has lived for most of the past decade in either LA or Rome, wants others to have the freedom to travel the world like him, but implies he would shut the gates to people coming to live in the UK.

"He might once have been the voice of a generation, but given his comments in these two interviews, he's certainly not speaking for us now."

A hypocrite he may be. And perhaps he doesn't speak for the second-rate hacks at the NME. But the concerns that he voiced about immigration, and about its effects on British society, are shared by the overwhelming majority of British people.

Assuming, that is, that he did voice those concerns. He is apparently planning to sue the NME for libel over the article in question.

But really, whether a faded eighties musician did or did not criticise immigration is irrelevant when compared to the real issue here. And the real issue is, of course, immigration itself, and its impact. There can be no doubt that immigration has had a huge impact on our society and culture. Even the national language is in the process of being replaced - English is now a second language for fully 40% of primary school children in London. Whole parts of London - and many, many other towns and cities - are entirely given over to immigrants, and those of recent immigrant stock. Indeed, there are even some parts of this country into which it is simply not safe for native Britons to set foot. Thanks to Muslim immigration, we now have in this country some 600,000 people who wish to see the imposition of Sharia law across Britain - an attitude of a kind which this country has not witnessed for hundreds of years. And, perhaps worst of all, we are now experiencing the widespread active suppression of native British culture, in order to make the immigrants feel more at home. Even the indescribably vile Keith Vaz has acknowledged that British society is changing. In his Newsnight debate with Nick Griffin he said that "it is wonderful that this country has been transformed" (video link, if you can stomach it, here; he says those precise words at 4:49). And that is the heart of the matter. Not, "has the country been changed by immigration?" (it's abundantly clear that it has been), but "do we like the change, do we want to quicken the rate of change, or do we, on the other hand, want to reverse the change?". Keith Vaz would choose the former option, I (and Morrissey, according to the NME) would choose the latter.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap

I see that the Hollywood actress Halle Berry has sparked controversy in the United States after suggesting that a distorted picture of her made her look like her "Jewish cousin", on account of its prominent nose. As is to be expected, the cry of "racism" has gone up from some quarters, although not with anywhere near the volume that would be raised if a white actress had made similar remarks. Ms Berry has now issued what the Daily Mail describes as a "grovelling apology".

In these days when an accusation that one is a racist, however irrational, can destroy one's career, I feel an instinctive sympathy with anyone who has the charge undeservedly levelled against them. And I do feel that the reaction to this comment has been over-the-top: what she said was hardly in the Mel Gibson league, after all, still less in the realm of the really hardcore Jew haters. At the very worst, what she said was mildly distasteful.

So, in these circumstances, I would usually be expressing the hope that this ridiculous story, such as it is, would blow over as quickly as possible. But then I remembered that Halle Berry is one of the most vociferous race baiters in Hollywood. She'll raise the cry of racism against a white person whenever the opportunity presents itself. Well, now the tables are turned, she's getting a taste of her own medicine, and I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy. I very much doubt that this latest incident will kill her career, but hopefully it will at least damage it a bit.

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.

My heart bleeds...

Chris Langham has been tormented and bullied since being jailed for ten months for child-porn offences, his wife has said.

The 58-year-old actor has been pelted with missiles, taunted and had his cell flooded by other prisoners while being ignored by guards, according to Christine Cartwright.

She has stayed loyal to the Bafta-winning star despite his conviction for downloading internet material including vile footage of an eight-year- old being abused by her father.

Miss Cartwright, 54, wept with emotion as she spoke in detail for the first time about her husband's conviction, saying she was keen for their two young children to visit him.

"He's been verbally abused, taunted continuously, had missiles thrown at him and his cell flooded out by other prisoners," she said.

"He is trying to be a model prisoner. He says 'Good morning' to the prison officers, but they just tell him to shut up."

The choreographer and actress claimed Langham was guilty only of "stupidity, arrogance and ghoulish curiosity".

Yes, and also fifteen charges of downloading child pornography. One might have rather more sympathy for Langham's plight, were it not for this last point. As it is, I have absolutely none, and I doubt that anyone else has any either.

It's also interesting to note that even criminals have a grasp of morals sufficient to enable them to identify Langham as scum. When I wrote about the attack by a group of prisoners on the terrorist Dhiren Barot, Mr Smith pointed me in the direction of an interesting article on the subject by Theodore Dalrymple, which is worth reading. Now, if only the average liberal had the same grasp of morality and justice as the average criminal, then we might be in business!

Just lock him up, part 2

Earlier in the month I wrote about the execrable Pete Doherty, and the repeated failure of a long succession of magistrates and district judges to do the only sensible thing and send this habitual and unrepentant criminal to prison.

Now I read that this contemptible creature has managed to escape receiving yet another criminal conviction, after the police were too slow in bringing him before the court after he was arrested for breaching his conditions of bail. Apparently, the conditions attached to his grant of bail required him to refrain from possessing illegal drugs, a requirement too onerous for Doherty, who was arrested on Monday morning for drug possession.

The man claims that he is undergoing a rehabilitation programme to deal with his addiction to various drugs. Given his arrest for possessing drugs, it would appear that this is not going awfully well. His next appearance in court - barring any further arrests - is on September 4th, for sentencing for one of his numerous previous offences. Personally, I'm hoping he gets jail. Anything less would be (yet another) complete mockery of the legal system.

Just lock him up!

Can I be the only one who is absolutely fed up with watching the ongoing antics of the contemptible Pete Doherty? Over the past couple of years, it seems that barely a month has gone by without Doherty being arrested for something or other, and he has been in and out of court more times than some lawyers. Aside from amassing numerous convictions for drug offences, he has also been fined £750 for assaulting a BBC reporter, and has pleaded guilty to driving without either insurance or a licence. Now, after admitting to two further driving offences, as well as possession of cannabis, heroin, crack cocaine, and ketamine (how many habits does the guy have?) he has been warned that he may face prison, unless he attends a drug rehabilitation course.

Personally, I think that there should be no "may" about it. Doherty has shown himself to have a complete disregard for the law, time and time again. Indeed, on one occasion he distinguished himself by being sentenced for drug possession in the morning, and arrested for drug possession in the early afternoon of the same day. Really, the only way of dealing with people like this is to lock them up. And, preferably, to throw away the key...

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.