The last word in SJW smackdowns…

This, via Breitbart, is just priceless and should be preserved for all of time.

We are fighting to end hate, to unite as one and love each other. We are fighting to be treated right without discrimination and for everyone to have equal opportunities.”

Bullshit. You have no quantifiable metrics for injustice, so you have no victory conditions (for a very simplified example, when blacks hold X% of all engineering jobs and are only Y% of all prisoners, racism is ended). That would be fine by itself, but you believe in fighting injustice with injustice (gays have historically been denied gay marriage? let’s get random CEOs fired for opinions they held six years ago). You don’t seek converts, you seek to punish and bully – straight white males who disagree with you must be purged and publicly humiliated. Even the jihadists will spare you if you convert; no apology or future correction will satisfy a SJW.

I could forgive that too if you weren’t all hypocrites and liars. Your treatment of women and minority dissenters is appalling; if they don’t want you acting on their behalf, that’s their choice, not “internalized patriarchy” or whatever. You rob them of moral agency. When called out for these behaviors (as you always insist on calling out others), you lie. You strawman your opponents (criticized a woman? misogynist!), you group them with the worst (you’re a gamer? you’re as bad as the anonymous rape threateners!) and when confronted with your own flaws, you restate them less threateningly (motte and bailey argument). You phrase all arguments as kafkatraps (disagreeing with your assertion that we are evil is taken as proof that we’re evil). You publish manipulated and misleading statistics, then lambast anyone who questions them.

You insist on vigilante justice against random acts of the week for your two-minutes hate. Why is it the NFL’s business to punish domestic violence? And, if it is their business, why isn’t Hope Solo receiving the same attention from your side?

Then you claim to be arguing for equality, but you’ve taken the idea of racism (hatred based on skin color is bad) and replaced it with a new concept where only one race can be guilty of racism. You excuse racial prejudice and hatred based on what I’ve already explained are arbitrary, unmeasured states of being. Your solution for the unequal treatment of whites and blacks is to hold whites to a higher standard. Your side lobbied the FBI to redefine rape so more women victims would be counted, but also so that “made to penetrate” does not count, leaving male victims in the cold. Because male privilege, apparently.

Historically ignorant SJWs think whites hold collective guilt for the awful things our ancestors have done. But they don’t care about the unspeakable atrocities by other races. The only difference between whites and others was that whites had the social and technological prowess to do evil efficiently; Africans, Asians, Indians, and everyone else practiced genocide and slavery, they were just less adept at doing it right. Given the means, they would have done the same. But nope, only whites are guilty; Arab oppression of blacks and caucasians never happened, not to us, nope.

I’ve been lucky enough to grow up in America, so this shit is new to me. But I’m descended from puritans, and I know my history; I know how they treated dissent. I also know how commies treated dissent; I grew up next door to a grizzled old Russian who barely avoided the gulag by smuggling himself out of the country. I know what you petty tyrants have turned into every time you gained enough power.

Worst of all, you turn the very principles of freedom against us. We tolerate you because we believe in free speech and civil discourse, not bullying and violence. But that means we have to watch you advocate against that very freedom. We don’t believe in ruining a stranger’s professional life over an opinion, but that means that we can’t punish your actions.

We believe that the rightness of our actions should speak for itself. You believe in bullying, even as you claim to love the oppressed.

Funny how the evil and all-powerful patriarchy has seen fit to act according to SJW whims for all of recent memory, punishing those they hate and protecting those they love. Funny how the evil oppressor males have to speak anonymously, while the SJWs fighting the power can use their real names and get mainstream media coverage for fun and profit. How when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one fag hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters – and the solution, of course, is more bullying, but by the “right” people.

That’s the arrogant core of it. You do the same evil, in the same pattern, as so many before you, because mob justice, punishing dissent, and repression of others is just fine and dandy so long as the “right” people are doing it to the “wrong” people.

Eat shit and die. All I ever asked was to be left alone.




Category error…

This is not a typo, it’s a total misunderstanding…


Here, let me fix that for you.


Meanwhile, Labour are engaging in gross hypocrisy, criticising the Tories for political patronage, which of course Labour never did while in power. Oh no. Never.

In other news, things have not improved since I wrote about the need to completely abolish ‘honours’ a year ago.



Perhaps if the northerners weren’t so fixated on the south and “Tory scum”, they’d notice that if there’s anyone they should be pissed off with it’s their own light-fingered socialist neighbours…




Floods of tears…

Okay, look. I’ve a great deal of sympathy with anyone whose home or business has been flooded in recent weeks, or indeed ever.

Where I draw the line, though, is with chippy northerners crying about a north-south divide with the “evil Tory” government spending money on flood defences in the south while neglecting the north.


Presumably, those gormless flat-capped prats had their heads so far up their whippets’ arses that they didn’t even know about the massive flooding we’ve seen in recent years in Suffolk, Essex, Kent & Sussex, Berkshire & Oxfordshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon & Cornwall and Hampshire – all of which are, according to my map, firmly in the south..

Let us be in no doubt. If there is a north-south divide, it’s one of attitude. The woe-is-me, it’s alright for them solipsism of the northerners is something you don’t see down south, even though the south is regularly shafted by flooding too.

Where a north-south divide does not exist is in the area of government doing anything to sort out the issues of flood defences and waterway maintenance. The government’s ineptitude, inefficacy, wastefulness, misplaced priorities and complacency on this subject is a matter for the whole nation. They are fucking us ALL over royally.

Now stop fucking moaning and be happy that at least the house you’ve just had flooded was only worth the same as a shed in Sussex anyway, and all your furniture was from DFS and Ikea, rather than a proper shop where things cost proper money.


A “bitches be crazy” masterclass…

and who was the main victim? A woman. Read on and learn…


It would take a heart of stone etc..


Immunity Insanity…

I have to admit I was more surprised than I should have been when I saw this:


It was, apparently, US politician Rahm Emanuel who said “never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things that you had never considered, or that you didn’t think were possible.”

So we should not be surprised that police chiefs are cynically exploiting the terrorist massacre in Paris to make a grab for power that would never before have been considered possible.

I’m sure it’s entirely co-incidental that 3 days ago, the policeman who shot and killed a trivial hoodlum in suspicious circumstances was arrested. But terrorism will be the cover under which senior officers will claim to need the ability to shoot people with impunity, and you can be in little doubt that they’ll receive a sympathetic hearing from sociopathic zombie cosplayer and Home Secretary, Theresa May.

Before I continue, let me put it to you that, in the fight against terrorism and gangland crime, the police are not hampered by the awkward legal implications of going round killing people, so much as by the pernicious consequences of the MacPherson report, and its outcomes, namely political correctness, affirmative action and undue deference to “minority” communities that have carte blanche to harbour criminals and terrorists.

So I propose giving the police immunity not from charges over deaths, but from charges of racism and Islamophobia, because I put it to you that these are the far greater impediments to police ability to tackle black gang crime and Islamic terrorists. Cutting through these would have a far more profound and useful effect than giving coppers a freer reign to shoot people than they already obviously have.

I can think of a whole raft of reasons why allowing the police impunity to shoot people without fear of legal ramifications should never be allowed to happen.

The first – and this point should be blindingly obvious – is that if the police are less likely to face legal consequences, they will be more likely to shoot people in ambiguous circumstances, and are thus more likely to kill people who should not have been shot at all.

The second is that we can see from the example of America what happens when the police are widely armed and granted a degree of impunity – the consequences of this police militarisation are in direct contravention of the Peelian Principles upon which policing in Britain is founded.

The third is that, while in any body of men as large as the British police forces (circa 150,000) there are bound to be some who are intelligent, well balanced and committed to justice and integrity, there is plenty of evidence that there is a significant rump of thugs, bullies and psychologically ill-suited idiots, who you wouldn’t trust with a water pistol.

The fourth is that we already have plenty of examples of the police in the UK shooting people and, in plenty of those cases, getting it egregiously wrong and not suffering the just consequences of those actions, and just what becomes of those responsible.

Jean Charles De Menezes – outcome: promotions, medals and honours

The officer in command when innocent Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was shot to death at close quarters in a crowded tube train in 2005 was Cressida Dick. She was subsequently promoted to the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Met Police, and is now a big cheese in the Foreign Office. She was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for distinguished service and a CBE. If she’s not in the house of Lords by 2020 I’ll bear my arse in Burtons’ window. The full story of how the police tried to smear de Menezes after his death, in order to deflect attention from their own egregious failings is breathtaking in its bare-faced audacity.

In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which like the IPCC operates independently of the Met, announced that it would not carry forward any charges against any individual involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his official capacity faced criminal charges under sections 3(1) and 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes".[52] The decision not to prosecute individuals was made on the grounds of insufficient evidence.[53] The family of Menezes appealed against the decisions of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service in the High Court.[54]

The legal representatives of the Metropolitan Police Service on behalf of the office of the Commissioner pleaded not guilty to the charges, "after the most careful consideration".[55] The trial started on 1 October 2007.[56]

On 14 December 2006, Lord Justice Richards (Richards LJ) of the High Court, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes (Forbes J) and Mr Justice Mackay (Mackay J), unanimously rejected an application for a judicial review into the decision of the office of the DPP on behalf of the CPS to rule out criminal prosecutions of the individual police officers who shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, ruling that "[I]t was a reasonable decision … on the basis that they were likely to fail".[57][58]

On 1 November 2007, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his official capacity was found guilty of the above offences, and his office was fined £175,000, together with £385,000 of legal costs.[59] The Met published a terse release about this decision[60] and Len Duvall, Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, asked that the full report on the investigation be published.[61]

That Met Police Commissioner was ‘Sir’ Ian Blair.

Sir Ian Blair appeared on television on 24 July 2005 to accept responsibility for the error on the part of the Metropolitan Police, and to acknowledge and defend the "shoot to kill" policy, saying:

"There is no point in shooting at someone’s chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it."[65]

The Met’s commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and his predecessor Lord Stevens, had expressed concern about the legal position of police officers who might kill suspected suicide bombers. There is no explicit legal requirement for armed officers to warn a suspect before firing, although guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police Officers say that this "should be considered". A potential suicide bomber is thought to represent a circumstance where warning the suspect may put the public at greater risk because the bomber may detonate his explosives after being warned.

Aha! So, the appeal to the need to protect us from suicide bombers.. right.. and of course those would be the only circumstances in which such a thing could be considered possible.

“Sir” Ian Blair is now, by the way, “Baron Blair of Boughton” and, like Cressida Dick, is a holder of the Queen’s Police Medal.

Stephen Waldorf – outcome: police cleared of all charges, medals and honours for the Commissioner

In 1983, Stephen Waldorf was shot & severely injured in another case of mistaken identity.

Detectives Jardine and Finch stood trial for attempted murder and attempted wounding of Waldorf, but were cleared of all charges in October 1983.

The Met Police Commissioner in 1983 was “Sir” Kenneth Newman. Another holder of the Queen’s Police Medal. I think I see a pattern emerging.

James Ashley – outcome: officer who opened fire cleared of all charges, top brass found to have been corrupt. Chief Constable forced to resign.

James Ashley was a 39-year-old British man shot dead by armed police while unarmed and naked,[1] during a raid on his Sussex flat in 1998

This is actually the first example I’ve used where the victim was a wrong’un, and one could argue that karma is a bitch, but the fact of the matter is the police were in the wrong and a man – who may or may not have had justice coming to him after due process – was summarily killed..

Harry Stanley – outcome: officers faced no charges, inquest recorded an open verdict. No resignations. Chief officer ennobled.

On 22 September 1999, he was returning home from the Alexandra Pub in South Hackney carrying, in a plastic bag, a table leg that had been repaired by his brother earlier that day. Someone had phoned the police to report "an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag".

As well as carrying a table leg, and not a gun, he was Scottish, not Irish. Think about this. Someone who wants you gone can just pick up the phone to the cops and make such a claim, which will be taken at face value and acted upon with deadly force and without hesitation.

The name of the high court judge who, at appeal overturned an earlier verdict of unlawful killing, might be familiar to you. He was one Mr Justice Leveson.

The Commissioner of the Met Police at the time of the shooting was “Sir” Paul Condon and you’ll be unsurprised to hear that he’s another holder of the QPM, and is now Baron Condon.

Some other incidents at random:

On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. PC Brian Chester, a family man and highly commended officer, was later cleared of any wrongdoing.

On 30 April 2005, Azelle Rodney, from London, was shot dead by armed officers of the Metropolitan Police. In August 2007, coroner Andrew Walker, sitting at Hornsey North London, said that a full inquest into Rodney’s death could not be held because of the large number of redactions in police officers’ statements. In July 2013 a judicial inquiry found that the Authorised Firearms Officer who fired the fatal shots had "no lawful justification" for opening fire. On 30 July 2014 the CPS announced that they had made the decision to charge the officer with murder. On 3 July 2015 the officer was cleared by a jury.

On 3 March 2012, Anthony Grainger was shot dead in Cheshire by an armed Greater Manchester Police officer whilst sitting in a stolen car. Grainger was unarmed at the time of the shooting. Chief Constable “Sir” Peter Fahy (another QPM and who was knighted 3 months after this incident) was charged under health and safety legislation over the shooting.

However, in January 2015, William Boyce QC, at Liverpool Crown Court accepted an ‘abuse of process‘ argument from the defence,[9] who had argued that evidence which needed to be disclosed in open court in order for the defendant (Fahy) to have a fair trial would not be in the public interest and it would prejudice future Greater Manchester Police operations.

The CPS had no choice but to accept the judge’s decision and drop the case against the Greater Manchester Police.

And let us not forget that those half-witted wooly suits who have been let loose with a Taser could easily graduate to a proper gun at any time.

Not a crime


She got exactly what was coming to her. It’s her that should be locked up for gross breach of airplane etiquette.

Nothing to see here.


%d bloggers like this: