False Rape Claims

A regular reader would know that this is a bit of a theme on my blog.

This is because I’m constantly aghast at how the perverse state and its enforcers take the word of women as gospel on account of their feminist-inculcated infallibility, and take the word of men as intrinsically faulty, on account of the feminist-enforced idea of universally brutal men.

This blog is awash with examples not just of women who have falsely cried rape, but of those who have been violent, abusive or evil in other ways. Not because I’m a misogynist, because I’m not, but because the reality is that some women and some men are capable of evil deeds or words. Just a little balance, you see.

So I was particularly interested in the article tweeted by the splendid @AbsolutLaudanum this afternoon.


Read the whole thing, but to abridge massively…

Lots of falsely accused men are dragged out of their places of employment in full view of their bosses and colleagues, no doubt giving their false accusers that extra sexual thrill of knowing they’ve thoroughly stripped their prey of the last vestiges of their dignity.  Some young men are dragged from their bedrooms in their parents’ homes half dressed, carted away without any explanation to their terrified parents. 

Once the innocents are hauled to the police station, the fun really begins. They are subjected to grueling questioning on and off over the course of hours or days, often by surly law enforcement personnel who couldn’t care less that the men or boys they are berating are human beings.  They are looking for evidence of a conviction, and if they can convince the male to confess, that makes their jobs all that much easier. Their attitude is often to treat the presumptively innocent male as a vile rapist.

And then there’s the physical examination.  If an innocent woman or girl were subjected to something akin to the following, do you suppose there’d be an outcry about it? "I was taken to a doctor’s waiting room, I was told to completely strip naked. While I was naked the CID agent took pictures of every part of me. The doctor then swabbed my penis 2-3 times, then pulled hair from every part of my body."  That was from a first person account on this blog of a soldier recounting his false rape nightmare. It is typical of many stories we’ve run. 

Once locked up, the men or boys too often are subjected to cruel and offensive batteries and verbal assaults by jail personnel and other prisoners.

And, yes, dear readers, sometimes men and boys are wrongly convicted of rapes they didn’t commit. The young ones, who have no experience in the prison system, are too often routinely victimized by the same crime they were wrongly convicted of. Sometimes, they serve decades in prison before they are released. The news is filled with men who’ve served many years before their innocence can be proven. Think how many others rot away in prison today because the evidence of their innocence was long ago destroyed.

Too often, the awful consequences of a false rape claim are even less predictable.

Remember this story we wrote about at Glenn Sacks’ blog?  Two young lives destroyed — one of the boys was killed — because of a girl’s rape lie. She, of course, served no jail time.  Go read it. It will make you sick.

Or how about this story — I’ll reprint our opening paragraph: "Clifford Martin, 19, is heading to prison for accepting the word of two teenage girls that one of them had been sexually assaulted by another 19-year-old man named Cory Headen. Mr. Martin broke into Mr. Headen’s home and beat him to death while he was sleeping."

Remember the serial rape liar whose lie caused one of her young victims to kill himself?  Despite that, she was allowed to falsely accuse another young men — and he was forced to undergo a grueling trial before he was acquitted.  The liar?  She retains her anonymity, of course.

Or how about mentally unstable man who was charged with rape, then took his own life after the police delayed in telling him he had been falsely accused?

Or the innocent man who suffered months of abuse in his community after being falsely accused of being a paedophile before his heart couldn’t take any more?

Or the falsely accused young men who were attacked by thirty inmates?  Or the man who was brutally attacked and suffered devastating brain injuries when he was falsely accused or rape?  Or the man who was beaten because he was mistaken for a rapist?

The only thing in which one can take heart is that while the USA apparently persists in allowing these false accusers to remain free and anonymous, we have at least recently started to prosecute them in the UK, strip them of their anonymity and jail them. This is in spite of hateful Hattie’s shenanigans.

It’s scant consolation, though, because as the article above shows, once the genie is out of the bottle, the damage is done for the men involved, no matter how demonstrably false the claims they have endured.

We must hope that, as we trudge backwards from collective enlightenment, the UK does not end up where the US is. I do wonder, though, whether it’s the insane and terrifying US feminists, or insane and terrifying US religionists that keep America in the dark ages on this matter of fundamental injustice.


Rarity value diminishing fast


At least they’re getting their comeuppance these days.


An innocent man who was falsely accused of rape by his ex-girlfriend today told how the lies had twice driven him to attempt suicide.

Father-of-two David Lord, 23, was arrested and detained in a police cell for six-and-a-half hours after obsessed Elizabeth Wilkinson wrongly claimed he had raped her four times.

He had his fingerprints and DNA taken, lived a nightmare for a month before being told no action was being taken against him by police.

Today shop assistant Wilkinson, 21, of Oswaldtwistle, Lancaster, was starting a 12-month jail sentence after she admitted perverting the course of justice.

After the case, Mr Lord said: ‘When the police came knocking on my door my whole life was turned upside down.

‘I just couldn’t believe what i was being accused of and all the stigma that goes with it. Being branded a rapist is a horrible experience and my first thought was for my children.

‘This woman was ruining their lives as well as my own. It just such a relief when police realised what she saying was all lies. But I had to be put on medication for severe depression and I tried to kill myself twice, once by hanging.

‘I just couldn’t handle it. Mud sticks. All I want now is closure and to rebuild my life. I think she thoroughly deserved to go prison for what she put my children through.’ 

Indeed she does. Sounds like a thoroughly nasty piece of work.


Around the world in a day

This is a quality microcosmic example of the need for anonymity for rape suspects.

Lunchtime today:


Swedish authorities say they have issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, on accusations of rape and molestation.

The warrant was issued late on Friday, said Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden’s prosecutors’ office.

16:15 today on the website of the Swedish prosecutor’s office:



Assange no longer wanted

Chief prosector Eva Finné has come to the desicion that Julian Assange is not suspected of rape. Considering that, Assange is no longer arrested in his absence.

Eva Finné will make no other comments during Saturday night.

So there you have it.

In a day, one of the world’s most recognisable names has been dragged through the mud, on the basis of iunfounded nonsense.

Jack of Kent is busily worrying about whether the above website is genuine. Why not go and see for yourself?

Plenty will no doubt hype up the conspiracies with the time honoured “no smoke without fire” rhetoric.

Yet again, a man’s name is dragged through the stickiest of mud for no just reason.



UPDATE: BBC News get with the programme.

One more comment. We all know that the internet never forgets, so Julian Assange’s name will forever turn up in certain searches on Google or whatever.

The post on Jack of Kent’s blog, for example, is tagged as follows:


UPDATE: Jack has updated his tags to be more appropriate.


Let the mongnitive dissonance flow

We’ve already had the bin thing today.

Now this. 13th May:


Within 24 hours of taking on the portfolio he confirmed the new administration would bring in a "fuel price stabiliser" which would see the taxes reduced if the price of oil rises sharply.

However fuel duties would rise if the cost of petrol and diesel fell.

Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, sought to underline the new Government’s motorist-friendly credentials confirming a manifesto pledge that there would be no Whitehall cash for new fixed speed cameras.

All good – fuel duty stabiliser and death to speed cameras, right? Wrong.


Conservative plans to cut fuel duty when oil prices are high have been abandoned, leading to fears that motorists will be targeted.




TFI Drinkipoos time.


Epic work

… from Anna Racoon, in showing what a bunch of unmitigated cunts the newspapers are, and why their attacks on blogging are merely the death throes of a redundant and rejected toxic organism.

Following on from my article on Friday regarding local newspaper coverage of candidates standing for election on May 6th, I have been continuing my trawl round the local papers.

Eventually I arrived at the Sutton and Cheam Guardian which is part of the South London Guardian and Surry Comet group.

They had a two page spread in their paper edition, containing 8 potted biographies with photographs of the likely local candidates in Paul Burstow’s constituency.

Next up was Martin Cullip, a candidate for the Libertarian Party.  As a fellow member of the Libertarian party I was interested to learn of his views.

Martin’s ‘biography’ was unusual to say the least. It gave no personal details nor quoted any political beliefs, in fact it appeared to be positively frivolous.

Martin Cullip, Libertarian

Plays with Surrey Darts team and helps maintain their Toe the Oche website.

The website cites his hobbies as The Cranberries, AFC Wimbledon and “running across all eight lanes of the M25 at junction eight dressed only in a basque and a pair of Pretty Polly 15 denier stockings”.

Martin was not hard to track down, he is a well known local business man, and was listed in the phone book.  It took me all of five minutes, from another country, and I’m a non-fact checking, non-professional  journalist. I called him.

Do read on, to find out how a respected family man was stitched up completely without scruples, by a fuckwit called Julia Kennard, the reporter who had contacted him. Ms Kennard is being fully backed by Chief Arrogant Tossbag, Mathew Knowles, Editor of the Surrey and Cheam Guardian.

Oh and Ms Kennard has been found supporting the local Jury Team candidate.



Nicked. Nice work, Anna!


H/T Obo.

Devastating knockdown of Browns Central Argument in today’s PMQs

Tweeted by many fine folks.


The claim
“The defence budget has been rising every year…. The only time the defence budget has been cut was in the 10 years before 1997″
Gordon Brown, Questions to the prime minister, 10 March, 2010

Cathy Newman checks it out
Gordon Brown has been under heavy fire from the top military brass in the last few days for starving the Ministry of Defence of resources. Today he returned fire. Labour has been at war five times since it came to power 13 years ago. And the PM is adamant that during his time as chancellor, and since he got the keys to number 10, the military have got everything they asked for. His claim at prime minister’s question time today that the defence budget has risen EVERY year since 1997 was impressive. But even before he’d left the chamber, FactCheck had got to work to find out if it was true.

Gordon Brown is accused of squeezing defence budgets at a time of war. Just this week Sir Bill Jeffrey, the most senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, told the Chilcot Inquiry the forces were kept short of funds when Brown was Chancellor.

David Cameron today took up the baton, accusing Brown of fighting “two wars on a peace time budget”. The PM retorted that the defence budget has been rising every year since Labour came to power.

A Downing Street spokesman reiterated the prime minister’s claim, saying: “The government has a strong record on defence spending. Defence spending has risen by 10 per cent in real terms since 1997, and on top of a rising defence budget £8bn was spent on Iraq and so far £9bn have been spent on Afghanistan. Every additional request for funding for Iraq and Afghanistan has been met.

“As Chancellor, Gordon Brown’s successive spending reviews provided for annual average real terms growth in the defence budget.

“Exact outturns on those budgets can vary for a range of reasons, including the cost of operations, departmental underspends, and additions over and above budgets in these periods. But there can be no doubt about the government’s commitment to resourcing defence.”

The analysis
In real terms – i.e. taking account of inflation – Gordon Brown is wrong. Figures given to us by the Ministry of Defence (see table below) show the defence budget fell year-on-year in real terms on four occasions since 1997 when Labour came to power – in 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2007.

Worse, the defence budget also fell below 1997 levels (again in real terms) on four occasions – 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002.
“Near cash”
The MoD says Gordon Brown wasn’t talking about real terms growth, but was instead referring to “near cash” rises in the defence budget. “Near cash” is the simplest form of the military budget, the most basic cash figure – without inflation or depreciation taken into account.

According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, inflation has to be factored in to make spending comparisons meaningful. So Brown was at the very least playing fast and loose with the figures by ignoring inflation.

Wrong again?
However, Gordon Brown also stated today in the Commons that the “expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been rising in real terms under this government”. Taking him absolutely literally, “this government” was elected in 2005. But here he is also wrong. As we’ve seen just now, spending fell in real terms in 2007.

FactCheck likes a belt and braces approach, so we called several experts – including Mark Stoker, a military economist at the International Institute For Strategic Studies.

He pointed out NATO also provide accounts on defence budgets, and he reckons these numbers are more accurate.

Still falling
Looking at the NATO figures, the defence budget fell from £34.4bn in 2007 to £32.8bn in 2008.

“If you look at Nato’s figures Gordon Brown’s statement is incorrect,” says Stoker. “Either way, both sets of data indicate that the budget has not risen every year.”

Cathy Newman’s verdict
Defence spending has gone up in “near cash” terms, but it’s fiscally illiterate to use this measure, and the former chancellor knows it. The government is on firmer ground when it points out that the departmental budget is 10 per cent higher this year than in 1997, but FactCheck has established that Gordon Brown’s central claim that the defence budget has gone up every year is fiction.

Defence spending table. Source: MoD
Source: MoD. Figures are calculated using the latest (4 January 2010) GDP deflator which is updated quarterly by the HM Treasury. The agreed figure of 1.5 per cent for the average annual real-terms growth over the comprehensive spending review period was agreed with the Treasury in 2007/08 and was calculated using the 2007/08 baseline (£29,411k).

Why does Cameron not have this intelligence to hand when he walks into PMQs?


UPDATE: Follow-up from the same site.

Bad news buried under Blair’s bollocks

Via ConHome.


Iain Dale has spotted an attempt to bury bad news on the day that the media is focusing on Tony Blair’s evidence session at the Chilcot Inquiry.

The Government has this morning quietly released the latest NHS waiting time statistics for England which read as follows:

The number of inpatients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over 13 weeks at the end of December 2009 was 57,600, an increase of 12,300 (27.3%) from November 2009, and a rise of 18,000 (45.3%) from December 2008.
The number of outpatients, for whom English commissioners are responsible, waiting over 8 weeks at the end of December 2009 was 74,100, an increase of 11,700 (18.8%) from November 2009, but a rise of 26,900 (57.0%) from December 2008.

The wheels continue to fall off the Labour wagon…

And jolly amusing that is too – except for the fact our country’s fate is bound to the fuckers.


Bringing the law into disrepute

I’m becoming quite a follower of Henry Porter’s dispatches on liberty in The Graun.

It’s long been a bug bear of mine that most of the senior politicians involved in dismantling our liberty, our checks and balances and our civil protections have been lawyers.

Porter picks up the theme:


It’s no coincidence that the four politicians who took us to war – Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lord Falconer and Lord Goldsmith were all lawyers. Of course there were others involved, but let us be quite clear that each of these was in a position to stop the headlong rush to war by using the rule of law as an argument against the Bush regime.

Only Lord Goldsmith attempted such a course, but he was flattened by Lord Falconer and Baroness (formerly Sally) Morgan and sidelined by Number 10 until it was too late for Britain to withdraw. The point is that the same people who ignored the opinion of legal advisers Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst – in fact the entire legal team – also carried out the attack on liberty and the rule of law that has been the subject of columns in the Observer and this blog for the last four years.

To make the connection between the two may seem opportunistic, but I believe that it is fundamental to the understanding of New Labour to see that the attack on the international rule of law goes hand in hand with the steady erosion of rights and liberties in this country: both were carried out by people who were trained as lawyers and who should have been nourished by the law and its long traditions.

This is obviously not to say that all lawyers are bad: the people who fought for the rule of law inside the system, such as Wilmshurst and Wood, were lawyers, and many lawyers outside government, such as Philippe Sands QC and Clive Stafford Smith, have staunchly defended the international rule of law, particularly concerning British involvement in torture and rendition. Most lawyers I talk to are appalled at what has been done to the rule of law and to our own constitution.

One of the very basic tenets of the rule of law in Britain was expressed by AC Dicey in 1885: "In the first place, no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of the law established in ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land." Blair, Straw and to a lesser extent Falconer were responsible for countless tiny cuts to this principle – and in other areas, as in the decision to go to war, the knowledge of rendition and MI5’s collusion in torture sessions – for instance in the interrogation of Binyam Mohamed – have outraged standards set in international conventions and charters.

My own belief is that Blair, Straw and Falconer should be disbarred from their professional organisations. There may be a case for Lord Goldsmith’s disbarment as well. Though I am not sure how this could be satisfactorily achieved, I believe that both barristers and solicitors will want to make a statement about the steady attack on all that the Bar and Law Society stand for. It would be a symbolic gesture but an important one, given that we are unlikely to see any of these individuals prosecuted for what they have done.

Each of them was fully aware of the damage they caused to the rule of law at home and abroad, and while we may wait for a proper analysis as to what gave New Labour lawyers the confidence to defy public opinion and the law, the action of disbarment, perhaps merely its consideration, could send out a signal that Britain is at last passing from this long and shoddy episode.

Another prominent lawyer who has been responsible for illiberal lunacy is, of course, Harriet Hormone.


Just one last thing on DINGs marriage scam

Dave and George say that tax breaks for marriage will not be paid for by taxing motorists.

Let’s try some logic, shall we.

  • Premise: Tax income is not at all hypothecated (ring-fenced) in the UK system.
  • Fact: Tories will levy further taxes on motorists.
  • Fact: Tories will levy fewer taxes on married couples.

Ergo – and there’s no avoiding this conclusion – to a greater or lesser extent, motorists will fund tax cuts for married couples.



Oh, and Guido has them banged to rights.

On the Today programme this morning Osborne described claims that the Tories would increase road tax to pay for tax breaks for married couples as “bizarre”, saying “it bears no reality to our thinking in this area”.

Hold on, what is this from page 4 of the Tory “Plan for a Strong Economy”?

image image

So there is justice after all, eh?

Sometimes anyway.

A woman who made a false rape allegation that led to an innocent man being arrested has been jailed for 18 months after she admitted perverting justice.


Rosanne England, 21, tore her underwear and scratched her face before telling police that a stranger had entered her house in Holbury near Southampton. She told officers that he had asked to use her phone and toilet but then attacked her, Winchester Crown Court heard. She gave police a detailed description and officers launched a manhunt. Derek Cummings, 59, a married father of two teenage daughters who was at a social club nearby, fitted the description and could not offer an alibi. He was detained for 28 hours but was exonerated by forensic evidence.

Sadly, this could easily be used to spin the benefits of DNA evidence.

The court heard England suffered mental health problems.

I’m not bleeding surprised, being run into the ground by a bunch of reckless porridge spewers. Oh.. I see.. they meant Rosanne England.

It seems vanishingly rare that men who are falsely accused of rape get to see justice done. And, I’m not a fan of the powers that be ‘sending a message’ or making an example of someone, but if this makes one or two crazy bitches stop and think, then WIN!


Another Tory council’s sharp practices…

Unremitting pocket-pickery under the guise of bullshit excuses…

Little did I realise that by offering to save a pensioner friend of mine the cost of a taxi from the station, I would end up facing fines of £240 from my council.

But I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth and my unwitting mistake was to stop twice on the same evening in the road behind Clapham Junction station for 22 seconds to pick up my friend and 14 seconds to drop him off.

I had fallen into the electronic clutches of camera number 225, one of 1,300 CCTV cameras in Wandsworth and easily the most lucrative in terms of fines extracted from motorists.

Evidence from its all-seeing lens has been used to issue 6,119 penalty charge notices, or PCNs, over the past year, raising nearly £300,000 – a fifth of the £1.5million the borough gets from parking and traffic infringements picked up by CCTV cameras.

Nowhere in the area around this busy station is there any advice about where to drop off and pick up people, or a warning to motorists that parking and stopping regulations will be strictly enforced by CCTV.

Why not send out letters to first-time offenders pointing out their error rather than immediately fining them?

I think we all know the answer. These cameras are really there to raise revenue.

The London Borough of Wandsworth seems to be addicted to them. It has twice as many as any other borough in London.

Apart from the tribal areas of Pakistan where the world is hunting for Osama Bin Laden, Wandsworth is probably the most surveilled 13.2 square miles on earth.

When these figures were disclosed, Councillor James Cousins from the ruling Tory group on Wandsworth Council said they used CCTV so much because ‘it’s a great tool to make Wandsworth a safer place’.


But it didn’t stop me becoming a victim of crime.

Earlier in the summer I got off the train at Clapham Junction to discover that my bike’s front wheel had been stolen by vandals while padlocked to a rack in the very area covered by camera 225.

But there’s no need for such anecdotal evidence, to show the failings of CCTV, is there?

A study by the Metropolitan Police in August found that just one crime is solved each year for every 1,000 cameras while Home Office research has warned eight in ten images are not of good enough quality for police to use.

Alex Deane, the director of Big Brother Watch, said CCTV was seen as a "cheap alternative to policing" and the rise of expensive "surveillance networks" has made little impact on cutting crime.

He said: "Local councils across Britain are creating enormous networks of CCTV surveillance at great expense, but the evidence for the ability of CCTV to deter or solve crimes is sketchy at best.

"The quality of footage is frequently too poor to be used in courts, the cameras are often turned off to save money and control rooms are rarely manned 24 hours a day."

Ministers have said CCTV is an "important tool" in crime fighting, but a Home Office study in 2007 found the cameras had a negligible effect on cutting crime.

It found that in many cases, a suspect could be recognised only if police already knew who they are.

A Met study found that the one million cameras in London helped solve 1,000 crimes last year, meaning each case helped by CCTV effectively cost £20,000 to detect.

But as long as they can use them to churn out fixed penalties for all manner of misdemeanours, no real problem, eh? Cunts


Spain co-opted to G20 under emergency measures. Spain bemused.

A couple of weeks back, I relayed news from Guido that Britain was the only G7 country still in recession.


Well, now, we’ve gone one better – we’re the only country in the G20 still in recession.

Well, we were, until Gordon Brown drafted ailing Spain into the G20, so he wasn’t lonely. Obviously, Spain isn’t in the G20, as pointed out by Guido and Tory Bear, who may well have broken the news, which was picked up on by some senior Tories.

Guido has posted a video of Broon’s truly pathetic splutterings:

In keeping with today’s sickly climate of victimhood and apology madness, the Tories have stepped up to the plate:


As Guido notes from this article,

The Tories have unearthed a quote that should settle the matter, Spain is not a member of the G20’, or so said the Prime Mentalist himself at a press conference in October last year.

I appreciate the Tories slapping Brown, but I do wish they’d frame it in rather more grown-up terms.


Labour find previously undiscovered voters…

White working class ones. The ones who may not be very well educated, but just want to go to work, live their life and have whatever little fun. The ones whose lot has been worsened by Labour for nearly 13 years, thanks to unfettered immigration, a catastrophic welfare state, smoking bans, constant hectoring and sneering, and general Islingtonisation of popular politics.

Well, it’s a bit fucking late and it’s more than a bit opportunistic, as the BNP look set to win seats in the next parliament. While I have no love of the BNP, them winning representation in Parliament, having already succeeded at the local and EU level, would be just the rocket-up-the-arse needed to smash the cosy consensus that hangs millions of indigenous Brits out to dry.

The Labour awakening does appear to be coordinated, too, which makes it all the more opportunistic and all the less of a genuine epiphany. In fact, it’s nothing less than tacit acknowledgement that Labour has consciously taken their core voters for granted and treated their views and concerns with disdain for 13 years.

We have something called a John Denham.


We have Tom Harris, who mentions others in the coterie.


THIS POST from Alex Smith of LabourList has caught my attention. It quotes Michael Merrick’s assessment last week about how Labour can connect with the poorest in society.

Anyway, let’s see if dear Tom publishes my comment.


Talk about on the fucking ball. Twats.


Suicide watch…

Eamonn Butler is the head of the Adam Smith Institute – a free-market think-tank.

But I’d not be surprised to hear that the Dignitas marketing folk were keen to retain his services.

I say this because, ever since I started reading this:


I’ve been increasingly curious about their services.

It’s an unceasing catalogue of the things that Gordon Brown and his coterie of bastards has done to our country.

Oh sure, there’s not much in there that you couldn’t find on most libertarian blogs, but the sheer scale of their destruction wrought upon the fabric of our economy, society, liberty, privacy, justice system and democratic protections is breath-taking.

I may, in fact, never finish this book, because I decide that I want to live. On the other hand, I may neck a fistful of vallium and get it over with. The book, I mean.


Cameron’s bottling it? Bollocks he is. This is a classic Brown stitch-up.

The lefties are spinning that Cameron is backing out of his commitment to a live TV debate with Brown.

@JohnPrescott: Now he’s bottling the TV debates should we call him David Camera-off? Empty seat him


After only a few weeks of negotiations, David Cameron has rejected the idea of a series of debates between all three party leaders, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Gordon Brown has proposed up to six debates while the Liberal Democrats are demanding three three-way debates.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are accusing the Tory leader of "backing down" after months of calling for a television debate.

So far, it’s an open and shut case. Right? Wrong…

Mr Cameron has proposed the most slimline option, involving one debate with all three leaders. But Mr Brown has told broadcasters he wants at least six.

Brown insists on six. You don’t need me to tell you how intransigent, unreasonable and calculating Brown is.

He and Mr Cameron would go head to head in one, Mr Brown would face Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, in another while Mr Cameron would face Mr Clegg in a third. Then there would be three more debates between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron focused on a different issue each time, such as the economy.

See, I may not be in the premiership of politics junkies, but I play enthusiastically in the lower leagues. And here’s the rub:

I don’t want to see 6 debates. I won’t watch 6 debates. And if I did, I’d be sick to death of all three of these muppets. So you’d be lucky to persuade the millions of marginalised and detached Joe Publics to watch even the one debate.

And that’s Brown’s game. Cameron knows the dangers, Brown has nothing to lose. Clegg has everything to gain by a one-on-one with Brown.

This is about Brown derailing the whole shebang and blaming it on the Tories.

And for Brown’s camp to be brandishing terms like ‘bottled’ in relation to Cameron are so ludicrous as to be hilarious. We all remember the election that never was.

Just more evidence that the likes of Prescott are just in a different plain of existence, where the sky is quite different to the one here on Earth.


Watching the bansturbators and the pub-killers…

Excellent work from The Filthy Smoker over at DKs place.

From The Scotsman:

The economic hangover of the smoking ban and the effects of the recession have both been blamed for fewer people going to pubs, but it is clear the supermarkets and a growing culture of drinking at home are the real cause for the decline.

Oh, for the love of…

Alright then, one more time. There is not a growing culture of drinking at home because the supermarkets are selling more alcohol. There is a growing culture of drinking at home because of the smoking ban which, in turn, has led to the supermarkets selling more alcohol. People who drink at home tend to buy their alcohol from supermarkets. Not pubs. Supermarkets not pubs. Horse then cart. Do you see how that works?

Do click through and read the rest of this most splendid taking apart of the righteous.