So-called Caitlyn Jenner, Stunning and Brave Islamic State…

Islamic State call themselves Islamic State. That’s how they – to use the parlance of the day – self-identify.

Caitlyn Jenner calls “herself” Caitlyn Jenner. For nearly 66 years this same individual called himself Bruce Jenner – including when he won an Olympic Gold medal. Nevertheless, “she” now self-identifies as Caitlyn.

The BBC (amongst others, including our pasty, pan-faced Prime Minister) insist on referring to I.S. as “So-called” Islamic State, irrespective of how they self-identify.

Meanwhile, no such disrespect towards self-inflicted genital mutilation fan, fatal car-crash enthusiast and global attention whore Caitlyn Jenner. On the contrary, Caitlyn is “stunning and brave

Well, look.

Either it’s So-called Islamic State AND so-called Caitlyn Jenner, or both Islamic State and Caitlyn Jenner are stunning and brave.

Choose one, or fuck off.



A story in which everyone turns out to be an arsehole

Via Ambush Predator, this has the full triad of imbecility.

MOVIE fan Martin Smith landed in court on a racism charge after he downloaded part of the soundtrack from the 1980s comedy film Rita, Sue and Bob Too! and installed it as a ringtone on his mobile.

Martin, of Holmewood, north Derbyshire, claims friends and workmates got used to hearing the voice of an Asian actor reciting the words “I can’t help being a Paki…“.

Imbecile number 1: Anti-social pillock who thinks using samples from movies as a ringtone is clever.

I thought people stopped doing that 10 years ago. Apart from Australians, of course, but what can you say about those ?

But there’s room for plenty more stupidity in Derbyshire.

But a woman from a mixed race family wasn’t amused when Martin’s Nokia went off as she queued alongside him at a village shop.

Over-hearing the clip from the movie – which chronicles the exploits of two schoolgirls growing up on a rundown estate in Bradford – the woman went home and lodged a formal complaint with the police.

Imbecile number 2: Pecksnifferous offence-seeking cretin who runs crying to the police about someone’s idiot ringtone.

One more to go.. Imbecile number 3 please.

Officers arrested the 36-year-old at home two days later and locked him in the cells at Chesterfield for four hours before charging him with contravening race relation laws.

Ah.. the police. They can’t wait for a chance to get their frilly knickers in a twist over bullshit thought-crime, can they?

Oh well, I suppose the man arrested should be thankful that the power-crazed simians didn’t kick the shit out of him.

Magistrates fined him £191 with £85 costs for using racially aggravated threatening or insulting words or behaviour.

You want a cherry on the cake? Try this:

The court was told the unnamed woman, who was from a mixed African-Mediterranean background, overheard the ringtone while she was waiting to be served at the grocery store near Smith’s home in Holmewood.

Yep – the time-wasting bint isn’t even fucking Asian.

I despair.

Calling Steve Hughes:

”I was insulted and offended.”

“So? Nothing happens.”


Racism, my arse.

Douglas Murray in the Telegraph blogs delivered an epic slapdown of a colleague who made a veiled accusation of racism against him here, apropos his observations about Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Diane Abbott.

His original post is here. It is the one that prompted me to repost the video of Abbott vs Brillo.

The accusation comes in this post from Richard Spencer. See Dellingpole’s post in the comments.

Here’s the masterful response from Murray:


Well, I guess Richard Spencer and I had very different friends – and told very different jokes – at school. In response to my nomination of Diane Abbott as possibly the “stupidest woman in Britain”, Richard writes:

It may be, of course, a coincidence that the candidates, Diane Abbott MP and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a newspaper columnist, are both from ethnic minorities, and that Murray had gone through the white contenders and assigned them to third, fourth and fifth places without telling us.

Is it a coincidence? Did I single out these two women because of the colour of their skin? Very obviously not, I would have thought. I don’t think I have to rehearse here the reasons why an obsession with skin pigmentation is not my bag, even if it might be Richard Spencer’s.

But I should first like to register that there is something infinitely wearying as well as predictable about these criticisms and insinuations. It seems to me exactly what is wrong with our politics and political discourse in Britain. We have for some time now been in a period in which, as I’ve often explained, people appear to believe that their “identity” is more important than their ideas.

It is the reason why so many people find it impossible to pose any question from an audience without starting: “As a woman of Indian background”, or “As a gay man”, and so on. It is very, very tedious. Particularly if you believe people are defined not by their skin colour or sexuality but by the thoughts in their head and the way in which they live their lives.

Read on.


There is a theme developing in this postal voting business

… but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Let me see, now.


‘All the dodgy addresses seem to involve Bangladeshi names, and the police are terrified of investigating that community for fear of being branded racists.

Tower Hamlets

Bradford and Calderdale




two, seemingly inquisitive, Asian teenagers

a fresh crop of attackers – I guess between four and six – joined in.

In some instances there have been as many as 20 Bengali names supposedly living in two or three-bedroom flats.



"I’m here for the 6 May election. I always come during elections," says Mr Chaudhry. "It’s basically so I can tell people how to vote and who to vote for.

"Most of the Pakistanis here are from Mirpur, and I am the MP from Mirpur, and I know the issues here and who will be the best candidates to help solve the issues in Kashmir."

The tribalism of Mirpuri politics being transferred to the UK, where clans stick together and elders make decisions for the whole extended family.


I’ll pose here the same question I posed on Twatter earlier:


Any thoughts?


The seed of an idea

Baby-steps, Tories. That’s right.


We should soon get to the point where the proprietor of a private commercial enterprise is free to admit, or not, whomseover he wishes. Whether that be on the basis of gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, smell, nationality, dressing like a chav or driving a Volvo.

I don’t care – each should be free to choose and let the market decide.


UPDATE: John Demetriou adds weight to the argument, with his… err customary diplomacy.

Iain Dale minces round like someone’s stolen his Jimmy Choo handbag.

Old Holborn wins best use of a broccoli metaphor.

UPDATE: The comment by Roger Thornhill, replying to Iain Dale is just too good not to reproduce in full here.

I strongly disagree with you, Iain.

What you are basically saying is someone has no right of refusal.

If someone turns up for business not of the business owner’s liking, you are saying they must be forced to do business with them. That is absurd, authoritarian, totalitarian. It makes the individual lose the right of self determination. A business becomes just a cog at the whim of the state, of thought police and the mob.

You are tramping over not just property rights but the freedom of association, the freedom of self determination.

Forcing someone to work against their will is slavery.

If an employee of a hotel took it into their hands to refuse, then the compliant is between owner and employee as much as rejected customer, in terms of breach of (employment) contract.

But is it the role of the State to intervene? No.

This is not a case of "Tory Nasty Party", but if does seem a case of irrational, collectivist, illiberal, Authoritarianism, forcing people to be slaves.

Btw I would boycott a place that rejected gays, but that is my choice and i am using my freedom of (dis)association to exercise it, not mob rule.

What he said.

Oh and the ever erudite Devil is on the case too.

UPDATE: A gay libertarian speaks.

Northants Racial Equality Council

Fake. Charity.


Why do we care? Because they tried to poleaxe a Tory MP for his comments during a commons debate.


An MP was investigated by police for inciting racial hatred over controversial burkha comments following complaints from a human rights association.

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said wearing a burkha was the religious equivalent of ‘going round with a paper bag over your head’.

During a parliamentary debate last month he urged the House of Commons to ‘seriously consider’ banning the garment.

Bunch of Labour sponsored shit-stirring commie arse.


They’ve seen our future, and they don’t like it

Commenting over at Obo’s earlier, I has cause to refer to the archives of American former journalist, Fred Reed.

It’s a real shame that Fred doesn’t write for his site any more, which predates the concept of blogging by several years, but he’s done his time, and his archive is a real treat for rationalists and right-wing libertarians.

He just loves to stir up a hornets nest of received wisdom and politically correct shibboleths.

Take this, from 2007, on the subject of affirmative action for women and minorities (Hi Hattie).


An industry exists today in the writing of pieces proclaiming the weakness of men and the superiority of women, a favorite word in the description of men being “fragile.” I weary of it. Women of course engage in this, as do some heterosexual men. Much is made, and should be, over the rising majority of women over men in the universities and some some professions. What is this about?

It is not about reality. Fragile men hold nearly every Olympic record in sports in which men compete. In professional sports the sexes compete separately because otherwise there would be no women’s sports. On test after test of mental ability, men regularly outscore women: SATs, GREs, National Merit, and so on. In psychometry, it is settled knowledge that at the high end of the scale of intelligence, men outnumber women, and that the higher you go, the more the male preponderance; the disparity in mathematical talent is stark. Even an avowedly liberal psychologist, Paul Irwing of the University of Manchester, writing in The Independent, unhappily confessed that there are twice as many men as women with IQs about 120 and 30 times as many over 170. On the other hand, women live longer.

Why, then, the relative decline of men in so many professions?

Some of it is probably that women tolerate the routine (men would say “boredon”) that characterizes most jobs today. Some of it is simply that women are finally competing. On their merits, a lot of women are better than a lot of men at a lot of things, so that, even if we decided things by ability, they would rise. This would be as it should be. But we don’t decide things primarily by merit. We decide them by race, creed, color, sex, and national origin.

There is today an enormous amount of affirmative action in favor of women and against men. Much of it is hidden. For example, when boys outperformed girls badly on the National Merit test, a fairly high-end test of scholastic ability, it was modified to reduce the disparity. Few know this.

Much affirmative action, though absurd, occurs openly. When Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, noted that men are better at mathematics, about which there is no doubt, feminists cowed Harvard into promising fifty million dollars to recruit female professors. This is nothing more than extortion. (For an adult and most politically incorrect exposition of this, Griffe Du Leon serves well.)

The SATs were recently slanted (“recentered,” I meant to say) to make bright members of the affirmative-action classes (chiefly women and blacks) indistinguishable from Asian and Caucasian males of much higher ability. Universities can then accept the bright girls over the brighter boys without an appearance of discrimination.

School, always unpleasant for rambunctious boys, which is almost to say boys, has been made almost unbearable for them. To be blunt, the schools have been feminized to the point of being hostile to boys, and particularly to bright boys. The sports and roughhousing that boys love have been outlawed as too violent; boys who point fingers and say “bang” are expelled; boys who are not adequately somnolent are drugged by the schools. Competition, upon which boys thrive, is now verboten. When boys reach college, they are likely to be subjected to anti-sexism training which amounts to little more than sanctioned hazing. This seems to spring from sheer female hostility.

But it is working.

In jobs, there is unending pressure to put women (and blacks) into jobs regardless of qualifications; the price for questioning this policy is high. The practice is packaged as pursuit of equality, but it isn’t: If eighty percent of students in a medical school are female, this is a triumph for women, but if eighty percent are male, it is sexist discrimination and results in recruitment of women by any means.

Special privilege for women is pervasive and enforced by the full weight of government. The federal government has special set-asides and sweetheart deals for businesses owned by women (and blacks). In the military physical standards as well as the rigorousness of training were greatly diminished so that women could pass. Big Sister watches carefully. A friend of mine moonlights as a one-man shop in graphic design. Periodically he gets a federal form asking how many blacks, women, and so on he employs. Heavy fines attach to failure to respond or false answers.

Further, much policy aims at preventing women from having to compete with men, while making it look as if they were. For example, a company that doesn’t hire enough women (or blacks) is subject to federal persecution and private lawsuits; if it then fails to promote them in statistically correct numbers, a company will again pay a heavy price. So it hires them. It is then reported that women (and blacks) are making great strides. Objective measures of merit are discouraged or forbidden. Try giving IQ tests to prospective employees.

A conspicuous example of the illusion of competitiveness was the television show Eco-Challenge in which teams raced each other over courses that required mountain biking, rappelling, swimming, and other physically demanding chores. The rules stated that each team of women had to include at least one man, and each team of men, at least one woman. This produced an appearance of sexual equality. But of course, since the teams had to stay together, each moved only as fast as its slowest member. The women were superb athletes and have my admiration. Yet the question, which this arrangement was designed to avoid answering, is what would have happened if all-male teams had been allowed to compete.

Then there is compulsory togetherness. Great governmental and political emphasis falls, thump, on keeping men from doing anything by themselves. If men want a bar or club of their own where they can enjoy masculine company, women will fight furiously to quash it. Logically they could as well start a bar for women only, to which no man would object. All-male colleges must be integrated (though not all-female ones). There is in all of this a tacit admission of inadequacy: Those who genuinely believe that they can compete don’t need federally enforced social access.

Historically of course merit has mattered less than membership in the right group. In particular, men maintained their dominance for thousands of years without regard to the merits of females. In 1900 there were women qualified to serve in congress, or for that matter to do almost anything, but were not allowed to, and there were many men who weren’t qualified but did serve. It is annoying to those whites and males who opposed special privilege by race and sex to find that that blacks and women do not want equal opportunity, but special privilege.

But perhaps the math department at Harvard doesn’t matter. If no further scientific discovery were ever made, we would be well fed, comfortable, and replete with with video iPods. The modern part of the world, no longer wild and impoverished, has become a vast bureaucracy. Offices require stability and predictability, not great talent, and efficiency seldom matters. What the hell.

Food for thought.


Coconut shy councillor in court tomorrow

Do you remember this cretinous episode?

This is the one in Bristol where the (Lib Dem) black councillor called the (Tory) Asian councillor a coconut.

Councillor Shirley Brown will tomorrow be in court charged with racially aggravated harassment.  For calling someone coconut in the council chamber.

One would hope that this will be thrown straight out but who can honestly say?  Only one thing need stand out, though:

After a couple of days Brown made a lavish apology, albeit after apparently complaining to reporters: “How can I be racist? I’m black.”

How indeed.

[Cllr] Jethwa’s family arrived in the UK after being thrown out of Uganda — on the grounds that they were Asian — by a black African dictator, Idi Amin.

Long may these Muppets continue to tie each other in knots, as it were.


East Germany 1980 or Britain 2010?

Who can honestly tell any more?


A wealthy businessman was arrested at home in front of his wife and young son over an email which council officials deemed ‘offensive’ to gipsies – but which he had not even written.

The email, concerning a planning appeal by a gipsy, included the phrase: ‘It’s the ‘do as you likey’ attitude that I am against.’

Council staff believed the email was offensive because ‘likey’ rhymes with the derogatory term ‘pikey’.

The 45-year-old IT boss was held in a police cell for four hours until it was established he had nothing to do with the email, which had been sent by one of his then workers, Paul Osmond.

But police had taken his DNA and later confirmed they would be holding it indefinitely.

Oh and don’t think that he’s able to carry on working, though.

His computer and other internet equipment were also seized.

So what do the pigs have to say about this?

Chief Inspector Heather Keating said: ‘Sussex Police have a legal duty to promote community cohesion and tackle unlawful discrimination.

‘We are satisfied we acted appropriately in identifying the owner of the computer used and through this, the identity of the writer of the offending line.’

Promote community cohesion? No. That is NOT your job you fucking waste of organs.

In any case, who got these fuckers involved in the first place?

A council spokesman said: ‘As far as we were concerned it was an offensive comment, so we got in touch with the police.’


Got I hate people and I fucking loathe and despair of what this country has become.


Eekwality: Ur doin it wrong

Apparently, revenge is a dish best served curried.



A spurned woman sprinkled a deadly ancient herb into a curry being eaten by her former lover and his new partner to try to kill them and stop their marriage, a court heard today .

Lakhvir Kaur Singh, 44, mixed the Indian plant aconite into their meal two weeks before they were due to be married on Valentine’s Day last year, the Old Bailey heard.

Ms Singh’s ex-partner Lakhvinder Cheema, 39, was paralysed by the toxin in less than an hour and died shortly after arriving at hospital. His fiancée, Gurjeet Choough, now 22, fell into a coma and survived only because she had eaten less of the meal.

Nice. Or what about this?



A black teacher who was poisoned with whiteboard cleaning fluid by one of her own pupils today lost a fight for £700,000 in damages – and was branded a racist by a top judge.

Shaiira Alexis, 52, had told London’s High Court her life would never be the same again after she unwittingly drank from a tampered water bottle.

But yesterday a judge rejected her bid for compensation, and condemned the teacher, who had to be treated at hospital following the incident, for her behaviour in calling the pupil a ‘white prostitute’.

I wonder if this is what Harriet had in mind.

Just sayin is all.


Harman’s Eeekwallitee bill passes through the Colon…

Another road to ruination…


Harriet Harman’s flagship legislation to tackle inequality cleared the Commons tonight, amid protests that it promoted positive discrimination.

MPs gave the Equality Bill a third reading by 338 votes to eight, majority 330. It now goes to the Lords after being carried over from the last Parliamentary session.

The bill was savaged by Shadow business minister John Penrose who claimed the could  mean employers discriminating in favour of minority applicants rather than handing out jobs purely on merit.

Political parties will be allowed to use positive action to boost the number of black and Asian candidates and permission to use all-women shortlists will be extended.

Critics also claimed there had not been enough time for debate at its earlier report stage.

And in the latest round of voluntary, to become mandatory, measures:

The Bill requires certain employers to produce a ‘gender pay report’ each year to reveal the level of pay discrimination.

Private sector firms will initially be part of a voluntary regime, but a legal requirement will be imposed to force companies employing more than 250 people to produce a report if ‘sufficient progress’ has not been made by 2013.

Which is likely to impact upon my pay rises, because my female colleagues are at liberty to spend half their time reading Heat magazine and the other half on maternity leave, massaging their piles.

Critics fear businesses already hit by the recession could be landed with the extra cost of implementing the measures.

Employers will be allowed to take on candidates who have a ‘protective characteristic’ in preference over someone else as long as they have the same qualifications.

The legislation will make it illegal to force breastfeeding mothers out of public places such as coffee shops, restaurants and galleries, and bans private clubs from discriminating against women members.

Well, I thought it right to find out exactly what the implications of this, so I went to the government website, and found this:



So, if I don’t agree, it’s because I don’t understand, yeah? It’s gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better:

image image


image image

This is a government leaflet. Or is it the school project of a 10 year old girl?

image image

No – I’m not making this shit up.

Here are some of the proposed outcomes:





What’s in it for me, motherfuckers?


A symptom, but not the core problem.

Via Dizzy,

COI reveals new five step plan for behaviour change

A new five step process for behaviour change communications planning is at the heart of new guidance from the Central Office of Information (COI). It also recommends a practical behavioural model to be defined at the start of any new behaviour change initiative, and refined throughout the life of the campaign. These measures will help maximise the effectiveness of – and define the role for – government marketing activity on integrated behaviour change campaigns.

The document is available here:


To be honest, it’s annoying, but it’s not dynamite. The principles outlined therein – NLP, systems thinking, nudging (as the Tories know it) are all established.

What is insidious is that the government actively embraces them.

What is chilling is the purposes they deploy these techniques for and the sense they have that it is their duty to do so.

I’m quite positive the Tories will take these ideas forward aggressively, too.

So I’ll say it loud and clear:

Polish my bell-end, you state-sponsored fuck-dribbles.


Hey, Harman! Leave them bitches alone…

A common sense voice, that is very much akin to the opinions of most women of my acquaintance. Perhaps a self-selecting sample, what with my lack of time for ‘wimmin’, but there we are.


Gordon Brown, bless him, can’t see a supposed inequality without passing a law. It’s sweet, in a way, that he’s so concerned with protecting everyone who is not a white, middle-aged Scottish bloke. He could, hand in hand with Harriet Harman, skip all the way to Edinburgh if Labour’s equality measures were laid end to end from Westminster to Holyrood.

But enough. No more laws. No more quangos, or panels, or equality drives. Women are doing OK. We do not need the patronising wing of the State to shelter us from the nasty men any more.

Harriet Harman and her brand of 1970s feminists continue to dominate the debate. Look, Harriet, we’re very, very grateful for everything your generation did for us, but it’s our turn now. Renounce the title Minister for Women — I do not need special pleading, and you do not speak for me.

Yet she keeps speaking for me; foisting equality on me like unwelcome warts.

And therein lies the problem. If the government’s words and deeds communicate to whatsoever sector of society that they are victims, said sector of society largely accepts the status foisted upon them. It’s effectively the same technique as deployed in denormalisation. Or to put it more simply, if you treat people like victims, they’ll act like victims. Next they’ll demand that you respect them. They have to demand it because no-one would voluntarily respect these shameless celebrants of victimhood.

And that is why Harman’s antics have to stop. See?

Women run countries and boardrooms, even newspapers. How can we possibly term ourselves victims any more?

Only when it suits us to keep playing the victim. The Employment Tribunal Service dealt with 7,280 sex discrimination complaints from women in 1999, compared with 18,637 last year, and 26,907 the year before that. Are men getting more discriminating while we get better at complaining? Or, perhaps, we are just using the complex web of discrimination legislation to take our employers to the cleaners?

Perhaps. Do you think?

The women’s movement once rang with the rhetoric of sisterhood. If there is such a thing any more, it is being betrayed by false claimants and the champions of excessive equality legislation. Women who use sex discrimination laws to excuse their own incompetence, and wring cash out of their employers, are little better than those who falsely cry rape. It belittles the genuine cases and endangers the whole enterprise of women’s liberation. Our equality is hard won and precious. The best way to squander our victory is to make it ever harder to hire women and perpetuate the victim myth.

What? Unintended consequences of well meaning (!!) Labour policies? It could never happen.


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.


BNP shrewdly changing tack…

The BNP appear to have a strategy. One that they can take forward with arm-in-arm with non-white Britons.

As I reported at the time, a few weeks back, Melanie Phillips made the point (in an excellent article I commend thoroughly) that BNP support is strongest:

in areas of high Pakistani and Bangladeshi concentration — but significantly, not where there are concentrations of Indians. Strikingly, BNP support actually falls away steeply in Afro-Caribbean areas.

Leading to the conclusion that:

The rise of Nick Griffin is intimately related to the unchecked march of Islamism in Britain.

So it is no surprise that he’s now decided that his enemy’s enemy can be his friend and he can capitalise on it, allowing him to (apparently) wash away the stigma of racism:


And let’s face it, it’s not going to be difficult to rally support when you’re campaigning against the Islamification of Britain by people like Anjem Choudary.


More on moron equality…

Won’t someone think of the cheeeldren… and the women. But not the men. No way. Fuck the men.


I’m tempted to say this is a self-selecting sample.

The research by charity The Hestia Fund was carried out on women who sought help to escape domestic violence in seven different parts of the UK.

So this is a bunch of shit whining about how eeeeeevil men are. Never mind that a lot of these women probably needed a fucking shoeing anyway, eh?

In fact, the Telegraph back my point up with a link:

On average, abusive relationships lasted five and a half years, meaning that many children covered by the study had lived their whole lives in the shadow of violence.

Which leads to:


What’s this??? Women who aren’t blameless, passive victims? Fuck that. There’s some fist-worthy bitches right there.

Feel free to hold Harriet personally responsible. And let’s not forget:








Oh, and:


Which is all symptomatic of this:


The number of children reporting sexual abuse by women to helpline service ChildLine has more than doubled over the past five years, it was revealed today. New figures show a 132% rise in complaints of female sexual assaults in this period, compared with a 27% increase in reports of abuse by men.

Now listen up, bitches. I wanna hear no more about equality. What I know is that women are equally capable of being evil fucks of the most grotesque and inhuman kind.

Amazingly, the voice of (albeit transient) common sense here is Esther Rantzen writing in the G.


Now shut your face and make me a sandwich.



Obo writes about Harriet Harman’s latest mutilation of the term ‘equality’. And it got me thinking.

Harriet Harman lives in Peckham. Why hasn’t she yet been gang raped by a dozen black geezers who are hung like elephants?

Poor Hattie doesn’t even have equality of opportunity, let alone outcome. Poor lamb.

I bet she fantasises about it when she’s giving poor old Jack one up the arse with her titanium strap-on, though.


Ambivalence 2…

Not surprised by CCHQ’s response to this, but it still saddens me.


Peter Hobbins, a former parliamentary candidate, wrote a series of emails to fellow party members complaining that applicants for the Orpington seat in Kent sounded "foreign".

He also complained that candidates approved by Conservative Central Office all mention Africa on their CVs, describing their cover letters as "ridiculous" and "pathetic".

"I have been contacted by a Mr Dilon Gumraj and a Zerha Zaidi and others who are all on the approved Conservative Parliamentary Candidates list," he wrote in one email. "Not one of them has a ‘normal’ English name."

He added: "Why are the Candidates Department so keen on these foreign names?!!!! Maybe I should change my name to something foreign – how does Petrado Indiano Hobbinso sound to you?"

Mr Hobbins’s emails were condemned by the chairman of Orpington Conservative Association and last night Central Office said that his membership had been suspended.

A party spokesman said: "Councillor Hobbins has been immediately suspended from the Conservative Party and from the Conservative Group on Bromley council and he will play no part in the selection of the Parliamentary candidate. There is no room for racism in the Conservative Party."

I’m in two minds about this. It is a minefield in business, dealing with people, over the phone especially, when you (quite understandably) have no idea how to pronounce their name when reading it, or how to spell it when they introduce themselves.

On picking up the phone, I do get the sinking feeling that I’m about to speak to someone who I have frustratingly little chance of understanding.

On the other hand, I’m often pleasantly surprised. Colleagues of mine with names such as Hamid, Sharaz and Inderjit all sound perfectly English and are more eloquent and verbose than some of my ethnically English colleagues.

It’s just the way of the world.

However, it’s worth noting that there is significant BNP support in that area, and Mr Hobbins was most likley speaking the branes of the local populus who are likely to opt for UKIP or BNP rather than a Tory called Ngombe.


UPDATE: And here’s one reason why the BNP may have some support in Orpington.

QUANGOs and Fake Charities…

See the list in my earlier post about the NICE consultation on pecksniff cunts inspecting homes for health & safety.

Discounting the ones that are obviously arms of government (PCTs etc), and the 1 commercial organisation on the list, these are the iffy ones:




Publicly Funded

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)



Association of Play Industries

Trade Body





Breastfeeding Network

Scottish Charity


Centre for Excellence in Outcomes

Govt Dept


Child Accident Prevention Trust



Council for Subject Associations



CTC, the National Cyclists Organisation



Cycling England



Electrical Safety Council



Hull Partnership



Learning through Landscapes



Lifeskills – Learning for Living



National Obesity Observatory



National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS)






Saving Faces



SmokeFree North West



Sustainable Development Commission



The 1990 Trust




The Challenging Behaviour Foundation



Together for Children

Hybrid Charity





So I’ve sent an email to the chaps at NICE:


I await their response with bloated breath.