The world on its head

There’s not much for me to say about this that hasn’t been said elsewhere. Nick Sandmann and his schoolboy cohort are being demonised by swivel-eyed shitlibs for doing precisely nothing wrong – unless what you count as wrong includes bravely, silently and motionlessly refusing to capitulate to an antagonistic, bullying mob of race-hustlers, and then refusing to bow to the ensuing twittermob.


For further commentary, I’ll defer to the eloquent words from:

Tim Newman: Sitting Bullsh*t

Spiked: This is a New Low for the Twittermob

Chateau Heartise: The Anti-White Hate Machine

…and for the final words, Adam Piggott: The Moment a Boy Becomes a Man

I’m also minded of the comments Aaron Clarey made relating to a previous trip on the Outrage Bus, specifically Baraboo, in which he astutely observed that America has become South Park – i.e. the kids are alright, it’s the adults who are all fucking mental.

Who’d be a white kid in America today, when degenerate coloured adults have it in for them, and white adults (mostly) do not have their backs?

Captain, I’m calling in a meteor strike.


UPDATE: There’s rat stink in the olfactories with this Nathan Phillips bloke. And here. And here. And here.

UPDATE 2: Decent commentary on this from Stefan Molyneux


Why won’t anyone just tell the offendotrons to fuck off?

Tim Stanley seems to have woken up from a decade-long coma today, as he writes to point out the utter humourlessness and complete lack of proportionality  belonging to the offence-seeking community.


Some of us have been noticing this state of affairs for a very long time now. It isn’t a new phenomenon. Perhaps it’s just that it’s now so pervasive as to impact on the most indifferent of souls.

The more battles these offense-seeking wasters win, the more their power grows.

The title of this post tells you what it is that’s baffling me about this whole phenomenon: Why do people capitulate to these idiots? Why do we see people bullied, time after time, into making tearful apologies at the feet of these pieces of shit?

Why don’t people just tell them to get a life and get a sense of proportion?

Fucked if I know.


Race card 101

As an aside, in the article I linked to below, Yasmin Ali-Baba Brown, said:

She added that she regarded Compton’s remarks as racially motivated because he mentioned stoning.

“If I as a Muslim woman had tweeted that it would be a blessing if Gareth Compton was stoned to death I’d be arrested immediately. I don’t think the nasty Tories went away."

If a Muslim woman had tweeted that a Kafir should be stoned to death, she would be arrested?

I really don’t think so.

How may of the ‘death to the infidel’ mentalists have we endured over the last few years? The Islamic demonstrations at Wootton Basset? The burning of poppies and disruption of the 2 minutes silence on Remembrance Day? Or the defacing of war memorials with pro-Islamic graffiti? Note by the way how that story was suppressed.

The woman is the worst kind of fool.

In her defence though, the point she was making, which attracted the unwelcome comment, was a fundamentally libertarian one, being this:

Their gaff, their rules

I wonder if she realises that?


The Joke Trial #Twitterjoketrial

No, not mock trial. Not even a trial where Rolf Harris sings “Tie me kangaroo court down”

This is a joke trial. Of the kind that makes a mockery of justice.

I speak, of course, about the Paul Chambers case, about which I and others have written extensively.

Yesterday, Paul’s appeal against his conviction under section 127.1(a) of the Communications Act 2003 was denied on all counts.

I am utterly aghast. Paul, and his nearest and dearest, must be utterly devastated.

Commentary on Twitter has been almost universally of the view that Paul’s treatment, at the hands of the CPS and the courts, is simply disgraceful and utterly baffling.

Take this post from CharonQC, for example. It refers to some of his tweets on the matter:



He makes some useful points, too.


I won’t be arrested for saying this (I  assume.. although nothing is certain, it would seem) …. I won’t be prosecuted for saying this (ditto) …. I do not practice… so I can’t even be censured… (pretty sure on that one).   We really do need to sort our legal system out if it can bring about such an absurd and unjust result….. even if *The Law* justifies the decision of the judge as framed… if that is the case.. we need better laws..and we do deserve them.

And this, it would appear, is the rub.

Stereotypically inscrutable legal tweeter, @Art_Li makes some good points in the comments of Charon’s post.

He suggests both that the judgement is, tacitly or otherwise, a matter of policy….

What I will say is that behind every law and/or prosecution, there is a public policy decision (read motive). The policy decision in this case MAY BE one to discourage “joke” threats, whether on Twitter or elsewhere IN ORDER TO minimise the “leads” the police and security services have to follow up on a daily basis. We know resources there are not unlimited and already they are following up on dozens if not hundreds of leads every day (that is not a fact, just my assumption).

… and that the high court is unlikely to overturn the decision, because it is based on the strict interpretation of a law, as handed down by the House of Lords (now Supreme Court).

  • The following passages from the House of Lords judgment in the case of DPP v Collins (2006) may be of interest. This case was referred to by Mr Chambers’ legal team as well as the Judge in the recent appeal. The case concerned offensive messages but the wording of S.127(1) includes menacing messages too. (Capitalisation below is mine) :-

    “The very act of sending the message over the public communications network … constitutes the offence even if it was being communicated to someone who the sender KNEW WOULD NOT BE IN ANY WAT OFFENDED or distressed by it”.

    Lord Bingham of Cornhill : “it must be proved that the respondent intended his words to be offensive to those to whom they related or BE AWARE THAT THEY MAY BE TAKEN TO BE SO.” … “It can make no difference to criminal liability whether a message is ever actually received or WHETHER THE PERSONS WHO DO RECEIVE IT ARE OFFENDED BY IT.”

    It appears the Judge was therefore applying and following the Collins precedent.


  • I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t claim to understand the precise technical implication of the ruling, but it frustrates me greatly that Art thinks this is so fundamentally important. As if the law is an end in itself, before which all must bow down, however absurd it may be.

    Charon does, on the other hand, know a bit about the law…

    If this is taken to extremes – then many disagreeable statements are capable of coming within this definition and then we are truly doomed…..

    There is a place for a common sense approach to be taken into the application of our laws….. and if that can’t be done by the judiciary, then we simply have to get the law changed so that we don’t have these manifestly absurd cases.

    Art’s point seems to be this: The ruling of the Lords is the ruling of the Lords, and that’s that. That there is no latitude for a judge in any lower court to make any different or differentiated ruling.

    Regarding the chances of success in the High Court, Art is, therefore, not optimistic.

    The implication is this: there are only two realistic ways of fixing the situation.

    One is to take the case to the Supreme Court in order that they may over-rule, clarify or supersede, the DPP vs Collins ruling – for only they can do so. A defeat in the High Court looks like an expensive and risky step that will have to be taken in order to undertake the even more expensive, and even more risky journey to the highest court in the land.

    Having come this far, and Paul Chambers might not thank me for saying this, it would be pointless if he now won in the high court, leaving the next hapless twitterer to role the dice time after time in the same way he has had to, in the face of judge after judge who takes an inflexible reading of DPP vs Collins.

    Far better, it seems, would be for the case to end up before the Supreme Court, where the issue of DPP vs Collins could be put to bed.

    The other thread to be taken up is for the statute under which Chambers was prosecuted to be changed, amended, repealed, dumped in the great legal shredder.

    With the farce that is the Government’s so called ‘Your Freedom’ consultation around a grand repeal of so-called bad or illiberal laws, I don’t believe we can in anyway count on this important matter being addressed.

    Which leaves the option of lobbying, campaigning and insisting that this ludicrously framed law is fixed. Making representations to your MP, to the Minister of Justice, to the Prime Minister. To the newspapers, on the internet, on placards and through loudhailers.

    This is evidently the view of @John_Demetriou. Art Li clearly leans towards the view that getting the law changed is the only way forward.

    And yet, that won’t clear Paul Chambers’ name, or give him his life and career back.

    I wish Paul well and hope that this all, in the end, works out for him. It’s been a shit year for him. The state has made him their plaything, and the state doesn’t play nice.


    Nor will any change in the law come in time to help the Conservative councillor chappie who was arrested yesterday and bailed, accused of the same offence as Chambers, for tweeting that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown should be stoned to death, in response to her on-air assertion that the west has no right to cast moral judgement against the practices of some Islamic countries.

    Delicate, vulnerable Yasmin called the police. She said:

    Alibhai-Brown, who writes columns for the Independent and the London Evening Standard, said last night she regarded his comments as incitement to murder. She told the Guardian: "It’s really upsetting. My teenage daughter is really upset too. It’s really scared us.

    "You just don’t do this. I have a lot of threats on my life. It’s incitement. I’m going to the police – I want them to know that a law’s been broken."

    She added that she regarded Compton’s remarks as racially motivated because he mentioned stoning.

    So, rolled into one, from Yasmin, we have a ludicrous playing of the race card, a bit of ‘nasty Tories’ political point-scoring and great fear, offence and upset – all from some daft tweet, the likes of which must occur en masse on forums, twitter and blogs, in response to inflammatory comments from this controversial talking head.

    Do Mel Phillips, Rod Liddge, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens  or even Jeremy Clarkson not attract vituperative and unpleasant critics? Judge Jacqueline Davies, who presided over Paul Chambers’ defeat yesterday has certainly been in receipt of twitter ordure in the last 24 hours.

    And, apparently, like a good little socialist, Yasmin’s first and last response is to run crying to nanny.

    Compton’s arrest may well be the first indication that the Chambers conviction has opened up the floodgates for to police arrest any one for any contentious, angry or humourous tweet at any time, “even if it was being communicated to someone who the sender KNEW WOULD NOT BE IN ANY WAY OFFENDED or distressed by it”"

    Think about it? Get in a political argument on Twitter, and next thing, some offence-seeking lefty will decide that it’s best to rebut your argument by calling the police and accusing you of being a racist/homophobic/offensive menace, even if you are a threat to nothing more than the merit of their argument.

    A free for all and a legal feeding-frenzy could ensue, which would seal the deal on our lack of freedom of expression in the UK.

    Might as well delete all your tweets now, folks. We are truly and genuinely screwed.


    Another story where everyone is an arsehole

    This is our free country:


    The men, all but one of them members of the far-right English Defence League, set fire to what appears to be the Muslim holy books on the anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities in the United States.

    They say they carried out the “private joke” as a riposte to historical images of Muslim extremists burning American flags and effigies of western leaders.

    Now, I shouldn’t need to state that I think it’s sick and absurd that people in a country such as ours can be charged with a criminal offence for burning a book, or for posting a very ludicrous and moronic video of the occasion on YouTube. Although, the latter is apparently not even the case.

    Four more men were arrested and bailed on Wednesday pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said.

    “The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11,” a spokesman said.

    He added that the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran.

    And I needn’t point out that police, in fact, provided protection in London to a group of radical Islamists who made a public show of burning a US flag, on 11th September, in front of the US embassy in London.

    Now, these EDL guys are clearly pretty dim.

    The clip, recorded in the back yard of a public house in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, has been broadly condemned by other YouTube users, some of whom have expressed concern that British soldiers in Afghanistan could be targeted as a direct result.

    They were marshalled by a man wearing a jacket bearing the logo: “English Defence League, Gateshead Division”.

    The group admit to having been drinking at The Bugle in Felling, Gateshead, ahead of a Newcastle United match.

    “It wasn’t anyone’s idea as such,” said the spokesman, who agreed to speak only on condition that all six remained anonymous.

    But not so dim that they couldn’t speak truth to power.

    “People are sick of British soldiers being killed out in Afghanistan and then being spat at and called baby killers when they come home.”

    And that’s true enough. Some of the Islamist provocation surrounding Wootton Bassett etc has been truly disgusting.

    But if that bunch of nutters have the right to act in a sick, deluded and provocative way (and so far as I’m concerned, they do), then how have a handful of daft Geordies burning two copies of the Quran in their back yard ended up having their collars felt?

    Double standards? Thought police?

    The Islamists have won? It really does seem that way, doesn’t it?


    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.”


    Special Pleading

    I’m Sikh to death of this.


    Sikhs travelling through Britain’s aiports will no longer undergo ‘humiliating’ searches of their turbans following fierce criticism of the policy.

    Just two months ago security staff were told they could pat down and unravel a sikh’s turban if the metal detector bleeped as they walked through.

    But these powers – given under European legislation – were branded as unaccpetable by the religion’s leaders in Britain and the Department of Transport has had to act quickly.

    ‘It is considered very offensive to remove or touch a Sikh’s turban, especially in public,’ said Dr Indarjit Singh CBE, advisor to the Commission for Racial Equality.

    Okay, you find it offensive. Whatever.

    Pretty much every aspect if flying is now humiliating or offensive to pretty much everyone.

    So how about we settle for this: Unless there is specific intelligence about an individual, all air passengers should be treated with equal dignity and respect, irrespective of their beliefs, garb or origin.

    Then we don’t need to have any more of this divisive multi-culti nonsense.


    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.


    Another day, another Al Jahom diplomatic disaster.

    Amongst many other random beings, I follow @girlonetrack on twatter – this is the lass who wrote the ‘Girl with a one track mind’ blog & books.

    You know, this one:


    As is the way with twitter, from time to time she’ll throw out a question to the world, which I’ll spot in my timeline. If I can help, I’ll sometimes reply. Usually it’s a geek question, but whatever. I know about geek stuff.

    I can’t say I can recall her ever responding even with briefest of thanks. Whatever; I’ve not exactly gone out of my way by providing 140 characters of free advice.

    Today, I noted a comment she made:


    I thought about this for a moment or two and, as I did, the fog of cognitive dissonance settled.

    I’ll preface the following comments by saying this: I am not judging her on the morality of the stuff she’s written in her books. I have no problem whatsoever with her sexual drives and mores.

    What I don’t understand, though, is how she can be surprised or offended when someone calls her a slut. So I asked her.


    Now, perhaps I’m sarcastic. Perhaps the bounds of twitter make embarking on such a conversation a fraught matter, open to misinterpretation.

    Today, I got a response to my tweet.


    Oh dear. Another diplomatic cock-up.

    My premise, denoted in the final sentence of my tweet ‘And so what?’ was that the term slut doesn’t even carry any significantly pejorative connotation in this day & age.

    Not all sources agree with me, however.


    These cursory definitions seem to undermine my point in no uncertain terms. But let’s take a second look, and consider the ambiguities:

    The accepted denotative meaning is a sexually promiscuous woman or "a woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade."

    Or to put it another way:


    Which is to say that ‘slut’ can refer to either a promiscuous woman, or to a prostitute.

    We can safely say that the lady in question is not a prostitute.

    But I think we can say with equal safety, that if she’s writing about her own experiences, she does indeed appear to be a promiscuous woman.

    I have no moral or ethical objection to either prostitutes or promiscuous women, but I do understand it’s an important distinction to make.

    In the context of twitter, it’s well known that the lady in question recently won an important libel case against a newspaper who mistakenly called her a hooker. So to me it was plain that I did not intend to imply that she is or ever was.

    So where was I coming from? (For the citations see the Wikipedia page).

    Slut is also used as a slang term in the BDSM, polyamorous, and gay and bisexual communities. With BDSM, polyamorous, and non-monogamous people, in usage taken from the book The Ethical Slut, the term has been used as an expression of choice to openly have multiple partners, and revel in that choice: "a slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." A slut is a person who has taken control of their sexuality and has sex with whomever they choose, regardless of religious or social pressures or conventions to conform to a straight-laced monogamous lifestyle committed to one partner for life.

    The term has been "taken back" to express the rejection of the concept that government, society, or religion may judge or control one’s personal liberties, and the right to control one’s own sexuality.

    It strikes me that if Zoe Margolis isn’t part of the movement striving to ‘take back’ the word, then she should be.


    UPDATE: This just in.


    I’m not touching that. I’m gonna go draw some pictures of the prophet instead.

    Bans, discrimination and jerky knees

    Recall the row over Gays being barred from certain B&Bs?

    Yesterday, there was a troupe of flaming mincers (aka the London Labour LGBT group) apparently dissed by a pub manager. As you might imagine, Twitter was awash with invective as feathers flew from flailing boas.

    Personally, I’d no more want to get on the wrong side of that lot of lefty nutjobs than I’d want to teabag a wolverine.

    They lodged a complaint with the police about alleged homophobic remarks. Can you say wasting police time? Anyone?

    So let me pre-empt them by saying this: I don’t care what sexual preferences you have*. Nothing could be less important to me. What really yanks my chain is offence-seeking drama queens and wearers of the cloak of victimhood. Neither trait is unique to gays, nor does it apply to all gays. It is, however, almost entirely the preserve of the left.

    The argument put forward not just by me, but by enlightened gay people too, is that the market should be allowed to decide. Any business that discriminates against potential customers won’t last long in a free market.

    Which brings me to the reason for this post.

    There’s a very interesting post over at Anna Racoon’s place. While it addresses race in America, precisely the same principles apply.

    Recently, there was a bit of a furore in the USA when a Republican candidate for the US Senate, Rand Paul (son of the famous Ron Paul) said that he despised racism, but that he felt that the state had no business telling people that there were legal sanctions on racism. He said that the Community Relations Act of 1964 went too far in banning racism in private businesses, effectively ending private freedom of association.

    John Stossel went on TV to defend freedom of association to the media.

    Here it is:

    Do read the rest of the article over at Anna’s place as the argument is linked back to the B&B (and pub) question.


    *A fuller picture of my attitude to homosexuality can be read here. Hint: I still don’t care one way or the other.

    Post mong, ergo propter mong.

    It was bound to happen.


    The Steven Seagal movie On Deadly Ground involves scenes of graphic violence and shows multiple killings using weapons including shotguns, rifles, submachine guns and grenades.

    Hmmm. This calls for an expert opinion. Aha! There’s one, in the side bar…


    Prof Browne, an expert in forensic and child psychology, said there was "no doubt whatsoever" of a link between violent films and games and violence on the streets.

    Okay, Prof Browne. I propose an experiment. Show that Seagal film, on BBC1 at 9pm tonight. We’ll all watch it, then see if there are any massacres.

    Meanwhile, in anticipation of the cries of “BAN IT. BAN IT ALL!”, I’ve drawn up a list.

    In the highly unlikely event that I ever decide to go on a murderous rampage, I shall make it plain that leading up to the terrible event, I was influenced by the following:

    • Listening to The Now Show on Radio 4, with special guest Jeremy Hardy.
    • Reading a George Monbiot Book
    • Watching Britain’s Got Talent
    • Playing music by Mumford and Sons
    • Following @BevaniteEllie on Twitter.

    If the legacy of my bloody rampage was that lot being cast into the abyss, I don’t think history would judge me too harshly. Do you?


    Civil liberties start here, Dave

    I hereby call up on David Cameron, Prime Minister, to repudiate the actions of the Metropolitan Police, with a flourish and a nod to Voltaire:


    Oh dear, oh dear.

    "They burst into my house, pushed me back and handcuffed me. They said I had committed an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act, I was being detained, and I might be arrested."

    Ready for some irony, now?

    Coincidentally, Hoffman has become one of Britain’s most respected photojournalists after three decades chronicling alleged police brutality. He said that after the officers looked up his identity, they "calmed down".

    Tee hee.

    After he expressed concern at his treatment, Hoffman says, a local inspector told him over the phone that "any reasonable person" would find his poster "alarming, harassing or distressful".

    I’m not sure I want to meet any of these ‘reasonable’ people.

    So, anyway, plod were just walking past and took offence eh? No…

    The visit from police followed a complaint from a neighbour, who told Hoffman she found the poster offensive.

    A neighbour, through whose letter box I would never ever advocate pushing a parcel of flaming dog turd. No sir, not I.

    Here’s the oh, so offensive poster.


    Cam wasn’t singled out, though. Here’s Natty Nick and Nazi Nick.


    Here’s the err… indeed.


    See the video here.

    Lots of media links for this on the Graun’s page.


    Paul Chambers GUILTY! WTF!??

    He was prosecuted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for sending an “indecent, obscene or menacing” message.

    The more I dwell upon this, the more I feel sick to my stomach. This country is ruined and there truly is tyranny.

    My commiserations to Paul Chambers, and here’s hoping the sentence will be lenient, and not even a sniff of custodial.

    More anon.


    (Background here)

    UPDATE: £1000 fine.


    UPDATE: With pledges of help with Paul’s fine mounting up on Twitter, Old Holborn is on the case of (i) finding out if Paul wants this help and (ii) getting it done.

    Don’t fuck with Rochdale, Gordon

    He should be thankful he didn’t do that in a town where they can afford to throw eggs ;o)


    I really shouldn’t laugh, but I’m creased up here, with saliva spewing from my ears.

    Oh, the scars on my back…

    Footage with gracious thanks to Channel 4 News.

    As to why any of this matters – and it could have been a lot lot worse – I defer to Patently.


    A fitting end

    I dunno what people are moaning about here…


    Lake Zurich’s lovely – what better final resting place?


    Although it’s not lost on me that this is being treated as an environmental crime.

    It is against the law to dispose of a large number of urns without a commercial  licence.

    What – they have a specific provision in Swiss laws regarding urns? It must be an endemic problem.


    Is homosexuality normal?

    I ask because of this:


    I mean, in broad terms, if you have an attribute such as sexuality, and your individual sexuality is one shared only by a minority, you are abnormal in that respect.

    Not, you should note, subnormal.

    I understand that abnormal still has perjorative connotations, but really – how seriously should we take such nuances when English is such a rich and complex language, spoken in variations by people from all over the world?

    So, as a matter of fact, homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation of people.

    I don’t care about homosexuality – I wouldn’t recommend it (not having tried it), but I wouldn’t condemn it either. None of my business what sort of holes you prefer, bluntly speaking.

    I can see why Mr Lardner came unstuck:

    The former Territorial Army soldier wrote of his support for the controversial "clause 28", which was introduced by the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and banned public bodies from promoting homosexuality.

    Last year, David Cameron apologised for Tory efforts to stop the measure being repealed by Labour and his party have since indicated they would consider allowing same-sex marriages, if elected.

    But Mr Lardner wrote: "As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is ‘normal’ behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.

    "I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it.

    "Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

    … but all he’s actually saying is that the individual should be free to make judgements of conscience. When it comes to the freedom of schools, it comes down to the same thing as the bigoted B&Bers: Let the market decide.

    If a school has a policy of not teaching about homosexuality, so long as you know it before you enrol your kids, there’s no harm done. You’ve exercised a choice. I doubt a school would stand or fall on this policy, but you’re able to send your kids to an ‘enlightened’ school. Mary & Donald McCatholic also get to send their kids to a school that satisfies their own views, which you may or may not agree with.

    Everyone gets a choice that suits them. One size doesn’t fit all.

    The clause 28 question is an interesting one though, because I honestly don’t think it’d make any difference if same were implemented tomorrow.

    I mean, surely homophobia is now one of the most abnormal views in British society, the preserve of the elderly, the fundamentalists and the sexually insecure?

    So, what it all boils down to is, Mr Lardner has been pole-axed for voicing a truism and defending individual freedom of conscience.

    Which is rather worse than having a few eccentric ideas about gays, if you ask me.


    Tories jump on the offence-seekers bandwagon

    Via Paul Waugh.


    Oh good – what’s the cretinous lefty twerp done?

    Labour PPC Stuart MacLennan – who is followed by Downing St, Sarah Brown, Ed Balls, John Prescott, Ben Bradshaw – has posted string of foul-mouthed Tweets online.

    Orly? That’s just terrible! Ahem. Let’s have a look.


    LOL! Actually that’s not bad!

    What else?


    Hey – we’ve all been there. Haven’t we?


    Fair enough.


    Surely the only thing wrong here, is that they are ‘neds’, not ‘chavs’?

    Those of us who live and work in the real world are hardly likely to be shocked or even surprised by any of the above comments.

    Meanwhile in politics, when any figure connected with the Tories pipes up with any slightly unsavoury comments, the Labour cronies do indeed scream for blood, on the basis of confected outrage.

    So the quid pro quo kneejerkitude from the right this morning is not entirely surprising.







    But I would say this to them: When the left do this sort of thing, I find it repulsive, lily livered, spineless exercise in distracting from the real issues.

    Do you think I take a different view when the right engage in this pussy-whipped mewling?

    And what about floating voters?

    Do you really want to promote the impression that right and left are all as bad as each other?

    So grow up, get a spine and give it a fucking rest, yeah?


    UPDATE: The offence seekers win again. Toby Young comments.

    Tory Teddybear

    I quite like to keep an eye on Tory Bear’s emissions, if only so I know where I can find Sara Scarlett.

    I think, though, that our Bear should take a step back, and a deep breath, and ask himself if this really is “a glimpse into the most unpleasant sections of the Labour movement.”


    A crappy, misspelt mong poster, of such quality as betrays the Labour movement not as evil, but merely imbecilic.

    And if that’s the worst they can do, that fuckwit Cameron and his spastic hoards may still pull off the coup of a lifetime and get their opportunity to finish what Blair started.