Interview with a Vampire

Having now cancelled my Times subscription, as the cumulative result of many failings on their part, I turned today to the Telegraph, where I found this tale of confected woe.


The story is of Olivia Booth’s social media recounting of an horriffic experience she claims to have had during an interview.

Olivia Booth, 22, hit out at the CEO of a tech company in Manchester after he allegedy criticised her Spotify account and tore apart her personality. She was baffled to be offered a job after the experience, and turned it down.

She said she was subjected to a “brutal” two-hour interview with the company chief executive, which she said “felt like being sat in a room with my abusive ex”.

Miss Booth shared her email to the company after the interview on Twitter, writing: “There is something very off to me about a man who tries his best to intimidate and assert power over a young woman and who continues to push even when he can see that he’s making somebody uncomfortable to the point of tears.”

The only problem is that I’m not sure everyone would read the story as intended by the journalist (or Ms Booth) rather than, say, reading between the lines.

The offending interviewer was Craig Dean who is, per LinkedIn, the “Chief Executive of Web Applications Group of Companies”. His companies have been going since 2000. I pulled the last accounts from the particular company that is mentioned in the article – one of four in the group, apparently – and it’s a relatively small outfit, with 5 directors, but it’s been going a long time, apparently with some success.

He seems like a successful and busy guy in his mid-40s. His photo is a bit more ‘Danny Dyer’ than ‘Daniel Craig’, I’ll grant you, but Danny Dyer doesn’t have a Masters in CompSci from Cambridge or a basket of successful enterprises.

She claimed in her Tumblresque screed on Twitter that Dean was hypercritical, and gave ‘a “brutal” two-hour interview’ during which he ‘tore apart her personality’. So brutal and tortuous was the interview, and so verily did he tear her a new one that, in the end, he was so utterly unimpressed with her (!) that he offered her the job.

Her response was to send an email back complaining about how she was treated in the interview… which she then plastered all over social media, naming the company and the interviewer.


Quickly followed by doing the rounds of morning interviews for national BBC radio news…


… and the publshing of her CV on Twitter:


So. I have questions.

  1. Why would a busy and successful man spend 2 precious hours supposedly tormenting and insulting someone in an interview room, when he could doubtless find better ways to spend his time?
  2. If he’s behaved as described, surely he wouldn’t have been quietly in business for 19 years, 10+ of those in the age of social media? Unhappy employees do not make for profitable times in small businesses. Failure to attract and recruit the best talent doesn’t help, either. Nor do PR shitstorms like this one.
  3. If he has behaved as described, presumably this isn’t the first time – or has he had one of those personality changes caused by severe head trauma? Because his fellow directors would absolutely have decided he’s not best placed to be doing the interviewing if he had such a track record.

See, I think there’s a more plausible explanation, where Dean has a cheeky northern sense of humour, but takes his business very seriously. In a small business, for it to be successful, there is no room for slackers or chancers – every effort made by every employee, every day, counts towards the success or faillure of the enterprise. Perhaps he’s made poor recruitment choices in his past when he was a little less wise, and therefore, his interview technique these days is rigorous and robust – after all, he needs to see that faces as well as skills will fit.

One of his recommendations on LinkedIn, from a female employee, says “Craig challenges and inspires his staff to achieve their maximum potential. He does so with determination tempered with humour, and engenders loyalty in those he works with.”

And in the red corner, here we have a 22-year old who is a fledgling self-publicist and the epitome of Generation Snowflake. She got a worthless degree from a 3rd rate former polytechnic (where she was probably infected by the mardy social justice/feminist disease) and thinks she’s the bee’s knees. She has about 8 minutes of experience in the real world, much of it as an unpaid intern.

Everyone in her life so far has told her what a wonderful, fabulous, talented person she is, but she is a delicate, hypersensitive flower with low self-esteem, who is traumatised by any challenge to her egocentric world view, and she lashes out, vituperatively, vindictively and short-sightledly.

After all.. an email expressing your strident opinion of a prospective employer’s interview technique is one thing – and if it’s constructive, I can admire the balls of it – but to also post the email publicly – names, companies and all – on social media, garner loads of attention, go on 3 different BBC radio stations, and then post up your comically threadbare CV on Twitter? Really?

So I have one more question: After publicly slaying a prospective employer on social and mainstream media like that, who in their right mind would be dumb enough to hire this otherwise unremarkable woman to scrub floors, let alone to be a key person in their business?

Finally, I have 3 criticisms of Craig Dean. None of which relates to his interview technique:

  1. I’m seriously concerned that his judgement of character allowed him to offer her the job.
  2. He made the classic mistake of prostrating himself before the social media altar and apologising.
  3. He made both of these mistakes because he clearly hasn’t read “SJWs always lie” or “SJWs always double down” by Vox Day, or even surveyed the freely available SJW Attack Survival Guide.

He seems like a bright guy though.. once bitten and all that.

I should make a note to follow up on where Ms Booth ends up working, and see how things are going there in a couple of months time.


PS Sorry, I do have one more thing.. you know if Toyah Wilcox and Mrs Merton had a lovechild? Yeah..


PPS Yeah, one more thing… if you were to look at the list of company officers for “Web Applications UK” (Company number 04070605) you may be as tickled as I am by the details of their former Business Development Director.


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

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.


The last word in SJW smackdowns…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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