Quantum of Sodoff…

I don’t often write on techie matters, but since this one is in the MSM for the attention of the incognoscenti, I’m making an exception.

With much fanfare, Mozilla have just released a major new version of their Firefox browser called Firefox Quantum. It’s a major leap forward from what was a browser with 13 years of legacy baggage.  They can stick it up their ass sideways.

It’s supposed to be quite good, if you’re interested, but it comes from an organisation that is rife with SJW nonsense, where not even the erstwhile CEO Brendan Eich was afforded freedom of conscience to diverge from the mores of the right-on monsters.

Eich was hounded out of his role in 2014 for the crime of not having previously been in agreement with same-sex marriage, and having made a small political donation to a campaign aiming to block the legality of same in California.

Eich’s departure came shortly after employees at Mozilla brought to light the fact that back in 2008, he had donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, a California law that banned same-sex marriage (courts have since struck down the measure). That news made its way across Twitter and the popular dating site, OkCupid, which posted a letter saying “Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.” It went on, “We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.” Though Eich apologized for causing “pain” and insisted he could separate his personal views from the way he ran the company, that didn’t wash with the board.

Therefore I will not avail myself of the product from such an organisation*.

Instead, if you want to try a modern, lightweight, fast browser, try Brendan Eich’s recently released new browser, Brave, available for Windows, Mac, Ubuntu, phones etc.


*I would dearly love to be able to dump Chrome as well, but that is easier said than done, sadly. It’s no reason to go from bad to worse.


Easy Answers to Hard Questions part 1775…

The Tellygiraffe reports today:

Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 13.32.29


My heart bleeds for these women who are either so numerically illiterate or wont to disregard facts in order to push a divisive and disingenuous political falsehood.

The gender pay gap for people under about 30 is now non-existant – as admitted in the Guardian. Beyond that, the gap is accounted for by women taking time out of the workforce to have families. Before they start families they are out-earning men, having been more likely to attend university.

Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality, suggested more senior roles would go to women if they were offered on a part-time, or job-share, basis. “Unless there is good reason not to do so, that should be a company’s default thinking,” she said. “Sadly, the opposite is true: once you get to a certain level, it’s a full-time role, which excludes many women from roles they would be perfectly capable of doing.”

And there’s the rub. High level positions demand ever more commitment and lack the flexibility that more junior positions can often enable. You can’t be a part time CEO, Finance Director, prosecuting Barrister, MP, entrepreneur etc. The world simply does not work that way. Those not able or prepared to make the necessary sacrifices would always be overtaken by those who are.

No-one is complaining of the corollary by the way, whereby because many women cannot reasonably juggle senior positions with raising a young family, their male partners work twice as hard to succeed, with the onus to provide financial support for their families being a more or less sole burden once their partner is rasing the family.

So here’s the answer: Any woman who believes that she is working the rest of the year for free, should take the rest of the year off. For these are the women who are so consumed with a deluded and destructive agenda that they probably cause more problems than they are worth in their workplaces. Productivity is unlikely to be impacted by their absence. Improved workplace relations and team effectiveness are likely to prevail in their absence.

And they when they return to the office in January, tell then to sod off again. The world owes them nothing.



AIDS or Cancer? Cancer or AIDS?

Which would you rather have? Go on, choose.

If you don’t choose, you’re failing in your duty as a citizen to engage in the process of selecting the powers that will rule over you and shape your destiny in the coming years.

Ludicrous, no? Okay, let’s try another one.

Tory or Labour? Which would you rather have?

You see the problem. Both are deeply immiserating, highly likely to diminish your quality of life, rob you of your independence and hasten your demise. You could end up with either, irrespective of your preference.

So, in these days of information, search engines and an internet that never forgets, why do some people still support, cheer and argue for political parties as if they were football teams? Why do they not see politicians and parties for what they almost always are, irrespective of thier colours? Why do we not reject the whole shooting match and drive them all into the sea?

How can you rationally and in good faith conclude that while the Tories are ghastly, hypocritical, selfish idiots who put their short-term self interest ahead of the long term benefit of the country – all true – the Labour Party doesn’t tick all of those boxes with equal alacrity?

Conversely how can you decide that Labour are authoritarian, meddling, economically illiterate, and obsessed with identity politics, while overlooking the track record of the Tories over recent years regarding privacy, civil liberties, access to justice, constant meddling in “pubic health”, the persisting deficit, tax raids on entrepreneurs and landlords, the emergent consumer credit bubble, the lack of progress on housing, going on about the supposed gender pay gap, riding the transgender hobby-horse etc?

I wish I had an answer – even a coherent theory – other than the one where many people are idiots who have been indoctrinated, not educated, and whose intellectual curiosity stops at predicting who’ll win X-Factor.

The war, as I see it, really is not between Tories and Labour. That’s a distraction and a false distiction when it comes to ideology and practice, as I’ve illustrated before. The war is between the political classes and the people.

The only ray of hope is that 52% of voters from across the political spectrum probably understand this, and voted for Brexit as a way to not only stick it to the political establishment here and in Brussels (as well as the useful idiots in the entertainment and media industry), but also to bring the frontline in the war between the state and the people back home to Britain, the better to wrap out hands around its scrawny duplicitous neck.

The next step after Brexit ought to be regional autonomy between and within the comstituent countries of the UK. Yet as of now, much to no-one’s surprise, actual Brexit (hard Brexit, the only Brexit, the one we actually voted for) looks increasingly likely to be spirited away by the poltical establishment, in favour of a foul-tasting placebo, for our own good.

Placebos have been proven surprising effective of late, but they’re unlikely to be effective against AIDS or cancer, so the war goes on with no end in sight.

What time’s X-Factor on, again?


Prisoners Dilemma…

Screen Shot 2017-10-01 at 13.28.04

As you might imagine, a lot of people are up-in-arms about this extremely unusual situation.

It would be easy – it was my own gut reaction – to say that Lavinia Woodward should be in prison. Almost certainly, if she was the dirt-poor denizen of a run-down urban estate, she would this morning be eating corporation porridge.

And if it were a man – even one with as much charm and potential as this woman – who were charged with stabbing his girlfriend, do we think there’s the faintest chance he’d have experienced such leniency from a judge? Do we even think his sentence would be as short as this woman’s suspended sentence of 10 months?

Indeed the bigger question is not “should this woman be in prison?”

When I answer “hell yes” to that question, I’m actually answering the more fundamental question “should this woman be treated the same as a man would be, or as a woman of a different social class would be?”

To which the answer is unequivocally “hell yes!”

And yet when we examine this case, and what this woman did – in so far as we can do from newspaper reports (see Gell Mann Amnesia) – it is extremely difficult conclude that she received equal treatment before the law.

The New Statesman wheeled out a “Secret Barrister” to explain to us simpletons why this was not “Toff Justice”.

Screen Shot 2017-10-01 at 14.11.00

If it sounds odd that a left-wing title would do such a thing, remember that the New Statesman’s ulterior motive is, as always, to justify, protect and further the interests of its privileged middle-class demographic of Oxbridge educated professionals with all the right views.

This “barrister” makes a narrowly procedural argument regarding how the judge arrived at his sentencing decision, and that’s all perfectly fine but this straw-man argument ignores the central point, and utterly fails to prove the headline’s assertion.  The  writer’s conclusion:

“for the reasons above, there appears nothing unusual, and indeed much humane, about the approach taken in this case.”

All this writer succeeds in showing is that this is how justice should work, and that Lavinia Woodward’s experience is in line with legal process. S/he completely fails to show that anyone other than Lavinia Woodward could expect to see such accomodating treatment from a judge.

It is unavoidable that the writer, in showing how sentencing guidelines were interpreted, explains that the judge has used his discretion. And that is the central point. Are we expected to believe that the judge’s spectacles really would have been so rose-tinted in any other case?

If nothing else, would anyone of a lesser social or economic standing have been able to avail themselves of the services of “top barrister” James Sturman QC? Would they be able to retreat to their mother’s home in Milan during their stay of execution?

Or would they be subject to the ever diminishing services of Legal Aid, and perhaps be in the bosom of a less indulgent family?

In fact, I’d be amazed if elsewhere in the New Statesman there wasn’t an article framing this as a question of class, inequality, and the diminishing access to justice for all, the latter being the most shameful stain on the Tories’ record in power this century.

Unsurprisingly, an investigation was opened into the conduct of the judge after a complaint was lodged with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). However, in less time than it would take most of us to find a meeting room to discuss the matter, the complaint was dismissed on a technicality.

Perhaps we shouldn’t hold our breath for the toxic feminist Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, to launch an appeal against the lenient sentence.

The only aspect of this story that has yet to conclude is the question of whether Oxford University will allow her to resume her studies. Unless she decides to spare the University the dilemma by going elsewhere, I think I know what the outcome will be.


The Candlestick Makers* Win Again…

Imagine my surprise…

Screen Shot 2017-09-22 at 16.34.11

Of course it’s all about safety. Nothing at all to do with entitled, protectionist cab drivers that can’t compete with an innovative service. No, sir.

The safety question is an interesting one, in so far as it’s manifest horseshit to say that black cabs are safe, but Ubers are not. Nothing in life is perfectly safe. In the Spectator today, it’s pointed out that in 2015/16 32 accusations of sexual assault were made against Uber drivers. (This rose to 48 in the year to Feb 2017). Meanwhile around the same period 126 black cab drivers were charged with such a violent or sexual offense.

For what it’s worth, there are reckoned to be 23,000 back cabs in London today, vs 40,000 Ubers, the latter being used by 3.5M passengers in London.

This is without even considering the shady happenings that one may be exposed to in a traditional licensed London minicab.

It’s not as if there’s no longer the demand for black cabs. Ever rolled up at a London railway station and got in a cab without a significant queue? There’s clearly more demand than supply.

There’s self-evidently a large market for the service Uber provides, and yet the forces of protectionism and left-wing bullying hold significant sway with London’s Labour mayor.

Well, when London lefties’ journeys home at night incur extra cost, delay and uninvited eulogies for the UKIP manifesto, I hope they realise that this is all of their own making.


* Candlestick Makers Petition by Frederic Bastiat 

Not special…

I can picture the scene…. wah wah wah you can’t treat us like this. I have a baby. Can’t you see I have a baby? I’m special and my baby is speci… WHACK!

Screen Shot 2017-07-30 at 15.46.23.png

Screen Shot 2017-07-30 at 15.49.26

… and a small contingent of passengers who didn’t want this selfish cunt taking his screaming offspring on a plane with them LOLled.



Meanwhile in Germany…

Screen Shot 2017-07-30 at 15.27.00.png

…. and…

Screen Shot 2017-07-30 at 15.38.24.png



%d bloggers like this: