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.



Post of the day

I haven’t read much yet today, but I’m sure Obo and his commenters have hit the nail on the head.

What is wrong with people?

I can’t understand it. People are so willing to subjugate themselves to the (usually mad) desires of others: Islamic imams, Christian popes, social democratic demagogues, Fabianist control freaks, Common Purpose bullies, small-minded Britishnessers, Europhiliac bureaucrats, militant Atheist cuntards or whatever other fucking nutjob thing drives you.

Why are so few people prepared to just stand on their own and, more importantly, be proud of that fact? Why do people have to subject themselves to some laughable idea of "community", rather than just be an individual who voluntarily interacts with other individuals when it’s to both parties’ benefit?

And why am I regarded as a "beyond-the-fringe" nutjob for wanting to be this?



Freewoman of England said…

Because most people are sheep, they are content to follow the herd, and have herd instincts.
Us on the other hand are goats and they perceive us as a different species.

It also has to do with education and propaganda. People living on a cheap diet of potatoes and bread and processed food are not as brainy or liable to get pissed off either. Half of them don’t understand what the fuss is all about because their IQs are less than 100 Bell curve and all that

Although under EU rules goats and sheep are one.

WV nosed I kid you not ( pardon the goat pun)

27 Aug 2010 07:27:00

Wizbit said…

I can’t really add much to what Freewoman of England has already said… but I’ll try and expand…
People, on the whole, are either too scared or too lazy to think and form their own, individual opinions. It’s much easier or safer for them to piggy-back those of others – making them easy to manipulate and influence. This is why propaganda works so well.

Look at what garbage is popular on television. People watch garbage like X-Factor and such like because other people do. They want the comfort of being part of a group and, again, scare of individualism.

Football is another example. The amount of times I have heard people regurgitating opinions they have heard on television and passing them off as their own.

I could go on and on about this subject and probably sound quite scathing in my observations about the general public… but I will just post a link to an article that was in NewScientist last month (hope that’s OK):

"…when it comes to music preference, we behave like sheep. Social scientists have long wondered whether other social transformations – including everything from the popularity of a politician to a change in behaviour to mitigate climate change – arise through independent, individual choice, as many people simultaneously come to similar decisions, or instead through influence, as people copy others’ behaviours."

27 Aug 2010 08:30:00

JuliaM said…

"Look at what garbage is popular on television. "

Do we have to? *shudder*

27 Aug 2010 08:35:00

gladiolys said…

I think it’s a matter of confidence. People feel safer in crowds, the anonymity of being in a mass. It takes a certain amount of self-belief to stand alone… and a certain resilience to hang on to it after several others have tried to kick it out of you (literally).

27 Aug 2010 08:39:00

John Whitley said…

It could also be said that most ‘libertarians’ are perfectly happy to submit themselves to the authority of the Monarch and Lords. Not to mention any cunt that owns ‘properteh’. Worse, they expect the rest of us to follow likewise.

@Freewoman. We’re not sheep. We’re not goats. We’re human beings. Get over it.

27 Aug 2010 08:48:00

Anonymous said…

"Look at what garbage is popular on television. People watch garbage like X-Factor and such like because other people do. They want the comfort of being part of a group and, again, scare of individualism."

And people like to slag if off because the other social side do.
And then people like to slag of people that slag of things because they are conforming *head asplode*

Sometimes people watch something because they like to.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

"It could also be said that most ‘libertarians’ are perfectly happy to submit themselves to the authority of the Monarch and Lords. Not to mention any cunt that owns ‘properteh’"

what is this i don’t even.

27 Aug 2010 09:25:00

Wossat? said…

And why are you regarded as a "beyond-the-fringe" nutjob for wanting to be this?

Because independent thinkers who refuse to conform to the meme du jour scare the shit out of sheeple.

27 Aug 2010 09:26:00

Anonymous said…

Yea most of the sheeples would just walk straight into the showers if they where told to do so by a nice middle class lady ,it’s for your own good you know.

hsssssssssssssssssssss !

27 Aug 2010 09:29:00


Jill said…

Not everyone wants to be a self-fellating, iconoclastic, snotty bastard?! Perhaps there’s something in the evolutionary psychology argument. You must be a mutant. The future of humanity perhaps.

Breed, man, breed.

I dunno, in truth. But you won’t convert anyone with this post. In fact, you’re in danger of sounding as shrill as Richard Dawkins on the subject of God.

27 Aug 2010 09:32:00

No wonder he’s the 4th most popular Libertarian blogger. The cunt.


The writing is on the germ-smeared wall

The NHS is increasingly being shown up for the unworkable, expensive and inhuman behemoth that it is.


Too many people have experienced misdiagnosis, neglect and lack of care from the NHS, the Patients Association said today, as figures show a record number of complaints.

According to the NHS Information Centre, written complaints about NHS hospital and community health services in England have seen the biggest year-on-year rise since annual reports began in 1997/98.

From the last financial year to this there was a 13.4% rise, from 89,139 to 101,077 written complaints. The biggest group (44.2%) concerned the medical profession, while the second biggest proportion of complaints concerned nurses, midwives and health visitors (22%).

The largest proportion of complaints (42.2%) was about treatment that patients had received, followed by the attitude of staff (12.2%).

The Patients Association said the rise in complaints was very worrying. It was "reflected in an increase in the number of people contacting our helpline to tell us of problems they are having with NHS services," said the association’s chief executive, Katherine Murphy.

Caring professions indeed.

Parcel it up & sell it off.

There’s really no other way.


Standing up to the bullies. Part 1.

The other day, I commented briefly on this.


Sandwell has a particularly notorious reputation for this sort of petty bullying of the vulnerable.

So I’m glad that intrepid Blogger Anna Racoon has taken up the case with gusto.

On Friday, the threatening ‘Final Demand’ from Sandwell Council, warning her that she now faces a £2,500 fine plus costs (and possible imprisonment if she does not pay that) expired. The next opportunity for Mrs Martin to contest this matter will come in ‘some months time’ – the council cannot tell me when her case will arrive at the top of their back log of cases to appear in the Magistrates court.

Sheila Martin is frightened, intimidated, and feels helpless in the face of this prosecution. She is in delicate health, aggravated by stress, and I have asked the council to reconsider their decision to press ahead with what may well be an interesting test case defining a cigarette end, but which will be at the expense of a frail and elderly person. They have referred me to their ‘revised Enforcement Policy’ – which makes for terrifying reading, a fine example of the totalitarian government Sheila’s Father fought so bravely to prevent. (available HERE)

Nick Hogan, who I was instrumental in rescuing from prison after similar council action, has joined with me, the Libertarian Party and the Sunday Mercury, to ensure that Sheila suffers as little as possible from the council’s intransience.

We have already arranged for some very high powered legal representation for her, to put her mind at rest, and I have promised her that she will go to prison ‘over my dead body’ – she is obviously unable to pay this fine, or incremental increases of it, and I have personally guaranteed her that somehow I will make sure that she doesn’t have to pay it herself, nor go to prison.

There is no need for money at present, all the legal beagles so far involved are kindly donating their time and expertise free of charge – although if there are any other lawyers out there who would like to join the team, this is one broth that will not be spoiled by too many cooks. My e-mail address is on the contact section of this blog.

Read more:

I also made a suggestion in the comments.

I’m musing on the idea of a mass smoke-up in the centre of Sandwell.. bring video cameras, draw these egregious little twerps out and make then YouTube stars.
Read more:

More importantly, I followed some of Anna’s links. The first one in the above quoted section leads to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council’s website, where you can download their ‘Wardens’ Enforcement Policy’ as a PDF.

It is truly a work of Orwellian Newspeak in it purest form and deployed for precisely the same purpose as in 1984. I was drawn to point 2.2.1 on page 4:

The Council has adopted the Cabinet Office’s “Enforcement Concordat” which offers best practice guidance and promotes good standards of enforcement.

An ‘Enforcement Concordat’? Just what the fuck is an ‘Enforcement Concordat’.

Well, I’ll tell you what an ‘Enforcement Concordat’ is. It’s a sign of how early on in New Labour’s 13 years in power they began to put their backs into completely subverting language and liberty, as well as coercing businesses into supporting and facilitating their egregious aims.

The Government introduced the Enforcement Concordat in 1998

You can see it in full as a PDF here. It is summarised thusly:

The aim is to promote good enforcement that brings benefits to business, enforcers and consumers. The Enforcement Concordat encourages partnership working between enforcers and businesses, and sets out the Principles of Good Enforcement which enforcers should apply in order to achieve higher levels of voluntary compliance. The principles are:

  • Standards: setting clear standards
  • Openness: clear and open provision of information
  • Helpfulness: helping business by advising on and assisting with compliance
  • Complaints: having a clear complaints procedure
  • Proportionality: ensuring that enforcement action is proportionate to the risks involved
  • Consistency: ensuring consistent enforcement practice.

None of which sounds like an approximation of Sandwell’s actions in fining a mother whose toddler was feeding the ducks £75, fining a woman who accidentally dropped her tissue in strong winds £75, and fining a pensioner for dropping cigarette ash.

So, fuck labour dominated Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and fuck their shiny-bibbed bullies.

I’m right behind Anna.


Feminism vs Sex Work

I started thinking about that particular juxtaposition the other day, while mulling over the implications of, as Leg Iron so enchantingly puts it, “free sex for cripples”.


One local authority has agreed a care plan including payment for a 21-year-old with learning disabilities to have sex with a prostitute in Amsterdam next month.

His social worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said social services were there to identify and meet the needs of their clients – which, in the case of an angry and frustrated young man, meant paying for sex.

Another care worker said staff at her council had been told that trips to lap dancing clubs could be funded, if it could be argued that it would help the "mental and physical well being" of their client.

As you’d expect, most of the blogposts I read on the matter were principally concerned not with the morality or otherwise of prostitution, but with the morality of using tax-payers’ money to fund access to prostitutes for a select group.

Hyperbolic remarks about the apparent entitlement of every 30 year old virgin followed, as did queries as to the gender fairness of the situation – again not from a morality of prostitution standpoint, but with regard to disabled females’ entitlement to enlist a gigolo on the public dime.

What really made my head fizz though, was wondering how these local government departments squared the prostitution arrangements with their supposedly suffocating poltical correctness, gender sensitivity and all that other opressive socialist guff.

Also on my mind was the on-going actions of local authorities against their local providers of prostitution.

But the squaring off of the PC principles was the one that really made me think.

I started to research the feminist position on prostitution. I soon found what I should have known all along – there is no settled consensus (on anything) amongst feminists, any more than there is a settled consensus (on anything)amongst libertarians.

I ended up reading through this site. It’s a bit of a mess, but the content is worth reading – you can download it all as a PDF here.

Handiest, though, is the summary chart (PDF) of the positions of various branches of feminism, which helps convey how muddied and fraught with internecine squabbling the situation is. Click the table to enlarge it.


At this point, I was overcome with cognitive dissonance and shelved my thoughts without putting pen to paper on the subject, as I had originally intended.

It was a tweet from @AbsolutLaudanum pointing me to her blog, that presented me with this jolly excellent video on the titular subject. Well worth 10 minutes of your time.


Food for thought.


Truth and reconciliation

This is correct.


Two thirds of employees agree they would rather work for a man than a woman.

Female bosses were accused of being moody and incapable of leaving their personal lives at home.

A third of those polled claimed women in charge are ‘loose cannons’ – ready to stab colleagues in the back at any time, and who constantly feel threatened by other people in positions of authority.

By contrast, both male and female workers believe male bosses were less likely to get involved in office politics, were easier to reason with and rarely suffered from mood swings.

Men are also said to be more straight-talking than women and rarely talk about others behind their backs, it emerged.

Many people I know concur: female line managers and office managers can be pure poison.

That said, I’ve had some pretty moody and insecure male bosses, too. Hell, I’ve been a moody and insecure male boss.

Perhaps it’s just that offices are appalling places that turn everyone into hateful freaks.

For the record, when it comes to project managers, women seem to be much better than men.


The benefit fraud crack-down

There’s much sounds and fury signifying nothing regarding this story (see last post).

In the mix, however, is the voice of reason, from Big Brother Watch, which explains why even those of us who are sick of benefit cheats should oppose the scheme the ConDems have planned.


The papers today all carry a story which first broke last month – the proposed use of credit rating agencies like Experian to catch people committing benefit fraud.

This is a very bad idea. Nobody approves of benefit cheats. But mining private data on a routine basis on the off-chance of catching people out is a disproportionate invasion of privacy.

There’s a presumption of innocence in this country, and trawling everyone’s credit data and treating us all as suspects brings that into question. Furthermore, there is or should be a bright line between the state and the private sector.

Taking powers of legal investigation and enforcement which ought to sit with the state, and granting them to private organisations, blurs that line. Worse still, if profit-making companies are rewarded by the number of people they catch they will have a perverse incentive to sling accusations in any even marginally plausible case – because they’ll have nothing to lose and potentially something to gain in the smearing.

Ultimately, it’s probably not in the interests of the companies either. People will be far less likely to comply with their requirements in the future if it’s known that one risks such intrusion in doing so.

Credit agencies should think carefully about effectively becoming enforcers for the state, compromising private information they’ve accumulated about people.

By Alex Deane

That’s not the only reason, by the way.

Mr Cameron will also call on members of the public to report suspected cheats

Ah – so that’s going to be how the big society works is it? By encouraging more curtain-twitching, snooping and reporting?

A guaranteed provider of community cohesion and mutual trust, that.

Have a biscuit, Dave.


UPDATE: Words from the excellent Ed West at the Tellygiraffe:


And.. blow me down with a vigorously wafted mackerel, from Tom Harris, of all people.

And Grauniad’s Liberty Central.

Young Tory. Kinda gets it, actually.

This was an interesting and encouraging post from Robert Leitch at Conservative Home.


Firstly, let’s take heed of the good stuff:

Ultimately, however, our greatest concern should be for our road networks – a quick glance at the relevant statistics is telling. Since 2001 the number of cars on Britain’s roads has risen considerably from 24.6 million to 28.5 million, whilst in 2009 the overall volume of motor vehicle traffic was 313 billion vehicle miles. Surprisingly, perhaps, 90% of all passenger travel takes place on the roads with just 7% by rail and 1% by air. Despite these figures, in 2006-07 (the latest figures available) the UK spent over £5 billion on railways and just £4.8 billion on our roads.

Meanwhile, 70% of adults now hold driving licences and over 80% of our population live in a household with at least one car. Put simply, our lust for cars and driving continues to rise ceaselessly, ensuring that the pressure on Britain’s 245,000 miles of road is set to intensify yet further. Faced with such increasing demand and usage, it is all too apparent that the status quo is simply not sustainable – significant investment is required.

Naturally, at present, any talk of such investment is quite rightly viewed through sceptical eyes. The huge budget deficit and upcoming spending reviews leave little room for expenditure on the scale required. However, to swiftly dismiss the need for investment in our road networks is a dangerous attitude – frankly, we depend upon them more than we seem to realise.

Indeed, even from a financial point of view it is worth noting that road users contribute over £47 billion to HM Treasury each and every year. Sadly only £7 billion of this is re-invested in repairing and improving our roads. Whilst road users provide the Chancellor with 4p per mile they drive, rail passengers actually dent the public purse by 21p per mile of each journey. Clearly, road users pay their way and as such their plight must be taken seriously.

Failure to act and invest in Britain’s roads will not only impose transport misery upon the vast majority of motorists, but it could also affect our social and economic well-being and development too. As the economy begins to stutter back into life, we are in desperate need of a wide-ranging road management strategy for the future. Without any such plan, the volume of traffic will increase yet further cutting capability, diminishing reliability and hindering economic growth. 

After all, we must appreciate that it is not just the individual who suffers from our broken infrastructure but, more importantly, our small and medium size businesses too. Functional transport networks are critical to the economy and, in 2003, the estimated cost of congestion to businesses in London alone was over £5.3 billion. We cannot afford to underestimate the cost of poor investment in our road networks or its impact on our wider economy.

But I need to pull him up on a couple of things.

Firstly, his bloody awful opening paragraph.

As we embark upon the traditional holiday month of August, many of us will be looking forward to getting away for that welcome break. However, whether it be the sunshine beach resort or the quaint countryside cottage that beckons, general relaxation is only likely to begin once we have battled our way through countless roadworks, queues, accidents, delays and service cancellations to reach our destination. If truth be told, getting from A to B has never been more problematic and it is during the holiday seasons that our creaking transport infrastructure is highlighted most vividly.

This is the problem with Young Conservatives. It fair winds me up to be told by a grinning kid that they remember when this was all fields.

It’s like their Dad did their homework for them.

But then, as if to provide evidence that his Dad didn’t do his homework for him, there’s this in his wrap-up:

Labour, as in so many areas, flunked the opportunity to act. This sluggish approach is highlighted by the fact that only Belgium, Italy and Lithuania did less than the UK to improve the capacity of their national motorway systems in Europe between 1996 and 2006. We are already a decade out of date.

Dear chap, Labour did not flunk the opportunity. They didn’t drop the ball, or fail to plan ahead.

When they came into power in 1997, and while sticking to the Tories’ spending plans, John Prescott as Transport Secretary wilfully cancelled or suspended almost every road-building or improvement project.

The Old Labour rump, including Transport Secretary Prescott, were ideologically opposed to any expansion of travel by car. Which explains the proliferation of bus lanes, traffic ‘calming’ measures, speed cameras, fuel taxes and other faux environmental measures. At the same time, they allowed train fares to rise, rise and rise again.

Still, whether or not Leitch got there by the same route as I would have taken, his assessment of the situation and his conclusion are 100% on the money. It pleases me to think there is hope amongst the Ellie Gellard generation of brainwashed kids who were betrayed by the Gramscian education establishment.

Ultimately, a long-term strategic plan of road investment is critically required. Even in these bleak economic times, the Government must commit to reviewing the situation with an open mind, particularly with respect to encouraging private investment into road building, maintenance and management. Our roads have been neglected for too long – it must now be an urgent priority to repair Britain’s woefully blocked transport veins and accelerate them into the 21st century.



A random quote

Itinerant twitterist @AntonVowl linked to a list on Amazon.


Lots of unremarkable sections highlighted in books 1-25.

Then, I got to what is probably my favourite passage from Atlas Shrugged at #26, and it is this:

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt.

Sound familiar, at all? Anyone?


Uncommon sense from unexpected quarters

The drug-decriminalisation movement gets more heavyweight backing – from the chairman of the Bar Council, no less.

Chairman of the Bar calls for decriminalisation of drug use

Nick Green QC is chairman of the Bar Council, the professional organisation of barristers in the UK. Writing in the organisation’s magazine this month, Green called for the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use, arguing (rightly) that a growing body of evidence supports the proposition that decriminalisation can have a number of positive consequences for drugs users and society. He lists the freeing up of police resources, the reduction of crime and the revolving door of imprisonment as peace dividends of ending the drug war, alongside improved public health. Noting that much of the mass media are given to moralising gestures and the whipping up of panic when it comes to drugs, he argues that the Bar Council, made up of lawyers and counting most judges amongst its ex-members, is in a good position to provide a rational argument, being familiar with both sides of the drug policy argument.

Mr Green’s intervention represents another profession speaking out in support of drug law reform at a time when the tide appears to be turning away from the prohibitionist model that was tried throughout the twentieth century, failed to suppress the flow of illegal drugs and added its own side-effects (including an entrenched criminal market and a global epidemic of injection-driven HIV) to those of the drug problems it was supposed to prevent.

I’m now expecting to see light at the end of the tunnel sometime soon.


H/T @CharonQC

By Jove, I think she’s got it.

An article in The Sunday Times made me double-take:


The chairwoman of the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), has recommended that “every school should have a useless teacher” so children learn how to deal with people in authority who are not up to the job.

Zenna Atkins said schools, particularly at the primary level, “need to reflect society” and should not be trying to get rid of every single inadequate teacher.

Young children were adept at exploiting incompetent teachers and this was a valuable skill for “playing authority” later in life.

Hmmm… even my first reaction to this idea was one of WTF!!!???!??!!

But really, it’s a very good point.

She emphasised that she was voicing her personal views, not those of Ofsted, adding: “It’s about learning how to identify good role models. One really good thing about primary school is that every kid learns how to deal with a really s*** teacher.

“I would not remove every single useless teacher because every grown-up in a workplace needs to learn to deal with the moron who sits four desks down without lamping them and to deal with authority that’s useless.

And in the state this country’s in, overrun with moronic petty bureaucrats, it’s an increasingly invaluable skill.

And it’s one that my schooling imparted successfully, as I wrote in February 2009:

My 13 years as an inmate of the uniquely lentillious British education establishment taught me one thing. From a very early age, I could spot a walking waste of giblets at 50 paces. And it was called ‘Miss’ or ‘Sir’.

Consequently, I learned at around the same time that a good rule of thumb would be to do precisely the opposite to that advised by these leather-elbowed plonkers.

These days, as is the way with much normal childhood behaviour, my preferred approach was medicalised in the form of something called ‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder’. (c.f. ‘The need to sit down and fucking shut-up = ADHD; Teachers are useless, so children are illiterate = Dyslexia).

It must therefore alarm ‘them’, that O.D.D. has been a pretty successful life-strategy for me.


When cunts collide

Cunt is a word you’ll hardly have read on this blog in the last couple of months, and then it’s usually been because I’ve quoted dear inimitable Obo.

It is particularly interesting that a blogger in the ‘enemy camp’ has rallied the defence.


I think this misses some of the nuance of cunt, some of the depth and character that this word can bring that no other can. If you really want to denigrate, really want to express your disdain then there really only is one word.

First of all there’s the visceral sensation of saying it, from the click at the back of your throat to the burst of spittle from your tongue bouncing of the roof of your mouth, it is a word which feels like an insult even before you know what it means.

It is also not just any other word, it has a heritage that few other words can match. It dates back centuries and has had an impact across all our towns and cities and great literary masterpieces.

Don’t believe me?

What ails you that you grumble thus and groan?
Is it because you’d have my cunt alone?
Why take it all, lo, have it every bit;
Peter! Beshrew you but you’re fond of it!

That’s Chaucer and The Wife of Bath’s Prologue from Canterbury Tales. Cunt is no ordinary swearword it is dirty word that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddad knew and knew well.

And if there isn’t even that payoff, what chance of persuading a 14 year old boy to read and digest Chaucer?


The penny finally drops

I pointed this out on 26 October 2008 and 5 May 2009.

Someone has finally pointed the elephant out.

Better late than never I suppose.


Analysts for Saturn Energy calculated that a fuel duty of up to 10p a mile would be required to pay for the extra demand which will be created if the Government’s targets on renewable energy are hit.

The Climate Change Committee has said that 1.7 million electric cars should be on Britain’s roads by 2020.

The firm’s experts said the National Grid was already struggling to provide enough power for Britain’s needs and urgent modernisation was required to boost capacity to provide for the needs of any surge in the number of electric cars.

The firm also said that electricity should cost "about the same as petrol", which is certain to deter those motorists who are shifting to electric cars to try to save money on driving.

Critics of electric cars have cited research which appears to show that such vehicles are only half as efficient as diesel engines, once the environmental cost of traditional power generation is taken into account.

Well I’ll be damned.


Keep drugs illegal

So sayeth this wag:

Keep drugs illegal, don’t regulate them

by duncanstott on July 01, 2010 at 05:44PM

Speaking as a criminal drug dealer who makes millions from the insatiable desire for my produce, it would be a personal disaster if I were to lose my ability to operate in the illegal drug market.

That’s why I support the government’s current stance on drugs. Ending prohibition and applying mountains of red tape around the supply drugs would put dealers like me out of business.

Why the contribution is important

I operate in an illegal drugs market worth £5bn in the UK. It is the perfect business: no tax, no bereaucracy, and a customer base that can’t get enough of my products. The drugs market is also tied up in many other valuable trades like prostitution and people trafficking, and where would the UK be without them?

Ending prohibition would ruin all this.

First of all, so-called "legal companies" would take virtually all of my customers. I might even have to consider operating legally myself, and start paying tax. This would obviously hurt my profit margins.

At the moment I can sell drugs to whoever I like, but if drugs weren’t prohibited, no doubt the government would start applying age restrictions, and restrict my customer base. Mr Clegg, you must keep drugs illegal so I can keep selling drugs to teenagers. Just look at how the government has hurt sales with its tobacco regulation. The health warnings on the packaging are causing less and less young people to take up smoking. Don’t let the cocaine market go the same way!

At the moment I maximise profits by cutting drugs with bulking agents. There’s no quality control, but there doesn’t need to be. Under a legal framework, the government would apply a load of red tape to make sure drugs were of a standard purity and quality. Again, this would severely hit my profits.

If the government cares one bit about drug barons like me, they’ll leave our drug laws well alone. Things are fine as they are.



UPDATE: This has now apparently been pulled from the HMG site by moderators.

Its originator is on Twitter, though, as @DuncanStott

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.


13 years to put this right. Did they? Could they have?

Ask Ed Balls what went wrong. I’m sure it’ll all be the fault of the Tories for their disastrous 13 years out of power.


Sir Mike Rake said the telecoms giant binned almost a quarter of all applications made for a new apprenticeship scheme because candidates appeared “completely illiterate”.

Many young people now fail to have the basic skills needed to get by in the workplace, he said.

The comments represent the latest in a series of attacks on the education system by Britain’s leading businessmen.

Sir Terry Leahy, outgoing chief executive of Tesco, has criticised the “woefully low” standards achieved by many schoolchildren and Sir Stuart Rose, head of Marks & Spencer, said many young people were “not fit for work”.

Sir Mike said 26,000 applications were made for 170 places on BT’s apprenticeship programme starting this autumn, but 6,000 were not worthy of consideration.

I actually feel really sorry for kids who’ve been through the state education system in the last 20 years. Its parlous inadequacy is the single biggest betrayal of British people in my living memory.

Oh and sure, Labour didn’t fix things, but neither did the Tories. The rot set in long before 1997, thanks to a vast tranche of swivel-eyed ideologues in the teaching profession, the objectives of whom were not to equip children for lifelong learning and inquisitiveness, but to effect social engineering on a scale unheard of outside communist countries.

Still, when I left school, men of 50 were being thrown on the scrapheap as flexibly, hungry youngsters emerged to work in a way more fitting to the times.

If the education system continues to turn out such stunted individuals, I foresee no such worries for when I’m 50 myself.


Work won’t just come to you, northern monkeys.

Much harrumphing and invocations of Norman Tebbit today.


Well, it’s about time. They’re much easier to mow down when they’re on their bikes.

In the mid-nineties, it was self-evident that there were fewer jobs in the area I lived than there were in the south-east. So I cast my job-seeking net further and wider.

I got offered a job in the south-east. I accepted it. I filled my car with my belongings and moved more than 200 miles to an affordable location near my new job.

Best thing I ever did.

What kind of mindset does it take to sit in Doncaster, Newcastle or Liverpool for years on end, subsisting on dole money, when a one-time move to a more affluent part of the country opens up endless opportunities to improve one’s life?

Oh, but what about people with families? Well, I’ve worked in London with dozens of blokes, who lodge in London four nights a week, whose families are back in the grim north.

Eventually, they either go back up north considerably better off, or move their families down south.

Those who can do. Those who won’t can rot in hell for all I care. I’ve paid quite enough in taxes to support feckless northern morons who think that if they sit in a council house in Bradford for long enough, the world will come to them.

It won’t, and the UK can no longer afford to subsidise such a pathetic wastrel mindset.