She Didn't Win

Hey, I'm not saying this isn't good news, but like Ace says, how did we ever get to the point that judges were required to specifically rule that people's free speech rights include the right to not participate in a mentally-ill man's Gender Cosplay Fantasies?

Who voted for that?

This is a classic case of the process being the punishment. This case has been going on since 2018. I mean, it's great that the courts finally ruled the right way, but it's not like she even got a nice trophy or a winner's rosette. She's had two years of official harassment and now she's won the right not to be harassed anymore. 

Meanwhile, who lost?

Not the professional activist weirdo who wages lawfare on his critics

Not the police officers who routinely ignore actual crimes but decided to pursue this lunacy.

Not the prosecutors who ran with a completely ludicrous interpretation of the law.

Not even the judge who acted as though she was a philosopher queen unconstrained by your Earthling laws:

In February this year radical feminist Miss Scottow, 40, was handed a two-year conditional discharge, and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation, with district judge Margaret Dodds telling her: 'Your comments contributed nothing to a debate. We teach children to be kind to each other and not to call each other names in the playground.'

At risk of stating the obvious, there's nothing in the law about being'kind' and no requirement for any comments to contribute to a debate - otherwise Owen Jones would be on Death Row. 

It's not a small thing when a judge invents an absurd standard out of thin air to close down debate. A judge who makes the law up as they go along is like an accountant with his hand in the till. If calling a fat guy in a bad wig 'he' is worth £1,000, how much should an activist judge be fined? 

Cuckservatives Find A Dung Heap To Die On

Hey, I'm so old I remember when the cuck wing of the conservative movement couldn't go five minutes without talking about the vital vitalness of 'electability'. Once Fat Dave started his reign of error in 2005 there was no stopping these people from lecturing everyone on how important it was to ditch any actual conservative policies in pursuit of electoral success. Actual conservatives had to get with the program, you guys, and realise this wasn't the hill to die on (where 'this' meant any actual conservative policies whatsoever). 

Well, it turns out a funny thing happened just recently: I believe the technical term for this is an 'open goal'...so where are the squishes? If winning votes is your thing, deporting homicidal lunatics would seem to be just the ticket.

Hey, free clue wets: there's a reason why it's the crazy wing of the Labour Party which has taken up this cause while Sir Keir is busy hiding under the stairs. Labour could always introduce a manifesto commitment to protect the rights of Persons of Homicide but, strangely enough, they're happy to outsource it to Mr Justice Crazypants and the rest of the unelected freaks on the bench. 

Nope, the non-insane parts of the Labour Party know they're juggling nitroglycerine. Deporting felons is not just the right thing to do (duh) and also a vote winner (duh), it's also the perfect example of why people gave the Tories an eighty seat majority in the first place. Nobody voted for violent lunatics to be given an Access All Areas pass to Britain, it was just one more thing the snoot class managed to sneak into law via phony baloney, non-adversarial lawsuits between activist lawyers and pro-open borders government departments.  Now, at last, the left is being forced out of the closet and made to stand up and state openly what they've always believed ('Open Borders Uber Alles'). 

I don't think it'll go well for them... except the cucks seem desperate to let them off the hook. As Meatloaf would say, they would do anything for electability, but they won't do that. Everything else is up for grabs, but deporting killers? That's just so dreadfully suburban!

You May Not Be Interested In Culture War...

As bad as the Supreme Court's Screw Brexit decision is - pretty bad considering it appears to be based on the well known legal doctrine of 'because we say so' - it's almost as bad listening to Professional Conservatives claiming to be shocked, shocked, to find that the courts are a lawless, politicised mess. Yes, indeed, who could have seen that coming?

Just a thought, but if you keep demonstrating a proven inability to predict outbreaks of heavy drinking on December 31st, you might want to rethink your claim to be super smart. As it is, real conservatives have spent years calling the shot and the pocket, while the genius set have called them crazed conspiracy nuts. Now Brenda Hale has done the legal equivalent of gobbling down a live mouse on TV while addressing the public as 'you warm bloods' then ripping the flesh off her face to reveal the scales underneath, I think we may have to look again at what definition of genius we're using here.

Not all Professional Conservatives couldn't see it coming. Some of them are just pain gutless. Others genuinely believe dealing with our lawless courts is too much of a hot potato and so they may as well go along to get along....

And that's how the Tories have romped to three landslide victories in a row!

Meanwhile back in the real  world, the Tory Party's refusal to take on these nut cases doesn't make them look moderate, it makes them look weak and out of touch. Say what you like about Labour, but they have an actual agenda - creating Hell on Earth - and the Tories? What do they really stand for?

Oh yeah: muh tax cuts.  

Here's the thing though: the whole reason why the left needs to use politicised judges like Brenda Hale to push their nutty agenda is precisely because they know it's electoral poison. If they thought the public would support it, they'd push it themselves. Instead we have the insanity of the courts ruling that Parliament must stay open even while they make politics entirely irrelevant.

Hey, who needs that 'citizenship class' stuff on how a bill works its way through Parliament, when Brenda Hale and the rest of the freaks can simply pull new laws out of their penumbra.

Still, now that Queen Brenda is our Decider In Chief, at least we can get a definitive answer to those questions that have been hangin round for years:

Is Die Hard a Christmas movie?

Pineapple on pizza or not?

Who would win in a fight between Iron Man and Batman?

True, there aren't any actual laws covering these issues, but who needs laws anyway these days?

Conspiracy Nuts FTW!

Who'd have thunk it? A former 'impartial civil servant' turns out to be a pal of Red Ed and a wannabe member of the Labour Parachute Club, looking forward to representing the people of [fill in the blank].

Actually, just about everyone could have predicted it. This was the guy who sat on the investigations into jihadist grooming gangs but flooded the zone for phone hacking. Just about the only people trying to deny the existence of the Big Red Elephant in the room where the Certified Super Genii at Tory HQ.

These are the guys that assured us that Komrade Keir and the rest were jus' folks, good honest hard working public servants and anyone who said otherwise was some crazed 1980s throwback jibbering about the something called the 'culture war'.

Now we know the truth. Yes, Cast Iron Dave did leave an off the scale lefty in charge of prosecutions even as the Great British Public rejected everything Starmer stands for. The Right was right, and the only 'bumpkins' were all the soi dissant sophisticates who believed the Nu Tory Party was about anything other than ideological surrender.

Well Played, Sir!

Google has started to adjust to the European Court's bonkers 'right to be forgotten' decision and the first high profile case turns out to be.... a top banker forced out after the crash.

What are the odds, huh?

Of course, this is one for the 'why don't more people do this' file? Make the left own their stupidity. Google are doing exactly what they were told to do and this guy's just using the right the Court conjured up of thin air. This is what the decision means: you can live the life of Reilly then when it all goes horribly wrong you can demand no one is allowed to talk about it.

All of which is by way of saying that if it's only a few right-wing whack jobs who could possibly object to all this, how come liberals need to get their mates on the bench to force it through instead of anyone we can vote out?

It's The Future In HD

Yes, indeed, price hikes in fuel are all down to greedy capitalist pig dogs.

Ditto, poverty in retirement is all down to those meany insurance companies.

Likewise, the cost of legal advice is.... No, wait, it turns out that lawyers are hard working altruists and the government should just air drop blank cheques over Lincoln's Inn Fields until Hell freezes over. Still, that's obviously one of those cases where we just don't understand the nuance.

For every other line of business though, it's all aboard the John Galt Express to Caracas:

"I want a Sony plasma television for the house," said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator who waited seven hours outside a Caracas Daka store, similar to Best Buy. "It's going to be so cheap!"

What could possibly go wrong?

Chickens, Roost

Open Borders: how that's working out for you, m'lud?

The jury reached deadlock after sending the judge three separate notes containing 10 questions which suggested they were “struggling” with the most “basic concept” of trial by jury.

They included a question about whether they could reach a verdict based on something which was not presented in court, and whether the defendant’s “religious conviction” to follow her wedding vows of obeying her then husband, Chris Huhne, would be reason enough to acquit her of committing a crime with him.

Mr Justice Sweeney said he had “never come across” anything like the jury’s response in nearly 30 years of working in criminal courts.

Gosh, it's almost like the proper functioning of an advanced democracy requires that the citizenry hold a common set of assumptions about how society works.... kind of like how those fascists on the right always said it did.

That Was Kind Of The Point...

Alan @ B-BBC notes a certain difference in tone in the BBC's reporting of South Yorkshire Police's two adventures in creative writing.

He's got a point, but coming back at you, Al!

Up until a week ago, anyone saying the official story of Hillsborough was total balls was clearly a tinfoil hat wearing loon. Besides, Scousers! Even though, well,...you know.

Now we know that the main mistake us sceptics made was lack of imagination. Who knew that even the families' own lawyers were in on it? Are we supposed to be shocked that, contrary to popular mythology, SYP aren't an otherwise blameless organisation driven mad by the strain of dealing with Scousers?

The whole point folks like me were making was that you can't be slightly corrupt. Once you accept that it's OK for police officers to file false reports, destroy CCTV footage and release bogus press statements, there's no getting off the bus. That's Conservatism 101. It's the left and their libertarian pals that keeps telling us, hey, a little bit of corruption/perversion/cannibalism etc doesn't make someone a bad person.

Well, not necessarily, but that's the way to bet.

13th Thargoidian Battle Phalanx Sued Over Abductions

So..... just checking my MSM scorecard here: seems like the fact some of the future guests of Club Gitmo once passed through Britain makes them British, but passing through a terrorist training camp doesn't mean they're terrorists.

Ditto, these guys might have the same ideology as terrorists, behave just like terrorists, associate with terrorists and go where terrorists go, but they're only suspected terrorists. Meanwhile, their own hardly disinterested testimony is enough to establish as undeniable truth that they've been tortured. Ah-huh!

Hey, if nothing else, I guess that means we've got to go easy on people who claim they've been abducted by aliens. After all, there's every bit as much supporting evidence for their testimony as for these jihadist atrocity stories. Plus, at least the abductees aren't part of organisation that trains its members to make bogus abduction claims and they don't think mass murder is a perfectly reasonable way to get your point across, so they're probably more reliable witnesses too. Then again, given recent history, I'd say there was plenty of evidence that the aliens aren't so much walking amongst us, as sitting on the bench in the Supreme Court.

Naomi Campbell: The Only Black Liberals Ever Wanted To Jail

I have only three questions:

1/ How did the hell did we get in a situation where a freak show collection of unelected tranzi tossers could demand freeborn British citizens abase themselves before their crappy tribunals?

2/ Are celebs going to be more or less likely to take part in charidee events in future knowing that if they do, they risk being hauled before a kangaroo court years after the fact?

3/ If Charles Taylor really is that bad, what does it say about St Nelson of Mandela that he invited him to stop by?

.....

Thena again, maybe Naomi got off lightly getting a few rocks - I hear Nelly and his pals usually go with the whole necklace.

Triumph Of The Shrill

As I understand the basics of the John Gaunt case, he compared a member of our ruling class to a Nazi, then got forced out of his job by a state body.

So no Nazi overtones there at all then.

Personally, I think we dodged a bullet. If calling them Nazis means they use the power of the state to hound you out of your job, think what they do when you call them perverts?

But what are the odds, hey? We've had eight years of BushChimpler slurs but with the Obamamessiah in the White House and Useless Dave in No 10, liberals are suddenly against harsh language. Can't we all just get along?

Well, no, actually. Consider the actual casus belli here: Councillor Heinrich's bonkers idea of keeping kids in care just to make some anti-smoking point. This isn't even a case of either/or. In contrast to the theoretical risks of passive smoking, the lousy outcomes for kids in care are a fact. Kids are having their lives blighted just because some spooky wierdos don't dig fags. This is the type of thing that's supposed to enrage decent people.

Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean, unlike the fearless MSM, which has fearlessly grovelled to the thugs at OFCOM. We can say that Councillor Michael Stark is a vicious little rat and a bully, a fascist dolt who's readiness to resort to thuggery is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. In so far as he supports using some of the most vulnerable people in society as sock puppets in his stupid crusade, he is a sicko, little deviant who's unfit to be trusted with the keys to the stationary cupboard, far less the fate of young children. 'Ignorant' is unfair only in so far as it suggest his problem is stupidity rather than depravity. On the contrary, his determination to choke off the public debate speaks to a man under no illustrations about the utter failure of his twisted ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

In fact, the only people worse than Herr Stark are the MSM drones who cravenly accept the right of agents of the state to do all but burst through the studio doors shouting 'Satire Squad! Step away from the mike!'..... all the while lamenting that their crappy, dull, government-approved stations are failing.

Once you have High Court Judges picking through commentary and deciding what's lawful and what's 'undirected abuse', the whole 'free speech' thing is DOA. You can't have worthwhile political commentary if everyone's looking over their shoulder for Big Government to suddenly leap out and announce that no one expects the OFCOM Inquisition (but, since we're on the subject of undirected abuse, what was the actual point of Jerry Springer: The Opera)?

Actually, all this is still giving liberals too much credit. This is an exercise in simple thuggery, and some of them aren't even trying to hide it: check it out.

Yes, indeed: state harassment of right-wing commentators is a good thing because it restricts right-wing commentary. A-huh!

All of which proves that, as usual, I am right: liberalism can only succeed by force or fraud.

Shocka! Appeasement Still Working As Well As Ever (Part I)

Don't be shocked, but The Dave throwing the Army under the bus last week didn't actually result in anyone except him and his cronies actually 'drawing a line' under anything much.

Here we go again!

The thing is that the vile little toad - Adams, not Cameron - has a point. If you take the absurd precedent set by Saville seriously, then why not? In fact, Adams's position is arguably less absurd than Saville's, being based on the latter's pseudo-legal precedent rather than carved out of whole cloth as Saville's train wreck legal reasoning was.

The Paras Killed Stephen Lawrence

They said if I wasted a vote on UKIP, a military hating freak might get into No 10 and they were right!

Yes, indeed: an enquiry set up to appease leftist fanatics and grievance farmers, headed by a liberal judge and making up the rules as it went along has found that everything the Left ever said is right. Who'd have thunk it?

Besides, any enquiry that involves this guy is clearly well-founded.

The Good Doctor reminds us of the previous winner of 'Best in Show':

Perhaps the fact that the inquiry was open to the public had something to do with the nature of the resulting report. The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation....

At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote. A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when one Mr. Gompertz, the counsel for the police, was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely Mr. Gompertz desisted.” In short, only the accused could be questioned.

This is how the left rewrites history: they wait until all the sane people have died, got old or otherwise moved on with their lives, next they hire Judge Skippy to hold an enquiry to prove that everything they said is right, then they announce that the subject is closed and it's time to 'move on'.

Give it twenty years and Judge Euan Blair will be presiding over an enquiry into the Orgreave Massacre of striking miners by Thatcher's SS.

All of which shows how useless our nation's Certified Conservatives actually are. Every time the left announces one of these bogus enquiries, they fall for it hook line and sinker. They're like Charlie Brown trying to kick that ball, while Lucy the Leftist suddenly announces that solicitors for the nominated patsy will only be allowed to question witnesses through the medium of mime.

Still, in its own way, it's kind of reassuring that no matter how predictably awful the mass of career conservatives are, The Great Dave always manages to find new and exciting ways to be even worse. The only good thing you can say about Cameron's Jane Fonda act is that at least we're not engaged in any wars at the moment. Otherwise, throwing the Army under the bus would be the height of irresponsibility.

Hey, I guessing this means all this grovelling to the left wasn't just about The Electability after all. Prime Minister Dave turns out to be just like Candidate Dave, and his whole philosophy of government is of public office as the continuance of campaigning by other means.

But while we're on the subject, I'd like to follow Dave's example and apologise to the nation for the Tories electing this pillock as leader. True, I've never been a party member, don't know how the Party's organised and think 90% of the members are drones, but that doesn't mean I can't sincerely pay tribute to these fine upstanding citizens, aside from their role in helping to destroy our nation.

Of course, some may say I'm being a little harsh but, fortunately, as Chairman of the House of Dumb Inquiry Into Actual Conservatism, I rule their evidence 'inadmissible'.

More seriously though, this case is just another example of the toxic nature of Cameronism.

We're supposed to admire how Cameron's nifty theft of the left's talking points has neutralised the political effects of Saville's ranting, but consider the wider issues - aside from stabbing the troops in Helmand in the back.

Saville claimed that the troops - acting as agents of a democratically-elected government in support of local law enforcement - acted provocatively by entering an area that a bunch of thugs in balaclavas had decided should be a no go area for cops. Moral equivalence isn't even the half of it. Any public servant accepting the supposed right of lunatics to declare de facto independence from the rule of law would be bizarre, but a judge? And if it's provocative to insist that the law is enforced everywhere in the country, why can't the Paras opt from Saville's nasty witch hunt, held years after the fact?

It turns out that the medium is the message. Whether it's Macpherson announcing that the lack of any evidence of racism is itself proof of racism, Saville claiming that there's no reason to believe a terrorist with a tommy gun was up to no good, or any of the other bazillion atrocities against reason over the last few years, the common theme is the left's ability to force through its own narrative as the accepted version of events. The whole point of these freaky show trials is that even as they debase the justice system, they establish the left as the guys who own the mint.

And, No, Civil Liberties Nuts Don't Support Actual Civil Liberties Either

Good news: we've now found a new source of renewable power. Stick magnets on Cast Iron Dave and his constant U-turns could power a small city.

Of course, the real question is this: which is the greater force of nature? Cameron's gutlessness, or Harperson's stupidity?

Say, what you like about Mad Hattie, but at least her room temperature IQ means she keeps letting the truth slip out. Here she is on the case against anonymity:

[Harperson] said: 'We know that it is often only after many rapes that a defendant is finally brought to court and it is only at that point, often, when previous victims find the courage to come forward.

'By making rape defendants anonymous you are going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.'

Errr...OK.

Hey, apart from anything else, can you imagine what Harpic's like playing Cluedo:

It was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Dagger.... or in the Kitchen with the Revolver.... Dining Room with the Spanner. How about the Garden with the Chainsaw? Listen dammit, as a member of the Rape-Industrial complex, he's clearly guilty anyway. Stop whining about the specifics!

Needless to say, the requirement that citizens be charged with committing a specific crime, at a specific time and place, is designed precisely to stop the State cobbling together Frankenstein's Case. Stripped of its Grrrrl Power! blather, Harmful's position is nothing more than the legal codification of the belief that there's no smoke without fire.

This is an actual civil liberty issue, not one of the approximately eleventy million totally, vital liberties that lurked undetected until 1997. So where are the Gitmo Groupies when we need them?

Reminder: Liberty Is Not Actually A Civil Liberties Organisation

Here's Universal Shami preaching in defence of the vital civil right to parade round in fascist regalia. The thing is there's at least two problems with her position.

The first problem is that the pro-regalia tendency don't just want the freedom to wear the uniform of this nation's enemies in time of war, they want the state to repress the freedom of anyone who might think worse of them for being fascist weenies, lest they discriminate against these charmers.

Problem number two is that non-partisan campaigning group Liberty only ever seem to get excited about the liberties of certain people. If the right to wear enemy uniform in wartime is an essential part of British liberty, how about the vital Right to Comedy?

Was the gag funny? Probably not, but neither are most club acts, and no one's suggesting their performances should be interrupted by cops jumping out shouting 'Satire Squad! Drop the mike, you're under arrest'! Armed entertainment criticism would be a strange use of police resources at the best of times, but there's the other thing that there may not even have been an actual offence committed.

I'm not a lawyer, but these people are, so let's hear what they say:

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate. Refer also to Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard elsewhere in the Legal guidance.

OK, so let's see what Sec 4 says:

The following types of conduct are examples which may at least be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour:

* threats made towards innocent bystanders or individuals carrying out public service duties;

Hey, I'll take a shot in the dark here and say that the definition of 'towards' requires the accused to actually address the alleged victim, not be tapping away on a twitter feed that the victim has to be specifically told to look for.

These airport guys remind me of nothing so much as the old joke about the woman who called the police because her neighbour was sunbathing nude in his garden. The cop comes round, looks out the window and says 'I can't see anything', and the woman says 'you can if you go upstairs and climb on the wardrobe'.

All of which is by way of saying, they must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to be harassed, alarmed and distressed.

To the point, in so far as a young man exercising his right to free speech has been seized by agents of the state on a charge that's legally absurd and morally ludicrous, it is exactly the type of thing a soi dissant civil liberties organisation should regard as nearly as important a freedom as the right to coerce employers into hiring people dressed in enemy uniform.

Save Our Smackheads!

Hey, say what you like, but at least we've found a case of Islamic violence that liberals don't support. He should have claimed it was a protest against Israel that got out of hand.

Still, this does throw some light onto the true nature of the Nu Tories. In so far as the main excuse for conservatives supporting the Ayatollah Khameron is that he's actually a hard-line conservative who just plays a liberal squish on TV, it's hard to reconcile that theory with the reality that the Cameron Party has not only embraced the left's agenda, which can sometimes be excused as political realism, it's also embraced the underlying world view, which never can be.

Consider Chris Grayling's recent attempt to reach out to the right: he wants to allow householders to kill burglars. Say what?

As Julie says, who's asking for that? Homicidal householders are a liberal caricature. There's no better barometer of the demented state of modern liberalism than that these people really think folks who smash their way through front doors at 3 AM are all loveable old lags called Lefty, but the nation's home-owners are sadistic killers just waiting for the chance to torture innocent smackheads to death.

What the right wants, and has wanted for years, is a meaningful, right to self-defence. One that isn't subject to being retroactively revoked years after the fact should liberal activists manage to contrive a plausible atrocity story around us actually defending ourselves or our families. Or, to put it another way, if 'reasonable force' is such a reasonable concept, why don't we apply it more widely?

'Top Judge' Wonders: Uhh... Maybe Our Lawless Scum Coddling Wasn't Such A Good Idea After All

Good News: a top judge has finally admitted that thugs are, literally, getting away with murder.

Bad News: his reasoning is a complete train wreck.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge declared that there should be long jail sentences for those who launch violent attacks – even if they do not mean to kill.

He said cases of ‘one-punch manslaughter’ were being treated too leniently. Greater weight should be given to the outcome of the attack than to the intention and ‘crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously

Say what? The offence is the offence. What the right is saying - and has said for years - isn't that there should be different penalties for the same crime depending on how it affects the victim, it's that when a violent headcase strikes a man in the head, death is an entirely predictable outcome of the crime, and so a murder rap is more than justified. Even Baroness 'Papers Please' Scotland gets closer to the truth:

‘If there is anyone who does not know that if you punch someone they may fall over, strike their head and then die, we should do everything possible to enlighten that person.

Or we could just kick them off the bench?

This is where rubber meets the road. The law, as passed by Parliament is quite clear that these cases are murder. It's the bewigged ones who have spent decades defining murder up to the point where anything short of flamethrowers hardly counts.

As ever, there's a wider issue here. Judges hate hate hate the mandatory life sentence for murder, but instead of doing the decent thing and resigning to campaign for a change in the law, or even just the moderately sleazy thing, and campaigning against it while still in office, what they've done instead is evade the clearly-expressed will of Parliament by tightening the definition of murder to the point of absurdity.

It's great that they're finally deciding to treat killing people as more serious than, say, tax evasion (but, say, why now instead of over the past twelve years), but it doesn't change the fact we only got here because a lawless judiciary was allowed to ignore the law of the land in favour of its own far-out lefty nonsense. Whatever happens in these particular cases, the fact remains we still have a judiciary that thinks Parliament's output comes stamped with the word 'For Information Only'.

They Probably Think Elvis Is Dead Too!

Conspiracy theorists, hey? What will they think of next?

Police are arresting innocent people in order to get their hands on as many DNA samples as possible, senior Government advisers revealed last night.

Who'd have thunk it? Apart from 'everyone', anyway.

They have a genuinely good idea, too:

They also called for all police - including support staff - to place their own DNA on the national database in a show of solidarity with a public being routinely placed under suspicion.

Hey, why not? Suck it up Plod, I make that a lawful order under Section 7 of the Sauce For The Goose Act (2009)

Actually, no, that won't work. In so far as police officers have been shown to have deprived citizens of their liberty on bogus grounds so as to obtain their DNA unlawfully, merely requesting DNA from serving officers won't work. No, siree, Jack: at the least, they should be seized at random on their days off and held in cells for 72 hours before their DNA is taken, just to level things up.

Courts Too Lawless Even For A Lawyer

This is all good stuff, but the key point is this:

[Lady Deech] blamed judges for creating a 'half-and-half' divorce law without any reference to Parliament....[she said] 'The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short, childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect.'

Well, quite.

Whatever marriage is now, back when these changes were being driven through it was a cornerstone of society, yet femiloons and their castrato allies were able to blow a hole in it without so much as a question in the house.

A vote of thnaks to for the (mostly self-appointed) leaders of the social conservative movement. Folks like IDS may indeed be well-meaning, but all their talk of defending the family is just blathersgate as long as it takes a lawyer to point out the femiloon elephant in the room:

'It is far more difficult to terminate those other pillars of a stable life, employment and a tenancy, than marriage.'...

'Any other situation that is known to harm children, sometimes not nearly as much - for example school food or paedophilia - attracts legislation and extensive public campaigns without dissent.

'But even when public debate focuses on the plight of single parents and their children, the fact that over half of them are created by divorce and separation is overlooked.

Clearly, we need more tax breaks for marriage.

Lockerbie: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberalism

If nothing else, the release of the Lockerbie bomber has neatly undercut all that liberal whining about 'judicial independence'. They claim to oppose mandatory minimum sentences because they think only the judge should determine the tariff, but now a politician has chosen to set a scumbag free - sans any kind of public debate - that's completely different.

Then there's the whole 'tiny minority' thing. In so far as the guy who murdered 270 people was given a hero's welcome in Libya, this would seem to bring into question the whole 'Religion of Peace' thing.

Then again, if you want to talk about diseased political cultures, we have one closer to hand. Hey, like I keep saying, Celtic separatists give us real nationalistic bigots a bad name. There's nothing to redeem the SNP here. Not even the most bonkers calculus can show how this was in Scotland's interest. Nope, they released Megrahi for no better reason than to demonstrate contempt for civilisation in general and the UK in particular. That would be a ludicrous basis for any policy, but when it leads to releasing the mad bomber, you start to wonder if Hadrian had the right idea after all.

To the point: could leftists stop babbling about the dangers of English nationalists, at least until some English people start calling for murderous savages to be set free just to stick two fingers up to Scotland?