Posted in November 2006

Malicious prosecution

Imagine a 15-year-old boy is caught having taken a video of two kids in his class shagging each other, and having forwarded it on to other classmates. Is the sensible response:

a) a word to the boy and his parents that this isn\’t civilised or appropriate behaviour?

b) suspending the boy from school for a while and pointing out that, although it\’s easy with modern technology, this kind of thing hurts people and could get him into serious trouble if he keeps it up in later life?

c) prosecuting and convicting the boy for making and distributing child pornography?

If you picked option c, then you\’re both an absolute cunt and in line with the Perth and Kinross constabulary and judiciary.

While I expect the rozzers to be cunts, the behaviour of the CPS and courts is more worrying. Anyone care to justify this one?


Dsquared has an interesting point on the Litvinenko affair: the conventionally accepted wisdom about the plot, in almost all other contexts, would look like a Crazy Conspiracy Theory and therefore be rejected.

This is true-ish, although I think the Russian connection makes the perception a little different – the public \’know\’ that Russia assassinates people helter-skelter, whereas the public \’know\’ that our elected leaders would never do such a thing. Equally, Ajay in the comments mentions a powerful reason why – unlike most conspiracy theories – this one could be quite easy to maintain the cover-up:

It\’s worth pointing out that, personally, if I were involved in a plot whose object was the long and painful death of someone who snitched about plots, I myself would be highly motivated not to snitch about that particular plot, for very obvious reasons.

What\’s the best thing about 29-year-olds?

Nourishing Obscurity objects to the Welsh police chief\’s reasonably sensible reaction to sexlaws:

Tell me one thing a 13 year old could offer you which a hot 29 year old couldn’t? Tell me how she could sexually and socially satisfy you? Yes, exactly – no demands, does exactly what you want, goes into hysterics afterwards.

Mr Obscurity should be told that there are plenty of 29-year-olds who meet his slightly unusual criteria (since I imagine he\’s well over the chief constable\’s 20-year-old cut-off, and therefore should probably steer clear of the schoolgirls…).

Fundamentally morally unsane

According to James Lewis at the American Thinker, the reason that civilised people don\’t think Saddam should be executed is because we lurve him and think that genocide is way groovy. \”Every mass-murdering ideology in the last two centuries had its origins and supporters in Europe\”, he adds. Top quality insaniac rant.

Good work, McDonald\’s

Some McDonald\’s restaurants in Australia have started using halal meat in their burgers. This is sensible: it tastes the same as normal meat, and it means that everyone (apart from orthodox Jews, who are banned from eating cheeseburgers anyway….) can eat it.

Amazingly, there are mad cunts out there who actually disapprove of this. \”Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn\’t halal . . . I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn\’t been blessed,\” says gibbering mentalist and stupid cunt Miriam McLennan. Hopefully, she (along with everyone who shares her outlook on life) will be gang-raped and cut into small pieces by drug-crazed Islamists.

Meanwhile in the UK, a similar pathetic storm in a teacup has been cooked up by crazy white bigots. A school with a 20% Muslim intake decided to serve halal chicken as its Christmas dinner so that everyone could eat the same food at the same time – which is again the obvious and sane thing to do and which could only be objected to by gibbering mentalists. Unfortunately, the gibbering mentalists whined so much that the school had to abandon the plans…

What the fuck is wrong with these bastards? I\’m obviously not a Muslim; I\’m happy to get blind drunk and eat a halal kebab or chickenburger, because I don\’t give a flying fuck about the religious incantations that it has or hasn\’t been blessed with. Christianity explicitly abolishes all dietary restrictions for its adherents [*], so if you are of Christian extraction and you refuse to eat halal meat when you\’d be willing to eat the same animal killed non-halal-ishly, you have no religious or moral excuse – you are just a mad bigot. And should be killed, preferably halal-style.

[*] Eat anything that is sold in butchers’ shops; there is no need to ask questions for conscience’s sake, since To the Lord belong the earth and all it contains. If an unbeliever invites you a meal, go if you want to, and eat whatever is put before you; you need not ask questions of conscience first. – I Corinthians 10, 25-26


Rather than worrying about ladies wearing silly outfits (and we\’ve been almost as bad as the Dutch about this one lately), we should probably worry more about this kind of thing.

Fighting ignorance with ignorance

I\’m not a fan of the burqa: it\’s a silly garment that dehumanises the women who wear it, and promotes a religious agenda of which I disapprove.

However, the Dutch plan to ban its wearing in public is an appallingly stupid, illilberal and evil one. A hallmark of a civilised society is that, subject to certain decency-based requirements, people can wear what the fuck they like. Banning women from expressing their beliefs through their dress is the kind of stupid shit that fundamentalist Islamists get up to, not the kind of thing we should be doing.
It\’s basically a parallel to the whole War On Terror thing – a marginal and irrelevant bunch of silly cunts don\’t like us much and make some half-arsed attempts at destroying our freedom, so the government takes decisive action to destroy all our freedom before they get the chance. The Dutch equivalent is \”you want to impose barbaric and restrictive dress codes on us – so we\’ll impose them on you!\”.

If any Islamist terrorists are reading this, I suggest you fly to Amsterdam (only about £30 on EasyJet these days), shoot interior minister Rita Verdonk with eight bullets, slit her throat, stab her in the torso, and leave a note pinned to her with a knife saying something like \”stop it you daft buggers, you\’re almost as bad as me\”.

Surprise of the century

The majority of \’drug rape\’ victims are actually just drunk, through self-administered grog, and have no bloody idea whether or not they consented in the first place.

\”Rape is never the victim\’s fault\”, a Home Office spokeswoman added, inaccurately.