Pigdogfucker

PDF operates an equal opportunities policy of offensiveness. If a fucking dickhead compares Labour to the Nazis, we call him a fucking dickhead. If a fucking dickhead compares climate change denialists to Josef Fritzl, we call him a fucking dickhead (note: the Bishop of Stafford is a fucking dickhead).

And if an Australian TV channel points out to kids that they’re using ten times the resources of the average third world citizen, and does so by the comedically robust means of a “when ought you to die?” calculator, we salute them. This is entirely appropriate: everyone in the west should be thoroughly aware of how fucking lucky they are to be as rich as they fucking are, and equally be aware that there is no way in hell the world could support the lifestyles we currently have for its whole population; failure to appreciate these facts is a sign of rampant idiocy and self-centredness bordering on the autistic; and the belief that it’s wrong to point these facts out to kids in a way that will shock them and stick in their minds is somewhere between Victorian and moronic.

However, one thing that we don’t like is hypocrisy. And as Justin points out, the hypocrisy of right-wing swearbloggers after the Bishop of Stafford’s remarks certainly counts…

Obsolete makes sense:

[This is] why Sophie Lancaster’s mother hasn’t received the overwhelming sympathy or coverage that Helen Newlove did; she happened to [be] a youth worker who believed in compassion, letting live and and forgiving, and despite initial and understandable soul-searching about whether she could continue in such a job, she’s decided she will. Contrast that to Newlove: the woman out not for justice, but for apparent vengeance, who gives the kind of quotes the tabloids adore, such as saying how she’d give her husband’s killers the lethal injection herself, while demanding that new, deeply authoritarian and illiberal laws be brought in to stop such youths killing in the future.

When met with individuals who don’t want to pursue a vendetta, or even, God forbid, forgive their tormentors, as Anthony Walker’s mother famously did, they don’t understand it or consider it worthy of further coverage, except to ask how they possibly could do such a thing. The embittered and angry always make for better copy than the reflective ones who want to move on.

I’d agree wholeheartedly, and add Liz Longhurst to the list of the vindictive, vendetta tabloid-tacular side. And of course, this fuels the cycle of hatred, has contributed to everyone being more afraid of crime than they should be, and generally makes the world a worse place for all concerned. While I’m not a Christian, getting rid of “eye-for-eye” and substituting “turn the other cheek” is quality inspirational genius, and is pretty much the foundation of everything that’s good, decent and worth keeping about western civilisation.

On a more personal basis, the people I love know my views about This Sort Of Thing, and are sane liberals rather than deranged medievalists; it’s disappointing to think that in the extremely unlikely event that I were to become the victim of a vile murder, they’d be more or less completely ignored in favour of people who wanted to eviscerate children [*] live on TV…

[*] it’s weird – if anyone other than Helen Newlove were to go public about their desire to kill children, they’d find themselves at best a social pariah and probably in a loony bin within a few days…

Yes, it’s time for the Obligatory Taking The Piss Out Of Guido session, where we mock irritating, litigous tossers for getting arrested while driving drunk.

EJH in ChickYog’s comments has the best gag on the whole saga:

I think my favourite part of the whole story is that he was speaking at the Adam Smith Institute. Perhaps an invisible hand topped up his glass when he wasn’t looking?

Diamond Geezer has been on absolute top form on the Mayoral election, the posing clown who won it, and the fact that – despite there being next to no crime and the only people who worry about crime being gibbering ninnies – it’s somehow become a serious political issue.

Highlight:

The Mayor has correctly recognised that Londoners are a bunch of screaming wusses with no accurate perception of reality, especially those who never travel by bus because they think it’s too damned scary. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Also, given that DG isn’t really supposed to be a political blog, and given the insane depths of “OMFG! Two people out of 60 million got stabbed last weekend, we’re clearly descending into an abyss of hoodie terror!” nonsense that infests the comments sections of even nominally sane places like CiF and Liberal Conspiracy, it’s good to see that the comments are pretty on the same wavelength as the post.

Readers, are you sane people like DG, or are you paranoid lunatics who think crime is a serious issue worth bothering with? When a woman whose 18-year-old daughter killed herself in jail after being sent there for being a bit mean to an old geezer [*], kills herself out of depression and grief and someone writes a tribute article to her, do you say:

“Pauline Campbell was a brave and compassionate woman. She will be sorely missed.”

or

“Oh, FFS! If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

If you have any views on why the bunch of eejits who believe the second point tend to congregate on liberal blogs rather than whimsical blogs about London scenery, feel free to post them in the comments. Also feel free to prove my point by posting ignorant rants in the comments about how Sarah Campbell was, like, EEEVIL JUNKI3 SKUM and deserved to DIE!

[*] yes, the old geezer had a heart condition that the girls didn’t know about, and when they were a bit mean to him he died of fright [**]. This, in a sane world, would be punished in the same way as being a bit mean to anyone else – i.e. mild disapproval. What matters morally is what could be reasonably expected from your actions (for the avoidance of doubt, “being a bit mean to an old geezer” does not allow you to reasonably infer “old geezer will snuff it”), not their actual consequences; and if you don’t understand that then you have the moral sensibilities of a five-year-old.

[**] fucking hell, this is an 18-year-old girl we’re talking about. if you’re an adult male who’s scared of an 18-year-old girl, you don’t deserve to walk this earth, you ridiculous pansy.

So, it transpires that the chap who got stabbed after starting a gang fight in McDonald’s in Oxford Street was a gangland cunt, who’d raped a girl (is “moll” the term for girls who unwisely date gangsters and then screw them over?) and burned her with acid in a revenge attack [*], as well as stabbing some other daft fuckwit in a gang fight.

This a) exactly what I predicted would be the case as soon as I heard the story and b) why I don’t give a shit, and you shouldn’t give a shit, about gangland crime – it happens to people who utterly brought it on themselves. If you don’t want to be shot, stabbed or raped and burned with acid by gangsters, then don’t join a gang, don’t shoot or stab people, and don’t date gangsters. Obviously you might still end up shot, stabbed or raped, but you’re decreasing your chances by around two orders of magnitude…

Meanwhile, knife crime overall continues to fall, although daft propaganda from hysterical maniacs remains on the rise. Amusing feature from the “fuck me, criminals are shit” file: knife crimes are twice as likely to cause injury as gun crimes. Maybe the banning of pistols has actually had a positive impact on crime reduction, ensuring that kids who do have guns have got no fucking clue about how to use the things…

[*] I’d happily bet £500 that the gang-raping-and-acid-burning transpires to be horrible punishment for someone who’s fucked over a gang, not the ludicrous “proto-CSI using acid to hide DNA” nonsense that the tabloids have made up and are spreading as True Fact. Sadly, William Hill don’t think it’s an appropriate subject for wagers…

BBC: Adults with autism to be audited

Surely they mean “to be auditors”?

BBC:

The parents of a 15-year-old girl killed in a road crash have paid tribute to their “beautiful” daughter.

C’mon. They could’ve said “clever”, “kind”, “loving” – or even “wonderful” or “brilliant” – and got away with it. But given that photography has been a viable science for over 150 years, saying something so obviously counterfactual is just weird.

Kudos to the Beeb for putting it in inverted commas…

Whining lying thieving pikey cunts; gas the lot of them:

“We are the last group of people in this country who you can openly mock and make racist jokes about – who else is there?”

Fuck off and tarmac my driveway. You’re not a race, you’re just a bunch of navvies who couldn’t be arsed to settle down and get jobs when they stopped building railways…

This is doubtless a sign of my heartless inhuman mysogyny, but I saw two news stories today that I struggled to tell apart:

Johnny Vegas sexually molests pretty young fan on stage and Elephant seal attempts to rape penguin...

Via Phil in comments, a badly reported story of idiots screwing each other over in a way that may have disturbing implications for non-idiots.

The story, at least according to the BBC is that Gavin Brent, who in fairness does look like a thick twat, got arrested for some kind of arcane Internet thievery. DC Steve Lloyd interviewed Mr Brent over said thievery; then went on paternity leave whilst Mr Brent was being charged. Mr Brent then ranted on his blog about how shit it was that he was being arrested and how the officers arresting him were cunts, suffixed with “P.S. – D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby”.

This isn’t A Clever Thing To Do. However, in the eyes of anyone who isn’t certifiably, immediately and permanently paranoidly deranged, it’s entirely fucking clear that that sentence means means “I hope your baby manages to get around the handicap of having a dad who’s an utter dickhead”, not “I’m going to set fire to your baby”. Unfortunately for Mr Brent, DC Lloyd is indeed a paranoid dickhead, and hence charged Mr Brent with [something]. The magistrates – possibly because most magistrates are complete and utter lackeys who’ll convict anyone of anything the police ask no matter what the actual law may be – found him guilty and fined him £150.

The reason for the [something] and the “possibly” is that the only report of this I’ve been able to find is on the BBC website (plus a few ranty blogs that have linked to it), and in the style of most “ooh, comedy interest” local news stories, the reporting is a pile of arse and doesn’t mention the actual offence with which Mr Brent was charged. Equally unfortunately, Mr Brent’s blog has been deleted and I’ve not been able to track down any archives or backups of it.

Readers, do you have any more info on this story? In particular, I’d be interested to see a) what the hell he was charged with and b) any evidence at all that the magistrates were justified in concluding that “any reasonable person would find the words about the baby to be menacing in the context of the overall blog“. Because unless the evidence goes well beyond the BBC story there is none, and the magistrates should immediately be fired.

Update – thanks to Mike in comments:

But one thing that is entirely fucking clear is that his blog it is absolutely free of threats, but riven with whiney denunciations. This means that the magistrates who interpreted his whiney denunciation as a threat are moronic cretins; if someone successfully crucifies all three of them to death and posts the photos in comments here, I’ll give them a fiver and a bag of chips.