Filed under Politicking

Kebab cannibal murder update: it was all bollocks

If you’re a BNP fuckwit, you may have been spending the last year or so spreading the myth that Muslim chaps kidnap white girls and turn them into kebabs. Indeed, you may have been doing so in the comments section of this blog, citing a leak from anonymous Blackpool police sources to the local paper about an ongoing criminal investigation as their ‘evidence’.

If you’re not a BNP fuckwit, it will come as no surprise to you to learn that said ongoing criminal investigation concluded with the acquital of all defendants, ordered by the judge on the basis that the police’s evidence was riddled with lies.

Unfortunately, the story has almost certainly reached urban myth status to the degree that thick cunts everywhere will believe it happened somewhere, despite not having done. Which will almost certainly lead to more mistrust, hatred and violence between thick white cunts and the Saracen hordes. Which is what the BNP wanted in the first place… so of course they don’t give a fuck that the story was made up all along…

Update: for the avoidance of doubt, I’m happy to point out that there were no public communications made from BNP central office regarding this case. But if the people spreading the rumours weren’t BNP supporters, then mine’s a large hat doner…

Vote Boris: kill a child

From Boris Johnson’s public statements about shootings and stabbings of kids in London, and his insistence that these events are somehow the current Mayor’s fault and represent a good reason to vote for a different Mayor next month (perhaps a blond floppy-haired one), one might assume that Mr Johnson is strongly opposed to the senseless and preventable death of children.

Yet while the Mayor of London has limited power over policing and crime, an area where s/he has great influence is in setting traffic priorities and speed limits. Ken Livingstone’s bus-and-cycle-favouring, car-delaying policies have been a major factor in cutting the number of serious pedestrian injuries by 500 per year since 2000. And Mr Johnson plans to reverse them in order to speed up traffic if he wins the election.

So, if you don’t really give a fuck about the preventable deaths of children, then by all means vote for Johnson. But if you’re letting the kniving and shooting hysteria sway you then you absolutely, positively, 100% need to understand that voting for Johnson on that basis will lead to the deaths of far more children than will be saved. And that’s even if you had some reason to assume that he’d be in any way competent at tackling child-on-child crime in the first place…

Holy fuck, this is quite moving, and it shouldn’t be

Which dead fighter left this message for his daughter?

“Sweetheart… I’m going to really, really miss you a lot. I’m thinking about it already. Look, I absolutely love you to bits and you have been the happiest thing in my life. You and your mum, absolutely brilliant.

“I don’t know what else to say. I just wish I could have been part of your life, especially these growing up – these next months, they’re really special with you learning to walk and things. I just so much wanted to be with you but I have to do this thing for our future and it will be for the best, in the long run.

“That’s the most important thing…. you’ve got loads of people to look after you and keep and eye on you. And I’m doing what I’m doing for the sake of our country.”

Answer? With a couple of Islam references changed to patriotism references, it was Mohammed Siddique Khan, the total bastard who blew himself on the Underground in July 2005, and persuaded a small bunch of other idiots to do likewise.

But it sounds like any other speech by an articulate man gone to war to kill whomever his leaders told him to kill. I guess the point which needs reinforcing is that there’s nothing weird, wrong or unusual about wanting to die for a cause – fuck, I’m cynical and there are even causes I’d die for. And if you think there’s something weird about wanting to kill others while you do that – then doublefuck, there are courses in human nature that you need.

The bit which is weird about suicide terrorism in the UK is purely and simple that we think of the people who do it as being like us, but they think of us in the same way that British soldiers thought of Germans in WWI, Argie conscripts in the Falklands, Iraqi militiamen today, and so on.

Draw your own conclusions as to why this might be the case. Guardian readers should start from the perspective of George Bush and the Zionist lobby’s desire to slaughter any innocent brown chap that moves; while Daily Mail readers should start from the perspective of the inherent murderousness of the paedophile prophet.

[yes, I know this is based on the same article as the last piece. However, it's two very different points that really, really, really, really don't need conflating; this one is rightly incredibly contentious, whereas the other one shouldn't even need making but does...]

Bollocks about Ken

I’m slightly grumpy about the mayoral election, given that it’s a choice between an utter, utter cunt and a machine politician who’s been in power for too long.

However, this sort of demented loonery makes me increasingly keen to go out there and vote, not just against Boris, but actually for Ken.

Anyone who conflates support of the Palestinians or dislike of the neocon “let’s demonise the Muslims, yay” project with antisemitism is infinitely more bigoted and more insane than Ken will ever be.

And anyone who thinks that, in a run-off between a Jew who works for a Nazi rag [*] and someone who criticises said Jew for working for a Nazi rag, the critic is the one in the wrong is, well, just a cunt really.

[*] the Mail supported Hitler and the blackshirts. If that doesn’t make it a Nazi rag in your world, then you’re Max Moseley and you should probably get back to your holocaust fetish night.

Britishness quiz

In a tribute to the wise Lord Goldsmith’s excellent idea of teaching kids Britishness, Larry Teabag has a quiz on British values that every schoolchild should be forced to take.

Americans can’t take a joke

The headline is hardly news; it’s a well-known fact that joking with Yanks about subjects such as Vietnam, the KKK, 9/11 and Iraq is something that generally doesn’t go down well. As highlighted by the previous post.

[special PDF competition: £100 plus medical bills for the remainder of their life will be paid to the first person to go up to a New York fireman and go with "what's the odd one out of Vietnam, the KKK, 9/11 and Iraq? 9/11, cos none of the other victims deserved it"]

So my sympathy for pissed-up Northern Irish idiot Aidan Mackle is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, holding a drunken Irishman on terrorist charges for slurring “I’m Bin Laden’s mate and he’ll hijack your plane if you don’t give me more booze” is obviously crazy: if anyone, even for one second, thought the chap was a serious threat then they’re the one who should be locked up forever in a non-reality-based institution…

Update: I forgot to add that American airlines (small final A) are the worst in the world, that all of their crew thoroughly deserve murdered, and that for anyone who flies with them, being murdered by terrorists – or, indeed, being abused by an Irish drunk – would be a merciful release. Genuinely, I would rather fly fucking Aeroflot or Turkish Airlines than subject myself to another transatlantic flight on Delta, NWA, Continental or United. I haven’t yet flown AA, and would sooner grind broken glass into my eyes than do so, so there’s a small possibility I’m being unfair to them and them alone…

Best advert ever

This antismoking advert is absolutely awesome.

Not, I hasten to add, because I disapprove of smoking and think it ought to be banned or anything. I love smoking; I just don’t like the way it makes me cough, snore like a bastard, and not be able to run for buses. Rather, I approve of the advert because:

1) people who think it’s awful and inappropriate to make jokes about September 11 are despicable cunts who should be made to stand in pairs and then have petrol-soaked model aeroplanes flown into their heads, and anything which offends them [*] is a good idea;

2) it makes the point that compared with preventable, dull and silly causes of death, terrorism is deeply irrelevant, and so anyone who thinks it’s in any way important, or that Teh War On Terra is one of the major problems facing Civilisation, or anything other than “a few nutjobs are a bit annoying, and stand a chance of killing you that’s so small you’re more likely to die of a stroke from worrying about it too much”, is a fucking idiot.

(via. And yes, I know it’s old. What, you mean you come here for the latest news, not crazy rants and occasional links to bestiality advice?)

[*] within reason. 9/11, although it doubtless offended such people quite a lot, still wasn’t a particularly good idea.

Ostracised by society and not really knowing why moment

OK, so first of all – your Glitters and Huntleys are very bad people. And don’t get me wrong, had some despicable chap raped me as a child, that would have done me no good at all, in the “understated way of saying potentially mentalist, potentially suicidal” sense of “no good at all”.

However, by “some despicable chap raped me as a child”, I mean “some actual chap actually raped me as a child”. Not “some silly childhood ‘you can only go on the trampoline if you suck my balls thing. Or, moving on 10 years, an “I’m a daft teenage boy and a girl dragged me off to the bushes to screw me and I didn’t bother checking her ID” thing.

I just don’t get the whole thing. If Dave Bloggs, the frequent hypothetical bastard, were to rape a girl, that’d be dreadful and despicable. If Dave Bloggs were to have sex with an underage girl who invited him to have sex with her (like the girl that poor Callum Dimmock shagged), then that wouldn’t – at absolute worst, it’d be…

…no, actually, I’m having trouble ending that sentence. What is the sane sentence about a girl choosing to take a chap to bed with her that ends in “is so awful that the chap who she chose to go to bed with ought to go to jail for six years”?

Six years jail seems about right for crippling some poor sod by chucking a brick in his face, and probably lenient for, like, actually raping a kid. But the idea that there’s no such thing as a 12-year-old girl who’s more mature and sensible than a 19-year-old boy, or at least that they’re soooooooo different that the boy needs locked up with Chris Langham, flies in the face of all aspects of nature and sanity [*]

Anyway. Maybe I just don’t get the sheer awfulness of rape – but I’m deeply sceptical, because I can sure as hell say that offered the chance right now of being arse-raped or being given the level of non-sexual assault that would attrach the same sentence, I would absolutely and unequivocally opt for the rape. I mean, to get that kind of sentence you need to be permanently fucking mutilated…

Jesus, how could anyone in their right mind opt otherwise? Even given the option of being raped or being given the sentence for rape [**] is pretty fucking trivial – one is a hurty bum and a bruisedy ego; one is six years to life of being locked in a cage every fucking day and told what to do. OK, there’s a good pro-choice argument here – being compelled to be the cage is even worse still – but barring forced pregnancy, I can’t think of any kind of forced sex, no matter how degrading, that’s worse than spending a few years locked in jail…

Update: this post is grossly exaggerated drunken bollocks – see comments

[*] Traditionally, those are the approximate ages of marriage. Oooh, mysterious.

[**] Yes, assuming caught. Obviously, rapists should be caught. And we’re assuming here, implausibly, that it’s just a standard X years in prison, not X years in prison under special nasty torture as a rapisty-sex-deviant.

The what-th Amendment now?

As any fule kno, publishing controversial material in England, especially if it concerns evil litigious rich bastards, is unwise.

Many bloggers, me included, host their sites [*] in the US, on the grounds that Yank courts are generally a little bit saner about That Sort Of Thing (yes, I know it doesn’t legally protect me from a libel action in England, but any sue-er would need to demonstrate to an English court that the person they’d dragged into the dock was Mr PDF, which would be difficult without records from my US hosting company).

However, the experience of WikiLeaks suggests that American courts are almost as fucking rubbish as ours. It’s a (truly excellent – as with all freedom-of-information stuff, anyone who opposes it should be crucified and resurrected on an infinite torture cycle forever) site that allows whistleblowers to post for the perusal of the unwashed masses.

Some such documents concerned Nazi-gold-laundering Swiss cunts [**] Julius Baer. The crooks’ bank first issued a writ to WikiLeaks directly for ‘violation of trade secrets’ (oh noes! our sekrits is violateds!). But worse, while that case awaits trial, Julius Baer have served a writ on the doman registrar that manages the wikileaks.org domain banning them from, err, doing their job: instead, the domain points to nowhere.

…which is a bit depressing. On the plus side, there are an awful lot of mirrors where Wikileaks can be activated (also, awesomely, BBC News has a story that links directly to one of the mirrored sites – hooray for misplaced legal actions that massively increase the bad publicity for the fuckwits who bring them). Still, it’s just a shame that the one country that claims to be totally free-speeched up has let the world down on this one.

Relatedly, if you’ve not seen the Northern Rock information memorandum from last autumn, then Wikileaks still has a copy. In some ways, it was daft of NR and the government to try and restrict this one, given that it confirms the fact that the bank really does have a high-quality loans book that’s putting the taxpayer at more or less naff-all risk…

[*] or “site their hosts”, if you prefer

[**] ‘Nazi-gold-laundering Swiss cunts’ is used here as a general synonym for ‘Swiss’ – I have no knowledge of or interest in the question of whether Julius Baer itself laundered Nazi gold, but since Switzerland’s prosperity is based on taking a cut from every thief, fraudster and genocidaire going, it’s certainly profited indirectly from horrible suffering.

Why I find it hard to dislike the Archbishop

As long as ignorant cunts talk this kind of shit:

Why is McDonald’s considering and even trialling Halal meat in a Christian country? I find this grossly inconsiderate to the majority of the English people who are Christian and would have issues with eating meat prepared in such a way

…I’m going to be on the side of the likes of Rowan Williams purely on an “enemy of my enemy” basis.

1) halal animals do not suffer any more than conventionally-killed animals. If you cut something’s throat with a sharp knife, it loses consciousness long before the pain from the throat wound cuts in;

2) if you give even the slightest flying fuck about animal welfare (rather than just about sticking it to the darkies), you won’t be eating at Maccy D’s anyway;

3) Jesus stated quite explicitly that Christians are not bound by dietary rules and are allowed to eat meat prepared along the lines of any other creed, Jewish or Roman. While Mohammed wasn’t about in Jesus’s day, given that halal is a toned-down version of kosher it seems unlikely that the lovey-dovey beardie chap would’ve been too grumpy about the whole thing.

If you’re a vegetarian [*], you’ve every right to criticise halal. If you only eat super-turbo-happy-meat and have got some in-depth scientific research which confirms that having your throat cut is much much worse than being shot in the head with a bolt gun, then you’ve some right to criticise halal. If you’re neither, you’ve every right to fuck off and die.

[*] perhaps “if you’re a vegetarian who doesn’t drink industrially-produced milk or eat industrially-produced cheese”: a free-range-but-halal-killed animal has a much better life and death than an industrially-farmed dairy cow.