Much as I hate Boris, this is fucking nonsense

According to the Centre for Social Cohesion (readers, can you think of anything more 1984-esque and horrible than a Centre for Social Cohesion?)

Mayor Johnson has managed to recall one such incident from that era when a fellow club member, now a top city lawyer, had thrown a plant pot through a restaurant window and the police had been summoned:

“The party ended up with a number of us crawling on all fours through the hedges of the botanical gardens, and trying to escape the police dogs.”

Mayor Johnson did not escape arrest and, along with several other club members also arrested, was obliged to spend the night in police custody. “Once we were in the cells we became pathetic namby-pambies”, said the Mayor.

Of course, the scale of their misdemeanours does not begin to match that of Jimmy Mizen’s killer. But, then, unlike him, David Cameron and Boris Johnson had had every advantage in life, including an Eton-Oxford education.

No, it’s not about the scale, you daft cunts. Call-me-Dave and Boris went out and were twats, in a harmless-aside-from-financial fashion (and mild financial loss doesn’t matter at all; if you think it does then you’re a blithering idiot). Harmless jolly fun; the sort of thing everyone should do as a kid; and only paranoid tools who fear a hoodie lurking in every corner worry about it.

The guy who killed Jimmy Mizen, although admittedly unlucky in that hitting someone with a glass bowl doesn’t normally kill them, did nonetheless hit a chap with a glass bowl. That’s a completely different issue, in that it involves actually doing violence against a person. If you’re too moronic to grasp this concept, you probably shouldn’t be writing for a social think tank…

Anyone who calls himself a progressive is a fucking shitbag

Paulie from Never Trust A Hippy really is a ridiculous fucking twat.

No, this isn’t a fucking ‘constructivist’ comment; nor does it take account of the fucking ‘historical forces’ shaping why Paulie is such a ridiculous twat. It’s a bourgeois observation, from my ahistorical ivory tower, based purely on observation of the text without consideration for its positioning. Bad me.

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.

Quokka news

It’s good to know that Aussie politician Troy Buswell has never done anything inappropriate with a quokka. And who hasn’t induldged in a bit of chair-sniffing every now and then?

However, as dsquared says:

What would be appropriate behaviour toward a quokka? I suspect that different people draw different lines with respect to these eminently fuckable, football-shaped, edible marsupials. Who I suspect have a pretty tough time of it.

I’m slightly perplexed by the ‘fuckable’ – they look a bit small to me, but I’ll defer to the expert. Quokkas are certainly another illustration of the bizarre bifurcation of Antipodean wildlife: on the one hand, you have unspeakably hardcore versions of normal things, such as spiders that can eat your head and fish that can eat your whole boat; on the other, you have unspeakably crap versions of normal things, such as permanently stoned minature bears that die falling out of trees and birds that can’t fly or run. The quokka definitely falls into the second category.

At least according to Wikipedia, the quokka “recycles a small amount of its waste products”. What an environmentally friendly little fella – an inspiration to us all. Or alternatively, what a great euphemism: “no, I wasn’t eating my own shit in that German movie, I was just recycling waste products…”

It’s ‘unsurprising dead gansta’ day

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…

More fun with headlines

BBC: Adults with autism to be audited

Surely they mean “to be auditors”?

Bombing conspiraloons, again

Just noticed this old-ish thread on Rachel’s site (I linked to the post at the time, but the comments have sprawled somewhat since then).

Antipholus Papps, sometime of this parish, makes a pretty reasonable point (and gets utterly crucified by self-righteous cunts for his pains):

the reason that some people question what happened on 7 July 2005 is down to the government being a bunch of lying murderous bastards who start wars on false premises.

NB if you’re as stupid as some of the respondents in the original thread, you might take this as implying that either the bombings were excused by the Iraq war, or that they were done by the government. He isn’t saying that.

He’s saying that since the government have lied about more or less everything, particularly regarding evidence of Terrorism and Evil Stuff, to disbelieve their narrative concerning the biggest example of Terrorism and Evil Stuff we’ve seen domestically is hardly unreasonable.

Now, as Rachel’s original piece makes clear, the government has released credible evidence that the July 7 bombings were indeed carried out by the four people reported as carrying them out, for the purposes for which they were reported as carrying them out. So, as I’ve said elsewhere, people who continue to believe the conspiracy narrative are daft cunts.

But this evidence was released in the conspiracy trials that took place in spring 2008 – which means that there was a period of nearly three years where accepting that the July 7 bombings took place as reported meant uncritically believing the words of people who are known to lie about This Sort Of Thing.

I don’t know about you, but I’m reluctant to blame anyone for their historical reluctance to uncritically believe the words of liars…

For clarification

If you find any of the following “intimidating”, “threatening”, or whatever pathetic term-of-the-day gets used to mean “oooh, I don’t like it, help me mummy”:

1) people drinking
2) people being drunk
3) people being drunk and loud

…then you are a worthless cunt who doesn’t deserve to live.

Yes, if people start *actually* threatening you (which means “saying they’re going to do bad things to you”, not “being loud and common within your earshot”), that’s a bad thing and they should be arrested. But as long as they don’t, then either shut the fuck up or (preferably) kill yourself and everyone who shares your DNA.

Evidence and its absence

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…