Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Lefty Values

Circling the drain – Dead Tree Press edition

The Grauniad

The Guardian has confirmed losses of £69m for the last financial year but said it was making significant progress in its membership scheme, with more than 50,000 people paying to sign up.

Membership is a core part of plans by the publisher’s parent company, Guardian Media Group, to counteract falls in both print and digital revenue, which led to an £8m fall in total turnover to £209.5m.

The industry as a whole has faced greater than expected declines in print advertising over the past year, while digital ad growth has almost all gone to Google and Facebook. Guardian Media Group to cut 250 jobs in bid to break even within three years.

Not including one-off costs, the revenue decline resulted in a pre-tax loss of £68.7m, compared with £14.7m in the preceding year. On an underlying basis, losses were £62.6m, up from £38.8m.

However, exceptional items totalling more than £104m, including an £84m writedown of the value of its stake in business publisher Ascential, meant the company recorded a total loss of £173m.

The Guardian – Guardian’s losses hit £69m

Some of us, myself included have been hoping and praying for the death of The Grauniad for some considerable time as it one of the few remaining platforms for those of the left to preach their philosophy of “Gibs me dat” and “Do as I say, or else”.

Certainly I would pay good money to see George Monbiot, Polly Toynbee, Jessica Valenti, et al. being thrown onto the streets of North London with their possessions in a cardboard box a la the banksters of Lehman Brothers. Let them see if there is a market elsewhere for their biased coverage, opinions and editorialising, unless they can find shelter at the BBC, I very much doubt it.

Unfortunately, that probably won’t happen, instead I suspect we will see an abandonment of print journalism at some point in the not-too-distant-future, with a more gradual decline into darkness and irrelevance where the Independent has gone before.

Lest we forget, the Grauniad was the newspaper that was demanding a £2 a month levy on broadband bills to subsidise its inability to find subscribers.

A £2-a-month levy on broadband could save our newspapers

I mean seriously, would anything of value be lost?

The Vulture Award

The VA (aka Vacuous Arsehole) is a new award given to politicians, or just about anyone in public office, for making mortuary mileage out of a tragic demise.

The first winner of this prestigious medal is Maria Eagle, Labour MP for Garston and Halewood, for attempting to link yeserday’s appalling attack on, and subsequent death of, Labour MP Jo Cox,  a supporter of Remain, to the Brexit campaign.  Eagle is also awarded the DSB (Distinguished Steward’s Bar) for being lower than a worm’s anus; a stone hearted bitch who puts politics before whatever shred of humanity she might possess.

Someone should take Eagle aside and explain that you never go full retard, especially before the facts are known.  Contemptible actions by individuals like Eagle, to name but one of many, are the reason the public despises and distrusts so many politicians.

Feel free to make your own nominations for the award.  The field is target rich after all.

 

I probably don’t need to say it but I’m going to anyway.  Our thoughts are with Jo’s family and friends.  The senseless violence that took her from this world and her loved ones cannot go unpunished.  The person responsible should be locked up for the rest of his life and the key thrown away.  No one deserves to die the way Jo Cox did.  All she was trying to do was help.  RIP Jo Cox.

Quote of the Day, June 6, 2016

All of my life I have heard the left suggest that conservatives want to control what goes on in my bedroom. Meanwhile the left has infiltrated every room of my house as well as my garage.

–Commenter “czechlist,” at WUWT

The Great Frack Off Bake Off F*ck Off

This made my day.

The local rag, the Blackpool Gazette, printed a story that was a little more modest although they did post the video shot at the time, perhaps to garner readers” sympathy for the celebrity environmental warriors eco-loon trespassers.

A-list celebrities Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie visited the proposed shale gas drill site off Preston New Road, Little Plumpton, to lend their support and bake a few cakes for the Lancashire Nannas campaign.

Lancashire Nannas?  There doesn’t seem to be many of those in the video (follow the above Gazette link).  Perhaps the Gazette meant ‘nanas as in right ‘nanas.

Emma, who has been a Greenpeace member since she was 16, said she was inspired by the fight put up by the Nannas and the other local campaign groups against the Government and industry which supports fracking.

Hollywood actors and actresses with carbon footprints the size of Texas absolutely never fail to pass up a celebrity whoredom opportunity virtue waving exercise anti cheap energy for people not half as well off as them protest.

Emma said: “The Lancashire Nannas and other groups have fought so bravely against big business. We wanted to come along and support them.

Wot, no patented quotes from Big Red Dictionary of Socialist Epithets?  Perhaps she forgot to bring her spectacles.  She missed out on “evil capitalists” “vile economic realists” Gaia rapers and planet killers.  Why does she think that supporting a bunch  of Luddite Shreddies knitters is the sensible thing to do?

I went ballistic when I found that David Cameron came back from the Paris global warming conference having agreed to cut carbon emissions and then right away okayed 200 new fracking licences. On the one hand, he was saying the world should cut fossil fuels, and on the other he was preparing to start a new fossil fuel industry. The Government has removed support for solar power and has virtually called a halt to onshore wind energy schemes, but is pushing this dirty fossil fuel industry.

So, Emma, how many of your countless trans-Atlantic flights were powered by windmills and solar panels rather than that filthy fossil fuel that gets you into such a tizzy?  Did you arrive by bicycle or a filthy fossil fuel guzzling car?  And how did you bake those cute little anti-fracking cupcakes?  Over a cow-shit fire pit?  There was certainly enough of it around once the farmer had finished spraying his own protest over his property and uninvited interlopers.  How about that much vaunted cake baking competition?  What filthy fossil fuel was used to bake those world changing comestibles you seem to think gives you a free pass to break the law?

It is disgusting, hypocritical and an example of how the Government is hand in glove with big corporations.

And you, Emma, are a disgusting and hypocritical example of how a stupid, anti-humanity celebrity bimbo works hand in glove with Big Green.  Do you possess even a nanogram of self awareness?

The danger is that all of the efforts of these magnificent Nannas and the residents to fight this industry may be ignored by national government. It is undemocratic, especially having been told by the Government and Greg Clark that decisions should be made on issues locally.

Undemocratic?  Because a small minority of dummy chucking, deluded anti-realists, some of whom seem to have been imported from other parts of the UK to make up the numbers, aren’t getting their way?   I’m a local and I haven’t been consulted (nor has anyone I know) so how the hell do you, Emma “I Love Greenpeace” Thompson, know whether or not the people of the Fylde want fracking or not?  No one that I know is against it.  Why is that?  Because we are sick to death of paying through the nose to heat our homes.  It’s not like we can hop on a plane and piss off to the Riviera to keep warm.

Lancashire Nanas campaigner Tina Rothery said: “It is wonderful to have ‘Nanna McPhee’ – Emma, and Nanna Sophie here with us today.

We’ve met Tina on this blog before.  If you are reading this, Tina, please explain to me why “Nanna McPhee”  (Who she?) is trespassing on private property in breach of a high court injunction?  Does her greenie credentials trump the law of the land?

However, the visit was condemned by pro-fracking group the North West Energy Task Force. Member Tony Raynor, from Lytham said: “I won’t be lectured by a London-based celebrity and multimillionaire, especially when lots of local jobs and much-needed investment in Lancashire are at stake.” And a farmer was also spotted spraying muck on the fields close to the bake off (Video courtesy of Andy Ball and Rock FM)

Typical Anti-fracking Gazette.  A few paltry lines at the end of the article for the pro-frackers and barely a mention of the farmer.  Especially when the Thompsons and their Greenpeace cheer leaders get this extra puff piece.  The mail wasn’t much better.

I used to know Tony Raynor because I worked for his Dad, a very astute businessman, many moons ago.  When I knew Tony he was a teenager trying to fill some big boots and making a muck of things.  He now runs a successful telecommunications company.  It’s nice to see the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree after all.

I’m left wondering why the cupcake clowns weren’t arrested for breaching a high court injunction.  Maybe the paltry fines, or rather lack of them, would fail to outweigh the cost of cleaning cow shit from police vehicles?

Schadenfreude in the Panama Papers

The Panama Papers - Mossack Fonseca

The Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5m files from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ then shared them with a large network of international partners, including the Guardian and the BBC.

What do they reveal?
The documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.

A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.

Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.

An offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork. The fund has been registered with HM Revenue and Customs since its inception and has filed detailed tax returns every year.

The Grauniad – What are the Panama papers?

As a libertarian and someone who believes that all tax is theft, I have some measure of sympathy and indeed support for those who go to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxation and government meddling in the private affairs of citizens, for example Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin who paid a 15% exit tax on his US assets to expatriate to Singapore in 2011.

Those who are unworthy of such libertarian acclaim are those who use illegal means to hide wealth arising from bribery and corruption or who enforce taxation on the little people, but evade it themselves.

Traditionally, this has been 3rd world dictators or the governors of oil rich provinces in Nigeria and such places who essentially steal the wealth of their own populace / electorate. So it was not surprising to find these “usual suspects” in the Panama papers.

Even Vladimir Putin is not someone that I am particularly surprised at given that he has ruled Russia as President and proxy for nearly 20 years.

The sorts of names that you don’t expect are the legislators of modern Western countries such as Iceland’s PM (but not I suspect for long), Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Bastards like this who illustrate Leona Helmsley’s view that “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes”* should face the full force of the law.

[EDIT: and as predicted, less than a day later he's quit]

For UK politicians and business leaders, it is not just tax evasion that the Panama papers might reveal, but also crimes committed under the Bribery Act 2010 and earlier criminal statutes. For example, those cosy little 3rd world arms deals so recently brought to life in the BBC’s adaptation of John Le Carre’s “The Night Manager”.

I suspect that quite a few of the worlds elite will be having sleepless nights over the revelations and since the papers go back 40-years, I expect we will be pissing on the graves of quite a few ex politicians and members of the elite as well. GOOD!

* – Leona Helmsley disputes that she ever said this.

Quote of the Day

If Stacy [McCain], [Adam] Baldwin and [Larry] Correia were liberals would there be any other story in the MSM today?

DaTechGuy on the apparent ideological cleansing of Twitter.

My first reaction is that if they were Lefties, all three would be a lot more famous anyway. ‘Cos that’s the way the media tend to roll. And regardless of whether it’s cock-up or conspiracy, it’s a story. Everyone now knows that Stephen Fry quit Twitter at the weekend. What if his posts had mysteriously started disappearing, or he’d been outright banned for some unspecified “targetted attack”? And, at the same time, much the same thing happened to, say, Peter Tatchell and Lenny DiCaprio?

Yeah, they would be all over it like a rash. “Corporation Kicks Out Commentators”. “Big Business Censors Activists”. “Multinational Silences Campaigners”. It’s so familiar, we can write the headlines ourselves. (Of course, if they ever do pick up on this, it’ll be all, “Safety Watchdog Denies Singling-Out Right-Wingers”…) I can just see Fry sitting on the One Show sofa, talking about how absolutely awful it is that these big companies have so much power over what we can talk about, completely oblivious to the irony of saying this on the BBC. “And who is it you’re supposed to have “targetted”, Stephen?” says the Welsh bird. “Well, that’s just it: I don’t know. They won’t tell me. It’s absolutely Kafka-esque…”

My second is that I could have told you something like this would happen. It’s more or less why I’ve never used Twitter or Facebook. Combine the monolithic model of these so-called social “networks”* with Conquest’s second law, and it was pretty much inevitable. The Internet’s supposed to be distributed and decentralized. Let’s keep it that way.

*Yet again, the S-word is shown to drain all meaning from whatever it qualifies.

They say that like it was a bad thing

Sky News: Charity Dentists Filling Gaps In NHS Funding.

Quote of the Day, Jan. 27, 2016

Socialism’s basic premise is that the value of anyone’s life is found only its contribution to the social good. No individual life has value in and of itself.

–Commenter Pat Frank, at What’s Up With That

Violence remains at the heart of the left

Egg thrown at a Tory

Over the past 48 hours, delegates, MPs, journalists and exhibitors who are attending the annual gathering of the nation’s governing party have been punched, spat at, kicked, subjected to racist abuse, sexist abuse and other general threats of violence.

- The Telegraph

I’m not a Tory, not by a long chalk, but it’s a personal thing. I don’t like the intrusive and nanny state aspects of the Tories, as a result, I don’t tend to vote for them, except as a protest and I don’t fund them.

But some on the left, firmly believe that having their arguments decisively, if not overwhelmingly, rejected at the ballot box, feel they have the right to turn up outside the Tory party conference and intimidate, spit and throw eggs at the attendees for little more than supporting a different political vision.

So inured are we to the childish, yet violent behaviour of the left, that for the most part we are more disgusted than surprised, but could you imagine the opposite happening? A bunch of sneering Young Conservatives turning up to protest at the Labour Party conference? No – me neither.

This is the fundamental problem at the heart of the left – that when their arguments are rejected by the electorate, they don’t seek better arguments, they just reach into their grab-bag of socialist solutions for what has worked in the past and try and apply that.

The problem being that strikes and sit-ins and the rest of the panoply of student union politics seldom works in the real world for the simple fact that the real world is not made up of 20-something’s who’ve never had a job and have too much time on their hands.

As the left crumbles, expect more intimidation and “Direct Action”, but the more they do it, the more the general populace will become alienated by it and contemptuous of those who practice it.

For Fox Sake!

Rod Liddle, Sun columnist, goes off on one.

TALLY Ho! No sooner are the Conservatives back in office than they’ve decided to have a go at the poor foxes once again.

Actually I am of the opinion that they are trying to fix a half-arsed law that does little for either camp.  Trying to turn it into a Toffs or Us campaign because it suits your townie tunnel vision is unworthy of decent journalism.  But then, this is the Sun we are talking about.

Probably because there’s not much important going on in the world, is there?

When trying to repeal bad laws you have to begin somewhere.  The fox hunting travesty is as good a place to start as any.

Just the EU falling to bits and jihadi maniacs chopping heads off all over the place and Britain swamped by more and more immigration.

More bad laws to repeal, yes?

The Prime Minister wanted to waste some parliamentary time loosening the laws on fox hunting.

I assume this was David Cameron’s gift to his local pals — the Cotswold Posse.

All those rich monkeys in his constituency who enjoy nothing more than ripping a defenceless animal to bits.

But wait! Riding to the rescue are the Scottish nationalists!

Because Toffs on horseback are far more dangerous than the SNP interfering in English matters that should not concern them?  Your priorities are as skewed as the perceived ones you are whinging about, Ron.

They’ve said they will vote against any Tory proposals to relax the hunting ban. Despite the fact that they shouldn’t have anything to do with the matter because the rules don’t apply to Scotland.

But Ron agrees with them so it’s okay for the SNP to gang up in the House of Commons in precisely the way they promised not to.  The English faction of Parliament should interfere right back and give the SNP a bloody nose.  Oh, wait.  We don’t get to practice that privilege.  But that’s okay because foxes are cute and cuddly and never kill livestock.  Evah!

Opportunistic hypocrites, says Mr Cameron. But the foxes don’t care where salvation comes from — any port in a storm.

I despise Cameron but he has a point.  As for any port in a storm, it depends what is waiting for you on the dock.  In the foxes case it’s poison, lethal gas or a spade over the head.  At least they have a chance to escape horse and hounds.

My own guess is that the SNP are furiously against fox hunting because most members of the party have the same coloured fur as a fox.

Waaaaaycist!  That’s waaaaycist against gingers that is.  To presume they have fur and not hair.  Tut tut.

They’re worried the hunters might get confused. The toffs out on horseback spending the entire day pursuing what they think is a fox — and then they find the hounds have just eaten Nicola Sturgeon.

Ron thinks Nicola is a fox.  Does he kiss her picture every night before he goes to bed?

Still, at least the Nats are on the right side for once.

No, they’re not.  This is political interference on steroids. Will you still feel the same way if they join the Guardianista inspired witch hunt against Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid journalists?  Only stupid turkeys vote for Christmas.

The British public is hugely opposed to fox hunting, according to every opinion poll carried out on the matter.

According the opinion polls we were going to have another hung Parliament.  How is Coalition 2.0 going for you Ron?

Rightly, they consider it a horrible and barbaric business.

So was the invasion of Iraq but that didn’t stop New Labour did it?  They believed that foxes were more deserving of protection than the civilians who died during the ousting of Saddam.  They are still dying because IS filled the void.  Save your indignation for them, Ron.  Let’s have some honest perspective here.

Every bit as barbaric as all those other sports we’ve banned over the years — bear baiting, for example. Or cock fights, or dog fights.

Which take place in pits with no chance of escape.

Just because fox hunting is undertaken, in the main, by posh people, it doesn’t make it any less barbaric. A psychopath wearing a pink jacket is still a psychopath.

Where to begin?  Foxes are an apex predator and are culled because they kill livestock.  You know, all those cute and fluffy lambs, chickens and ducklings.  Dressing up in costume and riding to hounds, in Ron’s world, is psychotic because it is mostly done by toffs even though, in reality, it isn’t.  Bashing an animal’s brains out with the back of a shovel gets no mention, presumably because the deed is done by salt of the earth common man and is therefore not psychotic at all.  This is pure hypocrisy.  It is bare-faced, townie lefty, no nowt bollocks.

But there’s something about the Conservatives that revels in ripping an animal to bits.

I seem to recall a few Conservatives voting for the ban.  Must have slipped Ron’s mind.

If they’re not trying to bring back fox hunting they’re gassing badgers — for no sane reason whatsoever.

Because TB infected badgers don’t exist and neither does Bovine TB.

Mr Cameron and his well-bred cronies have no time for our wildlife, as they show time and time again.

There’s an awful lot of Labour voting farmers and country folk in my part of the world who regularly shoot rabbits and crows.  Aren’t they wildlife too?

If it’s furry and it’s got a pulse, kill it. If it’s a bird of prey, let the gamekeepers shoot it or poison it.

Your PETA-coat is showing, Ron.

And yet I thought the Conservatives were sick of being portrayed as the “nasty party”?

It’s all Fatcha’s fault.

Here’s the deal, Dave. Sort out the economy. Try to raise the wages of our poorest people a little bit, huh?

Nine quid an hour isn’t enough then?   What do you suppose this piece of Tory socialist insanity is going to do for the economy?

Decide what we’re going to do about IS and all those refugees trying to get into the country.

With all those bleeding hearts and EUphiles voting against him?  Not a chance.

And leave the foxes alone.

If you saw what a fox does to livestock it would make you puke, Ron.  But since you are a townie you keep yourself insulated against red blooded reality and arrogantly insist that you know what the scamelling hell you are talking about.

Lord Hall’s Dirty Little Secret

Council Tax bill 2013/2014 for property dwelling band F with 25% discount for sole adult resident

Hat tip to the TV Licensing blog

Speaking on BBC1′s the Andrew Marr Show, Lord Hall also said a “household tax” – as proposed by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee – is a “very interesting idea”.

He added there is broad agreement for the licence fee to be reformed to ensure “everyone is paying equally for it and I would go along with that”.

BBC boss Tony Hall says TV licence fee will last another 10 years

Some will find Lord Hall’s admission that there is no long-term future for the UK’s antiquated “Telly Tax” a refreshing volte-face from the BBC Chief, but the reality is that he needs to protect BBC revenues as well as addressing growing criticism of how TV Licensing operates, specifically:

  • The regressive nature of the TV License which, at an annual cost of £145.50 ($230 USD, $300 AUD) disproportionately affects the poor as it relates to households rather than income.
  • For non-compliant households (both scoff-laws and “TV Refuseniks” who genuinely don’t require a license), sending out threatening letters and visits by Capita goons generates endless bad PR.
  • Those jailed for non-payment of court imposed fines for TV License evasion are primarily poor women (a staggering 73% of all TV License related convictions)

So it is for these reasons, as well as a desire to silence those proposing a mixed public-service/subscription only model, that Lord Hall is suddenly open and honest about the need for change. In fact I suspect that “revenue neutrality” will be the foundation stone, but that will be revenue neutral from the BBC’s perspective – not the “hard-working families” who have to pay for the BBC’s largess.

The model that Lord Hall is proposing is a “Household Tax” and he is suggesting that it be simply added as a line item on Council Tax bills across the nation. Councils would then remit the money to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport – which then sends the bulk of that money directly to the BBC (less some smaller scale payments to other media companies for their public service commitments)

On the face of it, since the “Telly Tax” is essentially a household tax anyway (save for those ½ million-or-so “TV Refuseniks”), so bundling it as a £145.50 line item within the Council Tax would mean:

  • All costs associated with TV License collection would be eliminated (about £100 million per annum) along with the bad PR associated with threatening letters, visiting Capita goons and those poor women jailed for non-payment of court imposed fines for TV License evasion.
  • Collection would revert to local councils, so any refusal to pay would be classified as Council Tax rather than TV License related evasion.
  • The ½ million or so “TV Refuseniks” would be forced to pay regardless as I suspect ”not watching TV as it is broadcast” would cease to be a valid reason to refuse payment. This is a growing problem for the BBC and would “Send the right message” (as in “Fuck you – pay me.”)

However, the one thing which this approach would not deal with (or at least not on the surface), is the accusation that “a fixed fee of £145.50 disproportionately affects the poor”. Here I expect that the provisions covering Council Tax Reduction (previously known as Council Tax Benefit), will be extended to include the TV License component.

So if those in receipt of a Council Tax Reduction are no longer actually paying the cost of their TV License then who will? If your answer to that particular rhetorical question was “Muggins ‘ere”, then I suspect you are correct. :-)

Given a “Revenue Neutral” approach (from the BBC’s perspective), any shortfall would have to be made up from an increase in either general taxation (income tax, etc.) or Council Tax.

Given that the OECD classifies the TV License as “a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting“, neither approach would increase the overall tax versus GDP (one of Chancellor George “Gideon” Osborne favourite metrics), but I expect the new legislation preventing increases in general taxation to be used to add it onto the Council Tax bill.

Thus those eponymous “hard working families” who actually pay their Council Tax bills in full will be paying a hidden and unknown  element to cover those who can’t pay / won’t pay.

Now you can see why Lord “Marxist” Hall is in favour of a “Household Tax” as it has the potential to solve all his current problems…Except BBC profligacy and left-wing bias obviously.

Oscar Wilde Syndrome.

I trained as a Lawyer and my advice to anyone who is thinking of suing any person or organisation for Libel, even if you have been libeled, but especially if you haven’t, is don’t. Take it on the chin, ignore it and move on with your life. Under British Law it is much to much of a gamble either way, as the outcome of this court case today shows.

I have no idea whether Mitchell called the PC a fuckin pleb or not, and could care less. It is not a criminal offence after all. By all accounts Mitchell is a nasty piece of work who is ideally suited to the job of Chief Whip where being a bully is an absolute plus. He was nicknamed “Thrasher” Mitchell when he was a Prefect at Rugby Public school (yes the same one as the fictional Flashman… you just can’t make it up can you?). But there are some very disquieting aspects to the whole “Plebgate” affair.

First; there is the fact that one Police Officer has been jailed for obstructing the course of justice (presumably the one who pretended to be a member of the public who was just passing by and was “shocked” by Mitchell’s language, and just happened to email the Cabinet office using almost word for word what PC Rowland says Mitchell ranted at him, when he wasn’t there at all). Second; that three other Protection Officers have been sacked. And third; that another five are on gardening leave and under investigation, yet the Honourable Justice Mittings finds that there is obviously no conspiracy against Mitchell. Oh fuckin really??

On the balance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt) which is how this case was decided, the good Judge found that…

‘I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb’.
And the Judge then goes on to virtually insult the PC again…

Pc Rowland was ‘not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper’

So which do you prefer then PC Rowland, being called a fuckin Pleb, or thick and unimaginative by a High Court Judge?

And the High Court Judge in question, has a bit of form for being an anti establishment dripping wet Liberal.

Oscar Wilde was a bloody fool to sue for Libel, it destroyed him, and the same has happened to Andrew Mitchell. The court costs are going to be eye-watering. And all he had to say in the first place was… Yes I called him a fuckin Pleb, because he is a fuckin Pleb! What of it?

The top management of Tesco supermarkets are cowards who have given in to demands for censorship.

The often attacked British press is, in reality, one of the glories of this country. In the United States the normal pattern is for there to be a single dominate newspaper in a town or city and for it to reflect the “liberal” left ideology of the education system (the “Schools of Journalism” and so on) – with, by and large, the only choices being to read the leftist line, presented as “objective, scientific, journalism” or read no newspaper. There is the New York Post, which gives an alternative view of New York and other matters, and the financial and business newspaper the Wall Street Journal (both owned by Rupert Murdoch – which is why the totalitarian left hate him, as he is basically all that stands in their way of gaining a leftist monopoly in the press), but there is little other dissent. Just as on television basically the only dissent from the leftist line is “Fox News” (also owned by Mr Murdoch) with all other television stations reflecting the leftist line.

In the United Kingdom things are very different. There are many newspapers on the left – such as the “I” and the “Independent” and the “Guardian” and the “Daily Mirror” and the “Financial Times” (anyone who thinks a financial and business newspaper can not be on the left has never met the “FT”), but there are also many newspapers on the “right” (in the conservative or old style liberal sense – not the socialist Fascist sense) – such as the “Daily Telegraph”, the “Express”, the “Daily Mail” and the “Sun”. However, annoying the press may be at times this diversity in the press is one of the glories of this country and people who hate it are like people who hate the Queen or Winston Churchill – they really hate Britain.

The left, at least the totalitarian left, seek constantly to destroy the free press in the United Kingdom. For example with the financial backing of, son of Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, Max Mosley (who won a libel case against being accused of being involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event – although he was involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event, work-that-one-out), the left ran a campaign against the newspapers. The left also used a claim in the Guardian newspaper that employees of the Sun newspaper had deleted messages on a murdered girl’s mobile telephone (a claim that turned out to be FALSE – they did “hack” the telephone, in the hope of getting information that would help them crack the case, but they did NOT delete any messages) to get Prime Minister Cameron’s government to impose some censorship on the press. “Hacking” mobile telephones was already illegal (and was done at least as much by Daily Mirror people as by Sun people – but the left does not care about that), and the new censorship rules will not make “hacking” any more illegal – but the left’s objective is censorship, the case of the murdered little girl was just a means-to-an-end to the totalitarian left. And Mr Cameron went along with some of what they wanted (partly because he was embarrassed at employing a person who had once been involved in telephone “hacking” himself) – and he should be ashamed of that.

It should be pointed out that the “Sun” and the, now closed down,”News of the World” are-were Rupert Murdoch newspapers. The leftist campaign against them was nothing to do with them “hacking” telephones more than the leftist “Daily Mirror” people did (they did not “hack” more than Daily Mirror people did) – it was a way of attacking Mr Murdoch, whom (as I have already pointed out) the left see as the main barrier in their way of creating a leftist monopoly in the media of the United States – yes the campaign in Britain was really, in part, about the United States.

However, evil never sleeps and the left have moved on. Far left activist groups have now pushed the management of Waitrose and Tesco supermarkets to physically cover up newspapers.

What exactly has the Tesco chain of supermarkets agreed to do? They have agreed to cover up all but the titles of newspapers that are on sale. The totalitarian leftist activist groups have claimed this will “protect” children (it is always “the children”) from seeing bare breasts. However, women with no tops on are a tradition of page THREE of the Sun newspaper – not the front page, there are no bare breasts on the front page (although there are bare breasts on show in art galleries – no doubt the totalitarian left will now try and get paintings and statues banned, at least if “the children” are their real concern……..).

The cat is let out of the bag by the boasts from the totalitarian left of getting “offensive” headlines covered up – not “just” photographs, HEADLINES.

This makes it clear what this campaign is really about – it is about suppressing, literally “covering up”, any OPINION the left does not like. It is the same sort of thing as the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Political Correctness” or “Critical Theory” that now dominates the education system – turning students into brainwashed zombies who will not tolerate any non “Progressive” opinions.

The evil groups behind the censorship of the press campaign are tiny – organisations such as “Child’s Eyes” and “Stop Page Three” have few members, they could not win any elections. But they do not have to enforce their totalitarian desires by winning elections – not when they are dealing with spineless cowards.

Tesco supermarkets, like so many corporations, is a bureaucracy without any real powerful individual share owners any more. The hired managers are responsible to other hired managers (at Pension Funds and so on – institutional share owners) and they basically want a “quiet life” – they have no passion for what they do, and they have no courage, no principles for which they will risk their jobs. Besides they are mostly ex university students – with all the leftist indoctrination (brainwashing) that a modern school and university “education” implies.

These hired managers at Tesco face ruthless leftist fanatics – who are prepared to do anything, anything at all, to enforce their desire for censorship, so the easy thing to do is to SUBMIT. And, besides, with their “educated” background a lot of the managers half agree with the leftist fanatics – with the totalitarian bullyboy (and bullygirl) censors.

It is difficult not to despair.

Obamacare Architect: Passed by Voter Stupidity

Now this remarkable piece of left, or Dim, or both, honesty, 52 sec., from The Blaze. Video of the commentary, 52 seconds’ worth, is there too; per Blaze, it’s been pulled from UT.

If anyone anywhere on the globe doesn’t see that these slimeballs think they have the perfect right to absolute rule because of their moral superiority (and, of course, way superior smarts) — he or she needs to check into a home for the severely retarded.

Obamacare Architect: We Passed the Law Thanks to the ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’
Nov. 10, 2014 9:47am Zach Noble

One of the architects of Obamacare said the law was written in a deliberately “tortured” way and relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to ensure its passage.

In a newly unearthed 2013 clip, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health economist who helped craft parts of the Affordable Care Act, got fairly candid about the tactics used to get the Affordable Care Act passed during a panel at the Annual Health Economists’ Conference last year.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

Better for the American people to be saddled with a law they don’t understand, Gruber claimed, than for them to understand the law and rally against it.

“Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent,” Gruber said, “but I’d rather have this law than not.”

[Original introduction edited slightly. --J.]

Carbon Legacies

There is an industry which concerns itself with helping to create these when Mother Nature isn’t quite doing her job. But it needs to be regulated, you know. It really does. Even Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of whom more below, says so, though he otherwise disagrees with Ms. Cristina Richie, whose views are our topic today. (The gentleman’s remark rather sounds as though he approves of “regulation,” and disapproves of its lack, on principle.)

Anyway, it turns out that Carbon Legacies, even when naturally occurring, are not an unmitigated good. Indeed, one might question whether they are a Good Thing at all, even as others are delighted with theirs, or with the prospects of acquiring such.

Here is the abstract of an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics by Cristina Richie, Theology Department, Boston College, which argues that since every human “emits carbon” into the environment,

Evaluating the ethics of offering reproductive services against its overall harm to the environment makes unregulated ARTs unjustified….

“ART” stands for “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” It includes such things as fertilization in vitro and artificial insemination, as well as methods of having babies where the child might be born with AIDS, surrogate pregnancy, and more.

(WikiFootia has a good overview.)

From Ms. Richie’s article:

A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.

(I have had some non-biological “children,” but only in a figurative sense, such as patterns of words set down on paper or sent into cyberspace. But it seems to me that actual non-biological children are probably rather rare.)

Now ask me what I think. C’mon, you know you want to! *g* Well, lest the multitude of Kounting Kitties hereabouts get to yowling from the suspense….

Views in which “the environment” is seen as of higher moral value than human beings as such — whether conceived in delight or after a fight, or both, or neither — are perverse in the strongest and most serious sense of the word. (Compact OED, Print Ed., 1971, = 1933 OED plus addenda, gives various definitions, several of which boil down to “turning away from right to wrong.”) To me, the word has a connotation of DELIGHT in turning from right to wrong, and a deliberate inversion of right and wrong, so that the evil is embraced as good and the good, as evil.

All I can say is, I place a very high value on my own personal Carbon Legacy, who in early middle age continues to provide joy, light, and warmth to my life. Besides, this person grows houseplants and, in summer, tomatoes and peppers, so I figure that offsets the inevitable “emission of carbon.” (Whatever does Ms. Richie think that means? There’s a huge variety of carbon-containing molecules that are “emitted” by a huge variety of sources, most of them “natural.”) Personally I think that once we’ve gotten fluorine out of the way by banning it (per a suggestion by some doofus over here), we should simply ban carbon. That would solve everything. At least from the human point of view, which would no longer exist.

. . .

I will let Mr. Wesley J. Smith, of LifeNews.com, have the last word. He has a piece on this entitled “Population Controllers Call Babies ‘Carbon Legacies,’ a Threat to the Environment.” Per Mr. Smith:

And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little carbon legacies to come onto me’….

%d bloggers like this: