Nick Cohen has this to say in The Guardian of all places.
I have nothing more to add really except Oliver Stone doesn’t live in a country that is out of toilet paper.
"It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar" – Henry David Thoreau
Nick Cohen has this to say in The Guardian of all places.
I have nothing more to add really except Oliver Stone doesn’t live in a country that is out of toilet paper.
The Islamic State fighter, who gives his name as Abu Abdullah Britani and speaks with a London accent, made the comments in a video interview posted on YouTube by an online news organisation.
My heart bleeds… Last time I had something from Greggs I felt an act of terrorism was occurring in my oesophagus. That’s why I now go to Subway or Pret where they sell food rather than the contents of kitty-pouches bowked into a pasty.
He goes on…
Britani also uses the interview, conducted in a trench in Syria, to say he felt compelled to travel to the country to avenge the “rape of sisters and the killing of children” – although he admits it is bloodthirsty.
So ISIS doesn’t rape, pillage and kill everything that walks or crawls? He’s either an idiot or deluded or believes it’s OK to do that for Allah (these are not mutually exclusive). I tend to go with idiot mainly. Going off to jihad seems increasingly to me like a sort of rebellion like punks in the ’70s with the major caveat that dying your hair pink and getting a nasal septum ring is not the same thing in terms of externalities. I am fairly sure Johnnie Rotten never raided a Yazidi school, massacred the teachers and then raped the girls. Both tracks are “acts of rebellion”. One annoys your Gran and the other is plain evil.
But there is something else going on with this guy which is deeply conservative (note the small “c”). When I go abroad I want to eat different food and experience a different culture. But I have seen enough Brits abroad who consider places like Costa Brava or Malta as Blackpool with better weather. Drinking bitter in the “Red Lion” and tucking into fish and chips whilst reading The Mail. They are arseholes in my book but mostly harmless like the punks.
This fellow isn’t and if he ever returns to the UK he ought to dragged on a sled down Newcastle’s Grey Street on a Saturday night and have all the lads and lasses pelt him to death with Gregg’s Steak Bakes.
That’ll learn him. And it is all they are good for anyway.
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?
I knew of an obscure law in Texas that essentially made it illegal to have in your home more than two sex toys (guess why the two?). Seeing as archaeologists have found dildos in ancient Egyptian tombs and such this clearly not some vile post ’60 innovation undoubtedly linked to drugs.
I didn’t know Ted Cruz was an architect of either creating the law or just making it er… harder. But…
In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz’s office declared, “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”
It sort of seems this was a kinda plea bargain for the removal of the sodomy laws (which he was part of). OK, we’ll let gays do what they want but not with artificial help. In short things like anal sex were made legal but a vibrating butt-plug illegal. Yeah, I’m doing a switcharo here because dildos (or similar) are used in all ends (intended) of the sexual Spectrum (ZX and indeed 48K).
There are a number of issues here but let’s boil it down to one. Ted Cruz strongly implies sex ought to be for procreation and not for fun. So that is me un-fucked. Oh go on Nick! Yes I shall. Would he object to a married woman having a contraceptive implant? I bet he would. Because that is very much sex for fun and also bonding between two humans at the deepest level. There is a bigger issue though. How very dare Ted Cruz tell people what sex is for? How very dare he declare that sex without procreation is against the constitution when the constitution doesn’t mention sex at all and for good reason. Because it is private. He does also mention “public morals” and that is scary. And it comes down to the line about due process rights. And that is scary. The law is to tell you what not to do and not what you can do. Under common law systems it is assumed (and generally upheld) that you can do whatever you want unless it is specifically proscribed. Cruz’s attitude to masturbation is very scary here because it is about the law having to specifically allow something. It is basically allowing nothing unless it is made as legal.
That is very worrying.
This is not a post about abortion per-se and I hope any comments reflect that. No, this is about the moral vacuum that is Donald Trump and of the many, many reasons he should never be President his flip-flops on the subject are just one. But one hole is sometimes enough and this should be enough. If you want the full sp then reason has it here. It is a good article. I shall not quote from it directly because I had independently come to much the same conclusions. Great minds think alike? Not really. These are obvious observations.
My distinct impression in the abortion “debate” in the US is that there is usually very little middle-ground and that is why it rages on with immense passion on both sides of the fence. Now, that might seem a bad thing and in some ways it is. My point being that that is because it is something that people’s opinions on come right from the core of their moral being. It is something that whether “pro-choice” or “pro-life”* people care about with a passion. I understand that. I understand why people care fundamentally about either the autonomy of the woman or the rights of the embryo/fetus. It is an important moral question and should be treated as such but The Donald managed to change between five different positions in three days. On such a fundamental issue that is remarkable even by Trump’s lamentable standards. It goes without saying that on something that is also a major political issue in the US and has been for a long time (Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago for example) that is to be, at my most generous, politically naive. No wonder the US Christian Right can’t stand him any more than a fervently “pro-choice” atheist Democrat does.
So what makes The Donald like this?
Well, recently there was a documentary on C4 presented by Matt Frei about the Trumpster. It included an interview with Mr Trump’s ex-butler who now runs a shop in Miami selling high-end tat of the sort that Elvis would have considered tacky for his Jungle Room at Graceland. Frei asked if Trump visited and the answer was in the affirmative. Frei followed up by asking what in particular Trump bought most. The answer was, “mirrors”.
And just like that I knew! Most of us take our moral positions from some sort of basis whether it be the Bible or Marx, The Book of Mormon or those of Ayn Rand. Whatever. It means that we believe in something external to ourselves. Or put it another way our morality is comes from something other than ourselves.
Some people believe in God (for example) and try to follow Him.
Trump though believes he is God. And a capricious one at that. What is right is what is good for The Donald and because He is the supreme being so he can make it up on the fly. I mean who dare question God himself because whatever God says is right is right by definition. Trump is a malignant narcissist. And that more than anything else is why he should never be President of the USA.
*I dislike both those terms.
Hitler ‘had tiny deformed penis’ as well as just one testicle, historians claim.
Hitler suffered from a condition called hypospadias which left him with an abnormally small manhood, according to historians Jonathan Mayo and Emma Craigie.
Well, that is no excuse for invading Poland, or Holland, Belgium, France (or the rest) or having a bloody good go at England or Russia. So, the defining thingie of the C20th was an insane Austrian’s thingie.
I mean the pivotal moment of C20th revolved around Hitler’s cock.
That about sums up the whole shooting-match of a century of woe.
I have been to Poland several times. Generally not with the Panzers in hand and genocide in mind. Last time I took a bottle of damn fine Welsh Whiskey in my clip. It went down much better than an armoured division. Odd that.
Oh, and I have a respectable penis and the full number of testicles. For the record.
But then I am not Fuhrer of Germany with “issues”. And a very small cock. I mean if it wasn’t for the tens of millions dead I’d be laughing.
A Libertarian doesn’t desire control over others. We are all individuals. Well, Some of us aren’t.
A notorious German cannibal has described in shockingly graphic detail how he killed and ate his gay lover ‘with his permission’.
Armin Meiwes became one of the most infamous cannibals in history after killing and consuming 43-year-old computer technician Bernd Brandes in 2001.
Is any cannibal not infamous?
‘I decorated the table with nice candles,’ he said. ‘I took out my best dinner service, and fried and [sic - it is from the Mail] piece of rump steak – a piece from his back – made what I call princess potatoes, and sprouts,’ he said, in an unprecedented interview for new documentary ‘Docs: Interview with a Cannibal’.
‘After I prepared my meal, I ate it.
‘The first bite was, of course, very strange. It was a feeling I can’t really describe. I’d spent over 40 years longing for it, dreaming about it.
‘And now I was getting the feeling that I was actually achieving this perfect inner connection through his flesh. The flesh tastes like pork but stronger.
So at least it was civilized cannibalism. I mean a well-set table and all.
Brandes then swallowed 20 sleeping tablets with half a bottle of schnapps before Meiwes cut off his penis ‘with his agreement’, and fried it for them both to eat.
Meiwes later ran a bath for Brandes, and read a Star Trek novel while checking on him every 15 minutes.
He eventually killed Brandes in the early hours of the morning, by stabbing him in the neck and then chopping him into pieces.
It is the Star Trek novel that really gets me.
He put parts of him in the freezer, and buried his head in his garden.
Well that’s OK then. Now there is an issue here. I understand homosexuality but this isn’t it by any ordinary definition so the “eating of the gay lover” is an odd way of putting it? So what is going on? The obvious is to say that both were utterly nucking futz. But why not? I mean if this was with consent then as a libertarian then OK but what is the limit of consent? Anyone who wishes to be eaten (starting with their penis) is by most definitions mental. Now, as a libertarian, this puts me in a quandry. I mean how far does self-ownership go?
I had girlfriend who I didn’t eat (odd that) and she is now a senior lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Lancaster. Her subject is basically philosophy of mental health. We had an argument once (we had a few – I implied she was an ex) over self-ownership and mental illness. I am still not sure. I am seriously conflicted. I mean if you own yourself then like whatever but wanting to be eaten is breathtakingly odd. Is that just wrong?
A few weeks back, some Ignorant Person saw fit to put up on Samizdata a short comment implying, snarkily, that the U.S. is the worst of all possible worlds when it comes to the gun-murder rate.
A few of us took issue with that; I rather think the rest thought the remark not worth dignifying with a response.
However, “Sultan Knish,” a.k.a. Daniel Greenfield, who writes columns for various anti-Left online mags and has his own website at sultanknish.com, put up a doozy on the subject today; although I wish he’d found some other adjective than “Democrat,” because not all Dems are Dim on the issue. In fact some of the “gun-rights” activist-scholars are, or were, themselves Democrats*; and the excerpt below makes the point that not all cities of Obama-voters have these appalling murder rates.
But the fact remains that the worst cities certainly are run by lefty and/or race-baiting Democrats. So here is a mere excerpt (but note: YrsTrly has not verified the stats for herself). Suggest reading the whole thing….
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
*For instance, Eric Raymond has an interesting page, Eric’s Gun Nut Page, that describes criminologist Gary Kleck’s work and political stance. More good stuff for those who think guns might be part of the solution, with links, too.
D. Friedman just left a comment at Samizdata making yet again this foolish, anti-real (anti-real: against reality, as one might be anti-State for instance) statement attributed to Hume that “you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’”
Herewith my thought on the subject, lightly edited and tempered with an introduction which might hint at my feelings about it. (I could have added a few more applicable tags to the list just to be snarky, but I was a good girl and refrained. I felt I ought to.)
. . .
Sigh. Listen carefully, class.
You can ONLY “get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’”
Because the very concept of “oughtness” implies some sort of goal or objective or state of affairs or value that you wish to achieve or maintain. And that you hold said goal, etc., is itself a fact.
In order to satisfy that wish, one must act in accordance with a whole bunch of facts of reality, or of what you believe or understand or assume to be the facts of reality.
For instance: I ought to go to the Post Office later. [I want my Christmas cards at least to be postmarked prior to Christmas, and I don't want my insurance payments to be late so I lose my insurance (!). Two FACTS about what I want to achieve (or avoid), and implied fact that the achievements are affected by the realities of the Post Office operations, and of date and time.]
Or: I want to live as God has outlined in the ethical strictures of the Mosaic Code, so I ought to follow those as best I can. (To achieve this involves a whole string of “oughts” and the “is’s” from which they derive.)
Or: I want to live as God wants me to live, so I ought to follow the Mosaic Code, which is, ultimately, the source of our knowledge of Right and Wrong. [N.B. -- Don't get funny ideas, Class. Personally I am an atheist.]
In other words, the very concept of “oughtness” implies the existence of a reason for the “ought.”
We very very very commonly say “I ought to do X” with no explanation of why that is. This is either because in context the reason for the “ought” is clear: I ought to go to the P.O. today [because it's important that I get certain stuff mailed today], or because at some level we will feel unsatisfied (“uneasy” in von Mises’ terms) if we don’t do it, though we may not be able quite to articulate this. “I ought not to hang up on this Yay-Hoo.” (Why not? Because one doesn’t hang up on people, even Yay-hoos. Why not? Because….)
One is wrong to conclude from this that “ought” is a free-floating thing, with no criteria (except perhaps feelings — “sentiment”) to go by as to whether one has complied with it.
I do not know of my own knowledge whether Mr. Hume actually made the oh-so-often-stated claim, let alone why he did so (in what spirit) if indeed he did so. So I decline to argue against Mr. Hume per se, but rather against the claim. However, there is a half-baked conception of what “ought” means that does unmoor the idea from any fact or presumed “fact” except that of its existence, which is totally independent of anything else: No criteria given as to WHY one “ought.” “Ought” is just Out There, free-floating, no reason why one OUGHT to obey “ought” except the existence of the putative “ought” itself. “Why ought I to…?” has no answer, by this conception of “ought.”
This is pure Platonism. This free-floating “ought” exists out there in the Universe and we Ought to obey it because we should; or, you might say, “Because we OUGHT to obey it.”
“Since when isn’t because a reason?” as the mother, at the end of her rope, says to her recalcitrant child in the old joke.
Such a thing is, of course, a pure fantasy, regardless of how one arrives at it.
And one notices that it is this DEFINITION of “ought” that makes it underivable from facts.
It makes of “oughtness” a mirage, something that can never be reached (intellectually understood) because it only gives the appearance of something real, of the lake in the middle of the desert, of the puddle down the highway on a bright sunny day after a month of drouth.
This is the nature of Plato’s putative Forms. They can never be connected to reality, because all the connections have been abstracted away. It is like cutting the bridge over the chasm and then saying it is impossible to get to the other side — impossible in principle. It is this metaphysical theory that in general supports both subjectivism and intricism. (Story for another time.)
Such an “ought” does not mean anything like what people mean when they use the word, except when they are conducting an (acknowledged or tacit) debate, or trying to philosophize.
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (AP) — A Denver-area store called Isis Books & Gifts wants the world to know its name comes from the Egyptian goddess of healing and motherhood and it isn’t run by terrorists.
Co-owner Jeff Harrison said Wednesday that the suburban Denver shop has been vandalized five times in the past year or so, probably by people who mistake the name for ISIS, one of the acronyms for the Islamic State terrorist group.
The latest vandalism came last weekend when a store sign was smashed after the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people.
The store sells books and gifts related to spirituality, religion and healing.
“Isis is the name of an Egyptian goddess, 3,500 years old at least, the goddess of women and healing and childbirth — basically the antithesis of everything the terrorists are about,” he said.
Harrison suspects the vandals are “some ignorant people believing that somehow the terrorists have a store, a gift store, in the middle of Denver, Colorado.”
There is some utter pignorance on this planet. I mean I could understand (note this is not the same as condone) if they had wrecked the nearest mosque but a New-Age bookshop in Colorado has fucketh-all to do with the half-arsed caliphate in Syria and Iraq. I could be wrong and it might be they had been selling sub-standard dream catchers and angered clients.
It vaguely reminds me of a scene I saw in Nottingham in the ’90s. I had come out of Jesse’s Coffee Shop (It is on the site of the first Boots) after having a sandwich (please don’t ask what – my name is Nick not Funes) and me and my mate J were walking back and a squad – and they were walking in half-arsed military fashion went past us. It was unusual on a Saturday afternoon in Hockley (a rather hipster area of Nottingham) to see a platoon of skinheads. Anyway, they went on to wreck a LGBT bookshop and were scrobbled by the rozzers for their troubles. I had no idea exactly what they were up to at the time. I only heard of their antics on the news that night.
The point of this anecdote is the universality of idiocy. I mean if you don’t agree with a business then don’t do business with them. Don’t smash their windows in. It is simples as the meerkat said.
‘Well hopefully it doesn’t get any worse than this, because my stomach just couldn’t take it…’ and their fiendishly loving wrestle began once again, rolling across the floor as hot-tempered enthusiasts of lustful joy as both adorers’ bodies did their sexual staccato heaving and barging into place, nothing forbidden, heartbeats uneven, the mind as naked as the body, weakened by exertion, only to shockingly lock with a halt at the astride legs of Sammy, young brother to Ezra, as he quietly stood with satisfied slyness watching the debauched display of sensuous pleasure at the sweetness of living seized by the initiative.’
‘At this, Eliza and Ezra rolled together into the one giggling snowball of full-figured copulation, screaming and shouting as they playfully bit and puled at each other in a dangerous and clamorous rollercoaster coil of sexually violent rotation with Eliza’s breasts barrel-rolled across Ezra’s howling mouth and the pained frenzy of his bulbous salutation extenuating his excitement as it whacked and smacked its way into every muscle of Eliza’s body except for the otherwise central zone.’
Excerpts from “List of the Lost” by Morrissey. It is up for an award – The Literary Review’s Bad Sex Award. And if Morrissey can’t win with that then there is no hope for the English language.
Truly Mozzer is an ornament to the nation – one you got from your granny and keep in the attic. I have no words but, dear reader, I offer you my bulbous salutations!
Well, dear Reader, from the title you would be justified in wondering whether Fossil Fuels even have ethics. Are FF’s conscious? Can they think? Are they more Platonic or Aristotelian, or perhaps even Hegelian in their metaphysics?
In this little number, Alex Epstein — a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute and the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, a think-tank thinking about energy resources — debates one Bill McKibben, sometimes said to be on the same plane of Enviroloonyism as the Bore.
I present this not because I think you will wish to watch the whole thing (unless you are into masochism), nor because I think Mr. Epstein, be his heart every so rightly placed, is the greatest debater since Socrates or somebody (he could learn a lot from James O’Keefe), but because I am genuinely interested in whether Mr. McKibben’s performance strikes you as it does me. It might take you a mere 10 minutes, or maybe half an hour, of watching and hearing the man. If no one cares to commit his gut reaction to pixels, I will tell you what I made of the McK performance, in a day or two.
Go pour yourself a nice tall chill glass of bathtub gin, neat, and settle in. –Oh, bring your Pet Rock. You may feel the need to be Soothed even beyond the powers of the gin.
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.
[TRIGGER WARNING: The following blog post contains irony and may be triggering for special little snowflakes]
A student group has been accused of sexism and racism for banning all men and white people from attending an equality event.
Goldsmiths University student union have been slammed after refusing to allow anybody that isn’t a non-white female from attending the event – organised to protest against inequality and celebrate racial unity.
Just when I thought the legions of Social Justice Warriors (aka SJW’s) couldn’t get any worse, they keep proving me wrong. It’s a bit like the old adage, “If you make something idiot proof, god will just make a better idiot”.
Yes it is one of the tantalizing cases Dr John Watson alludes to.
The World may still not be ready for that but from Norway we have probably the strangest crime of the century. Yup, the beard hair-piece of Norway.
Not only am I a bit vague as precisely what law was violated here, neither it would appear is the Norwegian prosecutor. There seems no real hint this was an assault. It is was, I’d guess, drunken idiocy between two idiots. And if that was it then the very naming and shaming of this bizarre merkin-making duo is punishment enough. More to the point if getting pissed and doing something stupid was against the law then half the population would be in The Clink. I’d be picking oakem in Strangeways – the most awesomely terrifying building I know although they now call it HMP Manchester. Still Strangeways. There are worse prisons in England such as the dungeon at Wakefield where they keep a bloke who killed two fellow inmates and attempted to eat the second one’s brain with a spoon in much the same manner a normal person would eat a boiled egg. Anyway he is in a plexiglass cage in the manner of Hannibal Lecter. Forever.
My point being there is a difference. Now I think Norway has a much more “liberal” criminal justice system than the UK so why jail this fairly harmless nutter? Especially when nobody can really figure out exactly what law he transgressed.
I think we have too many laws anyway. Why do many countries make FGM specifically illegal and then do nowt about it? It would appear to me to be a fairly covered by GBH if not attempted murder.
But what law is someone who glues their beard to another fellow’s bonce breaking.
Now on the other side of the World we have more idiocy. In Xinjiang, China they have jailed a bloke for 6 years for growing a beard. Apparently the Chinese authorities are promising cash to those who ‘fess up on their neighbours for this heinous sin.
The planet is insane and if it is insane in a little long-standing liberal and democratic country and a massive authoritarian state half a World away then this is more viral than 1D losing Zayn. This a global pandemic of idiocy.
Jail folk for murder, rape, theft and such but what one chooses to do with one’s facial hair is hardly a matter for the courts and anyone who thinks it is is insane, evil or both.
I mean for God’s sake shouldn’t a prosecutor in a C21st European State have bigger fish to fry than an improvised beard rug? And Satan alone knows what the Chinese are playing at.