Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

September, 2011:

It’s PC Gawn Mad!

From the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz to Meg, the good witch from the Meg and Mog children’s books, witches have always dressed in black.

But their traditional attire has now come in for criticism from equality experts who claim it could send a negative message to toddlers in nursery and lead to racism.

Instead, teachers should censor the toy box and replace the pointy black hat with a pink one, while dressing fairies, generally resplendent in pale pastels, in darker shades.

This is insane. Anyway, seeing as witches are generally seen as female isn’t a pink witches’ hat stereotyping girls?

Another staple of the classroom – white paper – has also been questioned by Anne O’Connor, an early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.

Right.

Children should be provided with paper other than white to drawn on and paints and crayons should come in “the full range of flesh tones”, reflecting the diversity of the human race, according to the former teacher.

“Former teacher…” Tells you all you need to know.

Finally, staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer “black” or “brown”.

What’s wrong with blue? Nobody is blue. Well nobody long for this world is. And does anyone cite brown as a favourite colour.

The measures, outlined in a series of guides in Nursery World magazine, are aimed at avoiding racial bias in toddlers as young as two.

Oh, do fuck off.

According to the guides, very young children may begin to express negative and discriminatory views about skin colour and appearance that nursery staff must help them “unlearn”.

If children develop positive associations with dark colours, the greater the likelihood that the attitude will be generalised to people, it says.

Is there any evidence for that?

“People who are feeling defensive can say ‘well there’s nothing wrong with white paper’, but in reality there could be if you don’t see yourself reflected in the things around you. “As an early years teacher, the minute you start thinking, ‘well actually, if I give everyone green paper, what happens’, you have a teaching potential.

Well, let’s imagine I’m in Botswana and I need a ream of paper. What colour is most commonly available from the local stationary shop? The one probably run and owned by black people. There is an issue with paper colour at schools mind but that is due to dyslexia. Aparently dyslexic kids can struggle to read stuff in black and white.

“People might criticise this as political correctness gone mad. But it is because of political correctness we have moved on enormously. If you think that we now take it for granted that our buildings and public highways are adapted so people in wheelchairs and with pushchairs can move around. Years ago if you were in a wheelchair, then tough luck. We have completely moved and we wouldn’t have done that without the equality movement.”

This is an epic conflation. It is quite bizarre. It’s verging on sinister to compare non-whites to the disabled.

However, recent research by Professor Lord Winston provides evidence that children as young as four can hold racist views. In an experiment carried out for the BBC’s Child of our Time series, children were presented with a series of images of faces of men, women, boys or girls. Only one of the faces in each sequence was white.

Children were asked to pick out the face of the person they wanted as their friend and the person they thought would be most likely to get in to trouble.

Almost all white children in the survey associated positive qualities exclusively with photographs of white children or adults. More than half of the black children made the same associations.

In contrast, people with darker faces were viewed as troublemakers.

Lord Winston is a gynaecologist. Oh, he thinks he’s the second-coming of Albert Einstein (check the ‘tash and the hair) but he isn’t. His field is IVF and I really have no idea what that proves if anything. I suspect if it proves anything it proves kids have a tendency to like people who look like them. Those white kids might not have met too many black or Asian folk. They will. The conceptual leap as to colours in general (paper, witches hats etc) to people is a Hell of a lurch. I’m prepared to accept 4 year olds can be racist but I don’t believe in the cure suggested here. It’s nonsensical silliness.

Actually let’s stick with the gynaecology angle. A mate of mine at Nottingham University wound-up doing a course of “feminist criticism”. This is what he “learned”. Writing on a word-processor is female and writing with a pen or pencil is masculine because you see incubating your work, nurturing it on the hard-disk is like pregnancy and a pen or pencil vaguely (very vaguely) resembles a penis and shares the first three letters with “penis”. Thank God I was good at maths and could hack physics because I would have walked. It is this level of insanity. Now I don’t know as much about wombs as Lord Winston but I do know a little and I certainly know hard drives. I can certainly see no circumstances where the two things can be interchanged without dire consequences resulting.

The Great and the Good

Darwin was a geologist. Does this mean his opinions on biology should be ignored?

NEWSPAPERS should refrain from publishing the opinions of average Australians, academic Robert Manne has said.

Professor Manne says they should report only the views of a "core" of experts in key debates.

At a book-signing in Sydney last night, he also urged the media to embrace greater contributions from controversial left-wing commentators such as US linguistics professor Noam Chomsky and Beirut-based commentator Robert Fisk.

Professor Manne is facing fierce criticism over his recently published Quarterly Essay, Bad News, in which he alleges that The Australian plays an "overbearing" and "unhealthy" role in national debates by publishing fringe views on controversial topics.

Professor Manne, who described climate change as the most serious threat facing the planet, has said only experts within the "core" of the scientific consensus should be heard.

"I do not believe it makes sense for non-scientists to have views on scientific issues," he told the gathering at Gleebooks, in inner Sydney.

"They should get scientists in the consensual core to debate it, but that would be so boring."

Chilling effect

Don’t know whether you have heard, but Andrew Bolt lost his court case under the Racial Discrimination Act here in Oz.

James has a biased description of what happened, and Andrew has his own take here and here.

There were some errors of fact in the articles Andrew wrote, which have been taken into account, but the situation is – discussion about Australia’s Race Classification Laws (yes, Australia has race classification laws. That’s not what they are called, but that’s what they are. Repugnant thought huh?) have effectively been shut down because some poor petals had their feelings hurt when Andrew asked if it were possible the laws were being scammed.

Seemingly, when people who appear to be European, but claim aboriginality on the basis of ancestry, take advantage of provisions designed to assist black aboriginals in recognition of past discrimination, they are entitled to sue if eyebrows are raised.

Anyway, I got onto a local progressive site, to see what was happening. I am pleased to see the commentator and some of the commentariat standing for principle, regardless of how much they may loath Andrew, but way too many of them are over the moon at the idea of him being shafted. They range from those who are happy to see it happen regardless of the principle of free speech, to those who reject the principle in the first place.

I come in at comment 49.

Spoiled Brat

It is often said that professional footballers are brats. Some are and some are not. Carlos Tévez is definitely a brat. He refused to get off the bench last night in Munich and his team Man City lost. Roberto Mancini – the manager – looked mad as hell about it. And I don’t blame the man. Tévez claims it was all a misunderstanding. Right. Not bright then if that’s the best he can come up with.

“I didn’t feel I was right to play, so I didn’t.” Tévez said. “I was the top scorer last season and I always act professionally.” Now the problem with that Tévez is that Mr Mancini didn’t drag your carcase all the way to Bavaria so you could polish the bench with your arse. And also that Mr Mancini is the manager – it’s his call not yours.

Carlos Tévez is paid £200,000 a week. I hope he is finished at City and I hope the the only people prepared to sign him are Accrington Stanley.

Go Herman

I’ve been kinda partial to Herman Cain for most of this year now, and I have been a bit disappointed at how he has been languishing in the polls since things started hotting up.

Then we get to this week.

Suddenly, out of the blue, Herman won the Florida straw poll. Not just winning it, but with more than double the support of the next candidate, the previously booming Rick Perry.

All right, that’s one data point, and a single data point does not a trend make. However, we now got the latest Zogby poll; taken before the Florida vote it has Herman not just front runner, but leading Perry, at number 2, by ten points, 28% to 18%.

He will be a gift to the progressives tho, I can imagine so many of them getting orgasmic at the excitement of calling him an Uncle Tom and an oreo, or a coconut in the non oreo eating world. Accusing everyone who supports him of being a racist, without indulging in the least introspection.

This is shaping up to be a fun campaign.

Bill Stickers is innocent (if he works for the Council)

… or “Quis Custodet Ipsos Custodes?”

15 Oct 2004:

SCOTLAND’S largest local authority yesterday unveiled its latest weapon designed to stop the menace of illegal flyposting which costs thousands of pounds each year to clear up.

Flyposting can carry a hefty fine and recently Glasgow City Council has reported venues whose names appear on illegally posted bills to the licensing board. Warnings and sanctions, such as the scrapping of late entertainment licences, can then be handed down.

(The Herald)

7 Jun 2007:

GLASGOW’S clean-up squads are tackling illegal bill posters with a little creative vandalism of their own.

Council staff have started painting out illegal adverts which make the city look run down, to ensure the companies who produce the ads are just wasting their money.

And the city’s litter wardens are cancelling illegal ad sites by pasting up stickers over unlicensed ads.

It can take 45 minutes to remove just one poster and often scraps of paper are left behind.

(Evening Times)

Here is an example of that Scheme at work.

The Clean Glasgow Charters set out exactly how we can all play our part in helping to tackle environmental problems like litter, graffiti, fly-posting and fly-tipping. Also, the Clean Glasgow Charters outline what Glasgow City Council will do to support the organisations that sign up.

(Glasgow City Council)

Y’know, I don’t think I’d be as infuriated by this vandalism, which has appeared on most (but oddly, not all) of the front doors in my neighbourhood:

s1052811a

… if it wasn’t only the same Council, but the same fucking department (note the “Clean Glasgow” logo at the bottom*; the very same Programme under which the anti-flyposting Charters are issued).

I have, of course, done my civic duty and reported the incident.

*With the sinister slogan “it’s (sic**) our city – play your part” (my emphasis).

**I don’t really mind a complete absence of capitalization for design purposes, but the Cooncil’s policy appears to be to throw them in at random.

Nicky

Someone calling themselves “No, NickM, I Still Don’t Love YOU!” on a comment to IanB’s recent article called me “Nicky”. That was at the end of a long post. It started like this:

“NickM, you really need to get that obsession about me checked out, you stupid wanker.”

Nobody in any fucking semblance of their right mind wants to get into a swearing match with me. Just call me uncle Toby (not Nicky) and cunt the fuck off you pigeon-chested abattoir creeper, you abysmal twat. I know I could get your IP address but I couldn’t give a shitting fuck – you have been warned and any more Tomfoolery will be sharply dealt with. Nobody calls me “Nicky”. Nobody has actually called me “Nicholas” since I was in primary school apart from a registrar of births, deaths and marriages in Manchester nearly five years ago (I was fortunately there for the last of that trinity) and I guess that was for legal reasons.

CCinZ has around 20,000 comments (thank you!). In all that time I have IP banned one person. That was because he or she made specific death threats – an NHS employee from Huddersfield who thought I should be nice to Islam and due to my “intolerance” wanted to kill me. He didn’t go as far as calling me “Nicky” mind. That crosses the Yalu and gets the Sabres scambled if you ask me. Which you didn’t of course.

Call me whatever but just don’t call me “Nicky”. It grates. And it fights. And it really does because my wife is not any of the bewildering shortenings of “Elizabeth” but “Lizzy” with a “y” which is the traditional spelling.

So, don’t call me “Nicky” unless you want a rise because that is what you will get and all Hell will follow with it.

Life In An Insane Society

One of my, er, “themes” is something like this: the modern, with-it libertarian needs to see our problems as more than an “us versus the State” thing. It’s not just the State. In fact, in many aspects, the behaviour of the State in Britain (and elsewhere) is not so much a driving force as a reflection of our society.

As individualists, we are sometimes loathe to personify “society” as having an existence of its own, so when I say “society” I of course mean, the attributes of millions of individuals. If I say, “our society is socially reserved”, I mean, “the people in our society are socially reserved”, and if I say, “our society is religious”, I mean, “the people in our society are religious”. But I don’t want to say either of those things. I want to say that our society is mad.

By which I mean, the people in our society are mad. Not all of them. But there are generally mad ideas now permeating our society. Here is a prime example-

A primary school teacher, whose record is spotless, who has committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, beloved by his pupils and his parents and admired by colleagues has been banned from working because he let children hug him.

This is mad.

Parents campaigned to overturn the decision, saying he was an excellent teacher who had been unfairly treated because he is a man.

Yet his appeal against dismissal was rejected by a panel of governors at Oliver’s Battery school in Winchester, Hampshire, and now the General Teaching Council (GTC) has banned him from classrooms indefinitely – even though it acknowledged that there was “no single serious episode” and that “no child has been seriously harmed”.

Now I shouldn’t need to say this, and it is a sign of societal madness that I have to; physical contact between adults and children is entirely normal and indeed essential. I was a child once. Hugging and being held and picked up and swung around for fun, and feeling adult arms around me if I was upset, and adult hands upon me to grab me away from doing something naughty, these were all part of childhood. Children need and respond to physical affection. They do so because they are animals, because human beings are animals, and body language is part of our genetic heritage. One of the most basic human interactions is the hug, which provides a sense of safety, and comfort, and well-being. Who cannot pity a child who is never hugged? What kind of a deranged society have we ended up in that denies basic human affection?

Although there was no suggestion of any sexual motive, he was dismissed from the school where he had worked for eight years.

And there is the problem. That, right there. Thanks to the campaigning of a ragbag of deranged feminists and femiservatives, we now make the assumption of some kind of sexual motive for any interaction between a man and a child. This is ludicrous.

Look, feminutters. There are a certain small proportion of people who have a fetish for children. Some of them will act upon that fetish, and some will do ghastly things. But it is a tiny minority. You cannot base a society on the presumption that it is the norm. To do so leads to madness.

Let me put it this way. There are a small proportion of people with a fetish for shoes. Some of them will do disturbing things in the presence of shoes. It does not follow that every man who touches a shoe is a shoe fetishist, and that men shouldn’t be allowed to work in shoe shops in case they creep off to the back room for a quick polish. You cannot start suspecting every man/shoe interaction of having a sexual undertone. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of men are not suppressing a lust for shoes, nor does every man has a shoe-lover inside him waiting to burst out if he gets too much shoe exposure. Most men simply have no sexual interest in shoes at all and the same is true of children.

But in fact, now, thanks to decades of remorseless campaigning, that is presumed regarding men and children. Every man is a suspect. Every man is guilty until proven innocent. As Richard Nixon said, “We are all paedophiles now”.

The case will fuel the debate around a shortage of men in British classrooms.

Around a quarter of primary schools – including Oliver’s Battery – now have no male teachers, and experts have warned that a lack of male role models may be putting boys off school at an early age.

And there’s the crux of the matter. We need to face up to the fact that a considerable proportion of feminutters, virtually the whole movement in fact, let’s be honest here, just want to drive men out of interacting with children. They want ownership of childhood. They want men to be providers, in terms of money, and to help when asked, but they otherwise want men out of the picture, particularly in that long-term female bastion, the education system. They would prefer that not a single man were in a position to teach children at all, particularly at the primary level, those crucial years when the first steps of indoctrination-via-education take place. This, ultimately, is a primary reason why the Paedohysteria is so useful to them. And so, the promotion of the idea that a sexual abnormality present in only a tiny proportion of the population- sexual interest in children- is widespread and epidemic, is put in place. And thus, we descend into madness.

This, boys and girls, is what tyranny looks like.

h/t The Anti-Feminist

Quote of the Evening

Politicians can’t sell power that they don’t have.

“Fearsome Tycoon”, from the comments thread here (via Instapundit). Probably an old libertarian saw that’s passed me by. Certainly the sentiment is hardly new, but I don’t recall seeing it put so succinctly before. Could make a few of the failure-of-capitalism mob stop and think, especially when dropped in that sort of context.

Two state solution?

There is much muntering at the UN (do they do anything else other than munter and appoint Libya as head of Human Rights?) about a prospective Palestinian State.

Now I have no axe to grind but it just won’t work and that really has nothing to do with Israel. The culture, geography (and changing that is beyond the powers of Allah Himself), politics (recall when Hamas won in Gaza they chucked Fatah off the roofs), economics etc.

The idea of a unified single Palestinian state is…

Well, it’s mental. The only solution is three-state. I’ve never been there (Israel, West Bank, Gaza, whatever…) but I know. I know because a unified Palestinian “State” would be…

An Islamic Republic spatially disconnected with their direst enemy in between.

One, relatively (and I do mean relatively) prosperous and the other an economic basket case.

The more prosperous being the larger and the more prosperous and the smaller being the more densely populated.

Have we not seen this before?

If you read “Midnight’s Children” by Salman Rushdie then you see the Hell that follows. Ironically someone (Israel, Turkey…) would have to pick up the mess. Should the Palestinians have a state of their own – yes… (not that I’m into states myself being a libertarian and all) but no… They ought to have states of their own or maybe do without that boondongle. Anyway, is statehood freedom? Not if you ask me. It’s a great achievement for the folks you send to Turtle Bay but for the average geezer on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank it’s a tin full of less than nothing.

For me nationality is a feeling (like when I watch the Rugby or cricket – not the football – that’s alas a chronic embarrassment) and not a tax-code. Be careful what you wish for Palestinians because it might come true. And it might of course be the mini-me of Pakistan-Bangladesh. Hell, the “hostile” power in your midst might have to intervene as India did when the slaughter in Bangladesh (and the refugees) became so appalling.

States can be made but nations exist organically. I am fortunate enough to belong to one of the latter. It’s been England since some Egg-King called it so. Even the union with Scotland goes back hundreds of years. The union with Wales is even further back. A “union” of a part of Egypt and a part of Jordan – yeah, like whatever! I was going to say it’ll end in tears so I’m calling it the Nírnaeth Arnoediad anyway.

Am I naive? Really am I? But if everyone (that means you, Hamas) knocked off and built their own little polities then fine. Have states if you play fair. If you chuck bottle-rockets at the neighbours then expect F-16s dropping JDAMs and don’t bitch to me about it. It seems to me that (as is typical in politics) this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gazan widow or the West Bank farmer but about the encirclement and ultimate overthrow of Israel which is best done by one state rather than two. Shall I put it bluntly? I apply the Rugby test (it’s a little like Norman Tebbit’s cricket one except totally different). Your nationality should be no more nor less than who you cheer for. It is not defined by government. It is a signal, core, failing of the UN that it represents countries and not people. At the risk (and I’m sailing bloody close to the reef) of quoting Monty Python. I shall.

But then anyone who derives their sense of self-worth from statehood rather than selfhood (is that a coinage?) is a scumbag.

I’m Nick. I am proud to be English. That feeling is totally disconnected from our state. The Palestinians want a “state of their own”. Allah save them because it won’t be their state at all!

Bloke recently cured of deafness calls Any Answers

This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone express support for the Palestinian cause on the BBC.

Marvellous what medical science can do these days, isn’t it?

Vexillology

I learned this word two days ago. It means the scholarly study of flags.
(more…)

It’s Saturday night

Or, at least it is here, on Queenslands Sunny Gold Coast, so relax and listen to a little Rosemary Clooney.

She is Georges aunt, you know. Better looking too.

You want a second? How about Vikki Kerr crooning to Les Brown? I got to say, I prefer Gene Teirney on this song, but I couldn’t find a video, just a recording.

For the rest of the evening? Relax, pull up a DVD, lie back and immerse yourself in Greg Hildebrandt’s fantasy of a perfect Saturday night.

For the rest of the weekend? Talk amongst yourselves. I’m gunna catch that DVD.

BBC “A Point of View” – as long as the point of view is from the left.

The collectivist Alan De Bonehead, was “balanced” by the leftist “Karl Marx was correct” (about almost everything) John Gray (see my previous post on that scumbag), and now John Gray is to be “balanced” by the leftist Will Self.

Three leftists in a row – giving their “point of view”, which is (of course) also the point of view of all BBC news and current affairs programmes, and almost all of their fictional and entertainment output also.

So the BBC clearly use the commitment to balance, in their Charter, to wipe their backsides on.

And Mr Cameron is finally going to get rid of the BBC tax (the “license fee”) and defund the left?

Not a chance.

“It is because he is government with the Lib Dems – they will not let him get rid of the BBC”.

If anyone believes that is the reason…. well I have a nice bridge to sell you.

The Death of NickM’s Politics

Regular readers (Gawd bless you one and all) might have noted that I have decreasingly written on politics. Well, I‘ve become so disenchanted over the years that I can’t bring myself to do it anymore. £12 billion down the Sewanee for an NHS computer system that is now scrapped (are they having a yard sale? If so where and when?) and I’m like, yeah, right, whatever! I’m that (to use a phrase of my late great aunt) piggy rotten sick of the whole shooting match I no longer care to type that tripe. If only it were a shooting match. I get to bag Ed Balls, right?

Anyway, enough of that reverie.

I watched a bit of “Thelma & Louise” on TV last night and there is a point in it where Thelma tells Louise, “Something in me crossed over”. I got that, Thelma. I’ve so crossed over.

There is a difference of course between the thing itself and the realization, between the decisive point of the battle and the victory parade.

I’ll give you the victory parade (the point of realization) first. It’s the Lib Dem conference. An earlier NickM would be hammering the KB to death over their madcap schemes and desperate attempts to put clear yellow water between themselves and the Tories (9% in the polls, they must be pissing themselves). I would be delighting in skewering such ideas as the hiring of more tax inspectors as a vote winner or Chris Huhne berating the energy companies when we all know his attempts at playing Windy Miller are the real reason for hikes in ‘tricity prices.

I would also point out a few further things based upon these. The first would be that the Lib Dems don’t appear to have an accountant amongst them otherwise they’d know the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. The second (according to yesterday’s Telegraph) is that the tax-crackdown will inter-alia focus on cash in hand private tuition. Yeah, they make it out they’re gonna be going through the books of Russian oligarchs and asking Roman Abramovich some very hard questions indeed. Heck they might even send the bailiffs round for Fernando Torres! But no! It’s about scaring the bejesus out of your local music teacher who does a few piano lessons on the side. You know that cash-in-hand grey economy that keeps things ticking over. It reminds me of the communist-era Georgian curse, “May you have to live on your salary!”.

As to energy “policy”… Well, to prevent the lights going off there will be a crash-build of gas sets. I have been saying this for years and I’ll bet anyone a Coke it will pan out that way. The gas is slated to come from Russia, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria or Evil, Vile and Corrupt (sounds like a provincial law firm) as I calls ‘em. Coal is of course verboten and Greenpus are of course priapic with joy over Fukushima despite our signal lack of tsunamis. So we shall have Putin or Medvedev or King Abdullah or this card telling Dave (or whoever), “You’re my wife now”*. For shame! Nuclear is safe in the UK but try telling the loons. Coal (since Maggie and Arthur danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight) is mainly imported from Australia and Poland. Do you want your power to be sourced from the earlier three or from the latter two – stable nations we have extremely cordial relations with. Indeed I’m off to Poland quite soon. Australia is a bit of a hike but I have rellies there and I bet you do too.

But enough of that! Let’s get onto the real turning point. It was the riots and more to the point one particular response to them.

“What happened in Salford on Tuesday night was not about protest; it was about deliberate, organised, violent criminality.”

A speech in Parliament from the Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP. It’s on her own website.

Da yoof knocked over shops and lifted TVs and such.

Compare and contrast with this…

In May 2009 The Telegraph reported that Blears had been claiming the maximum allowable expenses, to under a pound, for three properties, as well as for stays in hotels, £4,874 on furniture, £899 on a new bed and £913 on a new TV, the second such TV in under a year, and the maximum £400 a month in groceries, they also claimed that Blears had not paid capital gains tax on profit from the sale of a London flat. The property was registered as her main residence with HM Revenue and Customs, but Blears had been claiming MPs’ second home expenses relating to the flat. It was claimed that she had made a £45,000 profit on its sale without paying capital gains tax. On 12 May she volunteered to pay the £13,332 capital gains tax she had avoided on the sale of her ‘second home. It was subsequently claimed that Gordon Brown had ordered her to repay the sum. The Daily Mail printed allegations that Blears ‘flipped’ her homes in London three times in one year. Flipping is the practice of switching which of two or more properties is designated an MP’s “second home”. This can allow an MP to maximise his taxpayer-funded allowances.

She stole TVs. Oh, she didn’t break any windows to do it but she still stole or at least gamed the system beyond breaking point. Claiming an allowance for “groceries”? For fuck’s sake! Do you or me expect somebody else to pay for our aubergines? It is only in the state-approved nature of the robbery and violence that Blears differs from her constituent’s Tom and Jerryism. And yes, I do mean violence. You don’t pay your taxes to fund such rapacity you ultimately wind-up in a world of pain.

But what really gets my goat, with a firm grip on the horns, and takes it roughly from behind is this. This is in the masthead of Ms Blears website…

My home and my heart are in Salford,
and my work is dedicated to local
people and their families

I don’t care where her home (which one?) is but I know her heart is in an evil place (Salford ain’t too rough these days) and it and the rest of her body ought to be in a burlap sack weighted with half-bricks at the bottom of the Manchester Ship Canal. That ought to be the end of Hazel “Squirrel Nutkin” Blears because it wasn’t her nuts she was squirreling away.

It is the blatant hypocrisy that gets me.

That was my tipping point. I didn’t quite know it at the time but it was.

*Forward to 2:30

%d bloggers like this: