Saturday, July 05, 2008

Have These Englishmen Been Too Long in the Noonday Sun?

Our reader, Gaia, was sputtering when she sent this ridiculous tale being wagged by the Association of Chief Police Officers. These gentlemen are bent over so far they can see the upside down blue sky in between their legs.

I do hope they are being paid well for the latest dog travesty:

Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

I'm a racist, are you? If you live in England, Northern Ireland or Wales, here is a contact page for the Association of Chief Police Officers. They warn you ahead of time “… that the use of offensive, racist or defammatory [sic] language will not be tolerated and may be subject to further investigation.” Just in case you were tempted to toss naughty language in their general direction (God knows they deserve it) please refrain. We can’t go your bail at such long distance. And Lionheart can tell you from bitter experience that if they investigate you on “racist hate speech” they’ll leave you swinging in the wind for years. Good way to keep the average citizen on a short leash, hmm?

But back to this latest dhimmitude tale:
- - - - - - - - -
Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear bootees with rubber soles. “We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it,” Acpo said.

Problems faced by the use of sniffer dogs were highlighted last week when Tayside police were forced to apologise for a crime prevention poster featuring a german shepherd puppy, in response to a complaint by a Muslim councillor.

Islamic injunctions warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are regarded as “unclean”.

Police dogs at present are issued with footwear only at scenes of explosions to prevent them injuring their paws on broken glass.

As someone noted in the comments recently, Saudi Arabia uses dogs for security searches, mostly at airports as I recall. And have you seen the many videos from Iraq with the mongrel dogs wandering around? Several have been “adopted” by platoons, though that may be against the rules. Do these Muslim-land dogs spontaneously generate? Where do you suppose they come from?

In other words, these Islamic injunctions are balderdash. I’ll grant the Times this: it did go so far as to quote a dissenting imam on the subject. He gives the Police Chiefs a well-deserved lecture:

Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain’s leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: “In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.

“I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes.”

Hear, hear, your reverence! If you would be so good as to repeat that message far and wide in the bureaucratic circles in England, you could do much good.

John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: “The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect because they cause huge friction between different communities.”

Did you know that there was a Campaign Against Political Correctness in England? Neither did I. It sounds like a much-needed corrective to the current wisdom. You do wonder what they can say, though, without being slammed by the nearest police Racist Hate Crimes Unit. Which may be why the website does not appear to be up to date, though Mr. Midgley appears to be alive and well when you google him.

Finally, this gem ends the Times report:

Caroline Kisko, of the Kennel Club, said: “We would not condone any attempt to make search dogs wear special clothing, which could cause them distress.”

Come to think of it, the Queen is very fond of dogs. Why has she not spoken up about this cruelty? Or perhaps she did, and I missed it.

As the Baron noted, Ms. Kisko, presumably like most “persons of English background”, is more concerned about the sensibilities of dogs than she is about those of Muslims.

Come to think of it, I know plenty of Americans who much prefer dogs to people. And with good reason, they say. For example, talk to any poor soul with large alimony payments; he’ll tell you - don’t get married, get a dog instead.

Conclusion: these Police Chiefs have been left out too long in the noonday sun. Either that, or given this cockamamie initiative they just dreamed up, the Chiefs are a wee bit sensitive since their latest round of dhimmi training.

28 comments:

Whiskey said...

Since Sharia is now to be the law of the land, the English will simply have to give up their dogs. Muslims demand it.

Zenster said...

In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is.

Two words: St. Bernards.

Languille Lady said...

Unbelievable!! When are the Brits going to wake up? Amazing to think that once England's commonwealth was a huge part of the civilized world. And today, they are treading the path towards turning everything over to the Muslims! England: Love It or Leave It, and enforce it. Let's hope the anti-political correctness folks can get something going, and get rid of the politicians that are condoning this stupidity.

randian said...

Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases.

That seems like a terrible security flaw.

annalyttiger said...

I have just reported the mohammadan community in England for racism against the British.

Thanks for the link.

KG said...

I just filled out the form at that site:
Police dogs wearing booties?
Because you're afraid of offending bloody muslims?
Get a grip--and a spine, you useless people. Your culture is under attack and all you can do is bow and scrape to primitives.
Oh, and by the way--you can't even spell defamatory. (although it's difficult to see how its possible to defame a group who have demonstrated such ineptitude, hypocrisy and sheer stupidity)
And while we're at it: muslim preachers break the law every damn day with threats of violence, yet you and your forces lack the courage to tackle that problem. You have no spine, no integrity and no principles.The best you can do is threaten people who make comments on this site.
Pathetic."

Sra Scherzophrenic said...

If you get a chance to obtain a Rosetta Stone course, the first four words you learn in any language is: boy, girl , cat and dog. Yes, dog. And dog gets declined in so many ways: another word is dance, which is parsed out with a man, a woman, a woman and a man. Indeed, there are all sorts of innocuous activities going on in Rosetta Stone's immersion course that would be considered taboo by the strict interpreters of the hadith and sunnah. Women driving, for example. The next words are, woman, man, man and boy, woman and girl, man and woman boy and dog, woman in a car, boy in a car, girl in a car, boy and girl in a boat, girl and dog, cat and car. And then there is swimming and playing together. Sexes intermingling all over the place, I tell ya.
Barron's also has an interesting semi-hypnotic Arabic learning cassette, called TravelTalk, where, while listening to the strains of Vivaldi, you are lulled into a relaxed method of visualized learning. And what, pray tell do you learn? Why, you learn about a little girl, who runs free from her family, in order to catch up to the man walking his dog along the beach. You learn all about his dog, including how old he is, what his name is. And then, you, the listener, become a blonde German girl named Petra who is booking passage on a train all by yourself in some far flung destination, where you will be safe, even though you are an unveiled young woman, blond, and inexcusably European.

Reversepsychology said...

Ermmm.. K.G....

El Gordo - K.Rudd and Miliband are all bestist of friends.

And as we bear witness too on a regular basis, these vile Socialists are certainly PETTY enough, to chase you to the other side of the world for having the galling audacity to insult their minions of ridicule.

Expect a knock on the door around 2.30 A.M. tonight....

spackle said...

First the officer will have to put booties on the dog. Then before entering the house he will have to:

Ritually wash himself.
Put on proper Muslim garb.
Memorize 20 Hadiths.
Pray several times to Mecca.
Make sure everyone is well fed. Halal of course.
Make mint tea.
Make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Flash forward several days. All the suspects have fallen asleep waiting for the search. The cops lose interest and go away while the cop with the dog has converted and moved to Pakistan to become a Jihadi.

Queen said...

I once happened upon a mass pile of what I thought were spineless, gooey, formless banana slugs. Looking closer, I realized it was actually a pile of native Brits, hugging the sidewalk in abject submission while desperately searching from someone to apologize to for their existence.

KG said...

Lol! Let 'em come, ReverseP.--I'd welcome the spectacle of this lot making even greater fools of themselves.
This problem isn't going to be fixed until we make it plain that we will not cave in to threats and we will not be silenced.
At my age, I've seen just about every shade and shape of cowardly lickspittle there is and I'm too old to bend over for them.

spackle said...

Queen-

And the Muslims are the sadistic child with the salt shaker.

Grimreaper said...

Queen-

You cleary know little of Britain and the British people.

Please do not be so irritating.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Thank you grimreaper, I was about to say something similar but far less polite.

turn said...

zenster-

St Bernards only drool when they're panting.

I vote for English Bulldogs. I don't believe they can even close their mouths.

Conservative Swede said...

Actually I know nobody that has followed the highly perverted PC submission in Britain as well as Queen. She's something of an expert.

But Queen, I guess it's better that you share your knowledge database with the people here, than just expressing your feelings about it.

Also, there is this other side of Britain (under the surface) that makes me and Fjordman think that the counter-revolution might start there.

Grimreaper said...

Conservative Swede-

Yeah that's pretty much what I meant. I wouldn't really call it 'under the surface' though. It just isn't particularly 'in yer face.'

Grimreaper said...

Although I suppose it depends on your perspective.

BED TIME

Queen said...

Graham and grimreaper: I have waited and waited and waited for any signs of life from the Mother Country, for five years and more, and have seen nothing encouraging. I concur with Lawrence Auster that Britain is a Dead Country. PS -- I read the Times and the Telegraph every day, and have done so for five years, and sometimes when I can stand it, I dip over to Al-Guardian, but I am sorry, the only thing I can come up with is: banana slugs. If my insult has encouraged anyone here to go out and do something constructive to save your country, then good on me, is all I'll say. Each day I read more and more ludicrous signs of banana slugness, the banning of hot cross buns, the moving of hospital beds to face Mecca, the extra tax-payer funded "benefits" paid to polygamous wives from Pakistan while WWII veterans freeze to death in their flats for lack of fuel money, the sexual abuse meted out to thousands of native British children from "Asians" in while your police looks the other way -- it just goes on and on and on. You'd actually have to improve a bit in assertiveness just to make it into the category of dhimmi.

Conservative Swede said...

Yes, Queen, this is how Britain is ruled today. And the people are completely suppressed. I always thought Sweden was the worst country, but I'm no longer sure. Britain or Spain might be worse (depending on what aspect we focus on).

But what you see is one window into what is Britain of today. I think if you heard the talk in the pubs, that would provide a different window. Where is DP111 btw, didn't he use to comment here?

Conservative Swede said...

Hey, this is OT (or is it?), but have you all seen this hilarious video compilation about the EU Star Wars?

EU Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

I'm amazed by the fabulous Swenglish by Margot Wallström, btw (skurdi burdi gurdi gurdi). It illustrates how we a ruled by uncultivated bums.

Queen said...

There is plenty that Graham and grimpreaper and the rest of the native Brits can do to save their country, and it doesn't all have to be in your face anti-dhimmitude stuff. For example there are 200K abortions per year in Britain, and 87 percent of them are to native British girls. Who's replacing those 180,000 unborn indigenous British people? Muslim cousin-brides imported from the Subcontinent at the rate of 40K per year and the five children they will each bear to their "British" spouses. Graham and grimreaper could do volunteer work for a charity that tries to cut abortions amongst the native population. Or they could help purchase dogs (the saliva-drippin' kind) for elderly or young native folks so they can be protected from Muslim attacks. Or they could collect money to buy fuel for the elderly native population who are being sacrificed so that Ahmed and Fatima's five children can have a few more subsidized sucks on the British taxpayers' teat. All of those things would be anti-dhimmi measures, perfectly legal and not even attract the untoward notice of the elites. I am personally not the bravest person in the world either, but I find ways to fight Third World importation and Western self-hatred everyday, even if it's just writing a gnerous check to an anti-globo organization. The fight to save the West starts with all of us just saying "No" to the self-hatred that's being drummed into our heads and the heads of our children and grandchildren.

gatesofvienna said...

Message Below is clear.

Geldorf speech in support of Liberty and David Davis
by IanPP on Sun 06 Jul 2008 12:29 BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos
On Friday 4th July, Bob Geldorf made a powerful speech in support of David Davis's Liberty campaign to an audience in Hull Guildhall.

The Press have unilaterally ignored it, apart from a few who have acknowledged that Geldorf was there, not one publisher has printed his speech (not that I can find), possibly the most powerful in many years.

In order to redress that in some small way, I want to give this the widest possible audience and so you can read it here, and of course on the David Davis campaign website.


This is not a normal by-election but it is extraordinary. The people of this area are being asked to consider not the merits or otherwise of the government or opposition, much less the competing policies of the different parties. Not even the beauty parade of eager candidates, who looking at David and the motley assemblage of other candidates, once again reminds me of that great truth that politics is merely showbusiness for ugly people.

You are not even being asked to address the great financial issues and otherwise that are beginning to bite at this region and the country. Rising food, fuel, energy and inflation costs. House prices and manufacturing down. It doesn’t look or feel good out there. But that is not for this election. That is for another day.

This time you are being asked about something much more fundamental. More profound even than the momentary economic cycle and its impact on those who live here . This time you’re being asked to think about who we are. What we stand for and will we continue to live and be the country and people built by generations and institutions before. This is fight about the legal boundaries of the state and how much that state can and should remove of our liberties before it fundamentally changes the nature of who and what we are.

As a voting issue it may appear less immediate than the current financial downturn and therefore less compelling. Given the position of the other main parties the results may seem a foregone conclusion and the exercise of the vote tiresome, the sheer drag of having to go to the town, village or church hall or school to exercise your rights seems unnecessary. Perhaps then a vast apathy sets in at the seemingly huge vagueness of it all. This time there will be no debate about the standard of living but rather but rather standards we choose to live by Maybe you accept the official panicky newspaper and political establishment line that its all a nonsense, a hopelessly quixotic or principled or opportunistic waste of time. That would be a terrible mistake.

I will argue that this time you must come out in more numbers than ever because this time the issue is more vital than even our immediate food bills. This time uniquely you are being asked to decide about what kind of people we are and what kind of country we wish to live in. You’re being asked to vote about us and you may never get to vote on something so profoundly fundamental again.

Famous defenders of liberty have walked the streets of Hull before and many fine words have been spoken in this very room so…

Let us be grand for once then, for we talk of great subjects. Let us ask ‘what is the point of England “ now that Parliament, whose primary purpose is to defend the liberties of the people have so gratuitously, so wantonly, so casually betrayed that trust and taken from us that same liberty which above all else defines this country and its constitution, and that which has been its greatest gift to the world its freedom, its tolerances, its civilisation which William Wilberforce so forcefully argued from this town so many centuries ago.Melville claimed for America “that it bears the Ark of the liberties of the world.” It could be better said of that Britain which invented and codified those freedoms.

Are Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus not to mention the Anti-Slavery laws, to be traduced in one brief sad moment of political expediency. When a 800 years ago Britons told the state in words that still ring true and through the ages

“To no man will we deny, To no man will we delay, Justice and Right”

42 days detention denies and delays Justice and Right. It is a clear breach of ancient right, of Magna Carta itself.

So what great existential threat does this country now face that did not face our forefathers of the past 1000 years. What is so grave the emergency now that neither civil war nor world war nor various terrorisms were considered so dangerous to our security that our oldest statutes -and few have lasted the 400 years relevance of habeas corpus - could be upended for such a ha’pnworth of momentary contemporary panic. If authority is to be respected it must be just. When it is not, then the greatest threat to that authority is its own instinct to authoritarianism.

These new security measures, these new limitations on our liberties are not the thin end of the wedge We’re way past that now. This is now, already, the bulkier mid way point of that authoritarian block. For we have in the past few years so mauled our ancient defended rights, rights for which bloody battles were fought and heroes lived and died for, as to seriously consider whether the constitution is today much more than a cartoon of its essential meaning. And what moral authority resides any longer in a lawmaking body that acts against the liberties of its own people? Is it not true that the willingness to use intolerable means to achieve impossible ends shows the political mind at its most deluded?

Meanwhile our supine press gulled by political complicity, lull the population to apathy by banging on with their trivial irrelevancies while the constitution is quietly turned aside. Shame on them. Alas they are shameless.

What terrorizes the terrorists is our civilization. What those unthinking fools of fundamentalism fear most are the very freedoms our representatives strip from us. Essentially this ‘war on terror’is a conflict waged against Islamist forces that claim to reject the Enlightenment. If that is so, then how can we ever succeed if we side with our opponents in rejecting those same ideals? Every moment we are spied on by the invisible watchers. Every time that we are recorded and monitored at every turn, on every purchase. Every time we are mandatorially logged, noted, tagged and followed on databanks and files because “it is in our best interest” They win. And every time we accept it, we lose. We must not hold this attitude of passive acceptance to these restraints on justice, rights and liberties that ultimately amounts to nothing more than complicity with intolerance.

Why should I carry an ID card? I own my identity – not them. Why should I have to identify myself to the state? How dare they demand I identify myself? To whom am I identifying myself and for what? Spain, France and Germany have had identity cards for decades and have more or less the same levels of crime as us. So why insist on them. The war on terror is no answer. Indeed there will soon be a brisk business in false British cards and more seriously they didn’t stop the bombers in Germany or Spain.

It is of course almost comically Orwellian to trot out that comprehensively stupid, complacent and absurd excuse of the natural authoritarian The classic “Only the guilty need be afraid” line. And how sickening to hear it in England. “Only the guilty need be afraid”. Really? This repulsive expression beloved of tabloid and home secretary alike has at least got the virtue that it is demonstrably false.

Shall we say it to the innocent men of Forest Gate, already shot then banged up and subsequently released without charge.

Shall we say it to the demonstrators going about their legally permitted democratic business who are roughed up, abused and put away.

Say it to me that when you are lifted from the street, incarcerated for 42 days without knowing why, while your boss considers his and your position, your family cower in fear and dismay and your friends and community shun you.

Tell them that when you are released, as innocent as when you went in and try vainly to return to the life stripped from you.

Tell that to the Gestapo-like anonymous, faceless accuser whom you well never have to encounter or challenge.

Tell that to the judge, for that other ancient right of been judged by your peers in jury is gradually removed

No ladies and gentlemen in this world of spies, snitches, cameras, files and databanks the state knows all our sad, shameful little private secrets. Like threatening gangsters they know who we are and they know where we live. Not Big Brother, this is Big Britain. It is not simply about the big issues. This is also about the liberty of the ordinary person to have an ordinary life and not feel oppressed - the everyday small liberties that affect us all. When RIPA, the law that allows councils to authorise surveillance and to get hold of your phone records, e-mails and website usage was enacted 8 years ago, 9 organisations including the police, security and revenue services were allowed to use it. Today there are 786 more agencies added - including all local authorities, police forces and bodies, the Financial Services Authority and the Ambulance service. In 2006 these bodies made 1000 applications A DAY to use these powers! They will say “If you don’t do anything wrong why worry?” Rather you should worry precisely because you do nothing wrong. They must have no right to spy on your ability to live a good life. And when we finally become afraid to say what we think, it is one step nearer to that most awful condition of all – being afraid of what TO think!. “Only the guilty need be afraid” Afraid not. In this world it is only the innocent need be afraid. For the state has assumed our guilt already. We have all become suspects. We have become guilty till proven innocent.

What lies behind all of this, this perversion of the British idea?

From 2000 to today, incarceration without charge and without recourse to justice has gone from 5 days to 7 to 28 to 42. Foreigners may be imprisoned indefinitely on national sercurity grounds. Detention is based on secret intelligence and suspicion. There is no criminal charge and no trial. Our very own Guantanamo. Terrorism stop and search powers are used widely and routinely including against that elderly man who had the temerity to heckle Jack Straw. Local councils snoop and spy and threaten old people and others over litter and wheelie bins. Why? It is true that most people want security rather than liberty. But then as that unlikely sage Dick Cheney (and he should know) said “It is easy to take Liberty for granted when you have never had it taken from you”.

It is our complacency that let’s them get away with it. It is our apathy that we must fear.

But are we really so threatened in the UK, that we must uniquely introduce the most swingeing and illiberal precautions.

The United States, which unlike us, genuinely feels itself at war, under siege and attack has an absolute limit of 2 days before detainess are brought before a judge and that judge being presented with evidence. Last week the supreme court held the government to be in contempt for suspending the rights of the Guantanamo. residents to fair justice.

In Ireland even at the height of the IRA terror campaign the limit was 7 days

Australia only 60 miles from the most populous Muslim nation and the victim of its own bomb horrors has a maximum of 12 days.

Spain with its huge north African Muslim population and the victim of the worst European bombing outrage is 5 days maximum. Yet all the bombers were cught and tried or killed themselves.

Italy with its 1970’s red brigade terror and its large African population has a maximum of 4 days.

Germany with its giant millions strong Turkish population and during its murderous Baader Meinhof rampage has 2 days.

Russia with its Islamic Chechnyan rebels, its war and outrages has 5 days maximum.

It goes on. What is wrong with us. Have we lost our confidence, our stoicism, our bravery and dignity, sang-froid and upper lip. No, I don’t think so, not if the great awful dignity of the victims families are anything to go by. Or the magnificent and traditional response of the capitol with that very British attribute of “getting on with it’. Not us then. Is Parliament afraid? Apparently not. MI5? They say not. So why imprison people on suspicion, without charge, without evidence or trial for 42 days? How very, very unBritish.

Let me be clear. I am not complacent by the threat or the scale of it facing us. But the government has presented no case that is even remotely convincing for the consequent and growing loss of civil liberty. As Burke said ‘The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion” These measures are simply political and designed to make the government seem strong on terrorism and the opposition weak. But even their most senior members have spoken out against this law. The Home Affairs committee came out against the proposal in December. The former Attorney General and the former Lord Chancellor are against it. John Major is against it. Even Jacqui Smith has had to admit that MI bloody5 didn’t ask for it!

Detention without trial is constitutionally repulsive. It is almost an oxymoron. A legal illegality. A form of legal bullying. It is to view justice through the wrong end of the telescope. It is portrayed as a necessary weapon in the states anti-terror armoury but in what new capacity? Perhaps they believe it has some merit in being an ill-conceived, criminally stupid and clumsily inept attempt to cow or scare the fantastically deluded and unreasonable who are therefore, by definition, incapable of that sort of fear anyway. If you are intent on blowing yourself up, a spell at her majesty’s pleasure probably constitutes an irritating delay in the inevitable, rather than a panicked repudiation of jihadist ambition.

What it most definitely is however is counterproductive. Because it is unjust the law simply becomes more grist to the terrorist mill. Indeed it becomes their success, for they have succeeded in taking from us part of the very freedom they so despise. Add to that the rather alarming fact that the experts have already told us these measures can never prevent another 9/11, 7/11, Spanish train or Bali disco bombing. If anything it will simply fuel the flames of resentment.

What the terrorists are bewildered by and truly frightened of is the very thing this law rejects – reason, values, logic, liberty and law that enshrines, encapsulates and articulates our freedom. That is the Britishness that John Major, Gordon Brown and others find so hard to define. It is the coherent idea that constitutes itself into an inchoate feeling and sense of pride in place. It is what that great defender of Justice Rumpole of the Bailey called the Golden Thread that runs through British justice.This war on terror is a conflict waged against Islamist forces that claim to reject the Enlightenment. If that is so then how can we ever succeed if we side with our opponents in rejecting those same ideals.

Let us be clear then. This is not security we are being offered, this is government demanding freedom from the constraints that have developed over many centuries to curb the exercise of power. This is a type of illiberal democracy where elections take place against a background of diminished freedom. Ben Franklin said that “they who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

I was told that David Davis was out on a limb on this one. Shamefully that is true. But it is the right limb to be out on. And it is a limb I am proud to join him on. It is also the limb that William Wilberforce climbed out and perched himself upon in this very town. When I think of this area therefore I think of this mans and this areas struggle against injustice, the rights of the unlawfully chained and those denied their liberty. This is not the grotesquerie of slavery and it would be wrong to conflate the two. But it is about justice, it is about liberty, it is about your rights. It is about Magna Carta, and what Britain is, was and must continue to be. It is against the whole flabby, conforming, brainwashed, gullible, witless crap of it all.

This is the only place that uniquely in this election has been given the chance and honour to speak out again for all of us. To speak out on behalf of justice versus intolerance. To whistleblow. To firewatch against unthinking power .To speak about an idea of right and liberty under the law. To vote for an idea of life itself. THE idea of Britain. Tory, Lib Dem, Labour who cares - clamber out on this limb with us, for its where we all belong. Turn out hugely and thank God that you are in a country that is still free to do so.

Ladies and Gentlemen. Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.


The Liberty Bell is ringing, politicians will ignore it at their peril.

There is no left or right in UK politics any more. This battle is about one thing, Authoritarianism versus Liberty.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/7/6/3778229.html

turn said...

ConSwede-

Yes, Queen, this is how Britain is ruled today. And the people are completely suppressed.

I take no pleasure in pointing this out and I know from previous threads how important the meaning of words is to you.

The UK is not ruled. It is administered.

It is far harder to throw off the yokes of thus than a tyrant because it is so entrenched.

Conservative Swede said...

Turn,

Good point. And you should take pleasure. As you say, the meaning of words are important to me.

The UK is not ruled. It is administered.

Is it not even governed?

Administered instead of ruled, applies to all democracies. The presidents / prime minsters and their governments are just temporary care-takers (soon gone, and with no personal responsibility for anything they do).

Conservative Swede said...

Hey Queen! This one is especially for you:

Infantile food racism
---
As sick and evil as the current European order is, I think that the following story, in the Telegraph, could not have come from any European country other than Britain. Only the Brits have taken depraved liberalism this far.

Toddlers who dislike spicy food "racist"
by Rosa Prince

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.
...
---

I hope they make sure to feed to Muslim kids with pork. We wouldn't want them to racist, would we? Force them to eat pork, and they'll end up loving us.

Conservative Swede said...

"This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food."

It seems that British governments idea of how to run nurseries is to serve hot Indian food to the three year olds, and if (or rather: when) they reject it, they will be taught a lesson of how wickedly racist they behaved and get no dessert. I fear that the idea is that the procedure should be repeated until they learn (or get anorexia). The government agency guide clearly states that it is a prejudice that needs to be rooted out and reported. Where's Charles Dickens when we need him?

Zenster said...

[British] Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency.

This, coming from the "land of seventeen religions and two sauces", no less. The British sense of irony must be well and truly dead. GAH!