imageseemingly? Even Sun readers are seemingly not immune.
Make no mistake, Abbott’s tweet was racist, there is no ‘seemingly’ about it.
I can divine no logical reason for adding a ‘seemingly’ unless one is labouring under the nagging feeling that Abbott cannot be racist because she is herself black.
In which case YOU are racist.


“A Racially Aggravated Public Order Offence”

Sorry, but no.
A very highly-paid football player got called a bad word.
That’s not a public order offence… is it? People shout all the time at football matches. Surely, if shouting a bad word at a football player is a racially aggravated public order offence, then shouting anything else at all is a vanilla public order offence?
Round them up!

Ban It!

Predictably, the latest Medal Of Honour game has come under fire because, being set in Afganistan, players can play as the Taliban and “Kill British Soldiers” (although you can’t) making the game “disgusting” and “un-British,” according to Liam Fox at least. This being the same Liam Fox who personally helped kill British soldiers in real life by voting for the invasion of Iraq, which is presumably fine.

This is far from the first time that the morally superior have called for a popular thing to be banned, although I haven’t been aware previously of bans being required for purely patriotic reasons…

Politically Incorrect Email Of The Week

FW:My Dog

I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare. At first the lady said, “Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare”. So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify. My Dog gets his first cheque Friday. Damn this is a great country.

Gypsies and Righteous and Wheelchairs. Oh My!

This evening I watched Channel 4’s documentary My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, and as well as learning quite a few things I didn’t know about Gypsy culture, I was also not-terribly-surprised at the discrimination they face, having lived in the real world and met real people. They are one of the few groups, like smokers and fat people, that it is still alright to have a negative opinion about.
I’ve nothing against gypsies. I’ve met a few, not many I’ll admit. Some were nasty bastards, most were ok. Just like any other cross-section of the population. I’ve no problem with them living they way they choose, and as for most people’s complaint- “they don’t pay any bloody taxes…” Well. I’m sure you can guess where I stand on that argument.

In any case, in one scene, the family were called by the reception venue on the day of the wedding to cancel, having found out at the last minute who their clients were. The family were naturally furious, and much wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued.
“If they’d cancelled because we were black, or gay or something, it would be in all the papers.” Quite right, it would. The interesting thing -as always- however, lay in what they didn’tsay. They did not at any point say that there should be a law against discriminating against them. They gritted their teeth, complained, and got on with saving their wedding. They don’t seem to understand the rules of Victimhood Poker.

Compare this with Simon Green, the disabled man with a huge chip on his shoulder featured in the BBC’sPanorama the other day. Hardly a moment went by when he wasn’t either drawing attention to ‘hate crime’ laws that I didn’t know existed (In one memorable scene he is secretly filming inside a back-street pub where he is getting some stick from the locals.
“He doesn’t seem to like me, and that’s fine. He’s entitled to his opinion. But he called me a cripple and that’s not fine. In fact it’s illegal.” Is it!) or calling for further laws to protect his delicate sensibilities from people saying things he doesn’t like, or to make things that are already crimes (like assault or criminal damage) some sort of Super Crimes if they are committed against disabled people. It is tragic that he is in a wheelchair, and the other cases he showed (like the disabled lady who had the windows of her special disabled car smashed by local yobs) are tragic too, but smashing windows is already a crime and just because the police can’t be bothered to deal with it is no reason to be calling for specific offenses of damaging the property of the disabled. Surely the answer is the reform of the police so they investigate all crimes, not pleading for our own particular special cases?

It didn’t even seem to occur to the Gypsies that they might plead to the government to protect them from the nasty people who don’t like them, and force people to let out their property to people they’d rather not let it out to. Perhaps it’s their edge-of-society position, or their ancient anarchic culture, or perhaps it’s simply because they are not pets like Simon Green. Instead of whining for the State to come and rescue them they would rather get on and sort it out for themselves. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

The Right Not To Be Offended?

SUPERMARKET staff allegedly refused to serve a woman after claiming her Help for Heroes charity wristband meant she supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beth Hoyle, of Whitworth, claims she was turned away from the tills at Asda in Dane Street, because the checkout operator objected to ‘what she was wearing’.

The ‘stunned’ mum-of-three said: “My hand instinctively went to the Celtic cross around my neck. But the young lad on the till said it wasn’t that, pointed to my Help for Heroes wristband and accused me of supporting the war. I told him it was nothing to do with the war, but about supporting our injured troops.”

Mrs Hoyle, whose brother is an ex-paratrooper, complained to a supervisor but was shocked to hear he backed his staff member’s approach.

She added: “I immediately complained to a supervisor, but he said the cashier was entitled to his opinion and it was his right not to serve me. I was disgusted.”

-From the Rochdale Observer, H/T a lovely lady on Face Book.

I’ve been thinking about supermarkets lately, thanks in part to JD’s Infamous Ketchup Rant, and also partly because the company I work for, while not a supermarket, is sufficiently similar to warrant comparisons.

As far as I’m aware, it is perfectly within the rights of retail staff to refuse to serve anyone they wish, although I’d struggle to find the relevant sections in retail law. I’m willing to be corrected/enlightened on this. I imagine that the idea is to provide some recourse against abusive or threatening customers and not to protect staff against having their sensibilities offended. In my opinion, while you are on the clock, your sensibilities belong to your employer, and if your employer is not offended by charity bracelets, burkhas or Guy Fawkes masks then tough. Your employer has (or should have, as I said, I’m not sure in this case) the absolute right not to employ you anymore if you don’t like it.

But I digress. What I’m trying to get at here is the growing assumption that we have the right not to be offended. This till clerk obviously thought he did. He’s against the war, you see. Noble cause and all that so he’s offended by the Help For Heroes bands. Big deal, I’m offended by all those charity bands, the idea that putting a pound in a tin -once- makes you look wonderful in the eyes of others until the bands rot off your wrists. I once even spent several months wearing a band with ‘The Legend Of Zelda‘ on it, in protest. I’m not a christian any more, but the story about the beggar hiding his donation while the rich man showed all and sundry his largesse stayed with me. Anyway, my views on charity wristbands aside, I’d never refuse to serve a customer with one on, and I’d expect to be in serious trouble if I did.

The roots of all this lie, I believe, in all those local news stories concerning people with pig ornaments in their windows being prosecuted by the council in case they “offend muslims” (that actually happened to a lady living a few streets away from me), renaming christmas events and the like. Once one or two groups suddenly had the right not to be offended the idea grew and grew until we’re in the situation we are today, where televison comics can lose their jobs for lampooning the appearance of swimmers. This poor youngster is presumably going to lose their job- if not over this (If that right is protected in law) then over the next technical gross misconduct (that retail firms rountinely force their employees to commit in order to do their jobs, and turn a blind eye until just this sort of eventuality) for behaving in a way that they have been taught -by local and national news, by society, by the very zeitgeist- is correct.

The situation is ridiculous, and getting worse. Could we have Muslim checkout operators refusing to serve pork? Hindu ones refusing beef? Jehovah’s Witness bus drivers refusing to drive buses with blood donation adverts on the side? The country would grind to a halt. Nobody has the right not to be offended. I’ve long held that the fault lies with the offendee rather than the offender, for letting themselves get so easily riled.

In effect, this country needs to grow up.

Question Time

Oh. I love saturdays, especially the ones I don’t have to work. I love my telephone too; my wife and sister-in-law are here and have control of the television, so I took advantage of the time to watch thursday’s Question Time on IPlayer, on my phone.

Now. I’m no BNP supporter, I could never support a leftist party racist or no. I’ve been down the left-hand path before and I didn’t like where it was going. I determined to watch it with an open mind however, and I thought he came across quite well. In fact, I think this was a spectacular own goal for an establishment still crippled by the no-platform debate.

They started on race issues in an early attempt to derail Griffin, and he manfully managed to dissemble his way through, not a difficult task as the other panellists (and audience) talked over and interrupted him throughout the section. This had the dual effects of not only setting him up as an underdog straight away (and as we know, the British love underdogs) but also saving him the trouble of having to explain and debate his views. Classic.

Once the ‘debate’ moved onto Islam, he was remarkably restrained, clearly and simply mentioning the things from the Koran that we’re not supposed to talk about while the other contestants panellists frothed and foamed. He cleverly framed the issue in terms that nobody can disagree with (women’s rights and the stoning of rape victims etc.) and was fairly unimpeachable on this, at least among those who don’t really want shariah law, thankyou very much.

In fact, once he was past the race section of questions he was pretty straight throughout. He may have been lying (and probably was) but if he was, he was lying straight out, while the others waffled and dissembled and shouted him down and refused to answer questions in traditional Westminster style. To someone pretty pissed off with the LibLab Con (who didn’t know any better) he could really seem like a straight-talkin’ kinda guy.

Which leads me again to wonder, is this deliberate? There was a lot he said that I could agree with. He doesn’t like the EU, he doesn’t like the BBC, and I had to nod my head when he asked Jack Straw if he would dare go to a Maori or a Sioux and ask them “what do you mean by indiginous?” Not because I’m a white supremacist (I’m not) but because it was a fair and logical question, and Straw’s refusal to be drawn on it was frustrating. If I didn’t know any better, and didn’t know all about liberty and freedom and what leftists like Griffin really want (control, same as the other three leftists on the panel) I might well have started to think maybe he’s got something, and no wonder the others don’t want him to speak, because they’re all saying the same things and he’s saying the sort of things that people are really thinking. In short, I may well have thought he was a reasonable man not being given a fair shake of the stick, and he’s not really a racist anymore, and maybe we should give him a chance?

Of course, I didn’t think any of those things because I know what Griffin’s really about, but to others? Especially those white, English working class who are sick of being disallowed from acknowledging or celebrating their own culture (another point Griffin tried to raise and was shouted down on), and some of them do watch Question Time, you know.

This was either a spectacular own-goal or this was how it was intended to be. I’ll let you decide for yourself.