Sally Bercow found guilty!!!

And lo it came to pass that the fatuous airhead Sally Bercow has been found guilty of a tweet which insinuated in the most brazen of ways that an elderly Tory peer was serial child rapist. Now it needs to be said that the peer is utterly innocent. Was known before she tweeted to be innocent, and that the source the BBC used in their story, who, with his fellow care home residents, was subject to horrific assaults by people who need to be held to account for their vile crimes, freely says is innocent of any such obscenity.

 

The second point is that the Tweet wasn't subtle, and she actually named him.

 

Saying all that I am surprised that she was found guilty as the political elite, even her who has never been elected to anything, done anything of note, and is only famous because she is married to a iffy political, get off which most things.

 

As a person I am keen on free speech. There is no reason that what people say is nice. Free speech protects the idiot and the cruel not just us. But there are limits. If you use your speech to whip up hate, racism, or violence it is illegal. The fact that some seem able to use their words to incite murder and not be prosecuted is another point.

 

With the social media we've seen the idiotic spectacle of people being arrested for a joke they posted on social media sites which I condemn most strongly. But this is different. This is a totally innocent person being labeled a person who raped children. That's not a joke. That's not harmless. I can think of nothing worse than to be innocent and to have some cosseted member of the political elite destroy your name and open to up to violent attack. If I was so smeared, and I could afford it, I'd take legal action in the same way this peer did. Freedom of speech is not the freedom of break the law or to smear innocent people.

 

So I'm glad Sally lost.

Posted with Blogsy

The Sad News About Stuart Hall

I must make one think perfectly clear: I have nothing but the deepest sympathy to the victims of Stuart Hall. I am pleased that their long fight is finally over and I hope they receive the justice the deserve. To have spent so long being denied justice because their attacker was famous is horrific. I have nothing but the deepest respect for their bravery and strength.

 

Saying that I'm sad that the veteran broadcaster Stuart Hall has emerged as a vile sex attacker with his confession that he is guilty of these vile attacks. Some have argued that these are historic crimes done at a time when things were different and when it was hard to tell a fifteen year old girl from a young woman of legal age when they were dressed up to look older and dolled up with makeup. There may be something in this, but the fact that Hall has admitted that at least one of his victims was a nine year old child proves that argument specious in this case.

 

Hall always seemed a nice, funny, man who brought nothing but merriment and laughter. I never heard even a hint of scandal about him, not even extra-marital affairs. So it is a shocking shame the reality is so different.

 

He is an old man but I hope his victims finally get their much deserved justice.

Posted with Blogsy

Sgt Jeremy Scott: a moron resigns

There was controversy when a serving policeman, Sergeant Jeremy Scott, heaped abuse on Margaret Thatcher and hoped he death was degrading and agonising. Sergeant Scott has now resigned....

 

On full pension natch.

 

For the moron Scott it is a smart move. If he were sacked for abuse in a public office, or worse, he'd lose his pension so it makes sense. The only thing it irritates me when the police, public servants, politicians, and the like resign rather than be sacked, or resign rather than to face prosecution. It's wrong that criminals (and I'm talking about violent crimes, theft, etc., rather than just a moron on Twitter) get off with it because of cozy deals with their friends.

 

The sad thing is Scott is a cliché, he's an obese desk jockey who didn't actually protect the public and fight crime. Fat, loudmouthed, sexist, and stupid....it's hardly the image of policing they want to project.

 

You could argue about Scott's freedom of expression but I feel it doesn't apply to serving police or public servants in this case. If we cannot allow right wing abuse or things which criticise other ethnicities or minority groups then this could not be excused.

 

Now Scott's comments on Thatcher were unpleasant, I simply cannot understand the childish mentality that would wish pain and a degrading death on anyone, especially someone that you never actually knew, however the worst us that Scott Tweeted his wish to rape and murder Teresa May, the Home Secretary. That moves the whole thing from being unpleasant: threatening a living person with murder and rape is a crime, and rightly so.

 

That moves things from the rough and tumble of political banter into the world of violent and sexual threats.

 

To my mind this is why Scott went so quickly. Threatening to rape and murder a woman is not something you want to be charged with, especially because your threats are public. So Scott went and the potential charges go away.

 

And he keeps his very nice pension.

 

Kerching. If he plays his cards right a life as left wing star beckons.

 

The worst of it is that Scott's attacks on Thatcher and May illustrate the uniquely left wing sexism against right wing women. We've even had the ridiculous spectacle of the left denying that Thatcher was a woman because she didn't agree with them and didn't fit their picture of what a good little woman should be.

 

None of this shows the left in a good light, which is sad.

 

And so a moron reigns on a nice pension. What an idiot.

Posted with Blogsy

Margaret Thatcher's death controversy

I'm a fan of free speech and the right to protest but I find the gloating of some about the death of Margaret Thatcher distasteful. That's not to say I want to ban or censor anyone it's just celebrating the death of one of the most important global politicians who was repeatedly re-elected sad.

 

Now some idiot teachers and indeed police officers have been criticised for glorying in her death, hoping she died painfully and was degraded (and this horrible comment fom a serving police sergeant when the police did very well out of Margaret Thatcher. More than that what type of vacuous arse hole would glory in pain and death of another anyway, that this moron is a serving officer explains a lot about some of our police) or organising parties to celebrate.

 

Which is fair as people have the right to use their free speech to disagree with others for their views.

 

What gets me is the way in which those on the left are supporting these teachers and police officers and saying they have the perfect right to insult Thatcher.

 

The thing is can you believe for one single second that these people would be supported if they dared criticise Nelson Mandela, or organise parties and sing "Mandela Mandela...dead dead dead', tried to get a song attacking him to number one, what if they told people that Hitler was a good egg?

 

Surely this would also fall into free speech and be allowed......

 

But it wouldn't be. Indeed the left and the establishment have singled out the loathsome and disgusting BNP as bring beyond the pale. Even if they are totally legal which an election mandate you are banned from teaching, the police, etc., if you are a member or support their twisted views.

 

So why is the free speech of those who glory in Thatcher's death supported but those who they disagree with are silenced and the holders sacked?

 

Free speech should be for all regardless of if we like what is said.

Posted with Blogsy

Why use a ill person to advertise your health product?

There is a product known as CARNIVORA which advertises itself as 'Selectively Responds to Abnormal Cells - No Harm to a Single Normal Cell ...'

 

Now I have no idea if it works or not. I'm assuming it isn't actually dangerous though I'm nervous about people putting all their faith in this product and not taking traditional medicine. To advertise it as curing cancer, AIDS/HIV, and a plethora of dread diseases without scientific proof worries me.

 

But I find it very odd that all there adverts and all their promotional material tells us that this product was so rare and you needed to be so powerful and connected that only presidents could secure the product whilst the ordinary people died without it. The whole meme is that this 'miracle' product was monopolised by 'them' (this being our powerful secret rulers) who wanted us serfs to die.

 

Again I've no idea if this is true, I doubt it but that's a total guess. What worries me is that all the ads seem to fall into the category of pseudoscience. It uses the language of science but doesn't give actual scientific facts. Indeed there are no studies or testable facts given to allow anyone to test the amazing claims. The only references they give are in minor weird places and nothing under twenty years old, mostly they are over forty years old.

 

If this is so amazing a cancer cure why isn't there any other recent studies and tests?

 

If this product was so amazing why isn't big business who are hungry for new products exploiting it?

 

Anyway, what I cannot for the life of me understand is why all their ads and material brag that Ronald Reagan used all the power of being president to secretly ship in the product into the White House when only the president of the USA could benefit from this miracle product.

 

Again I've no idea if this is true or not, but I cannot understand how a health product use the example of a man who was seriously ill with mental degradation issues which killed him. If he used this product it didn't work so why use it to promote your product?

 

The product is said to be created by Dr. C. Joe Schneller M.D., N.D., D.Sc., D.Ac., D.C., and I've never heard of him, the only reference I can find to a Dr. C. Joe Schneller was for a chiropractor but they didn't provide details of his education, services, or what hospital they were attached to. My worry is that many quack doctors, and I need to reiterate here that I don't know if he is one, use high faulting looking qualifications from fake universities to boost their prestige and con the gullible. I will say only this: if anyone could have five doctrines due to their academic prowess or be so monumental in their field that they are awarded honorary doctorates from leading universities I would have thought there would be some record of their towering achievements be out there somewhere.

It's all very odd, though someone is making a good living out of the need of the seriously ill to find a cure.

Posted with Blogsy

Hate crime

It is wrong to attack people of other ethnicities, or sexualities, or those who are different. Any attacks on these people should be punished severely.

 

There is a move in Manchester to extend this list to include punks, goths, and heavy metal aficionados.

 

These groups will be afforded special status and those who attack them being dealt with with special severity and any attacks being classed as a hate crime.

 

I don't understand this.

 

Don't get me wrong I support the punishment of of those who attack goths for example. Indeed the move is due to the horrendous, sickening, murder of a utterly innocent young goth called Sophia Lancaster. Her murderers should never see freedom if I had my way.

 

However I've never been able to understand this false separation of crimes and a different response and punishment to the same crime due to a definition of hate crime.

 

If two people are murdered its wrong to treat one crime much more severely and place much more resources to investigate the crime than the other due to the fact that one is classed as a hate crime. We are supposed to be equal but this rule makes it clear that some lives are more important than others and that's wrong.

 

It stretches beyond the most severe crimes. For example if a person is beaten up, of verbally abused if its classed as a hate crime them the perpetrators will be found and the full force of the law thrown at them, but if the victim doesn't fall into the politically drafted niche them the crime doesn't get investigated or the perpetrators are let off with a warning.

 

This is simply wrong. I want all victims to receive justice. I want all criminals to be severely punished. I don't care about race, gender, sexuality, or other officially defined criteria, I want us all to have protection and justice.

 

It really isn't that complicated.

Posted with Blogsy

Ian Duncan Smith: why fall into the idiot politician's trap?

I am one of the rarest of beasts: someone who doesn't think Ian Duncan Smith is an idiot. To me he is a decent cove who served his country in the armed services who went on to make some money and become a politician. He was destroyed by a vicious labour black art team.

 

But sometimes he makes things hard for me.

 

Case in point his overhaul of the benefit system. Let me say that it both needs to be done, but the doing so is going to hurt a lot of genuine people in need the system is supposed to be there to help. More than that the whole forcing people out of council houses if they have more bedrooms than they need (a official policy from labour in 2010 who wanted to tax the elderly out of their homes because labour thought they didn't deserve them) worryingly shortsighted. Yes there is a need for more houses for families and something needs to be done, but the fact is the removal of people, especially vulnerable ones, from their social support systems and into much more expensive, state financed, private accommodation, is going to be much more expensive and is going to cause serious problems for those we should be helping.

 

However I am disappointed by IAD for falling into the ludicrous trap too often fallen into by the rich politicians, of all hues, that he could live on £54 a week easily.

 

Why do the rich say such stupid things?

 

Firstly it's an open goal for people to say "prove it".

 

Secondly, and much more damagingly, it shows the world how out of touch they are from the real world. You see anyone can live on £54 a week.....for a week or so, perhaps longer. But the point is that those who live on such a low figure aren't living on it for a week or so. They are there, often for no fault of their own, for life.

 

The nearest town from where I live is a £9 (return) bus ride away. How is a poor person going to travel to find work, or to actually work if transport takes most of their income?

 

What happens if you need new shoes, clothes, or your cooker breaks down or your car, or you get ill and need to buy tablets?

 

Forget treats or little treats to brighten your day.

 

How can you survive?

 

Now many people are going to say "then get off your arse and get a job" but what if they cannot due to disability or illness, or lack of local employment?

 

All this episode has done is to distract from the very real need to both protect the vulnerable and to stop people taking advantage, and show IAD to be a shallow idiot.

 

It also doesn't rest well that a political type who has grown very rich, like they all do, on the public purse to attack others for receiving a fraction of what they claim.

 

It's sad really.

Posted with Blogsy