Tuesday - July 31, 2012

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED ‘GRIEVANCES R US’

OK it may be a bit of a long story but please, stay with it. I’ve edited a bit to shorten, but although there’s some snide humor here at the end, what Littlejohn has to say is very straightforward and it’s damn well true. The mind boggling thing of it all is, how’d it get far and nobody was able to put a stop to it.
Littlejohn mentions only one of quite a few more for some reason, of the out of control spending by an unelected body that answers to no one. But it’s all in the name of equality of course.

Welcome to the Equality Hotline, for Scribble press 3

By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

the Equality Commission, where staff facing redundancy are threatening to sue for unfair dismissal on the grounds that sacking them would, er, be a breach of the Equality Act.

Budget cuts mean that regional offices must be closed and the payroll slashed in half. But because all of those who will lose their jobs are, by definition, from minority backgrounds they claim their dismissal would be against the law.

This dilemma is the perfect illustration of the problems created by Harriet Harman’s ludicrous piece of legislation, which forces governments to take into account the impact of every single policy decision on so-called vulnerable groups.

If implemented to the letter, it would mean that no one from an ethnic minority or with any kind of disability could ever be sacked. But that in itself would fly in the face of true equality.

Surely if we are ‘all in this together’, cuts in public spending should affect everyone, regardless of race, gender, disability or sexual proclivity. And if there is one organisation ripe for the chop it is the Equality Commission, an umbrella organisation for every conceivable ‘victim’ group in Britain.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED ‘GRIEVANCES R US’.

The old Commission for Racial Equality performed a valuable function in the days when racism was rife. But even though inequality still exists, we are long past the point where we need a full-time, expensive quango to enforce minority rights.

Adequate laws exist to combat discrimination. But the Equality Act was a bridge too far, a cynical piece of New Labour social engineering designed to scupper any attempt by an incoming Conservative government to tackle the gargantuan budget deficit generated by Gordon Brown’s drunken sailor public spending spree.

The pernicious doctrine of ‘multiculturalism’ concentrates on what divides, not unites, us.
And that’s precisely why the Equality Commission needs to be wound up. It is an uncomfortable, artificial alliance of competing special interest groups with their own individual axes to grind.

It has a vested interest in perpetuating the politics of division, lumping together people who have nothing in common apart from being outside the mainstream of the population.
Paradoxically, the Equality Commission is one of the few bodies where minority groups are over-represented, which makes it even more ridiculous that staff earmarked for redundo are able to claim discrimination. That’s how they got the job in the first place.

All too often this has generated internal conflict as the gays have fallen out with the Muslims and there have been allegations that the Afro-Caribbeans are paid more than the Asians.
It is time the organisation was put out of its misery. Abolition is the only humane solution. Who knew that the Equality Commission had an office in Guildford, at the heart of the Surrey stockbroker belt in the whitest of the Home Counties?

A recent report identified widespread waste, including a telephone advice hotline used by just 73 people in a year — at a cost of £5,000 a pop.
No doubt those members of staff currently facing the sack will be ringing in…

‘Thank you for calling the Equality Hotline. Please hold. All our operators are busy squabbling among themselves.
Hello.
Our services are available in 207 different languages. Please choose from the following menu. For Urdu, press 1. For Jafaican, press 2. For Scribble, press 3…
Hello.
If you are Muslim who wants to complain about gay marriage, press 1. If you are a West Indian who has been racially abused by a Pakistani shopkeeper, press 2. If you are a wheelchair user who wishes to report your disabled access being blocked by an illegal gypsy camp, press 3.
Hello.
If you are a feminist complaining about the oppression of women under Sharia law, press 1. If you are a man who thinks he should be allowed to divorce his wife under Sharia law, press 2. If you wish to make a vexatious complaint of racism against your employer because you think there might be a nice drink in it for you, press 3.
Hello.
If you are facing redundancy and would like to allege discrimination against the commission set up to eliminate discrimination, please hang up as we are unable to help you. As a result of spending cuts, this hotline is no longer in service...’

I listened to an interesting report on the radio last night, wherein people outside the UK were asked if they enjoyed the opening show for the olympics, but importantly, did they understand it all.  Quite a few said they didn’t get some of the images as it appeared centered on things outside their experience.  For example, the segment dealing with the tribute to the NHS. (Natl. Health Serv.)` Not having or wanting a TV, we didn’t watch the opening ceremonies, except for a bit of the fireworks display on the desktop pc.  So I did not get all the comments about how left wing the show was.  One conservative politician referred to it as multi-cultural crap, and then had to say sorry but that he was misunderstood.  I find that crap two, if I can take some liberty with spelling here.  So then here is Littlejohn’s very brief take on the subject.

Of course it was a parade of pinko propaganda. That’s what you get when you hire a pinko producer and a pinko scriptwriter and lavish them with public money.

But it was spectacular pinko propaganda and I’m not going to rain on the parade. It didn’t take itself too seriously and if there was a political message I doubt anyone swallowed it.

There was actually something quite quaint about the worship of the NHS, which owed more to the 1948 Olympics than 2012. That was the year the NHS was established.

Dancing nurses in starched aprons aren’t enough to cover the shortcomings of the modern-day health service. They only served to highlight the distance between fantasy and reality.

Two stories in the wake of the opening ceremony demonstrate how far removed today’s NHS is from the popular post-war ideal.

In one hospital in Hertfordshire, a grandmother died after being denied food and water for a whole week.

In another, a sick woman was shoved aside by workmen so they could drill holes to install a TV above her bed.

These are not isolated incidents. The NHS does perform miracles and provide excellent care, but this is the work of dedicated individuals, not a bloated bureaucratic system that is rooted in 1948, not the 21st century.

Posted by peiper     on 07/31/2012 at 03:39 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • DIVERSITY BS • Politically Correct B.S. • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - July 25, 2012

another victim of political correctness and the games haven’t even started

Just one more reason to HATE!!!! political correctness and the left and libtards and all the other jerks who are “offended” on behalf of other people.

Why oh why do nut cases like that SOB in Co. hurt and kill innocent people in random shooting?  Why just once, just one freeking time, why can’t someone blow away a whole group of lefties.  Never happens. 

So here’s what got my goat today.

I don’t follow Olympic sport so I could care less who wins and who loses and who gets gold. But I know they work hard to earn their place and one (FUNNY) joke at the expense of a group should not place them outside the human race. What a farce.

Writing on Twitter, a Greek athlete wrote the following.

‘With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!’

This is a reference to an outbreak of the West Nile virus, a potentially fatal disease transmitted by mosquitoes of African origin, in Athens this summer.

One man died and another 180 have been infected since the outbreak began.

Where’s the racial insult?  Did she use the ‘N’ word.  Did she point out that Yogurt has more culture then Africa? What?

Every damn thing comes down to what some ass-wipe liberal says is racism.  Sick of the whole thing.  I wish I could wish liberals dead. They are a blight. A menace.

I understand her desire to save her position, one she worked hard for.  But I am disappointed that she didn’t defend herself and instead made an apology.  She should have known they (left) lives on groveling but would not change their empty minds.  And look here at how the Mail presents the story with the headline they have used. 

Greek triple jumper booted off Olympic team in disgrace after she mocked African immigrants on Twitter

By ADAM SHERGOLD

A Greek triple jumper was today kicked off her Olympic team over comments on Twitter mocking African immigrants and expressing support for a far-right party.

The Hellenic Olympic Committee said Voula Papachristou was dropped from the team ‘for statements contrary to the values and ideas of the Olympic movement.’

Papachristou, who is currently in Athens, was due to travel to London shortly before the start of the athletics events but has now been excluded.

She also re-tweeted a comment from Ilias Kasidiaris, a politician with Golden Dawn, criticising Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’s stance on immigration. 

It created a storm on the social network, with other users accusing her of being a ‘Nazi’ and a supporter of the extremist right-wing political party.

Papachristou later took to Twitter to try and defuse the row, saying: ‘I apologize if I insulted people! I have no mingling with politics!!! I am only athlete!!’

But her comments were to no avail as pressure mounted on her to be thrown out of the Greek Olympic squad.

The left-wing party Democratic Left led calls for her to step down, saying ‘racist humour and jokes’ had no place in Greek society. 

This afternoon, Isidoros Kouvelos, President of the Greek Olympics Committee, confirmed her expulsion.

Papachristou has since apologised again for her comments on her Facebook page. She wrote: I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless joke I published on my personal Twitter account.

‘I am very sorry and ashamed for the negative responses I triggered, since I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights.

‘My dream is connected to the Olympic Games and I could not possibly participate if I did not respect their values. Therefore, I could never believe in discrimination between human beings and races.

‘I would like to apologise to all my friends and fellow athletes, who I may have insulted and shamed, the National Team, as well as the people and companies who support my athletic career. Finally, I would like to apologise to my coach and my family.’

The 23-year-old was not among the favourites for gold in London. She finished 11th in the European Championships in Helsinki earlier this year and was 8th at last August’s World Championships in Daegu.

Her personal best in the triple jump is 14.72m and her season’s best was just 14.58m, half a metre behind the favourites.

Her Twitter account has been taken down.

source

Right, so her account was dropped and now what else?
The very bastards who scream about “rights” are very quick to stifle the rights of others under the guise of fairness and sweetness and light.
Oh yeah, and civil and human rights. 
But only for them and the ppl they can pressure into think like them.
I’d like to know where and how she “mocked” the immigrants mentioned in the headline.  What a boring fuckin world this is gonna be when the libtards finally win and control everything.  And they will ya know.  Win that is.  Because there isn’t anyone out there (Self Censored).

Posted by peiper     on 07/25/2012 at 01:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • DIVERSITY BS • EUro-peons • Politically Correct B.S. • Sports • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - July 22, 2012

I guess even Germans are brainless these pc days

I am not a fan of this music so I don’t care except for the dumb PC thinking behind it all.

So the guy got a dumb assed Nazi tattoo when he was young. It’s on his chest so who’s going to see it anyway?  There are no bare chested scenes I’m aware of in Wagner or any classical opera I can think of.  But some newspaper prints the story and oh my.  End of the world.

Wagner was no great friend of the Jewish people but then neither were very many people in Europe in his day and after.  Whatcha gonna do?
Boycott every place he ever visited? Oh, we can’t piss by that roadside. Wagner was there 100 yrs ago.

So anyway, this festival which was up and running before the Nazis, but because Hitler was a fan and supported the event, it’s tainted and this fellow withdraws because of a tat on his chest that nobody can see.

I guess you have to read the short article.  Mind numbing stupidity. But hey.  It keeps Hitler and the Nazis alive.  Think about that.

Opera singer with swastika pulls out of German concert at festival with links to Nazism

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

A Russian opera singer has pulled out as a lead star in this year’s Bayreuth Festival in Germany because it has been revealed he has a Swastika tattoo.

Yevgeny Nikitin said the offensive tattoo was a mistake and something he did when he was a member of a heavy metal band as a teenager.

He said he quit the concert because the German media had drawn attention to it.

The heavily tattooed singer was going to debut in the lead role of a new production of the Flying Dutchman opera on Wednesday but organisers have since confirmed he is no longer taking part.

The festival only features works by 19th Century composer Richard Wagner and has a complicated past with the Nazi regime.

Wagner often expressed anti-Semitic views himself and his daughter-in-law, Winifred Wagner, who headed the festival during the Nazi rule was a strong admirer of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler also regularly attended the festivals during his dictatorship and helped fund it.

‘I was not aware of the extent of the irritation and offence these signs and symbols would cause, particularly in Bayreuth given the context of the festival’s history,’ Nikitin said to the DPA news agency.

‘I had them done in my youth. It was a big mistake and I wish I’d never done it.’

The row over the tattoo, which shows a Swastika on Nikitin’s chest, started when a programme on German TV mentioned them in a report about him on Friday.

The singer chose to pull out of the festival after organisers confronted him, a statement on the festival’s website said.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 07/22/2012 at 02:29 PM   
Filed Under: • Music • Politically Correct B.S. • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - July 20, 2012

what’s wrong with the freekin world is the left and pc and caving in to minorities

What wrong with the damn world? I will tell ya even if you have not asked cos that is one of the things these blog thingies are for.  Venting. Rants. Anger. Impotent Rage because we know there is nothing we can directly do. 

What is wrong is the whole idea of PC to begin with, and the constant bending over backwards to placate every single minority group everywhere no matter what their pin head demands are.  Appeasement seems to be the rule of the day. Someone “claims” their tender feelings are hurt or even mention that they could be, and if they’re a minority member, out come the pacifiers. And the belated apologies.

Words of no harm to anyone can be made into words of harm on the say so of just one miserable meat head with no life.  And the bad part is, there does not seem to be any end in sight of this dumbed down practise.  In fact, it has become an every day part of our lives and accepted without question.  And here’s just another example of the stupidity of our world today. 

Taken from a small piece seen one of our morning papers The Daily Mail.
Here is the latest word to cause offence, the name removed on the complaint of just ONE PERSON.

The story comes from Australia, where a racehorse has had to be renamed because it’s original name was deemed as “offensive to aborigines.”

BLACKMAN !

Yeah. The horse was named Blackman after artist Charles Blackman, known for his Alice in Wonderland series of paintings.
But the trainer was ordered to change the name after racing officials received ONE complaint.  White folks worldwide are not getting smarter. 

The horse has been renamed Lady Blackman.

That should by all rights piss off every single logical thinking Australian of any colour.  The whole country should be up in arms.  A fatwa should be declared.
Or at the very least, the one idiot bringing the complaint ought to be, (Self Censored)

Posted by peiper     on 07/20/2012 at 10:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Politically Correct B.S. •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - July 18, 2012

ASS-WIPE JUDGES, BLOODSUCKING LAWYERS AND LEFTY WHITE VERMIN

I read this in yesterday’s paper and must share the idiocy.  Hastings is right, and many Brits are outraged at the idea.  But not apparently, the asinine judges who make dumb decisions.  But then, after all.  What can you expect from a place run by lunatics who let off criminals who assault ppl with the excuse that it wasn’t the gremlin who was responsible but the booze they drank.  Why should anyone expect more from a place run by apologists and hand wringing leftists who are actively working to destroy this country.  And trust me. They are.

If only the Queen would utter the words, “Who will rid us of these left wing nut cases,” surely some patriots would rise to the occasion and slay the red dragons.
At the rate things are progressing, maybe the things I didn’t think would happen as soon as in my lifetime, will.
And will ya get a load of those goofball names below. Jeesh. Bunch of letters strung together. Now who do you suppose convinced these life forms who normally grunt and swing thru trees, to launch a legal action?
Stupid fuckin guilty white folks and their leach like vampire lawyers.

I despair.  I really do. 

be sure and see the link for all of it and all the photos.

The folly of judges, vulture lawyers and a nation addicted to masochism

By MAX HASTINGS

At the High Court in London yesterday, the hearing began of a case in which three elderly Kenyans — Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambuga Wa Nyingi and Jane Muthoni Mara — are suing the British Government for appalling injuries allegedly inflicted on them during the Mau Mau insurgency almost 60 years ago.

The British Government sought to argue at an earlier hearing that the defendants’ claim should be thrown out ‘given the length of time elapsed and the complex legal and constitutional questions the case raises’.

However, a judge rejected this appeal to common sense and decreed that the claim should go forward.
In the weeks ahead, we shall hear a banquet of evidence deeply unflattering to the British colonial regime, with evidence from academic witnesses and revelations from hitherto secret government files.

There is no danger that the lawyers who earn fat fees from all this will find the rich seam of taxpayers’ gold running out. There is much more where the Kenya case has come from.
Alleged atrocities are being resurrected from the Fifties Malayan Emergency (the 1948-60 conflict fought between UK, Commonwealth and other security forces against Communist insurgents in Malaya).

The Metropolitan Police has just established a task force of 30 officers to prepare prosecution cases against potential British Army murder suspects for Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972. Their inquiries are expected to last three or four years.

All this, to my mind, represents an exercise in state masochism to which no other society on Earth would subject itself. It is just the latest venture for the human rights and compassion industry, with almost unlimited scope for profitable expansion.

As a historian, I am under no delusions about the shortcomings of British behaviour during the uprising of the Mau Mau, who wanted to drive the white man from Kenya and to which I will return in a moment.

What seems extraordinary is that, after the lapse of many decades, we can subject ourselves at vast expense to legal flagellation by foreign claimants.
Who can imagine that any British plaintiff with similar grievances would have a cat’s chance of securing redress in any overseas jurisdiction?
British prisoners who suffered appallingly at Japanese hands during World War II, and, for that matter, Chinese women who were forced into sexual slavery, have whistled in the wind for a hearing in Japan for almost 70 years.
Martin McGuinness, a career killer for the IRA, shook the Queen’s hand the other week. He commanded the Derry Brigade. Who could suppose that if the dependants of victims of Irish terrorism sought to take McGuinness, Gerry Adams or their comrades before an Irish court, they would get past first base?
The Mau Mau insurgents were exceptionally brutal people who, mostly between 1952 and 1954, murdered some 2,500 of their own people and around 100 whites, terrorised villages and inflicted ghastly atrocities on those who refused to take their blood oath.
But when Kenya became independent in 1963, Mau Mau veterans became celebrated as freedom-fighters.

In rather the same fashion, the two Jewish terrorists who murdered the resident British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in November 1944, and were hanged for the crime the following year, were exhumed in 1975 at the insistent request of the state of Israel, and reinterred in the nation’s Hall of Heroes.

Much the same has happened to several old Irish nationalist killers. Although it may seem deeply repugnant that old terrorists should be raised to national heroic status, most of us can live with it as the way of the world.
But it is cringe-making to watch the spectacle of citizens of former colonies that have been independent for many decades turning up in London to exploit our feeble-minded justice system.

judges see things differently. I fear that the human rights bonanza has gone to their heads.
Such is their conceit that they believe they can divine truth across the fog of decades. Such is their contempt for real life that they care nothing about the colossal waste of taxpayers’ money over which they preside.

Look, for example, at Lord Savile, who squandered £200 million conducting his Bloody Sunday inquiry, and still cannot understand what the rest of us think he did wrong. 
If the former Mau Mau plaintiffs win their case at the High Court and receive a truckload of cash, this will open the way for thousands more claimants from every corner of the old Empire.

Some enthusiasts say the opening of this case was a proud day for British justice, showing our determination to face up to our dirty colonial past, and our commitment to human rights.

To many of us, however, it merely highlights the folly of the judiciary and their inability to bring the smallest crumb of common sense to the lofty business of administering justice.
The Kenyan case is properly the business of historians, not of Britain’s legal vulture culture.

READ MORE PLUS PHOTOS

Posted by peiper     on 07/18/2012 at 11:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Commies • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Corruption and Greed • Insanity • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Politically Correct B.S. • Typical White People: Stupid, Evil, Willfully Blind • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 19, 2012

crackdown on racist and homophobic name-calling in schools.

Kids have been calling other kids names since the beginning of time.
Sometimes it gets out of hand and adults need to step in.
In today’s world, there’s bullying that gets so bad that some teens have been driven to suicide.  A subject for a future post.

But this bit of name calling by tiny tots (some of them) doesn’t seem to be the crime of the century. What is certain though is that there sure is a bit of serious indoctrination afoot.  That’s what I think when I see a line in a story like this one.

“lessons that teach children about the importance of diversity”

That line just stood out from almost everything else in the article.

That’s our world and that is what the kiddies will grow up conditioned to. And they will pass it on like Moses returning with the ten commandments.
OFSTED btw, stands for Office for Standards in Education.

Oh btw and for the record.
I have not changed my thinking on the subject since forced busing and integration in the USA all those years ago.  I won’t change on this diversity and multi culture crap either.

(see comments after the article)

Take a look.

Ofsted: schools failing to stamp out offensive name-calling
Teachers are failing to fully crackdown on racist and homophobic name-calling in schools despite mounting concerns over bullying, according to Ofsted.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

Pupils are often being allowed to get away with “derogatory” language in playgrounds and the classroom by using insults based on disability, race, religion, family circumstances and sexuality, it was claimed.
In a report, the watchdog said children in primary and secondary schools regularly admitted to using words such as “gay”, “spaz” and “slag” to offend classmates.
Some children reported copying phrases from television or mimicking the behaviour of parents, inspectors found.
But Ofsted warned that many staff failed to pick up on slurs, dismissed them as harmless jokes or lacked the confidence to properly challenge pupils. In some cases, teachers even dismissed racist terms as “banter”, said Ofsted.

Inspectors recommended the introduction of new rules to ensure all teachers “consistently and firmly” clamp down on “aggressive language”, including lessons that teach children about the importance of diversity.

The report – based on inspections of 56 primary or secondary schools – told how some schools went to extreme lengths to stamp out bullying, particularly insults linked to homophobia.
One primary school encouraged pupils to behave in a “non-gender-stereotypical way”, with infant boys dressing in girls’ clothes from the dressing-up box or wearing their hair in ribbons.

A six-year-old at the school chose to wear a “tutu all day without comment from his peers”, other boys preferred “cheerleading to football” and all 10- to 11-year-olds learned about gay role models such as actor Sir Ian McKellen and rugby player Gareth Thomas in lessons, it emerged.

Another small infants school with large numbers of parents in same-sex relationships attempted to create an “open-minded” atmosphere by appreciating that “a boy may prefer to be known as a girl and have a girl’s name and similarly a girl may have a girl’s name but wants to dress as and be a boy”, said Ofsted.

Susan Gregory, Ofsted’s director of education and care, said schools had a duty to promote a “positive culture so all pupils learn in a happy and safe environment”, adding: “This report shows many examples where action to tackle bullying has been very effective and I hope this best practice can be emulated by other schools.”

The study – entitled No Place for Bullying – was based on formal discussions with 1,357 pupils and almost 800 staff.
It found that pupils in all of the schools “could give a range of examples of disparaging language that they heard in school”. The use of the word “gay” was the most common put-down, often taken to mean “rubbish”.

But Ofsted warned that staff “often said that they did not hear any of this type of language in a typical week”, while others dismissed slurs as a joke, even when they were based on racism.
“Less frequently, this apparent acceptance that derogatory language was ‘just banter’ was also applied to racist terms or to ones related to disability,” inspectors said. “For example, a teacher wrote that they heard ‘occasional racist remarks but it may be banter between friends’.”

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 06/19/2012 at 12:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • DIVERSITY BS • Education • Politically Correct B.S. •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - June 17, 2012

the nanny state in the USA. wish I could say it ain’t so Joe

too good to pass and glad I managed to check my inbox tonight. discovered a ton of mail.

H/T Doc Jeff for this one.

It has been in the news here btw. Even interviews on BBC. What a crock. And the NY mayor the chief crock. What’s with that guy. So then, what’s to stop anyone from buying two smaller sizes to get the amount they want.  Or is Big brother bloomer gonna ban that? Sheesh. Ridiculous nanny type interference.
Surely there must have been a time in the USA when, if a mayor tried on something like this in NY, he’d have been hounded from office.  Or, was a time no NY mayor would have suggested it to begin with.
There’s the signpost up ahead.  Next stop. Cameras inside everyone’s home.

Posted by peiper     on 06/17/2012 at 12:51 PM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Politically Correct B.S. • USA •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - May 31, 2012

God help us if we make it a crime to call someone fatty.

Recently I told all about the suggestion by some agency whose name I’ve now forgotten, that the word “dad” or “father” shouldn’t be used on some oficial documents because that word could cause offense to same sex partners.  You wonder how far this pc s**** will go. When will it eat itself and die? Will it end?
I remembered. I think correctly. The NHS removed the word ‘Dad’ from childbirth leaflets to avoid upsetting same-sex couples.
I’ll tell you who will eventually be upset way down the road.  The kids who are being raised by same sex couples. Why?  Because at some point in time as a kid grows up, he or she will be intensely interested, curious at the least, to know who fathered them. I think it’s natural. 

And none of the above has much if anything to do with my posting of the following except that there’s now another word to be added to the list of words that may offend and should be discouraged or banned outright. In fact .... it is being suggested that the word be added to the growing list of things that fall under Hate Crime.
Hate Crime?  Yup. And the word today boys and girls is

Uh huh class. Listen up cos there’ll be a test.

Recently, as in the last week, small faced model Lilly Cole spoke out about her awful girlhood due to the jibes about her hair color. They called me carrot top and ginger she said. Oh dear. It was just like racism she said.  Oh dear, oh dear.
Well as you’d expect there are some (all lefties of course) who want to make calling anyone Fatty or making comments about appearance, a hate crime.
They want looks to be included in the category that that will fall under the hate crime law. 
Take a look.

John Walsh: You’re not fat. You just need to put on some height
Notebook

A new report from an all-party Parliamentary group called Reflections on Body Image, and its main Reflection is that people shouldn’t be allowed to call other people “fat”. The group wants to discuss amending the Equalities Act to put “appearance-based discrimination” on the same footing as racism, ageism, sexism and prejudice over disability or sexual orientation. If they do, it’ll become a “hate crime” to draw attention to a person’s size or weight – even if it’s a doctor telling a patient (e.g. me) he ought to lose a few pounds.

We don’t, by and large, go around calling fat people “Fatso” or “Lardarse” or “Gutbucket” even if their silhouette is less than Greek. We left such childish insults behind in the playground, or in previous centuries (when Beau Brummell, the regency swell, fell out with the Prince Regent, he cut him in public by asking an acquaintance, “Alvanley, who’s your fat friend?” The Prince never spoke to him again.) We know schoolchildren are sensitive about personal remarks – as David Starkey found to his cost when, on the TV documentary Jamie’s Dream School, he called a kid “fat” and incurred the wrath of the whole class. We are sensitive about each other’s peculiar bodies. We’d probably welcome some discrimination. But to call any reference to someone’s avoirdupois a hate crime is nonsensical.
It will ensure that, when considering applicants for future jobs, employers won’t be able to ask important questions: “Do you think your weight might be a problem when pursuing villains down the high street?” “Will your body be perfectly safe on a construction site involving ladders and scaffolding?”

WALSH

So you have the picture now and not a very good image I’d guess. 

God help us if we make it a crime to call someone fatty

By CAROL SARLER

There was a time, really not so very long ago, when chucking insults around a playground was as much a part of the rough and tumble of school life as chucking balls.
‘You’re smelly, you are!’ ‘Look out, here comes Spotty Muldoon!’ ‘Oi! — Fatso!’ and so on.

Every child went through it, and every child took their turn at dishing it out.
It was never very nice — but then, children aren’t always very nice — and if it got out of hand, an adult, quite correctly, would intervene.
Now, however, being ticked off by an irate teacher could be the least our youngsters have to worry about.

For if a new parliamentary report is implemented, the lad who picks the wrong word to tease a classmate could find himself in the hands of the police — branded not only a criminal, but a perpetrator of the most insidiously fashionable misdemeanour of our day: the hate crime.

The thinking, if that really is the word, of the MPs who have recommended the move goes something like this: too many children are worried about their ‘body image’ and, in particular, about being fat (heaven forfend anybody suggests this might be because they are fat).

Therefore, lest they fall ill as a result of the worry (rather than, say, the obesity), measures must be taken to protect them.
First, they should all be given ‘body confidence and self-esteem’ classes at school — how do you fancy being a fly on the blackboard at one of those? — and, second, anyone who tries to undermine the value of these classes by calling another pupil ‘fatty’ should be charged with a hate crime. In other words, up there with race, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability, we should now place ‘appearance-based discrimination’ on a legal par.

Among those leading the charge is Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, who justifies her position on the basis that ‘body image dissatisfaction in the UK has reached an all-time high’ — even though she has absolutely nothing to back up such a claim, and even though history would certainly question it.

Never mind: we’re at an ‘all-time high’ in Miss Swinson’s small world, so let us not spoil her self-righteous indignation with anything as troublesome as fact.
She would probably also prefer that we not revisit the vexed question of precisely what sets a ‘hate crime’ apart from any other kind of crime — even though its very definition defeats me.
Even if we allow her the belief that some irrational reasons for hating people are worse than other irrational reasons, she and her colleagues continue to miss the point.  Name-calling, which is overwhelmingly the province of younger people (grown-ups know better; they say it behind your back, not to your face), is not and has never been about genuine hatred.

My generation was brought up with, ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’ — a lousy rotten lie, of course, but it got you by.
For my daughter’s generation, however, it feeds straight into victim culture.

Last weekend, supermodel Lily Cole was moaning about how her young life was blighted by her red hair; she was, apparently, called ‘carrot top’ and — gosh! — ‘ginger’, and she’s never forgotten it.

She even likened it to racism, which rather took my breath away, but was doubtless warmly understood by, for instance, Jo Swinson MP.

Ultimately though, the greatest pity of this time-wasting nonsense is that the proposed new law will have no impact whatsoever on the issue at the heart of it, which is our epidemic of childhood obesity.

To put it bluntly: nobody thinks they are fat because somebody called them ‘fatty’. It works the other way around: somebody called them ‘fatty’ because, shame on all of us, they are fat.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 05/31/2012 at 01:22 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Politically Correct B.S. • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - March 19, 2012

Dancing around the real truth

The case of a 16-year-old girl who killed herself after she was forced to marry her rapist has spurred outrage among Morocco’s internet activists and calls for changes to the country’s laws.

An online petition, a Facebook page and countless tweets expressed horror over the suicide of Amina Filali, who swallowed rat poison on Saturday to protest her marriage to the man who raped her a year earlier.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the “kidnapper” of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honor of the woman’s family.

The victim’s father said in an interview with an online Moroccan newspaper that it was the court officials who suggested from the beginning the marriage option when they reported the rape.

“The prosecutor advised my daughter to marry, he said ‘go and make the marriage contract,’” said Lahcen Filali in an interview that appeared on goud.ma Tuesday night.

...

“It is not something that happens a great deal — it is very rare,” he said, but admitted that the family of the victim sometimes agrees out of fear that she won’t be able to find a husband if it is known she was raped.

The marriage is then pushed on the victim by the families to avoid scandal, said Fouzia Assouli, president of Democratic League for Women’s Rights.

“It is unfortunately a recurring phenomenon,” she said."We have been asking for years for the cancellation of Article 475 of the penal code which allows the rapist to escape justice.”

In many parts of the Middle East, there is a tradition whereby a rapist can escape prosecution if he marries his victim, thereby restoring her honor. There is a similar injunction in the Old Testament’s Book of Deuteronomy.

Morocco updated its family code in 2004 in a landmark improvement of the situation of women, but activists say there’s still room for improvement.

In cases of rape, the burden of proof is often on the victim and if she can’t prove she was attacked, a woman risks being prosecuted for debauchery.

“In Morocco, the law protects public morality but not the individual,” said Assouli, adding that legislation outlawing all forms of violence against women, including rape within marriage, has been stuck in the government since 2006.

According to the father’s interview, the girl was accosted on the street and raped when she was 15, but it was two months before she told her parents.

He said the court pushed the marriage, even though the perpetrator initially refused. He only consented when faced with prosecution. The penalty for rape is between five and 10 years in prison, but rises to 10 to 20 in the case of a minor.

Filali said Amina complained to her mother that her husband was beating her repeatedly during the five months of marriage but that her mother counseled patience.

The “S word” is not ever mentioned in this article, nor even referred to obliquely. At least one islamopologist site, based in Chicago, confusingly says that this “marry him” judgment is in line with Sharia law, and also against it ...

This outrage against the horrific and outrageous law that allows the rapist to marry his victim in order to avoid prosecution is following Sharia. Rape is a horrific crime that I would not wish upon my worst enemy. This inhuman law in Morocco has no basis in Islam or the Qur’an. And to shield the criminal by marrying his victim is even more inhuman: the Sharia is against it.

But we know better. We won’t accept the spoonfed meme. And we know that Political Correctness is one gigantic lie after another. NRO’s Andrew McCarthy points out the truth you’re not supposed to be aware of:

Morocco is not just a “Muslim country” in the cultural sense. It is a country proudly adherent to sharia law. Since 1969, Morocco has been a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose Islamic member states proclaimed, in 1990, the “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.” The rationale for this proclamation — which is also known as the “Cairo Declaration” — is that the signatory nations do not accept the concept of “human rights” as it is understood in the West and outlined in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Cairo Declaration is a rebuttal.
...
“Human rights” are the rights that humans have under sharia law — and no others. “Equality for women” consists of the rights women are granted by sharia, which we in the West see (quite rightly, I think) as being grossly subordinate to the rights of men (in particular, Muslim men). In stark contrast, Islam considers them merely different from the rights of men — more suitable, sharia scholars will tell you, to life as Allah intended women to live it, in light of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of their natural condition.

But you sure won’t find the media even questioning the depravities of jizzlamic jurisprudence. Not even here in the USA ISA.

Red Ken would be proud.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/19/2012 at 02:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Politically Correct B.S. • RoPMA •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Colorblind and Brain Dead

Sneaker giant Nike is backtracking after a St. Patrick’s Day-themed shoe dubbed the “Black and Tan” by retailers drew criticism for paying unwitting homage to the British paramilitary forces of Northern Ireland.

The black leather sneaker with brown trim earned an unofficial name apparently meant as a nod to the drink made by mixing stout and lager in a pint glass, according to the Belfast Telegraph. But the drink itself takes its name from the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force, which became notorious in the 1920s for its attacks on Irish civilians during the War of Independence.

… Nike officials said the sneakers, officially called the Nike SB Dunk Low, have been “unofficially named by some using a phrase that can be viewed as inappropriate and insensitive.”

“We apologize,” the statement continued. “No offense was intended.”

How about a more appropriate response, like “Sod off you pathetic bunch of crotch weasels, we named the shoes after the beer and that’s all. Get your head out of your ass and get a life.”?

The row over Nike’s new sneakers follows a similar incident in 2006 when ice-cream giants Ben & Jerry’s released a ‘Black and Tan’ flavour. The company apologised and the ice-cream was only made available in the US.

    What else would you expect from a bunch of spineless hippies? What, you think you’ve got a frickin’ patent on two colors used together with an ampersand? Get stuffed. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. We had a black and tan dog when I was a kid. A Welsh Terrier. So now I suppose you’re going to try and tell me that the dog’s coat was offensive to the Irish, and the breed was raaaacist against the Welsh? Arseheads, the lot of them.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/19/2012 at 10:07 AM   
Filed Under: • Politically Correct B.S. •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 26, 2012

detained at airport for veil comment at security gate for possible offense to the usual creeps

It’s now come to this. What a sorry freekin thing to happen. It’s getting so that every little comment or joke no matter how mild, can be twisted into whatever the listener decides it is.
This is petty beyond belief, but it’s what happens every day when you live in a pc dictatorship.  I do not see it getting better in my lifetime. Unfortunately.

It has been argued for years that a confession under torture or any kind of duress should not be accepted, because a person might say whatever was expected to make the discomfort go away.
Then why do pin heads in authority demand apologies under threats. Surely they must have enough brains, even tho it doesn’t take much, to know that a forced apology is meaningless. 

It just plain pisses me off no end. 

Detained and branded racist for innocent burqa joke at airport security

By Jason Lewis, Investigations Editor

As David Jones arrived at the security gates at Gatwick airport, he was looking forward to getting through swiftly so he could enjoy lunch with his daughters before their flight.

Placing his belongings, including a scarf, into a tray to pass through the X-ray scanner he spotted a Muslim woman in hijab pass through the area without showing her face.

In a light-hearted aside to a security official who had been assisting him, he said: “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”
The quip proved to be a mistake. After passing through the gates, he was confronted by staff and accused of racism.
As his daughters, who had passed through security, waited in the departure lounge wondering where he was, he was subjected to a one hour stand-off as officials tried to force him to apologise.

Mr Jones, 67, who is the creator of the popular children’s character Fireman Sam, said: “Something like George Orwell’s 1984 now seems to have arrived in Gatwick airport.
“I feel that my rights as an individual have been violated. What I underwent amounts to intimidation and detention. I was humiliated and degraded in full public view.

YOU AREN’T ALLOWED TO SAY THAT

“I am a 67-year-old pensioner and have lived my life within the law. I do not have even one point on my driving licence.”
He said that when he made his initial remark the security guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren’t allowed to say that.”

As he went through the metal detecting arch, his artificial hip set off the alarm, prompting a full search from a guard. It was after this, and as he prepared to rejoin his two grown-up daughters, that he was confronted by another guard who said he was being detained because he had made an offensive remark.

“I repeated to her what I had said and told her that I had said nothing racist,” he said. “She took my passport and boarding pass and I was then escorted back through the security zone into the outer area. Here the female security guard proceeded to question me further, inferring many things that I had not said.

“It was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment.

“I again stated that I had not made a racist remark but purely an observation that we were in a maximum security situation being searched thoroughly whilst a woman with her face covered walked through. I made no reference to race or religion. I did not swear or raise my voice.”
According to Mr Jones, who was due to board a British Airways flight to Portugal, where he now lives and runs a restaurant on the Algarve, the British Airways duty manager was then called in and sided with the security staff.

He continued: “I had now been detained for some time and my daughters were worried, calling me on my phone asking what was happening. We were going around in circles. I maintained that I had said nothing offensive and the security guard was continuing to accuse me. This had taken about 15-20 minutes and looked as though it was not going to be resolved.

“I asked the security guard if she was going to charge me to which she said no but I could not leave until I had apologised to the Muslim guard.
“At this point I asked for the attendance of a police officer. After some time he arrived but it was also plainly evident that he was keeping to the politically correct code. I told him that if there was a case then he should arrest me.

“I was told that we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said. They decided again that I would only be allowed to continue on my journey if I were to apologise to the Muslim guard. My reply was that as I had not made a racist remark it would be impossible for me to apologise.”

Mr Jones, a former member of the Household Cavalry and retired fireman, added: “I felt that I made a logical observation. That while everyone was being subjected to an invasive search it was illogical that someone should be let through with their face covered. I am not opposed to having this level of security but it must be equal for all.”

Eventually, Mr Jones said, the BA manager suggested that he should agree that what he had said “could” be considered offensive by a Muslim guard.
With his flight departure time now fast approaching Mr Jones agreed to the compromise. Escorted by the police officer, he was taken through security where he was again subjected to a full search after his hip replacement set off the metal detector alarms.

Mr Jones said he intended to complain formally to the Gatwick airport authorities and British Airways about the incident last Sunday.
Department for Transport rules do not prevent people covering their faces at UK airports for religious reasons.

However, all passengers must show their faces to UK Borders officials when they pass through passport control. Muslim women who wear hijabs can request that their identity is checked by a female immigration officer and they can also ask that they be taken to a private room before they remove their head wear.

A spokesman for Gatwick airport said: “The security team are examining the incident to ensure that the issue was managed in the right way.
“They are talking to the people involved to understand what the issue was and how it came to have the police involved.”

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 02/26/2012 at 09:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Jack Booted Thugs • muslims • Politically Correct B.S. • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 13, 2012

gender specific uniforms could cause serious distress to kids, says a child adviser. schmuck.

The previous post was about scary fairy tales.

This one could be called, preparing boys to become fairies. Or as the Brits might say ... poofs.  I think that’s right. Or Poofter. Which is Aussie in origin.

So anyway, seems a “children’s adviser” says that gender specific uniforms may be against the law.

So, boy scouts in skirts? The army too? How about the cop on the beat?

This article originally was found at the Telegraph but as usual, expect no source link to the fuller article cos that how the Telegraph does things.
They also spam my inbox even tho I have unsubscribed to their damn shop at least four times.  But that’s off topic. This is about a boy’s right to wear skirts and so he does. I guess. 

It hurts to write this but, since I couldn’t locate anything on line from the Telegraph, I had to get this from

The Huffington Post/UK

How humiliating. 

Boys should be allowed to wear skirts to school to avoid “serious distress” caused by gender-specific uniforms, a children’s tsar has argued.
Tam Baillie, Scotland’s commissioner for children and young people, suggested forcing children to wear such skirts or trousers depending on their gender could contravene laws set out by the UN Convention on children’s rights.

Baillie’s announcement was prompted as he stepped in to defend 13-year-old Luca Scarabello, from Falkirk.
The teenager is the latest schoolboy to raise the issue of boys wearing trousers to school, after Chris Whitehead was nominated for a human rights award after wearing a skirt to school.

But rather then proposing a blanket ban, Baillie proposed a flexible approach and encouraged further debate on the issue.
“I would agree gender specific uniforms or dress codes can cause serious distress in gender-variant pupils. School uniforms and dress codes should not discriminate directly or indirectly against any of these protected groups.

“Schools should review their uniform code policies to ensure they do not have the effect of unlawfully discriminating against pupils witha protected characteristic.”
But Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, told the Daily Telegraph: “This is yet another case of the language of children’s rights being used in an attempy to add weight to what is nothing more than a personal minority view.”

The Convention of the Rights of the Child was established in 1989 and sets out human rights for children in 54 articles.

Article 2 (non-discrimination) states: “It doesn’t matter whether they are boys or girls...no child should be treated unfairly on any basis” while Article 3 (best interests of the child) says: “The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.”

The protection of rights of children is laid out in Article 4: “Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.”
All three articles could be used in Baillie’s argument to ban gender-specific uniforms.

source

Posted by peiper     on 02/13/2012 at 02:35 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Politically Correct B.S. • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

no more scary fairy tales in an increasingly pc world

Words fail. They really do. Who’d have thought the kiddies were being traumatized?

A couple of things to share and I’m gone bye for the night.

Take a look at this.

Are fairy tales too scary for today’s children? Parents admit they refuse to read classics to youngsters
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

For generations, children have been captivated by Rapunzel and enchanted by Jack and the Beanstalk.

But it seems these traditional fairytales are on their way to an unhappy ending – as parents decide they are too scary.

One in five have ditched the likes of Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm in favour of more modern books, a study has revealed.

Almost half of mothers and fathers refuse to read Rumpelstiltskin or Rapunzel to their children because the themes of the tales include kidnapping.

They also reject Little Red Riding Hood because they think the Big Bad Wolf eating the little girl’s grandmother is too upsetting, with a third saying the story had left their children in tears.

And Goldilocks and the Three Bears is likely to be left on the bookshelf too, as parents feel it condones stealing.

Even lighter tales have fallen out of fashion, with 52 per cent dismissing Cinderella as ‘outdated’ because it portrays a young woman doing housework all day.

Many consider Jack and the Beanstalk to be ‘too unrealistic’, while the use of the term ‘dwarfs’ in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is deemed unacceptable.

More to read:
source for politically correct fairy tales

Posted by peiper     on 02/13/2012 at 02:06 PM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Politically Correct B.S. • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 07, 2012

A POLITICALLY CORRECT MILITARY ?

This article shows you what a politically correct culture will lead to.

Living here as I do, and with an army training base hidden behind many trees and high hedges and a chain link fence just at the end of our road, and often seeing young fellows (and some not so young) running up a steep hill in the summer in full uniform, sometimes with packs on their backs, and having read Brit history and still do, and having military news in our papers all the time, it might be fair to say that I am quite pro military and always have been impressed with their history.

What I see happening here as you will read below, is I am sure taking place in the USA as well.  Damn shame that. 
And no Thatcher or Churchill to save the day.  No Truman to authorize the use of the bomb.  No Teddy wielding a large stick or a Reagan to unite most of us.

Tell the truth.

Do any of you see things getting any better in your lifetime?

Hero Para faces £250,000 court martial for punching Taliban PoW as he fled

Legal experts believe there is no chance of conviction
Friends of unidentified soldier slam case as ‘absurd’
‘Waste of time’ says Tory MP Patrick Mercer

By IAN DRURY

A paratrooper with an unblemished service record is being hauled through the military courts for punching a Taliban member who was trying to escape.

Astonishingly, the case is going ahead even though the Afghan captive has refused to make a formal complaint, and there are no other witnesses to the incident.

The case is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £250,000 already and threatens to plunge the Forces into a new row over political correctness.

The soldier, known for legal reasons as Corporal C, hit the insurgent once in the face believing he was trying to flee during a firefight in the badlands of Helmand Province.

British military prosecutors admit that the captive, Ahmed Wali, has provided evidence that is ‘unreliable’.

But the Service Prosecuting Authority refuses to drop the case and has charged Cpl C – described as a man of ‘impeccable character’ – with assault. He is due to appear at a court martial later this month.

But his legal team has made an application to the High Court for judicial review of the decision to prosecute him in an attempt to have the case thrown out.

Last year three judges, who were asked to review the evidence at the Court Martial Appeal Court in London, expressed concern about the case and branded it ‘unfortunate’ saying it was a ‘large hammer [to deal] with a relatively minor matter’.

Legal experts believe there is no realistic chance of Cpl C, 31, from Glasgow being convicted because of holes in the SPA’s case.

The soldier risked his life serving with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan with the elite Parachute Regiment.

His name is being kept secret because he served alongside special forces.

Cpl C, who quit the forces in disgust at his treatment, was a qualified tactical questioner with the Paras when the incident happened in March 2010.

He was commanding a joint British and Afghan patrol which set up a vehicle checkpoint in Nahr-e Saraj, a Taliban stronghold strewn with deadly roadside bombs.

The patrol stopped a motorbike carrying two Afghan men who were acting suspiciously.

As an Afghan National Army soldier approached the men, the rider pulled out a pistol and pointed it at him. The gun-wielding insurgent was shot dead, while his pillion passenger, Wali, was taken to a nearby compound.

Cpl C began to interrogate Wali – who denied he was a Taliban member – despite the ‘real threat by small arms and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to the patrol’.

MORE OF THE STORY AND SOME GOOD PHOTOS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/07/2012 at 07:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Military • Politically Correct B.S. • Terrorists • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner