Longrider

What do you think about those images of demonstrators burning flags? Apart, that is, from them looking a bit silly? I’ve always viewed the behaviour of angry flag burning mobs as little more than playground temper tantrums that never quite made it to the adult world. Libertine views the matter similarly to the burning of books and I guess he has a point. There is something repugnant about it, which is why people do it. The desecration of a national symbol is deeply insulting and it is intended to express maximum displeasure. The counter to this, surely, is to ignore it; refuse to rise to the obloquy. But, and here is the rub, should it be outlawed? To do so would give the message to the flag burners that they have achieved their desired aim.

The US Congress has almost done just that, giving the flag burners a level of gravitas their petulance does not deserve, by debating this very issue – when arguably they could have been discussing more worthy matters, but that is by the by. What matters, surely, is that in a civilised society free speech prevails and burning flags is, providing no one gets hurt (although, I wouldn’t shed any tears should a flag burner accidentally go up in smoke), simply an expression of free speech. Yet the vote was a close one:

An attempt to modify the US Constitution and outlaw the desecration of the American flag failed by just one vote in the Senate yesterday, as Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the country’s national symbol deserved special legal protection.

That, it would seem, is just how close freedom of speech is to being stifled in the land of the free. There was some interesting rhetoric made in favour of providing legal protection for the flag:

Speaking for the protection of Old Glory, the Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said: “Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it.”

I’m not sure I’d go along with that. Surely they died defending what it represented and in passing this amendment to the constitution, it would no longer represent that, would it? Consequently, the sacrifice would be undermined. Is it me, or did that just go round in a complete circle? Still, I’m not the only one who would prefer national symbols be sacrificed rather than give way on free speech:

Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated veteran who lost an arm fighting in the Second World War, said: “This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic. But I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts.”

Yes, indeed. And, by allowing the desecration of the flag, they defend those ideals. The vote went the right way in my opinion. What is worrying is that so many would sacrifice freedom of speech in the belief that it will not be them affected by the ripples such a ruling would create. Ban flag burning today and what will tomorrow’s restriction be? Once successful, censors of free speech will always come back for more; the beast is never sated.

The Torygraph has a story about the proposed childrens’ database:

Government surveillance of all children, including information on whether they eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, will be condemned tomorrow as a Big Brother system.

Quite rightly condemned too. As pointed out:

Experts say it is the biggest state intrusion in history into the role of parents.

All of this is the outcome of the tragedy of Victoria Climbié’s death in 2000. That sorry little episode was due to catastrophic failings in the social services department. Indeed, it was systemic and widespread incompetence that allowed her to slip through the net. What we are now facing, though, is a disproportionate response. Rather than sort out the underlying causes of this child’s tragic death, government does what seems to be its usual response when faced with something it cannot fully comprehend (its own utter inability to manage the proverbial newts’ tea party) – create a database.

Changes being introduced since Victoria Climbié’s death from abuse include a £224 million database tracking all 12 million children in England and Wales from birth. The Government expects the programme to be operating within two years.

That’s right, rather than deal with underlying causes enabling social services to accurately recognise and deal with real cases of abuse, they want to intrude into every child’s life; all 12 million of them. After all, they are all at risk, aren’t they? Especially those who have independent thinking parents who don’t fit neatly into their state designed pigeonhole…

You think I’m joking? I jest not.

Doctors, schools and the police will have to alert the database to a wide range of “concerns”. Two warning flags on a child’s record could start an investigation.

There will also be a system of targets and performance indicators for children’s development. Children’s services have been told to work together to make sure that targets are met.

If your child doesn’t meet its targets, well, that’s abuse, isn’t it? What sort of targets are we talking about here? Dr Munro of the LSE injects a warning note:

Dr Eileen Munro, of the LSE, said that if a child caused concern by failing to make progress towards state targets, detailed information would be gathered. That would include subjective judgments such as “Is the parent providing a positive role model?”, as well as sensitive information such as a parent’s mental health.

“They include consuming five portions of fruit and veg a day, which I am baffled how they will measure,” she said. “The country is moving from ‘parents are free to bring children up as they think best as long as they are not abusive or neglectful’ to a more coercive ‘parents must bring children up to conform to the state’s views of what is best’.”

Parents’ ideas about suitable diet or what sort of role model they wish to provide will be subject to the scrutiny of the state and the state, not parents will judge what is a suitable role model. What about kids like my nephew who wouldn’t eat anything that was green even if you tried to smother it with ketchup? And what do they mean by role models? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Any idea that parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children is cast asunder by our masters in Whitehall. Is this, perhaps, why?

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’”

Adolf Hitler

The state knows best and you’d better start getting used to the idea. That’s if they can get the damn thing working, of course. Personally, I’m rather glad I’m not a parent.

John Reid has announced a “National Respect Squad” to troubleshoot “yobbish” behaviour.

A national ‘respect squad’ is being launched by John Reid to help in the battle against anti-social behaviour.

Local councils, MPs and police chiefs will be able to call in the squad to help tackle cases of “yobbishness”.

The squad, which will work across Wales and England, consists of 10 frontline local council and police staff.

Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis said people wanted to see police on the streets taking action, not “another gimmick” from Mr Reid.

Just when you think these imbeciles can’t sink any lower into the quagmire of their own making, they pull another rabbit out of the hat and, bingo; inane headline of the day. Steady as she goes, then. Lord help us if this bunch of cretins ever get to do any real governing.

Oh… wait….

I notice Chris is discussing this one, too. Just love the comment from Tom:

It’s sounds more like a Sweeney pastiche than anything - bunch of heavies kicking a door down and shouting “Oi! You slag! You’d better start respecting people or we’ll shive this Asbo so far up your arse you’ll need a court order before you’re allowed to shit!!!”

You know, respectful-like.

Well, it tickled my funny bone.

And, which is more… I don’t respect them.

Nick Cohen comments in the Observer today on two hot issues du jour. On the Colin Stagg prosecution a decade or so ago he warns of the relationship betwixt police and media, a relationship that is in danger of repeating itself with recent rhetoric from the maximum Tone and his hapless side kick, Dr Reid.

The worst of it was that the police and media persuaded the family of Rachel Nickell that the crucial difference between Stagg and Hindley was that Stagg had got away with murder. The News of the World ran lipsmacking pieces on how the ‘weirdo’ demanded ‘bizarre sex’ with his ‘terrified’ girlfriend yards from where Rachel Nickell was murdered. The Daily Mail quoted Andre Hanscombe, father of her son, saying he was ‘99 per cent certain’ that Stagg was guilty and the government should remove the double jeopardy law so he could be tried again. It also ran a serialisation of a self-justificatory book by the officer in charge of the case, Detective Inspector Keith Pedder, headlined ‘How British Justice Betrayed Rachel’s Son’.

All the harassment and the tub-thumping, the misleading of Rachel Nickell’s family and the denigration by the judge was in vain; a vast exercise in distraction left the real killer free to commit other crimes.

Note that the evil News of the World was right there leading the lynch mob, noose in hand – nothing changes. These maleficent scumbags want to do much the same with the “nonces” they name and shame with their stupid, dangerous campaign to sell more copies of their sewage; even if the people who suffer are paediatricians rather than paedophiles – what’s a little thing like a misspelling among stupid, ignorant and violent people? I notice too, that in the wake of Blair’s regression to the middle ages, his bumbling flatmate is clambering onto the bandwagon as it rolls in an ungainly gait through town.

Of course, the point Cohen makes is that Colin Stagg’s experience (an innocent man accused, tried and rightfully acquitted) remained, in the eyes of the police and media, “guilty” despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. So, with Blair’s summary justice, more innocent people will be “suspects” and therefore, by default “guilty” and all that is needed is to build a case. Evidence, be damned. Rule of law, be damned. Those busy screaming behind the News of the World and its ilk, crying out for “justice” forget all too easily that one day, they may be the “suspect” and it is their rights they so willingly shred with their self-righteous indignation.

ID Cards

Cohen notes that NO2ID seems to be gathering apace:

Close to where I live in London, a NO2ID group has sprung up to persuade Conservative, Lib Dem and Green councillors to order the local authority to refuse to co-operate with ID cards.

He draws predictable comparisons with the poll tax at the same stage of its development.

When the poll tax came to parliament, there was a noisy debate. Then it disappeared beneath the media’s radar. It seemed as if the issue was dead, but at the grassroots, thousands of people were preparing for an explosion of protest.

If ID cards are as expensive, intrusive and useless as I believe they will be, we may see the same again.

Oh, I do hope so.

Following on from the tosser who thinks that apologising for the actions of long dead people is a jolly fine thing to do, the furtherance of “victim” politics continues apace in my home town.

A seven-year-old black boy has been withdrawn from a school play by his mother after he was cast as a monkey.

Lorraine Rees took her son, Myles, out of the production of An Enchanted Island, accusing Ashley Down Infant School in Bristol of racism.

My first reaction on hearing this story on the local news was that it was, in all likelihood, something silly being blown out of all proportion. Surely, in this day and age, a school would not be so daft as to start that old “black people are like monkeys” stuff? I was predictably correct:

Myles Rees was cast as a monkey, alongside one other black pupil and three white boys.

That’s right – the monkeys in the play include three white boys alongside the two black ones. So, as I suspected, it was something silly being blown out of all proportion. Mrs Rees is doing what the professional race-hate whingers always do; she is seeking out slights where none exist and making a song and dance to draw attention to herself and her victimhood. People like her complain because complaining justifies their cause and they have to have a cause. They are, after all, “victims” of the “oppressors”. Being treated equally alongside others in the community (which, frankly, is the reality) just doesn’t cut it – that would mean that they are not “victims” and the horrible white people are not “oppressors”. Which is odd, because Mr Rees is white; but, then, there are plenty of white people who hate their own culture to the point of constantly pointing out racism where no racism exists. Look at the egregious Andrew Hawkins and his vacuous apology in the Gambia.

Mother-of-four Mrs Rees, 39, made an official complaint to the school, saying: “Everyone is aware of the racist connotations of asking a black pupil to play a monkey.”

And the racist connotations of asking white boys to play monkeys? What utter fucking nonsense! It’s a school play for crying out loud. There is no racist connotation, only Mrs Rees’ stupid over-inflated imagination seeing bogeymen behind every corner.  SARI are all too willing to enable this stupid, petty complaint as it justifies their existence:

Batook Pandya, director of Sari, said there was no suggestion of deliberate racism, but questioned the “sensitivity” of the casting.

Of course there was no suggestion of deliberate racism. There was no fucking racism, deliberate or otherwise; just Mrs Rees and her “victim” status. Batook Pandya should have told her to grow the fuck up and stop being a stupid bint. Oh, dear, this is getting to be a habit… Still it isn’t a likely scenario even if it does bring a brief glow to the cockles of the imagination. :devil:

The Telegraph has a further quote from Batook Pandya:

The parent involved is a very sensible lady and I do not think she is over-reacting.

Over reacting is exactly what she is doing.

I am hopeful we can come to an amicable solution.

Yes; tell her to grow the fuck up… oh, never mind….

It’s about time we stopped being “sensitive” and started realising that the world is a rough and ready place. Having had this pseudo “sensitivity” rammed down my throat for most of my adult life, I confess, I’m tired of it. I’ve stopped being “sensitive”. This is a frivolous complaint about a slight that does not exist and Mrs Rees is playing to the gallery for all she is worth. Will people stop applauding her, please? If we ignore these stupid people and their imagined slights; perhaps, just perhaps; she and her ilk might get the message and stop…

One hopes.

Felix Domesticus, the book, is now available to buy on Lulu.com. Published in US Letter size; 11”x8.5” it has 79 pages with over 90 full colour photographs. The book is taken from the stories and images found on the Felix Domesticus blog. The cost is $18.88 + P&P for the paperback and $31.36 for the hardback. If you want to, you may preview it here

So, if you want to help replenish Longrider’s depleted coffers and enjoy a coffee table book into the bargain, then click on the button and order a copy today…

Softback US$18.88

Hardback US$31.36

Cross posted from Felix Domesticus

Back in April, my wife received negative feedback following a transaction on eBay. The accusation was that she had misrepresented the item. Having looked closely at it, I would dispute that. However, descriptions are subjective. I also have to say that if she had sought my advice, I would have recommended a slightly more circumspect description. Yes, it did look unused, I believe that it probably was unused, but she was selling it as used, so the final sentence would have been better left off, thereby avoiding the subsequent spat.

Ebay’s policy recommends that disputes be resolved initially through communication - i.e. use your bloody common sense and talk to the other party if you are dissatisfied. This is sensible and pragmatic. Every trader would expect their customers to do this. It is far better to resolve the issue amicably if at all possible than have a dissatisfied customer leaving negative feedback. This individual chose not to; rather, she shot from the hip and left negative feedback with absolutely no communication beforehand. Unfortunately for my wife, she had already left positive feedback upon receipt of the money, so all she could do was leave a follow-up comment on both sets of feedback explaining that had the buyer followed eBay policy, then she would have refunded the money and taken the item back rather than have a dissatisfied customer.

Interestingly, the aggrieved individual then did her a huge favour. She left follow up comments accusing my wife of being a con merchant. As this is libellous, my wife could now take the matter up as an abuse of the feedback system and get the comments removed.

The upshot of this is twofold - people can be really petty, mean minded and stupid. Secondly, if you are the seller, don’t leave feedback until after your buyer has done so. If they don’t, then you don’t. If they leave unreasonable negative feedback, you can respond appropriately. Although, my recommendation will always be to stick to the facts and avoid libellous name calling. This exposes the irrational name-caller for what they are.

The eBay procedure for getting defamatory comments removed is painfully slow and somewhat tortuous. Firstly you have to print out every example of the disputed comment and eBay’s complaints form and get it all signed by a suitable person – a solicitor, for example. This cost £5, a small amount, so my wife did this. As it turned out, the solicitor missed a signature, so she had to go through the process a second time several weeks later. This may then be faxed initially to eBay (presuming that you have the facility) and followed up with the originals. EBay then follow up the case. They say that they telephone the protagonists, but in this case, they did not speak to my wife. Whether they spoke to the other party is unknown. I suspect, though, that they simply did what most reasonable people would do; looked at the comments and drew the rational conclusion that this was someone behaving in an irrational manner. Calling someone a “con merchant” without ever attempting to communicate and resolve the matter is hardly reasonable behaviour.

So, Although it has taken a while (nearly two months) the final outcome is that my wife’s complaint was upheld and the relevant offending feedback was removed.

So, it does pay to complain. And, she has learned a valuable lesson. I would like to think that the other party did, too, but I doubt that somehow

I’ve talked about the nonsense that is apologising for the slave trade before. Now someone has gone and done just that:

A DESCENDANT of England’s first slave trader knelt in chains in front of a crowd of 25,000 Africans this month and asked forgiveness for his ancestor’s actions.

Andrew Hawkins, 37, a youth worker from Liskeard, Cornwall, offered his apologies during an ethnic festival in the former West African British colony of The Gambia, as a gesture of reconciliation between Europeans and Africans.

My God! What a pretentious, arrogant, self-righteous twat. How dare he presume to apologise on behalf of someone else and, how dare the Vice President of Gambia presume to accept it. Mr Hawkins did not commit the injury against the slaves taken by his ancestor, therefore he does not have the right to apologise, such apology is meaningless – indeed, the empty gesture is deeply patronising and insulting.

Firstly, his ancestor was not the first to take African slaves – given that it was happening during the 1400s, some 100 years or so before Sir John Hawkins sailed that way. Secondly, slavery has been with us from the time of the Ancient Egyptians, through Roman times and guess what? It is still with us. Oh, but for the self-loathing Mr Hawkins it is far better to parade about among Africans while wearing chains and indulging in self abasement than to do something really valuable; like, oh, campaigning against modern slavery for instance? Slavery perpetrated by Africans against Africans? Oh, no far better to abase himself for the misdeeds of his ancestors. After all, Africans are “victims” and Europeans are “oppressors” – any acknowledgement of Africa’s inconvenient involvement in this trade upsets the neat labels so loved by the politically correct. 

These self-haters, who want to vilify what we are and seek to undermine western values and their own culture choose to be selective about history. Apologists like this morally vacuous fuckwit are so busy wallowing in their self-loathing; something that is becoming all to prevalent today in this country; that they ignore the bigger picture.Yes, Britain was up to its eyeballs in human misery. That is a matter of historical fact. Yes, it was appalling – no rational person would deny that. Yet it was Britain that sought abolition. The country that gave us the slavers also gave us people like William Wilberforce. It is also worth pointing out that everybody involved is dead and has been for a couple of hundred years.

We made our apology in French, English and German. I apologised on behalf of my family. I apologised for the adults and children taken. There was a long pause and we didn’t really know what to expect.

What a pile of selfish, self-pitying, self-indulgent wank. This man is an abject gobshite; a fucktard of the worst order. Whatever he expected, what he should have received was a sharp smack around the ear and told to grow the fuck up and stop being such a self-righteous prick.

During their visit to The Gambia, Mr Hawkins and his party again wore chains and staged a “reconciliation walk” through the rural village of Juffureh. The local elders were not impressed by the gesture, Mr Hawkins admitted,

I can’t say that I am surprised. Perhaps the local elders should have delivered the well deserved smack around the ear. If they had, I would certainly have been impressed.

If this keeps up, I’ll be competing with the Devil’s Kitchen and we can’t have that…