The Coffee House Wall – 26th/1st November

Posted on October 26, 2015

This is the Coffee House Wall for this week. I won’t say that it is your chance to communicate with us, as we are all in this together. It is, nevertheless, the Conservative Blog post that has no particular theme, and where everything is on topic. Let’s just remember that we want to avoid ad hominem attacks on others. We don’t want to engage with trolls. We want to moderate our language ourselves as responsible and mature adults, choosing to use fruity language only where it is necessary. This is our opportunity to show what the Spectator Coffee House Wall could have been like.

Please consider supporting the Coffee House Wall by making a donation of whatever amount, to fund the running of the site using the Paypal donation button provided.

Your support is needed, without it the Coffee House Wall can’t function. Please consider a donation of even just £5.



186 thoughts on “The Coffee House Wall – 26th/1st November”

  1. “My suggestions here that we think about reviving the right to bear arms have been ignored, dismissed or pooh-poohed. It was implied that I was a crazy expat who would return to the good people of England “waving a Luger”.”

    Really?

    We already have a right to bear arms, vouched by the 1689 Bill of Rights, unrepealed:-

    “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

    The snag is that those who now rule over us on behalf of the EU politburo have presumed that the last four words mean that they can introduce any laws they wish to qualify and restrict that right.

    The following demonstrates how far the onus is now on the law-abiding citizen not to use force in defence of hearth and home:-

    http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

    The ‘accused’ throughout is presumed to be the person who resorts to force in self defence. Self-defence becomes a defence to prosecution rather than a right:-

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

    The ‘leaflet’ mentioned is here:-

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

    The clever part of this is that whilst it conveys nice assurances about self-defence against intruders to the home it still concludes with police and CPS treatment of the householder as the potential offender. This can be considered, sceptically, in the context that the police also now routinely arrest on complaint before any investigation proceeds. A householder who resorts to force to defend himself, his family and his home against a criminal intruder will be treated ‘sympathetically’ by the police and CPS. That is actually a far cry from any real right to self-defence. Whether they do so or not, the state has the right to deprive you of your liberty, fingerprint you and take your DNA before they decide whether your act(s) of self-defence should be prosecuted or not. In reality you have only the right to claim self-defence in your defence against the state. This before any notion of the right to bear arms is even considered.

    The qualifications that now restrict by statute the right to self defence were introduced, without fanfare or much, if any, public debate, in 1967:-

    s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:

    “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”

    More views on this situation:-

    http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000265.php

    http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000219.php

    Even the so-called ‘common law’ is now predicated on judgement in a 1988 case:-
    “A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.”

    Notice that it is ‘a defendant’ who is entitled to use force and for the state to decide, through judicial process, whether that force is ‘reasonable’ or not.

    Whether the current situation bears any relation to a historical English right to self-defence of the home is doubtful. It seems that the state has abrogated that right or at least diminished it, in part from the establishment of a police which is relatively recent. It now appears to be in marked contrast to the ‘right’ of the police to routinely use force whether warranted, reasonable or not.

    In fact the current judicial situation seems to be in direct conflict with one of Peel’s Principles of Policing:-

    “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

    Hmm.

  2. My last comment is awaiting moderation. I’m not sure Peter gets to see it so here it is without the links which seem to be causing the problem:-

    “My suggestions here that we think about reviving the right to bear arms have been ignored, dismissed or pooh-poohed. It was implied that I was a crazy expat who would return to the good people of England “waving a Luger”.”

    Really?

    We already have a right to bear arms, vouched by the 1689 Bill of Rights, unrepealed:-

    “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

    The snag is that those who now rule over us on behalf of the EU politburo have presumed that the last four words mean that they can introduce any laws they wish to qualify and restrict that right.

    The following demonstrates how far the onus is now on the law-abiding citizen not to use force in defence of hearth and home:-

    LINK

    The ‘accused’ throughout is presumed to be the person who resorts to force in self defence. Self-defence becomes a defence to prosecution rather than a right:-

    LINK

    The ‘leaflet’ mentioned is here:-

    LINK

    The clever part of this is that whilst it conveys nice assurances about self-defence against intruders to the home it still concludes with police and CPS treatment of the householder as the potential offender. This can be considered, sceptically, in the context that the police also now routinely arrest on complaint before any investigation proceeds. A householder who resorts to force to defend himself, his family and his home against a criminal intruder will be treated ‘sympathetically’ by the police and CPS. That is actually a far cry from any real right to self-defence. Whether they do so or not, the state has the right to deprive you of your liberty, fingerprint you and take your DNA before they decide whether your act(s) of self-defence should be prosecuted or not. In reality you have only the right to claim self-defence in your defence against the state. This before any notion of the right to bear arms is even considered.

    The qualifications that now restrict by statute the right to self defence were introduced, without fanfare or much, if any, public debate, in 1967:-

    s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:

    “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”

    More views on this situation:-

    LINK

    LINK

    Even the so-called ‘common law’ is now predicated on judgement in a 1988 case:-

    “A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.”

    Notice that it is ‘a defendant’ who is entitled to use force and for the state to decide, through judicial process, whether that force is ‘reasonable’ or not.

    Whether the current situation bears any relation to a historical English right to self-defence of the home is doubtful. It seems that the state has abrogated that right or at least diminished it, in part from the establishment of a police which is relatively recent. It now appears to be in marked contrast to the ‘right’ of the police to routinely use force whether warranted, reasonable or not.

    In fact the current judicial situation seems to be in direct conflict with one of Peel’s Principles of Policing:-

    “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

    Hmm.

  4. Colonel Mustard – 10:24

    Peter has configured the WordPress software to only accept two links per comment. Any more than two links and the comment goes into “awaiting moderation.”

    Peter is a busy chap but a quick Email to peter@coffeehousewall.co.uk should ring his bells – on his phone, or on any other portable device he might possess.

  5. 1688/9 and all that:

    “That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.”

    As a protestant, with a certificate to prove it, I should be OK then? If so, then please make mine an Arsenal Strike One 9mm, a Tavor (9mm with a Geissele trigger and some decent optics) and a Remington 870 pump action shotgun.
    Ta very much 🙂

  6. Down your way – This week Bavaria

    I wonder what the greatly missed Brian Johnston would have made of this?!

    The chief of the German police union has admitted that the scale of migrant violence may be larger than the media is reporting because police are not reporting all incidents to avoid scaring the public.

    “The public does not know everything,” he said.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/26/asylum-seeker-holds-knife-to-germans-throat-as-rival-gangs-brawl/

  12. Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

    The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:

    “It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.”

    The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

    “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”

    Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

    *
    “Unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct”
    *
    (1) A person is guilty of burglary if—

    (a) he or she enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
    (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

  13. I have already made the point, telemachus, that justification of the use of force as self-defence is a defence in law rather than a right.

    This originates in mediaeval law where for example killing in self-defence was considered pardonable but not justifiable. The ancient concept of “a man acts at his peril” held sway for centuries until the liability of intention was considered. But even so, there was never any right to self-defence only a legal acknowledgement that it was understandable and a mitigation for any force used.

  14. Article 51 of the UN Charter states the following:

    Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    International law recognizes a right of self-defence, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.

  21. EC October 27th, 2015 – 10:53

    Thank you for that link. It is a pity that there is no one in the UK speaking about liberty with such passion. Our judges seem more intent on imposing the illiberality of the government-sponsored PC proposition and establishing trespass on others to be a subjective, emotional arena of competing identity groups rather than the objective, physical and actual realm of individual liberty.

    Government needs to be shrunk right down, in terms of its power and its cost, and its many unelected, sock puppet “agencies” likewise.

  22. Interesting discussion between jon gaunt and Tommy Robinson yesterday, his alleged harassment by police and government agencies before and after prison won’t surprise people here.

  28. When the jihadis which Dave Cameron and his New World Order pals have let into Britain are given access to the caches of submachine guns which Peter has shown are not impossible to bring into country, things will get hard.

    The muslim rule book expressly incites your muslim to kill me and all other English infidels (broadly defined, as is their winning way to include pretty much anyone except the muslim who is doing the murdering). Apparently they share a programme with Dave and his New World Order pals.

    Best therefore to have a long term strategy. Where the jihadists are concerned this should include driving your muslim out of the north African ilittoral which they colonised by invasion – not considered by some as a popular form of communicating cultural diversity- and retaking Constantinople, ditto.

    Yes, I know this is thinking large but as the man said “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”.

    Furthermore, our adversaries do not stint themselves on large thinking. The New World Order has a vision of reducing the population of the world to around 100 million and your muslim has spent the last 1300 odd years since his ideology was developed planning a European caliphate now literally well on the road to being achieved.

    Take your pick.

  30. Shall I Join the NRA?

    What I have in my hand
    Does what I say
    What I have in my hand
    I’ve had for more than one day

    I’ve held it close
    Yet never afraid
    I’ve held it close
    So it stayed
    Close to my heart
    Where I always pray
    That I don’t lose its sight
    Any day

    It keeps me happy
    That I don’t have to use it
    It gets me sad
    When I see others abuse it

    He told me
    I made him proud
    That one day I could be
    Just like him and receive

    A present
    From him to me
    To show his love
    Of the family
    He gave me
    His father’s heart
    From son to son
    It’s his father’s heart
    In the form of a gun

  31. Or shall I be a wimp?

    It’s the night before Christmas
    And all over the hill
    The NRA was defending
    Their right to kill
    It didn’t much matter
    That the innocent died
    “Give us more guns”
    The NRA cried
    The field must be even
    For all to survive
    If a person owns four
    Then let’s give them five
    Guns don’t kill people
    It’s people who do
    Mr. Wayne LaPierre
    It’s just people like you
    Who represent crazies
    One’s who are off their top
    People who choose
    To die at the hands of a cop
    The President wants
    To bring guns under control
    But, there’s too many like you
    Who live your life in a hole
    Would it matter to you
    If your kid got shot
    Or is the sale of more guns
    What helps get you hot
    I think that you should
    Go and see David Keene
    And make Christmas this year
    The best one that’s been
    Listen to Obama
    And get things in line
    Reduce gun production
    And help make things fine
    Do what’s right for the country
    Gun lobby be damned
    And help make the States
    A much safer land
    Think with your heart
    Of the families who lost
    Their hopes and their children
    It’s too high a cost
    Think of the future
    And give up the fight
    So all gentle people
    Can have a safe night !!

  33. How many citizens have been killed by the wittering
    Of gun control opportunists like Fergus Pickering?

  36. Malfleur 838-
    Why opportunist? Like most I am at war with myself. My left hemisphere tells me one thing and my right another. Who says that Thomas Jefferson was not sage:
    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” If indeed he did say that. When I see the squirrels stealing my hazelnuts I ache for a shotgun.

  37. Col. Mustard.
    I have told you before that Telemachus is a dangerous communist who like all communists is corralled in the last century.
    All of my poetry is either bastardised or inspired by known or otherwise poets. Indeed my first pen on this site after my comedy plays on Spectators wall was in 2012 and adapted the Bard.

  38. This is the Bard adaptation-looks a little jaded now:

    For who would bear the whips and scorns of Frank
    David Ossitt’s wrongs, Peter Maidstone’s cotumely
    The pangs of despised Hugh, Malfleur’s delay
    The insolence of Ostrich, and the spurns
    That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes
    When he himself might his quietus make
    With a bear Strapworld. Who woul Austin bear
    To grunt and sweat under Verity’s life
    But that the dread of Anne Wotana on the hearth
    The undiscovered country, from whose bourne
    Peter from Maidstone returns, puzzles the will
    And makes us rather bear those ills we have
    Than fly to Noa that we know not of…

    We hear from Austin but not Strap world or Hugh

  39. Fergus Pickering October 28th, 2015 – 09:03

    “bastardised or inspired” = aka pinched and plagiarised.

    But in this case they were straight and unattributed cut-n’pastes. You ought to acknowledge poems that are not yours. As an aspiring poet yourself I would have thought you would be more sensitive to that obligation.

    Whether or not you are telemachus or just another shape-shifting telemachus “associate” you are worrying this website like a dog worrying sheep rather than engaging in an honest commentary. He also is more obsessed with the commentators than the commentary and seeks to ‘own’ their identities for them. It is that old occult and communist obsession with ‘knowing’ names and then pigeon holing them as dissidents. The Jennifer Oldham gambit demonstrates that what we think we see is not always what we get here. Who knows the convoluted designs and purposes of multi-faceted leftist cyberwarrior disruption and false flag agendas?

    I remain suspicious about your motives with a well developed nose for a wrong’un. You write like telemachus even if you are not really he.

  40. Gun control has never controlled guns used in crime. And there is no evidence that it has ever controlled guns used illegally when legally owned.

    Handguns are illegal in the UK, even those kept by law abiding citizens for sporting reasons. Meanwhile miniature sub-machine guns are arriving in the hands of criminals and being used to shoot at the police. The rate and scale of immigration, the foolishness of undermining the notion of a national identity and culture and the crass incompetence displayed in managing border controls and illegal immigrants has created the potential for a perfect storm of sectarian violence for which the police are ill prepared. They can’t even control a gang of masked marxist crusties or stop them vandalising a major railway station in the heart of the capital city.

    The risk of a person going full mental with a legally owned handgun has been mitigated by knee-jerk New Labour legislation. The potential for a law abiding citizen to intervene to stop a criminal act or to defend themselves against a criminal intrusion by using a legally owned handgun has been obviated by that legislation at a time when police seem increasingly incapable of demonstrating Peel’s Principles effectively.

    “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

    No. The police have entirely usurped the relationship and the duties with a presumption that their role is to control the public on behalf of the state as much as or if not more so than preventing crime and disorder. Every time some senior police numpty speaks out with a political agenda they violate that principle. They presume to hold a monopoly on crime prevention, response and the use of force which Peel’s Principles do not confer. Not a single so-called Parliamentarian demurs at this sorry state of affairs or asks how and why it has come about, this great divide between the police and the public’s responsibilities towards crime.

    “We can’t guarantee to protect you, but we are going to make damn sure that you can’t protect yourselves” seems to be the government and police message, with much politically-motivated whining about “cuts” to lard the message. That message is one of essentially mistrusting the majority of the public by presuming them to be criminal or at least potentially criminal. As others have put it – maintaining a monopoly on the use of force. Meanwhile genuinely violent and abusive demonstrators run free, their public threats and intimidations apparently disregarded.

  43. Colonel Mustard – 10:16

    “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we have to at least consider the proposition that what we observe most probably is a duck.” etc.

    Expressed mathematically: telemachus + fergus = one big <i)Anas

    (After telemachus’ little treatise on proxy servers awhile back then I would say that you are quite right to be suspicious!)

  44. Colonel Mustard – 10:42

    The same thing goes for “rent controls.” Whenever & wherever rent controls have been introduced rents have actually gone up!

  45. EC October 28th, 2015 – 11:23

    Yes, that proxy server business was a little too well informed for my liking.

    telemachus came to the old Wall with an agenda to “correct” and has admitted it several times since. How he thinks this might be achieved and the actual effectiveness of that are probably far from mutually inclusive. His propensity for mischief making is well established. The category of ‘nuisance’ springs to mind.

  47. Colonel Mustard @ 10:42

    Excellent points on gun ownership, Colonel, pity nobody’s listening.

    After the 1997 Firearms Act, the number pf firearms accidents has actually gone up, but of course the Act wasn’t about safety at all, the ghastly Blair was even then ‘virtue signalling’. In a society run by emotions rather than cool thinking his adopting the ban posture was motivated by just one desire – to get elected. The ghastly man would have sold his mother if there was a market for mothers of ghastly men.

    The irony is people in Russia can own guns for self-defence, since 2014 even hand held firearms. Checks are rigorous, one has to be medically fit, too, but it seems Vlad the Dictator isn’t bothered the unwashed may rise up, march to the Kremlin, remove him from power. Telling this.

  48. EC @ 11:00

    In a sense, EC, they are victims by the virtue of being prevented doing what they enjoy, are allowed by the Koran, often encouraged by some of the ‘kill the infidels’ muftis to do. It’s now in the open, it probably still goes on, but they have to be smarter how they go about it, feel it victimises them.

    The country has gone totally loopy.

  49. Colonel Mustard @ 10:42

    ‘“We can’t guarantee to protect you, but we are going to make damn sure that you can’t protect yourselves” seems to be the government and police message’

    Exactly, plus the cover being that ‘were we to allow you to protect yourselves, you would of course abuse the ‘privilege’ and go hog wild and start gunning down children and old ladies (and pet dogs) across the length and breadth of the Isles’.

  50. I come yes come and take my gun in vain
    For if I pass by on this way again
    I’ll shoot Jefferson gladly at the drop of a hat
    But my God, yes my God will stop me doing that.

  51. Malfleur October 28th, 2015 – 11:54

    Indeed and the sad reality that “If you do robustly defend yourself, your family and your home from criminal intrusion you will be presumed to be an offender, albeit with ‘sympathy’, unless you can defend your acts to the police, CPS and potentially as a defendant to criminal charges in a court of law”.

    The natural right of self-defence has been usurped by those who simply have absolutely no clue about the origin, intent and purpose of the English police, its relationship to the public or Peel’s Principles. And not a single Parliamentarian, let alone Ms May, has bothered to scrutinise that with any objective historical insight. The dramatic changes that have occurred within English policing appear to have been made by unelected and unidentifiable people with little or no public debate or Parliamentary scrutiny and predicated on an alien European model of officiousness and state intrusion.

    Whilst the state wrings its hands about the possibility of excessive or unreasonable force by the ordinary citizen defending himself, his family and home, we are treated almost daily to images of the police using excessive or unwarranted force, perpetrating what amounts to criminal damage to private property and depriving people of their liberty without proper preliminary investigation to establish whether a crime has actually been committed.

    “the police are the public and the public are the police”

    Don’t think so.

  52. Baron October 28th, 2015 – 11:45

    They will have to eventually. Currently we are circa 1933 not 1940.

  54. Michael Roberts 14.34
    It’s Time these idiots were put in their place by superiors with brains. Well done to him.
    No backing down with crap apologies, just tell them they are children with stupid ideas.

  55. Michael Roberts
    October 28th, 2015 – 14:34

    Even the Guardian is with you and Dawkins on this

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/germaine-greer-transphobia-cardiff-feminism-inclusive

    “But there is a danger to this new brand of feminism as well: in its carefulness to include everyone it may end up excluding anyone who offends or dissents. It’s a style of feminism in which, if you break the rules, or hold an unpopular view, the answer – as was the case with Greer – is to kick you out of the sisterhood.”

  57. Michael Roberts @ 14:34

    Dawkins has never ranked on Baron’s list of favourites, Michael, what with his orthodoxy on evolution, faith, but on this issue he couldn’t be more right.

    This afternoon, the barbarian was listening to a programme on BBC4 on teenagers, their mental health, the need to help them mostly on matters of sex, three examples were brought in, all three Stonewall linked …

    How did people manage before this culture of outreaching appeared? Before WW2, life was truly a struggle for everyone, the young included, yet people managed to grow tall and proud, married without state counselling, had kids, stayed mostly married for life, many volunteered to fight for the country…..

    In the contemporary Britain of enlightenment galore, young people are the most pampered generation ever, and yet it’s also the one segment of the populace that seems deadly unhappy, their suicide rate is higher than ever.

    Go figure.

  60. Malfleur @ 21:56

    The moustache of the ‘chap’ Bentley looks fake, and the pipe hasn’t been smoked, ever. The barbarian should know, he smoked pipe for half of his life.

    Give it another try, Malfleur, dig up something more convincing.

  61. Not much about the Polish election results either on the box or in the print MSM. Not only did the socially conservative Law and Justice party win an outright majority, it’s the first since the country unloaded the yoke of communism, the other even more conservative parties did well, too, much better than expected.

    All the BBC on-line could say is: “It (the winning party) supports a ban on abortions and in-vitro fertilisation and believes a strong Nato is necessary to offset the perceived threat from Russia”.

  62. Baron

    Mr. Bentley is but an aspiring chap. Had you clicked on his name, you would have seen that the application of standards as strict as yours failed him.

    For a pass with flying colours, click on Lord Hare of Newham. This incidentally is how I imagine Baron – though coupled with an interesting dog.

  64. Malfleur @ 22:30

    If only, Malfleur, if only.

    Btw, what do you reckon the bag to his right contains? A stash of freshly printed £50 notes?

  65. Baron

    I was wondering about that.. Ham sandwiches with Colman’s mustard;a few Cox’s Orange Pippins;Izaak Walton,The Compleat Angler? It might be necessary to address a written request for the information to Lord Hare.

  67. About 4-6 years ago:

    A retired cop, and his friend “Mr. Barker”, explain why having a concealed carry permit is a good idea, and that having weapons for home defense is ESSENTIAL.

    NB. This video is not for the faint hearted. It is graphically illustrated by recordings of two 911 calls from two different households experiencing a break in. One household were they had a firearm and one where they didn’t. Both distressing in their own way, but guess which householders survived!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNeS3KSo2o

    Latterly, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke has been saying the same thing week in, week out. The under resourced cops are there to record happened, not prevent it. If a patrol car is in the vicinity of your house when you dial 911 then basically, it’s a miracle!

    From one of his public information ads (2013):

    “I’m Sheriff David Clarke, and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety.”

    With officers laid off and furloughed, calling 911 and waiting for police is no longer your best bet. You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you could fight back. But are you prepared?” Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Clarke,_Jr

    In the UK the government has signalled that they are gutting what was left of traditional policing in favour of tackling “cyber crime” – presumably patrolling the blog-o-sphere looking out for hate speech crimes. NB. “Hate Speech” can include such diverse matters as publicly disagreeing with, arguing with, or satirising a feminazi or sjw. When it comes to matters of religion, and the agenda and activities of their adherents, quoting historical facts, telling the truth is no longer a defence!
    Expect a rise in violent crime, “chaps!”

    There will come a time in the UK when we reach a tipping point, and a large section of the populace will feel the need arm themselves regardless of the law. The Gov’t will be unable to lock all the “transgressors” up! Then, maybe, they’ll discover that taxing guns is more profitable than actually banning them!

    Note to Cyber Plod: For the avoidance of doubt I do not possess nor am I seeking to possess now or in the future any firearms. I might yet emigrate.

  70. “The exercise of despotic power is the unrelenting war of an armed tyrant upon his unarmed subjects.” – Cato’s Letters # 25

    “It is a maxim of the law that whatever we do in the way and for the ends of self defense, we lawfully do. It is wickedness not to destroy a destroyer, and all the ill consequences of self defense are chargeable upon him who occasioned them.” – Cato’s Letters # 42

    SIR EDWARD COKE (“Institutes of the Laws of England”, 1628):

    “And yet in some cases a man may not only use force and arms, but assem­ble company also. As any may assemble his friends and neighbors, to keep his house against those that come to rob, or kill him, or to offer him violence in it, and is by construction excepted out of this Act; and Sheriff, etc., ought not to deal with him upon this Act; for a man’s house is his Castle, and a per­son’s own house is his ultimate refuge; for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house. And in this sense it truly said, and the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons.”

    JOHN LOCKE (“Two Treatises of Government”, 1689):

    “Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself…”.

    JOHN LOCKE (“Two Treatises of Government”, 1689):

    “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any further than by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases from him: because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my liberty, would not when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

    “Isis planning ‘mass casualty’ terror attacks in UK, head of MI5 warns”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/isis-planning-mass-casualty-terror-attacks-in-britain-head-of-mi5-warns-a6712946.html

    Homework:
    1. Who formed, funded, equipped and let loose ISIS and with what purpose, and what do ISIS,ISIL, El Nusra and Al Qaeda have in common?
    2. Is MI entirely under the control of Parliament and what role, if any, has MI5 or compartments of it had in prior terror attacks in Britain?

  71. Malfleur October 29th, 2015 – 13:29

    Those historic treatises on self-defence brilliantly sum up how that natural law, once well understood (the true English common law), has been abrogated and usurped in modern British jurisprudence to make the defender a defendant and at peril under the law, thus giving the criminal intruder rights and power over him and making a farce of the Peelian principle that the police are the public and the public the police.

    The state might argue that the police are equally accountable and at peril under the law but I’ll believe that when I see a prosecution of a police posse for criminal damage by the unnecessary use of force in breaking into a person’s home without first demanding entry. And for assaulting and handcuffing people who have offered no resistance or violence towards them.

  72. My computer Outlook still receives my emails but since Monday afternoon refuses to send any emails out.

    The computer shows an ‘error sending’ when I follow this up I get the error message below.

    Sending reported error (0x800ccc13) cannot connect to the network. Verify your network or modem.

    My local computer wizard has a £97 call out charge, before I contact him, do any of you have a solution?

  73. David Ossitt @ 15:40

    Baron’s rather illiterate when it comes to computers, hitting the keyboard is about all he can manage, David, but have you done the basics?

    Check the settings, sometimes they get corrupted; Disconnect an email server from a round, click send/receive, then connect and click again send/receive, and lastly switch off the computer, leave it off for around half an hour, switch on again and see if it helped.

    Sorry, my blogging friend, that’s all the barbarian can think off. Often, it’s something so small that when you figure it you’ll kick yourself for not thinking about it.

    Here is a puzzle that may prove the point. What do these words have in common?

    Banana, Dresser, Grammar, Potato, Revive, Uneven, Assess.

  74. And another thing, David, did you google for an online help? Put in the search ‘outlook doesn’t send e-mails’, ‘impossible to send out e-mails from outlook’ and stuff like that.

  76. Baron
    October 29th, 2015 – 18:51

    I have just downloaded a free windows 10, when I googled a message said that windows were trying to rectify the (0x800ccc13) fault.

    Oddly enough I have been able to send by using the forwarding facility on outlook simple by clicking forward on an existing email deleting the text and typing in my new script.

  77. David Ossitt @ 19:18

    You seem to be positively a wizard, David, the barbarian belongs to the phylum of the pedestrians on computers. Pity, because if he knew more he could coach himself to do abit of hacking, appear knowledgable at least, or be a nuisance to those in power (only joking).

  78. Malfleur @ 13:29

    To quote Cato to our political elite, Malfleur, wouldn’t get one very far, would they even know the man lived?

    What your informative summary also shows is how much we lack profound thinkers, individuals capable of articulating a moral argument based on common sense that would inform those in power over us.

  79. David 1540 & 1918
    Did Outlook stop sending out emails after downloading Windows 10?
    *
    When I downloaded windows 10, I lost sound and also videos eg youtube through the internet explorer browser (it worked on Google Chrome)
    A friend who runs a computer shop said that there were multiple glitches with Windows 10 and they were multiple and varied
    He told me to dis-install windows 10 (ie revert to factory settings). I did this and regained full functionality of Windows 8
    He told me that reinstalling windows 10 after a week or so usually did not throw up the same problem (ie the glitch is in the installation process)
    I have not yet had the courage to test this

  80. Tele at 20:45
    Yes, my upgrade (not!) to Windows 10 did the same thing. I found that it screwed up IE11 in the way you say, but it’s OK with the new “Edge” browser that 10 automatically installs. The problem is that “Edge” has the user interface from Hell.

  82. Computer machines!

    Windows 10 : so-so.
    Windows _8 : awful.
    Windows_7 : very good.

    More to come.

  83. Computer machines.

    My laptop with Windows 7 got screwed-up a few months ago.I got another,at the lower end of the market,with Windows 8.This was completly different;I could not get on with it at all.
    I have got the Windows 7 machine working again.Both machines keep offering Windows 10.Not wanting to mess-up Windows 7,I up graded the Windows 10.I do not find it that much better.I continue to use the Windows 7 machine.(Like Baron I am not too-much up with the mysteries of these machines.)

    I have since read comments that Windows 8 is inferior to Windows 7. Also comments that it is a good idea to hold back from Windows 10 as the first up-loads are bound to contain problems which need sorting-out.

    I am sticking with my Windows 7 machine.

  85. Radford NG
    And it is not just Microsoft Windows
    I will lay odds that your Word version loaded on your Windows 7 machine is operationally better than that on your later machines
    The problem seems to be that in Microsoft’s drive to grab the mobile market(they have hitherto and will fail) and drive us into their version of the cloud (to make more money)they have sacrificed some desktop functionality and released software too early
    *
    I add in parentheses that the mobile drive is also inducing mistakes in functionality on much loved websites. Speccies recent changes are a perfect example
    *
    Please God that Peter and WordPress do not succumb, although the thought of Gloucestershire cricketers in the cloud might induce salivation in some

  86. Then there is the old joke (or question).

    Pilot of air-craft (plane/helicopter) comes out of a fog bank and is lost over California.He circles a big building and shouts to a man at a window:”Where am I”.Comes the reply:”In an aircraft”.So he turns right and a few minutes later lands safely.How do you explain this.?
    The pilot knows the airport is just a few miles from Microsoft HQ;and he knows that was the building because the information given was technically correct but,in practice,Useless.

  87. Windows 8 (and 8.1) work in exactly the old W7 way if you install the free “Classic Shell” program.

    Classic Shell also does the same job on W10, but W10 does appear to be very buggy at the moment (Or at least the free ‘upgrade’ does).

  88. “although the thought of Gloucestershire cricketers in the cloud might induce salivation in some”

    I’ll be there, with my harp and wings, sooner than you think. Although I have a hankering to be re-born as a crow so that I can fly over to your immigrant labour-built extension with the rest of the horde and decorate its windows. Think of it as a salivation.

  92. “Agent Smith, Peterborough, United Kingdom,
    French wine goes best with fish and chips – sprinkled lightly over them it is as good as lemon but not as smooth as vinegar.” (Ibid – Comments)

  96. Frank P @ 12:19

    When did the one who loves stripping to the waist get to run things, Frank? And when did the Chelsea owner, others of this mafia phylum acquire the riches?

    The mafia had enriched itself when the loved Boris was in charge, not Vlad who managed to snatch some of the riches back, let ordinary Russians to enjoy the benefits.

    Did he also enrich himself? Probably, but one would need better proof of it than Mr. Boot’s rant, what matters more is that it was he, Vlad, who engineered that the bulk of the profits from oil-gas reserves is their for sharing amongst the unwashed, over 90% of assets in this key area of Russia’s natural resources are in the State hands, just the opposite of what it was when Boris governed.

    More to the point, and it saddens Baron you either don’t remember, or choose not to. The ones, or perhaps most of those who were in positions where they could enrich themselves did indeed do so often with the help of Western advisors, money.

    It was like that not only in Russia, in the satellites, too. The stolen riches in the East European states may not be as massive as those in the lands of the Russians, but only because the countries didn’t have assets comparable to those in Russia.

    Baron’s friends in Poland, Czecho, other failed communist satrapies may tell you more than the barbarian can, he has to listen to their laments often, is far from popular saying it was the price to be paid for freedom without the economies collapsing, it must do for the interim phase, what matters is the rules of the game have changed, the legal framework got tighter, the future will hopefully look different as the new generations take over.

    One of such cases has been dragging on in the Czech Republic for years, it involves thousands of houses built originally for the mining community in the east of the country. A clever guy who was in the right place at the right time bought the housing stock wholesale for peanuts after the old regime disintegrated, promised to keep it in good repair, then re-sell it at a discount to anyone who wanted it. Instead, he has slowly refurbished the lot, now wants to sell each unit at a market price, making millions. There’s more to it, of course, the purchasing price is said to have been rigged, the collateral he offered was rather non-existent, the promise to re-sell the houses at a discount not legally binding ….

    The point is, Frank, neither the communists, the Czech KGB, certainly not Vlad were in any way involved. And there are more many more cases like that both in Russia, elsewhere in eastern Europe. Baron knows himself of half a dozen cases of enrichment, some small, few bigger ones, if we ever meet, he’ll entertain you.

    Amazingly, the omni-all Mr. Boot chooses to comment on another anti-Putin rant when the KGB colonel scores so highly in the ME. Hmmm

  97. And this, Frank, it couples with Malfeur’s link above at 12.51, or rather the posting under the DM piece that got most of the upticks.

    This is what the posting says: “There is nothing wrong with relations between the British and Russian people. It is the politicians where the problem lies”.

    The guy who penned it must have not heard of Mr. Boot for if he did he would add his name to the ‘politicians’ category.

  98. Baron (16:33/41)

    Heh, heh, heh. I though you had eschewed lacing the Boot, as you chose not to address the transcript of his latest lecture, kindly posted by our host.

    Two things caught my eye in your 16:33:

    (1) “The Czech KGB”

    (2) “Amazingly, the omni-all Mr. Boot chooses to comment on another anti-Putin rant when the KGB colonel scores so highly in the ME. Hmmm”

    (1) Question: Were the KGB and STB separate entities and if so did you ever fall foul of either?

    (2) Question: “scores so highly in the ME'” ?? Hmmm.

    Last question: when did you choose the UK to start a new life – and why?

  99. Colonel Mustard – 15:12

    Interesting use of direction and camera technique in that interview. It had obviously been decided beforehand that the majority of shots of Mr. Powell were going to be extreme close ups whilst the shots of Frost were going framed quite normally. There is no better way to demonise an unwitting “guest.”

    Blatantly obvious, this seems quite a crude technique nowadays but back in the late ’60s the TV audience was not quite as savvy about objectives and intentions of “Aunty” In 2015, I’m not all sure that the majority of licence payers have rumbled the BBC’s agendas, incomplete and biased reporting, and their constant drip feed of propaganda – formerly subtle now blatant!

  101. Frank P @ 17:19

    The copies of the KGB outfit in the satellite countries were named differently (the KGB moniker also encompasses a number of other designations from Cheka to the current FSB).

    The Czech outfit was called the STB (State Secret Security agency), it was fully under the control of the Soviet KGB, the Czech minnows wouldn’t dare fart without the Soviet overseer nodding to it, plenty of Soviet advisers throughout the STB set-up even outside Czechoslovakia, and those who worked in the outfit called their Soviet counterparts ‘friends’. It sounded quite amusing when a Czech interrogator said to Baron: ‘Our Soviet friends are telling us that you ….’

    On the ME: If the Russians achieved little more than to force the Americans to begin to hit the ISIL thugs seriously, cleansed the country of them, it would be a success. It will stop the flow of refugees into our shores.

    You may have missed it, the barbarian has said it before, is rather reluctant to repeat it in any detail, who knows who reads this stuff.

    All Baron can say is that he was a political prisoner both in the USSR, and his mother country (where he was shipped from Moscow) when it was run by the Red Menace, had to leave after the Warsaw Pact countries invaded, the Prague Spring fell apart.

    In his atavistic stupidity, Baron thought the British will resist the corrosive influence of the American ‘enlightenment’ at around the times of the JFK euphoria, keep calm, the upper lip stiff, common sense up. How wrong could one be, ha?

    Will this do?

  102. Colonel Mustard @ 15:12

    The sailor Heath has lot to answer for, Colonel, it was he and his cronies who destroy the man.

    What amazes is that since Powell there has not been a single figure of a nationwide stature in Britain questioning the erosion of our sovereignty, not amongst the politicians, the judiciary, the media.

  103. EC @ 18:20

    Too long to watch the whole lot now, EC, time’s at a premium, but it strikes Baron that Powell probably was the last politician with charisma, whether one endorses his views or not.

  105. Sitting in my Polish built extension I watched as another migrant descended from the sky like a white dove in his private jet and was swallowed up by a hanger at Biggin Hill

    The migrant in question came over from Saudi Arabia in 1966 and claims notwithstanding to be British

    He was imprisoned after data traffic intercepted said he had communed with Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001

    Shaker Aamer started many cogs of my idiot brain turning

    Is he truly British
    Would better intelligence have prevented his arrest in the first place
    Would the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill intercepting communications with his family in England have given the truth of his innocence
    Should we press Labour to support the Government on the Bill

  109. Corrigendum 2: Benedict Cumber-bath ?!?

    “Let it bloody well stand.”

    Benedict Cumberbath: tosser.

  111. Baron at October 30 18.57

    “…On the ME: If the Russians achieved little more than to force the Americans to begin to hit the ISIL thugs seriously…”

    This will never happen. The Wall as a whole should recognize that Al Qaeda and Isis and Al Nusra and ISIL are western-run.

    Barbaronian @ October 30 19.10

    My post at October 30th, 2015 – 12.35 has to be read with the previous on at 12:29 and the tradition of the French as our dearest enemies. Agent Smith is a commentator on the article on English champagne.

  112. “On the ME: If the Russians achieved little more than to force the Americans to begin to hit the ISIL thugs seriously”

    Not going to happen. Wallsters should reconcile themselves to the unhappy truth that Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra and ISIL, etc. are run by the West. This makes it all the more ominous that MI5 has just been openly predicting mass casualties in England from terror attacks by ISIS.

    A Select Committee investigation into Bilderbergers and their activities and agenda in England is long overdue.

    First we have to get our Parliament back.

    And probably our monarchy…

  114. The BBC were at it again last night with a hopeless “scheme of merriment” featuring double whammy of two humourless guests. Crass and banal comments all around.
    The agenda this week was to demonise George Osborne at all costs. The editors conspired to show some clips of George Osborne shot from, apparently, knee level. He apparently doesn’t know about that technique for making people look a bit sinister.

    What say Andy about Grayson Perry? I would him in a cell with Dominic “Cumberbath”(© ACP).

    Cumberbath? Lapsing into the old Cornshire accent there Andy, or maybe Jameson’s assisted lisping…?

  115. telemachus October 30th, 2015 – 19:53

    “. . my idiot brain. .”

    Well, if you will insist on intervening in discussions with the motive of trying to aggravate your stalking targets and then conflate the self-defence of nation states with the self-defence of the free individual . . .

    Idiot brain indeed. You are simply not as clever as you think you are. Here the concept of all must have prizes carries no weight.

  116. Grayson Perry – personally rather like his homespun, retro, insurgent art and that he has the balls to dress like Alice in Wonderland but lately his views have been moving more and more to the bien pensant, predictable and oh-so-tedious leftism of the establishment.

  118. Malfleur @ 04:28

    One can justify any policy, impose any rules, demand compliance with any policy or rules by just referencing to AGW. Who would object to anything that guarantees the future of our children?

  119. Malfleur @ 03:47

    But, Malfleur, this is the American way of conducting international relations. One day, they are friends with a state, a group of fighters, a national leader, call him or them friends, furnish him or them with weapon s, the next day they do just the opposite. They’ve behaved like that in the past, no reason to think they’ll change now.

    Not many remember Syria was taking part in the first Desert Storm in 1991, it sent either the largest of the second largest combat number of troops. The country refused to take p art in the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, argued it was illegal, no country had any right to ‘regime change’ another, got closer to Iran, later Russia. This didn’t please the Americans, and Assad is now paying the price for his disobedience.

  120. How on earth, Andy, have you managed to dig up a piece from the DT that appeared in the paper close after the switchover of the centuries? You remember it was there? What a phenomenal memory you have, the barbarian’s already passed St Augustine’s ‘please, God, give me chastity and incontinence, but not yet’, has no recollection what he read yesterday.

    The quote’s good, the acting diaspora should indeed be the last one one wants to consult on anything, but in contemporary Britain it includes close to everyone, as many people go through life acting without an equity card, Baron has found. More to the point, is their advice taken? Probably only if it’s backed by Stonewall or another anointed lobby group.

  121. telemachus @ 19:53

    The only thought that has passed through the feeble brain of the barbarian was ‘the sooner the Americans begin to behave sensibly the better, and if they cannot do that they should give up poking their nose into everyone’s business’.

    They must have known he was the wrong guy pretty soon after they apprehended him, why didn’t they let him go sooner? It will costs us millions, his lawyers will make sure of it. Lunacy.

  125. Frank P @ 14:02

    Quick thinking, Frank, the omni-all Mr. Boot will probably argue the former, Baron, out of habit, the latter, ha, ha.

    More importantly, who’s going to pick up the rugby trinket, then? Baron’s money on the All Blacks.

  126. The Russian plane crash with wreckage spread over three miles sounds like Christmas in Scotland again.

  127. Baron (14:12)

    Can’t stand a sport that involves men cuddling each other and sniffing each other’s a-holes. Highly suspect.

    Soccer is also becoming far too quosy.

  128. Hi, PfM has managed to neutralise the gremlin stopping me reach the chw, so I am back!

    I did an intense scan of the last fortnight’s chw posts and it helped me recap on the last fortnight’s news. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world is catching up with the chw posters!

    For example, I think ‘Stockholm syndrome’ will need to be redefined:
    Swedish Foreign Minister claims the country is ‘facing collapse’ because of the mass influx of refugees
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297317/Swedish-Foreign-Minister-claims-country-facing-collapse-mass-influx-refugees.html

    And those in the Tory Party still believing that Cameron is 1) Euro-sceptic, 2) Tory and 3) a leader, are having a bad week. The action is mainly in the posts, with a smattering of EUrophiles sticking out like sore thumbs:
    Cameron’s revenge on purdah rebels – he sacks them from the Council of Europe
    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/10/camerons-revenge-on-purdah-rebels-he-sacks-them-from-the-council-of-europe.html

    And

  130. Baron
    October 31st, 2015 – 13:41

    Yes, I remembered Kevin Myers had expertly skewered the acting profession early in the last decade and regretted not tearing out the article at the time. It took more than one search to retrieve it, but I got there in the end; thank you for your kind words.

    Frank P – As it happens, yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the original WBTDWI? post. You were responding to David Blackburn; but the Spectator, being tossers, have gone and suppressed the comments from the archive.

  131. John birch @ 14:47

    Some on the few Russian blogs the barbarian scans shout for revenge already, one can only hope the Kremlin CEO will be sensible, do nothing before we know what actually happened.

  132. Speaking of Cornshire, whatever happened to everybody’s favourite cigar-chompin’ good ol’ boy, John Jefferson Burns? The American abroad, whose identity that poisonous, anaemic worm, Telemachus, tried to hijack on his Facebook account.

    What’s Grayson Perry got to do with it? Don’t tell me he’s been brought on board Jezza’s shadow Cabinet of all the talents?

  133. RobertRetyred @ 16:35

    The barbarian has missed you, Robert, your links and observations are always of interest, hit the gremlins hard, stay the course.

    Theboy has to watch it, if the flow of immigrants continues, we will have to take more of them, that’s not going to make the unwashed happy, they could side with the out campaign in the referendum, which will lose him the top slot, and his legacy people will remember will be just the gay marriage. Not much to shout about, is it.

  134. Frank P @ 15:16

    Men sniffing each other r’shoals suspect today, Frank? Come on, get up to speed, it’s as common now as was still upper lip when you’re bossing the plebs.

    Football, rugby, ice hockey (when Baron’s in a country that goes for it) are the only three TV broadcast s that aren’t controlled by an anointed Tristram. They are for real, a rarity in today’s PC manipulated, make believe, engineered world.

  135. What’s happened to the Special one, and Chelsea? Clobbered again, this time by Liverpool at home. Will the club need another injection of the mafia money, or will the quiet Russian oligarch find another hobby?

  136. Sorry about the errors, the bloody corrective software will be the undoing of the barbarian, as if he wasn’t more than capable of erring on his own.

  137. Frank P – 15:16

    “Baron (14:12) Can’t stand a sport that involves men cuddling each other and sniffing each other’s a-holes. Highly suspect.”

    🙂 As The maestro himself once put it…

    Austin Barry, February 18th, 2012 12:09pm
    It’s a given that Rugby is game played by latent or patent homosexuals. A scrum is all about rear presentation: “touch, pause, engage, ooooh.”

    17 Mar 2012 – Austin Barry.
    “Surely, as Rod Liddle often points out, it is an unsophisticated game designed for middle-class, latent homosexuals: the rear-presenting, … intimacy of the scrum, the alpha-male sado-masochism of the ruck… etc.”

  138. ” . . . whose identity that poisonous, anaemic worm, Telemachus, tried to hijack on his Facebook account.”

    He does that sort of thing. Stalking, manipulative, shape shifting, deviously deceitful. Tried to pass himself off as David Lindsay at the other place and has adopted numerous fake ids in his attempts to intervene, troll, false flag and sow his mischief.

    Still, you’re giving the extreme left wing propagandist and agitator house room here. The sanctity of debate, fair play, play the game, ra ra ra and all that total bollocks.

  139. Baron – 18:12

    Aren’t we supposed to be taking in some Middle East orphans? Will they be adopted or fostered, raised by (heaven forbid 🙂 ) UKIP families? Will they learn about Jesus, or will they be brought up in the ‘correct sort’ of family?

    So many questions: I am sure CMD has everything under control 🙂

  143. Tele, you honest commentator, you. What do you do for an encore, rub your hands together and profess to be so very ‘umble?

    What a sorry specimen you are.

  144. Baron @ 14.06

    I see that in that Breitbart piece a commentator, Jontyfire, is calling the well-accoutred muslim invaders: gimmegrants.

    Follow the money – in both directions but in particular how they got there. And then arrest Mr. Soros. As part of our debt to Europe, we could offer to hold him in the Tower. If we can’t catch him, any Bilderberger would do.

    *****

    By the way, how is it that half-way through his first cup of English breakfast tea, whatever the news, a chap always feels better?

  146. Baron @ 18:12

    “Theboy has to watch it, if the flow of immigrants continues, we will have to take more of them, that’s not going to make the unwashed happy, they could side with the out campaign in the referendum…”

    Good point. His only counter would be to let enough of them in before the referendum to allow the see-saw to tip the other way again…postal vote anyone?

    *****

    By the way, why don’t the Czechs play cricket?

    *****

    EC @ 18:53

    If that were really the case, shouldn’t one team be facing the other way? As cricket seems to be played nowadays in off-green boiler suits with advertisements, rugger may also be moving towards a correction.

  147. Herbert Thornton @ 23:38

    Splendid! Then Europe can retake its classical heritage in North Africa and make the desert bloom.

  148. Andy Car Park (23:12)

    Uriah Heep? Nah, that won’t pierce his deluded self-esteem. I recently likened him to a heap of dogshit in the park; he still comes back for more. Let’s improvise – from this day forward, “Urinal Heap – the (dis)honest, common traitor.”

  149. “Obama is finally getting the message”.

    Bollocks! He’s treading water; token gestures. Scorched earth has always been his m.o. Devising the demise of the Anglospheric hegemony in favour of his Islamo-Marxist heritage. He’s a confused and dangerous mongrel. It’s a win-win for him. If the White House passes to Hillary, she inherits the chaos, that’s fine by him – he despises the HillBilliary cabal. If the GOP manage to pull it off (doubtful – the way they are squabbling) they pick up the tab. Game set and match, either way.

  154. I wonder if during the Second World War we would have gone to Germany on holiday, and on our return flight been happy with German ground crew working on the plane , fuelling the plane and German baggage handlers loading the plane.

  155. And our government selling stinger missiles to the enemy for personal profit and arranging the murder of our ambassador when he found out and tried to stop it…I wonder?

  158. Can anybody explain why the hard-faced, trap-door mouthed, circular-saw voiced harridan, Polly Toynbee is allowed to foist her extreme leftist views upon the BBC punters so often, particularly on Brillo’s shows? And whether they pay her, or she pays them to appear. Either way, it’s not vfm.!

  160. Dellers rips Vegans a new one each, and amuses the rest of us in so doing:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/31/world-vegan-day-appeal/

    Particularly apposite given the drivel on this morning’s edition of Sunday Morning Live (particularly the Muzzie espousing Halal butchery).

    They could easily have conflated two purportedly disparate segments of the programme and floated a proposition to avoid the current need for cemeteries by putting ‘long pig’ on the menu. Except I want prior notice of when Bill Oddie is served up as pulled pork on a brioche bun at the local Brewer’s Fare, as I’d like to give burgers a miss that day.

  162. Frank P @ 14:01

    A smart move by Zuckerberg, Frank, Facebook will more than re-coup the millions for hate postings in (say) reduced taxes, and not only in Germany. The guy will make a behind the scene deal with the EU, tax authorities in other countries, or failing that he’ll get some other advantage financially exceeding the 1 Euro per posting, and voila, the bottom line of the narcissistic platform will get fatter still.

  163. Four rashers of bacon, two fried eggs for Baron this morning as a celebratory gesture on the world vegan’s day. Will it do?

  164. EC @ 09:11

    If, as the piece says, the Americans maintain he has links to terrorists, bomb making, why didn’t they, don’t they take him to court?

    Look, Baron’s the last one to back any jihadists, big or small, but he stick to one of the time tested axioms of our judicial system: Man’s innocent until proven guilty.

  165. Frank P November 1st, 2015 – 13:27

    Wonder how many of the officials in the WHO who have just denounced snorkers as carcinogens are actually vegans or vegetarians. Definitely a softening up agenda going on there.

    First they came for the ciggies. Then they came for the alcohol . . .

    Watch out for the spoon-faced uber pundit idiot in No.10 introducing the first soft forms of anti-meat legislation with references to his being a father to his kids and the mumsnet coven.

  166. Malfleur @ 23:54

    The burghers of the Czech Republic don’t play cricket, Malfleur, because tea has never featured amongst the favoured beverages in the country, and cricket is a game invented specially for people who like drinking tea, alot of it.

    In fact, it is the only game popular today one can be a part of, geared up in all whites, whilst being able to sip a cup of tea – simultaneously. Some of the cricket team do so in the comfort of a pavilion, most of the others can do likewise on the field, but as the teams swap places neither one is inconvenienced more than the other.

    The only drawback to cricket as a tea drinking companion is that two players, one from each team must go without a cuppa whilst one throws a ball at the other, the other tries to hit it, but to ease the pain of not drinking tea whilst playing, the throw-hit phase for either man seldom lasts long, and is, surprisingly, rather short when the one who hits the ball is a member of the team of England.

    Does it help to understand why the Czechs don’t play cricket?

  167. The Black Death swept through Europe, devastating the population of the continent. It took the best part of two centuries to recover from it’s effects. Today we are suffering from the effects of another plague, political correctness whose blight on the every day life of the population is just as pernicious as that of the medieval onslaught, also spread by rats. I fear the damage already done by P.C. and its acolytes will be with us for generations as the virus is too deeply embedded and has traveled too far.

  168. Melanie Phillips in 2011:-

    “The crucial milestone was 1997, when the incoming Blair/Brown Labour government decided to lift existing immigration controls in order to create a new kind of society, both economic and cultural.

    “New Labour thought that like America, mass immigration would transform the British economy. It also thought that creating a multicultural society would eradicate prejudice and bigotry. Both arguments were, of course, as fatuous as they were anti-democratic. Unlike Britain, the U.S. does not have an ancient national identity that mass immigration would transform.

    “Encouraging the mass immigration of unskilled, impoverished people would result not in enriching but impoverishing the country.

    “Labour’s deepest aim was to transform Britain into a multicultural society — because Labour despised the very idea of national identity based on Britain’s foundational culture, history, religion and traditions. Anyone who objected was damned as a racist. Thus the cultural identity of Britain, no less, was changed without its citizens ever being consulted.The fury this has created among many of those citizens can hardly be exaggerated.

    “Immigration probably sits at the very top of the public’s concerns. Yet it’s the one issue which — even today — politicians of all parties prefer not to mention. This dates back long before New Labour to Enoch Powell, the Tory politician whose warnings about immigration made his name synonymous….”

  169. Baron November 1st, 2015 – 14:54

    Baron, one does not “throw” a ball in Cricket. The ball is bowled!

    And the taking of tea is not arbitrary but regulated. To quote:-

    “Before the coin toss to determine which side bats first, the hours of play, including the timing and duration of intervals for meals or any non-standard interval, is agreed. Though if nine wickets are down when the agreed time for tea is reached so that the bowling team only needs one more wicket to end the batting team’s innings, tea is delayed to the earlier of that wicket being taken or 30 minutes elapsing. In a one-day game the teams may agree to take an interval for tea between the innings rather than have a separate interval.”

    I don’t think I have ever seen a member of a bowling team drink tea whilst in position on the pitch or ground during play.

  170. Malfleur October 31st, 2015 – 23:54

    “By the way, why don’t the Czechs play cricket?”

    1) Can’t stop ’em drinking beer for long enough?
    or
    2) They don’t have the Wit or the Wisden?

  171. Baron – 14:49

    ‘‘Prisoner 239’ was detained by the Americans in a war zone and incarcerated in G’tmo
    as an enemy combatant.
    He is a Saudi not a British subject.
    English law does not apply in Afghanistan, USA or G’tmo.
    The Americans should’ve returned him to the KSA.
    I don’t think that he should be entitled to a British payday for his actions regardless of whether they were foolish or treacherous.

  176. Baron @ 14:54

    “Does it help to understand why the Czechs don’t play cricket?”

    Yes, but why don’t they drink tea? I’m beginning to think that there’s something wrong with them.

  180. Colonel Mustard @ 15:46

    All points taken, Colonel, the posting w as but a feeble attempt at humour at the expense of a gentle game so suited for the English character, more yesterday’s than today’s though. The rules re tea drinking are very much appreciated, what Baron never suspected was that time for drinking it was a part of the rules.

  181. Malfleur @ 21:41

    You may well be right, there’s something wrong with them, but not drinking tea it ain’t.

    Btw, they prefer lager. in the countryside pubs it’s cheaper than bottled water

  183. “That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.”

    So what makes you proddies, so used to hanging, drawing and quartering Jesuits and Roman Catholics, the sole arbiters of who should be in possession of firearms?
    Oh yes, the right of the winners after 250 years of bloody persecution and civil war.

  184. telemachus
    October 30th, 2015 – 19:53
    “…Sitting in my Polish built extension…
    “…belch, fart, rub embrocation on privates… expectorate..”

    On the other hand I can see the (Catholic) French argument for expelling those bloody Huguenots, what damn fool let them come here?

  185. Frank P

    The compulsory buggerisation of rugby is well under way.

    Witness the canonisation of Gareth Thomas in numerous advertisements during rugby matches, or the appointment of Nigel Owens to referee the Final.

  186. Recent elections – in Canada (where daftness won the day) – and in Turkey (where there has been a disastrous move towards theocratic barbarism) demonstrate how little common sense still survives among electorates.

    However, (in Canada at least) there are still vestiges of wry humour –

    http://bowserandblue.com/you-tube-play.php?id=40411

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *