The Coffee House Wall – 28th/4th December

Posted on November 29, 2016

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.



119 thoughts on “The Coffee House Wall – 28th/4th December”

  3. John birch – 09:19

    Indeed, as the hinterleckchewalls of the various football divisions confirm. The real men that play Rugby Union, though, have hidden depths, as the homo-erotic nature of their ritual scrummages goes largely unprobed…

  5. Comedian’s ‘sick’ joke minutes after football team plane crash
    http://dailym.ai/2geYcD9
    With all modern comedians you should always use the word allegedly. I don’t find any of them funny , the only true comedians nowadays are politicians.
    Their ability is astounding, it’s the straight face while coming out with a corker, and while your in fits of laughter they slip another one in and then hold the concerned face as long as the cameras are on them. How on earth do they do it.

  8. Frank P.
    I thought the same but I think it’s a general statement about the state of things

  9. So unsurprisingly the latest attack was a bloody Muslim as expected by any one.
    Ohio State Attacker Posted Anti-US Screed to Facebook Moments Before Attack – Breitbart

  13. Shepard Smith on Fox News once again trying to preach that the actions of the jihadist at Ohio University has NTDWI – and that we musn’t judge Islam by the actions of one of its adherents. Getting quite exercised and emotional about it to boot.

    The chronical of such attacks around the world for the past 25 years or so, having one common factor, seems to have completely escaped the dim cunt. How much farther are the chatterati of the msm prepared take backward steps in their attempt to accomodate this barbaric cult masquerading as a religion, before they fall arse first into the abyss and drag the rest of us with them? What is the point? What possible gain can they perceive in attempting to assimilate into Western Society people whose declared aim is to replace our culture and laws with their own, to outbreed us and ultimately to replace us by either killing us or enslaving us.

    Their delusion that the ‘American Way’ is impervious to any military or cultural domination from either external or internal forces, will be the death of it. The sheer stupidity of such arrogance, given recent history, is breathtaking. And all in the name of so-called tolerance.

  14. Frank P – 16:31

    Apropos that the “new” wall finally went up 2 mins after I’d given in and posted on the old one!

  15. Don’t trigger article 50…..just Leave.

    So says Ingrid Detter de Frankopan…….Doctor and Professor of International Law.

    Here is an article by her upon why and how we should just Leave the EU on our say-so ( which I largely agree with ) .

    She sets-out Article 50 ; although the legal document in English is not available ( even at the Foreign Office ) .

    There are some legalistic paragraphs but these can be skipped through.

    http://bit.ly/“gDv2Ov

  17. Radford NG (22:11)

    The Sky News bulletin at 10pm tonight featured an androgynous old bat, one Eleanor Sharpston QC who is reportedly the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (housed in two gold plated tower blocks in Luxembourg) pointing out that SHE will decide when and if the UK can trigger Article 50.

    I suggest a small crew of SAS should embark on a swift sortie to blow up both towers and all its contents – several tons of useless human detritus and 27 miles of shelves containing reems of even more useless legislation – then report back to Maggie May with the imperative: “Article Fucking Fifty THAT!!”

  20. Yall still there.
    Yesterday Donald’s most brilliant appointment to date, Tom Price.
    Resume below.

    In Congress, Rep. Price has proven to be a vibrant leader, tireless problem solver and the go-to Republican on quality health care policy. He serves on the House Committee on Ways and Means. In the 114th Congress, Price was named Chair of the House Committee on the Budget. In previous Congresses, he has served as Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Committed to advancing positive solutions under principled leadership, Price has been a fierce opponent of government waste and devoted to limited government and lower spending.

    This brilliant surgeon will sweep away the communist healthcare provisions of Barrak Hussein and drop our insurance premiums back to what they were.

    Love to Andy.

  21. “The Bank of England has revealed the new plastic £5 note is not suitable for vegetarians as it contains an animal product.”

    Don’t eat them then!

    Before the world was barmy vegetarians simply didn’t eat meat. Now it seems that vegetarians and their more extreme vegan offshoot must be protected from any exposure to “animal product” (how I hate that corporate speak David Brent use of the singular “product” to describe what should be called produce).

    Since they are not going to actually consume the £5 notes isn’t this fastidiousness simply ridiculous minority posturing of the type we have become oh so used to these days?

  22. Have you noticed the growing fad of responding to questions in interviews with “So, . . . ”

    Almost as irritating as the Aussie high rising terminal, also known as upspeak, uptalk, rising inflection, or high rising intonation, to imply a question at the end of a statement.

  23. Colonel Mustard.
    Down here in our colonial lessons we were taught that the Indian Mutiny which very nearly took away your empire was caused by forcing use of tallow derived from beef to grease the bullets for the new P53 Enfield rifles by Hindi sepoys.
    We are all at war with Islam but Mr Mark Carney, one of ours from the North obviously never read his history before putting tallow in your money and provoking war with the Indians.

  24. Behind a paywall so I copied it for us.
    I could see Sarah was upset. She dropped in for coffee on Monday and admitted that another friend had just accused her of “ruining my life”. What had Sarah done? Stolen Mrs Angry’s husband? Bought the last FIFA 17 game in the country, thus depriving Mrs Angry’s son of the top item on his letter to Santa?
    Nope. Mrs Angry was furious that Sarah had voted to leave the European Union. How could an intelligent person do such a thing? How dare she deprive young people of their future, rant, smack, biff, rant!
    Five months after Britain chose Brexit, such animosity is still very much alive, and is being fuelled by powerful people who should know better.
    Those of us who made a positive, informed choice to take our beloved country back from an arrogant, corrupt oligarchy presiding over economic stagnation and savage levels of youth unemployment…
    Oops, sorry – let me put that another way. We thick, badly informed, xenophobic racists, all 17.4 million of us, who didn’t have a clue what we were voting for… well, we have to put up with constant attempts to smear our motives, link us to Trump voters (please, no) and overturn that brave, historic decision of June 23. Quite frankly, we’ve had enough.
    This week, it’s the turn of Nick “Consistency” Clegg and his new, pro-EU think tank, British Influence, which is planning a legal challenge, claiming that leaving the EU doesn’t automatically take the UK out of the single market.
    Funny, I seem to remember Nick Clegg and his gang pointing out before the referendum that staying in the single market meant we would have to keep all the bits of the EU – free movement, financial contribution, barmy directives – that 52 per cent of Britons loathed and wanted to get shot of.
    And what of the Government’s £9.3 million “scare” leaflet, sent to 27 million homes back in April, which said, quite specifically, that voting Leave meant we would quit the single market? To be fair, Brexit voters are so poorly educated, we couldn’t read it…
    The day after the result, David Cameron said: “The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected.” If there’s been any respect, I must have missed it.
    Instead, we get Sir John Major flouncing in to say that Brexit “must not be decided by the tyranny of the majority”. God forbid that the majority of voters should see their wishes prevail!
    How do you think Major would have reacted to suggestions that the 14 million people who voted for him in 1992 were credulous peasants, and that his should be a Soft Tory government so that the voters who didn’t back his administration weren’t upset?
    That is precisely the kind of patronising guff that Remainers hurl at the 17 million-plus people who voted for Brexit, and who won, by the way. Awfully sorry. We won.
    Joining Sir John in his battle to bring the stupid British people to their senses is Tony Blair. The man who, in 2004, gaily gave the green light for a million-plus Eastern Europeans to enter this country, when every other EU member state bar one prudently exercised their right to keep the newcomers out for seven years.
    Today, Blair says leaving the EU is “a serious mistake” which “can be stopped”. If anyone is guilty of making a serious mistake it is Blair, whose blithe obliviousness to the impact of rapid immigration riled the profoundly tolerant British people, paving the way for Brexit.
    Blair and his high-altitude altruism, practiced from a private jet, is in stark contrast to people like Sarah, who have their feet firmly on the ground. Working as the practice nurse in an overwhelmed surgery, Sarah became suspicious when she noticed lots of foreign pregnant women suddenly turning up to access maternity services and costly IVF treatment. The women not only claimed to live on the same street, but in the same house. It was clearly a scam, which had gone on for many years, enabling hundreds to take advantage of the NHS’s “free” care before returning home.
    The NHS in our region, where one in seven couples faces the anguish of infertility, is now phasing out IVF because there’s no money left. Childless British couples are paying a very high price for the “free” care enjoyed by foreigners who didn’t put a penny into the system.
    So Sarah voted Leave. She doesn’t think the NHS can survive if upwards of 270,000 people a year continue to arrive on this small island and put pressure on a system that is already in intensive care. Still, that’s a typical thoughtless Brexit voter for you. No grasp of the real issues facing this country.
    One reason I voted Leave was because I was utterly appalled by the contempt with which Brussels treated its subject peoples. Any time a EU country dared to vote against the glorious progression to a European super state – as Denmark, the Netherlands, France and Ireland all did – they were told to vote again, until they came back with the correct answer. Or, alternatively, the plan they rejected was swiftly repackaged into a new deal and the voters’ wishes ignored.
    Isn’t that exactly what’s happening here and now? An arrogant elite plots to undermine and thwart the will of the British people. Look at Tim Farron. The milksop dared to suggest on ITV’s The Agenda that we would need a second referendum to decide whether we liked the terms for leaving the EU.
    I must have missed that, Tim. When 17.4 million of us voted, we did it under the impression that Leave means Leave, not maybe sort of halfway leave but not really.
    I do understand how painful all this is. So painful that there are certain Remain friends I’ve agreed never to discuss it with. When one part of the family feels distraught after a bereavement and the rest feels only relief, then tact and sensitivity are required. On both sides.
    The fact is Britain voted to get back control of our borders and to make and live by our own laws. Any attempt to sabotage the popular will would be dangerous as well as undemocratic. Brexit cannot be decided by the tyranny of the minority.
    Today’s telegraph
    By Allison Pearson.

  25. Col. Mustard and JJB:

    So … have the £5 notes been halal certified?

    … and yeah, it’s been bugging me for a bit, seems to have replaced Well …

  26. John Jefferson Burns – 06:52

    Hindi is a language. Hinduism is a religion, and a hindu is one of its adherents.
    NTDWI.

    Supreme irony that you should be lecturing the British about indians. We taught ours how to play cricket, speak Inglish(sic), build railways, and how to make nuclear weapons etc. etc. You Americans the other hand committed genocide, all but exterminated yours, and fed alcohol to the survivors.
    Toodle Pip!

  28. Michael Roberts – 10:01

    Well… So… say all of us!
    🙂

    “So… what!” Ed Balls
    “So… what difference does it make now?” Hillary Clinton

  29. John Birch (09:42)

    Great satirical piece from Pearson. Pity about the Trump dig (in parentheses) though. She has obviously succumbed to the relentless almost unanimous anti-Trump campaign of the British msm. Or perhaps she missed out in his pussy-grabbing phase?

  30. Colonel Mustard (07:39)

    Indeed. Another vexing, recent fad by pols and pundits alike is to try to evade a question, by prefacing the attempt with, “Here’s the thing…” then delivering some weaselly and blatant non sequitur.

    The Aussie ‘upspeak’ irritant to which you allude seems now to have been adopted universally by my grandchildrens’ generation. The habit is widespread among the American ‘millennial’ demographic too.

  31. It was refreshing to see a clip of a British born Professor, one of the victims of the weaponised car and knife attack at Ohio State University, giving an understated account of his experience, midst all the credit grabbing razz-ma-tazz of the various authorites who ritually assemble to get in on the act.

    As for the cop who swiftly brought the episode to a speedy and very satisfactory conclusion, much kudos is due for his expertise and quick thinking, though serendipity seems to have played a big part. The ‘heroic’ accolades seem a little overdone, perhaps? A contest between a man with a knife and a man with a gun at 20 yards is akin to target practice. 🙂 Though to be fair, I suppose in today’s climate any white cop is a hero if he takes down a black terrorist, because of the reaction he knows he will inevitably face from the leftist libtards and Black Lives Matter.

  32. Reports from behind enemy lines. How Blair intends Brexit rowback. Taken from The Guardian’s Andrew Rawnsley column:

    “Tony Blair is planning to launch an organisation at the beginning of next year and a large part of the impulse for doing so comes from the belief that a Corbyn Labour party and a Brexiteering Conservative party means “you’ve got millions of effectively politically homeless people”, as he recently told Jason Cowley of the New Statesman.

    “Someone very familiar with the preparations for this new organisation says “it will be more than a thinktank, but less than a political party”. That expression leaves it interestingly ambiguous about whether Mr Blair thinks it might have the potential to grow into a political party representing the centre and centre-left should Labour completely fall apart at some point in the future.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/27/tony-blair-john-major-dont-deserve-venom-brexit-debate

    To put this into context, as Melanie Phillips said in her Newsnight intrview, the political class, media class, financial class and legal class are all doing their damndest to bury Brexit.

    And they are acting like a nest of wasps. Independently of each other but all with the same aim. So there is a cohesiveness.

    Blair is furious that there is no strong anti-Brexit voice in parliament. This is because Corbyn, McDonnell and Watson are – in essence – anti-EU. Other Labour members are pro-EU but do not want to lose their seats at the next electionby shouting down Brexit.

    The Tory ranks are filled with Remainiacs who are also sotto voce for fear of flagging up their pro-EU voices to their constituents.

    We have – unexpectedly – managed to muzzle the political class and embarrass them.

    Blair, Mandelson et al can see this. They want a breakaway movement, but such rebellions often fail. The recent coup against Corbyn is a good example.

    So Blair is not quite saying ‘hey, a lot of you MPs are pro-EU, come and join a new party’ but he is on his toes, ready to pounce with just such an offer when he feels he can strike like a cobra.

    Blair does not need to be prime minister or even the leader of a new party.He only wants to coordinate that political class, that is still clutching its jaw after the 23 June smack in the mouth. He knows they’ve had beating and are wounded.

    Theresa May is not our friend in all this. She is a Remainiac and would love to return to the traditional straw man posturing of opposition at the dispatch box. An opposition leader howling for second referendum (which Corbyn never will) would make her look to her voters like a Leaver. She intends a hollow Brexit.

    In the FT 29 November, Janan Ganesh writes: “British pro-Eurpeans organise to salvage their cause and Mr Blair bids for a second life as their guide, if not their leader”.

    So this is afoot folks. Beware.

    From the same Janan Ganesh column, we can also see the co-ordinated response of the judicial class (Ganesh and the FT are, of course, part of the despicable media lass). This is very interestingly worded – read it carefully:

    “There is a view held by pro-Europeans, that the right recently granted to Parliament by the courts to vote on Article 50 was a political defeat in disguise. It came too early.”

    Read that last four-word sentence again. And again and again. It’s one wasp saying to another set of wasps – too soon, boys. We know you’re bent and in on the game but don’t make it too obvious what you’re doing.

    Ganesh continues: “It gave the other side a cause for outrage”.

    In other words,don’t get caught trying to derail Brexit if you’re supposed to be a judge.

    We’ve covered there three classes: political, judicial and media (which of course is running its own war on truth tellers by calling them ‘fake news’!). But what of the financial class?

    Well, that’s where Ganesh wants to hit and hit hard. Peter Hitchens has constantly warned they would crash the economy to frighten us allout of Brexit. And that is just what Ganesh recommends. Not yet, Blair. He says. Not yet, boys in the in the judiciary.

    Ganesh closes by saying: “[Blair] must keep himself in reserve until events tell. He was the future once. If he as another, it has not come yet.”

    You have been warned.

  35. Jeano November 30th, 2016 – 12:44

    Blair is one of the most dangerous chancers in world politics. It was he who boasted that the “Labour party is nothing less than the political wing of the British people as a whole”. Apart from its presumptive arrogance it showed very well the direction New Labour took in politicising the whole workings of society, something not seen since Germany in the 1930s.

    And neither Cameron nor May have tackled that legacy and we remain a country with a supposedly Conservative government but a huge, empowered (actually more powerful), unelected “shadow government” of left wing ideologues beavering away to obstruct the will of the people and peddle their conformist propaganda. The Tories, lobbied by them, terrified of them, aid and abet them by legislating their barmy ideas for them. The Battle of the Economy is just a charade as Cultural Marxism continues to advance step by step.

    One small consolation I shall take to my death bed is the satisfaction that I never voted for that ghastly chancer or his ghastly party in any of its many permutations and guises.

    It seems that only a civil war or military coup could save England now.

  36. Quite right Colonel Mustard. Blairism is not just the Labour Party, it is all maintream politics. It is not just central government, it is local government and much else beyond: the media, advertising, education. Anywhere where the Long March of the institutions could be carried out.

    Just look at the political slant on most advertising these days. All multi-culti twaddle.

    Each poll this year seems to be more important than the last one. I really do hope that if the Blairite Renzi can be defeated that might be the blow that breaks the EU and so much that is Blairite.

    The Greeks had a referendum on whether to accept or reject the EU financial deal. The voters voted no. The political class over-ruled them

    The British had a vote on whether to leave the EU. Every day it looks more and more as though the EU/Blairite machine will over-rule them.

    The Italy referendum is different. It is intimately connected to the EU. But if Renzi loses, I cannot see how they can strip the second chamber of its elected members and appoint their own (which is what they want to do) without bringing Italy to the pint of revolution (they don’t muck about with politicians over there – lamp posts are a popular destination for them).

    If the EU can’t overturn this vote (assuming Renzi loses), I do wonder to myself whether we’re entitled to say: ‘Some of the crowd are on the pitch…’

    Come on Bepe et al, put this in the back of the net. Everyone is relying on you.

  38. Michael Roberts November 30th, 2016 – 10:01

    Hopefully they include both pig and cow grease to encourage the refusal of benefits payments by all the post 1948 cling-ons, who continue to arrive in a country so many hate; despite all the blessings England brought to the ‘Crown Jewel’ of its Empire, identified by EC and including the treacherous English liberals who founded the National Congress party, even when there was no interest in India in independence.

  39. I sometimes wonder why sensible people call adherents of mainstream parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party racist when it seems to have the support of around 13% of the electorate.
    And then I read comments from one of Paul Nuttall’s acolytes denigrating the two largest groups on the Indian subcontinent, not to say God’s chosen people as well.

  41. What a wonderful world we have created in the quest for diversity and choice of life styles:

    http://dailym.ai/2gGDbhp#i-639252be8ca12fc6

    The following paragraph from the report is an indicator of the current state of the criminal justice system under the stewardship of the CPS:

    “Prosecutor David Gordon told the jury at Hull Crown Court that the defendants were not charged with murder or manslaughter as there was no evidence to blame them for her death and that experts disagreed about its cause.”

    Perhaps the prosecutors should have let the experts of the jury decide on that.

    First kill all the lawyers, then the fuckin’ ‘experts’! Unless we restore common sense to the process we are doomed to an increasingly bizarre underclass. Our ghettos are beginning to make The Victorian Underworld rookeries look positively well ordered by comparison.

  42. To quote Michael Gove: ‘I think we’ve all had enough of experts.’

    Especially the IMF, OECD, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Bank of England, the ECB and every other expert that failed to predict the global financial crisis but dares to lecture us all on why Brexit is a bad thing.

  44. The even better news: the Indian ban on cash has led to anarchy and fury at the government.

    Angry Mobs Lock Up Indian Bankers As Cash Chaos Escalates: “We Are Fearing The Worst”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-30/angry-mobs-lock-indian-bankers-cash-chaos-escalates-we-are-fearing-worst

    Well done, everyone.

    This is the thing, I have always thought that once a cashless society is imposed, that’s it. People will twig that that’s it, there is no more freedom, ever, you’re on camera 24/7, every word you type is monitored and every penny you spend can be seen and ‘bailed in’. At that point, we are all Winston Smith and we’ve all got the boot in our face. Forever. We’re next.

    I always hoped that such a world would lead to people smashing the government to pieces and never voting for any party that supports such a model ever again. It appears I was right.

    Carry On Smashing The Place To Pieces, Folks. It’s all thoroughly deserved. To quote Sid James: Yakyakyakyaka!

  45. This is a snidily worded Michael Moore piece written before Trump’s election about why people would vote for him:

    ‘Do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how many millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit.

    ‘You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart.’

    The bit that struck me was this: ‘no security cameras, no listening devices’.

    This is the thing. We used to be able to live – to some extent – away from these people, but now that they are in our lives 24 hours a day, they have made everyone politically literate. The first question on people’s minds is how TF do I get rid of these people?

    Well I guess I stop voting for them for a start. Right answer. So there is this odd thing going on. The more power they grab, the more people refuse to vote for them any more. And then they whinge about it afterwards.

  46. John Jefferson Burns November 30th, 2016 – 08:01

    A salutary demonstration of the dangers of deriving history from Hollywood.

    The Mutiny was fostered mainly by the adherents of an anti-British cult on the North-West Frontier, which now accounts for the majority of mosques in the UK – go figure! The subversives from the cult spread south through India telling Hindu sepoys that the cartridges were greased with cow fat and Muslim sepoys that they were greased with pig fat. Russia is now suspected of being behind that plot.

    Wiki describes the Mutiny as a Rebellion and it probably won’t be long before the revisionist Tossers of the Left insist on calling it a War of Liberation. The Mutiny was suppressed, not least by the large numbers of loyal Indians fighting gallantly for the Raj, as they later fought gallantly to inflict on the Japanese the greatest defeat on land they ever suffered. Muslim, Sikh and Hindu together under British and Indian officers, good comrades all, but you won’t find Loach or the BBC celebrating that type of multi-culturalism.

    Very shortly after the Mutiny the Enfield rifle concerned was used in large numbers by the Confederate forces in the Rebellion that you now like to call a Civil War. The very best sniper rifle in that war was also English-made and its maker was also connected to the story of the Enfield.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83gGIotGXN8

    As for the near taking away of Empire you need to look at a mid-19th Century map of the globe. India might have been the jewel in the crown but it was not the crown itself. That mighty crown was Pax Britannica – spread across the most important crossing and trading places of the globe, the British Empire as overwhelmingly a force for good in the world. it was your countrymen, not Indians, who subverted that Empire and replaced Pax Britannica with Bellum Americana, which has been a poor exchange for all concerned.

  47. Long but still so true. Ray had some guts to put his name to this in its dayEducation and Race – an Alternative View

    Ray Honeyford
    12:01AM BST 27 Aug 2006
    This article, which The Salisbury Review published in 1984, cost Ray Honeyford his job as a head teacher. For speaking the truth, he was subjected to a long, bitter campaign, including death threats and other forms of persecution, orchestrated by an assortment of vehement idealogues. Twenty-two years on, the Review says that it “salutes Mr Honeyford’s courage and intellectual integrity, which has been so clearly vindicated by recent events”. Here, with the magazine’s permission, we exclusively republish Mr Honeyford’s observations:

    The issues and problems of our multi racial inner cities are frequently thrown into sharp relief for me. As the head teacher of a school in the middle of a predominantly Asian area, I am often witness to scenes which have the raw feel of reality and the recipient of vehement criticism, whenever I question some of the current educational orthodoxies connected with race.

    It is very difficult to write honestly and openly of my experiences, and the reflections they evoke, since the race relations lobby is extremely powerful in the state education service. The propaganda generated by multi racial zealots is now augmented by a growing bureaucracy of race in local authorities. And this makes freedom of speech difficult to maintain.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    By exploiting the enormous tolerance traditional in this country, the race lobby has so managed to induce and maintain feelings of guilt in the well disposed majority, that decent people are not only afraid of voicing certain thoughts, they are uncertain even of their right to think those thoughts. They are intimidated not only by their fear of giving offence by voicing their own reasonable concerns about the inner cities, but by the necessity of conducting the debate in a language which is dishonest.

    The term ‘racism’, for instance, functions not as a word with which to create insight, but as a slogan designed to suppress constructive thought. It conflates prejudice and discrimination, and thereby denies a crucial conceptual distinction. It is the icon word of those committed to the race game. And they apply it with the same sort of mindless zeal as the inquisitors voiced ‘heretic’ or Senator McCarthy spat out ‘Commie’.

    The word ‘black’ has been perverted. Every non white is now, officially, ‘black’, be he Indian, Pakistani or Vietnamese. This gross and offensive dichotomy has an obvious purpose: the creation of an atmosphere of anti white solidarity. To suppress and distort the enormous variations within races which I every day observe by using language in this way is an outrage to all decent people whatever their skin colour.

    And there are other distortions: race riots are described by the politically motivated as ‘uprisings’, and by a Lord of Appeal as a ‘superb and healthy catalyst for the British people’ and the police blamed for the behaviour of violent thugs; rather like the patient blaming the doctor because he has a cold in the head.

    ‘Cultural enrichment’ is the approved term for the West Indian’s right to create an ear splitting cacophony for most of the night to the detriment of his neighbour’s sanity, or for the Notting Hill Festival whose success or failure is judged by the level of street crime which accompanies it.

    At the schools’ level the term refers to such things as the Muslim parent’s insistence on banning his daughter from drama, dance and sport, i.e. imposing a purdah mentality in schools committed to the principle of sexual equality; and the determined efforts of misguided radical teachers to place such as the following alongside the works of Shakespeare and Wordsworth:

    Wi mek a lickle date
    fi nineteen seventy eight
    An wi fite and wi fite
    An defeat di state.
    (From ‘Inglan is a Bitch’, Linton Kwesi Johnson)

    No one, of course, is allowed to describe first generation black or coloured immigrants as ‘immigrants’ though no other collective noun exists. In the courts it has been revealed that we now have laws on the statute book which insist that Sikhism is a race, which, as three distinguished lords of appeal were able to demonstrate, contradicts the best available dictionary definitions.

    We have, therefore, officially perverted words to such a degree that it would be perfectly reasonable in law to describe a member of the Church of England or the Labour Party as a member of an ethnic group, a manifest absurdity. (It is worth noting that in his judgement of this case, Lord Justice Kerr commented of The Commission for Racial Equality, ‘The commission seemed to have created discord where there had been none before,’ a view, I suspect, which is shared by the vast majority of the public with regard to most of the C.R.E.’s activities.)

    We in the schools are also enjoined to believe that creole, pidgin and other non standard variants have the same power, subtlety and capacity for expressing five shades of meaning, and for tolerating uncertainty, ambiguity and irony as standard English. A generation of cultural relativists in the field of linguistics has managed to impose on the schools the mindless slogan ‘All languages are equally good’ – a myth recently and convincingly demolished by Professor John Honey in The Language Trap, a monograph published by the National Council for Educational Standards.

    Those of us working in Asian areas are encouraged, officially, to ‘celebrate linguistic diversity’, ie applaud the rapidly mounting linguistic confusion in those growing number of inner city schools in which British born Asian children begin their mastery of English by being taught in Urdu.

    In Politics and the English Language George Orwell said, ‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an impression of solidity to pure wind.’ Race speak is the language of a politics committed to that sort of deceit. There is little hope of our coming to terms with the monumental significance for our future of New Commonwealth and Pakistani immigration until we invent a language by means of which doubts, fears and aspirations can be expressed openly and honestly.

    What, in the meantime, can one do? In the absence of the coinage of honest discourse, one can perhaps make a start by reporting and commenting on one’s everyday experiences. I recall, for instance, the meeting called to explain to Asian parents the importance of regular school attendance for their offspring’s future. A very high proportion of Asian immigrants have a habit of sending children to the Indian sub continent during term time with obvious, deleterious educational consequences. Not only is the practice inadvisable, it is almost certainly illegal though no local education authority has had the courage to bring a test case, and the Department of Education and Science turns a blind eye.

    After much badgering from the schools, the local authority had agreed try to impose on brown parents the same obligations it demanded from white and black parents with regard to school attendance. Against all normal expectations the meeting was packed. There had obviously been a local ‘three line whip’ from the Pakistani leadership. It quickly became evident that what had been proposed as an act of reconciliation, based on the school’s concern for the child, was to descend into a noisy and unseemly demonstration of sectarian bitterness.

    The hysterical political temperament of the Indian sub continent became evident an extraordinary sight in an English School Hall. There was much shouting and fist waving. The local authority was accused of ‘racism’; the chairman insulted. One anglicised Asian stood near the door and, at regular intervals, shouted ‘bullshit’ at the chair. The disorder was orchestrated. Questions were always preceded by a nod from a Muslim leader. A half-educated and volatile Sikh usurped the privileges of the chair by deciding who was to speak.

    The confusion was made worse by the delays occasioned by the need for interpreting many of the audience had no English though there have been freely available English classes in the area for at least a decade. I raised my hand to speak several times but was ignored. The atmosphere was highly charged and threatening. I left before the end, bitterly disappointed.

    Needless to say, the absenteeism of Asian pupils abroad continues. The authorities have simply given up. And I am left with the ethically indefensible task of complying with a school attendance policy which is determined not, as the law requires, on the basis of individual parental responsibility but by the parent’s country of origin a blatant and officially sanctioned policy of racial discrimination.

    My disappointment was compounded by a sense of irony. These people, who now so vehemently accused the authorities of denying them a right which, in reality was a privilege no other parents enjoyed, and no other group of immigrants had contemplated claiming these same people enjoyed rights, privileges and aspirations unheard of in their country of origin.

    Pakistan is a country which cannot cope with democracy; under martial law since 1977, it is ruled by a military tyrant who, in the opinion of at least half his countrymen, had his predecessor judicially murdered. A country, moreover, which, despite disproportionate western aid because of its important strategic position, remains for most of its people obstinately backward.

    Corruption at every level combines with unspeakable treatment not only of criminals, but of those who dare to question Islamic orthodoxy as interpreted by a despot. Even as I write, wounded dissidents are chained to hospital beds awaiting their fate.

    Pakistan, too, is the heroin capital of the world. (A fact which is now reflected in the drug problems of English cities with Asian populations.) It is not surprising that such a country loses more of its citizens voluntarily to other countries than any state on earth. How could the denizens of such a country so wildly and implacably resent the simple British requirement for all parents to send children to school regularly?

    It was this reflection which caused me, perhaps for the first time, to understand why so many fundamentally decent people harbour feelings of resentment. I realised, too, how little the cant term ‘racism’ explains. In truth, I was affronted by what I had seen in my own school hall.

    Again, I recall the reaction to an article I published recently in The Times Educational Supplement. I simply attempted to question the conceptual soundness of the ideas which comprise the term ‘multi racial education’. My main argument was that the fashionable way of explaining comparative black pupil failure in British schools as a function of teacher prejudice and an alien curriculum was almost certainly bogus. There is not a scrap of evidence to support such a belief. The roots of black educational failure are, in reality, located in West Indian family structure and values, and the work of misguided radical teachers whose motives are basically political.

    Within days, The Caribbean Times carried a long letter from a group of black activists known as ‘The Harringay Black Pressure Group on Education’. This letter confirmed my belief that much of the pressure for a multi racial curriculum comes from the vehement, radical left of black organisations. Its tone is strident, its contents poorly argued, its style sub standard; but the main thrust of its argument accords well with official policy edicts now being imposed on the schools by several local education authorities a process which is certain to be accelerated when the impending Swarm Committee report is published.

    The basic intention of the authors of the letter is to intimidate. It is also defamatory, and highly likely to damage me professionally. But redress would be difficult, since no one has had the courage to sign the letter. How do you sue a collective? Amongst other things I am accused of the sins of being white and middle class. Inevitably I am a ‘blatant racist’. I should be immediately sacked and a public investigation carried out into how I run my school. I am even accused of trying to deprive negroes of their welfare benefits.

    The totalitarian nature of the writers’ mentalities may be judged from the following quotation: ‘All teachers, especially those like Mr Honeyford, should be compelled to attend massive [sic] in service training courses to bring them up to date with modern education theory, and practice, and to purge them of their racist outlook and ideology. Teachers who refuse to adapt their teaching and go on in service training courses should be redeployed or retired off [sic] early. School books with a racist content … should be scrapped. Racist teachers should be dismissed.’

    Of such libellous and mindless bombast is the rhetoric of multi racialising composed. Of course it might be objected that such a mentality is not representative. That the Harringay Black teachers are simply the disreputable, unacceptable face of the race industry, of which the Commission for Racial Equality is the acceptable front.

    But such extremism is becoming the norm. I was recently told by an educational mandarin that, unless I attended a ‘racism awareness workshop’ arranged by the local authority, I would be deprived of the right to be involved the appointment of staff to my school.

    Consider, too, the following extract from Black Britain by Chris Mullard: ‘Already we have started to rebel, to kick out against our jailers … As more black Britons leave school disgruntled, as more black immigrants discard their yoke of humility, the ultimate confrontation will become clearer… Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists and scorching resentment which, when peaceful means fail, will explode into street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting’.

    Now the writer of that is not some insignificant devotee of Marcuse spitting out his hatred of the white establishment. He is, in fact, a lecturer in education in the University of London. As such he is accorded expert status. He is influential in the training of teachers, and his views are respected by local education authorities.

    More recently, I published a simple report on my contact with Asian parents in a typical school week. The piece contained many positive references to Asian values. But I was immediately and intemperately attacked by a dedicated multi racialist who publicly accused me of being prejudiced, of fabricating the evidence, and of using phrases which ‘must give cause for concern’; and my ‘strategy’ (whatever that means) was condemned as being ‘ignorant and counter productive’.

    It is typical of the response to honest discussion of those teachers who have eagerly embraced the career enhancing possibilities of the new multi racial orthodoxy in schools. Such people never proceed through rational argument, but rather by the tactic of impugning others’ good will. At no point in all this sound and fury does the plight of those white children who constitute the ‘Ethnic minority’ in a growing number of inner city schools merit even a mention. Yet their educational ‘disadvantage’ is now confirmed.

    It is no more than common sense, that if a school contains a disproportionate number of children for whom English is a second language (true of all Asian children, even those born here), or children from homes where educational ambition and the values to support it are conspicuously absent (i.e. the vast majority of West Indian homes a disproportionate number of which are fatherless) then academic standards are bound to suffer.

    This intuition is supported by the findings of the Department of Education and Science Assessment of Performance Unit on primary school English; and there is suggestive evidence in the National Council for Educational Standards’ report Standards in English Schools. The absence of concern for the rights of this group of parents is due to three factors: they are overwhelmingly lower working class with little ability to articulate their social and educational anxieties; they have, so far, failed to produce a pressure group generating appropriate propaganda; and unlike non white children they have no government quango to plead their cause.

    These experiences I here report are the tip of an iceberg. Yet they seem to me important since they point up the real educational consequences of the general acceptance of the notion that multi racial inner cities are not only inevitable but, in some sense, desirable.

    Specifically, they raise for policy makers and public opinion the question of how the following unique factors now operating in our inner cities can be reconciled to produce that integrated, harmonious society we all affect to cherish:

    – A growing number of Asians whose aim is to preserve as intact as possible the values and attitudes of the Indian sub continent within a framework of British social and political privilege, ie to produce Asian ghettoes.

    – An influential group of black intellectuals of aggressive disposition, who know little of the British traditions of understatement, civilised discourse and respect for reason.

    – A small but growing group of dispossessed, indigenous parents whose schools are as a direct result of the multiracial dimension failing their children.

    – The presence in the state education service of a growing number of teachers and advisers who, quite correctly, perceive the professional advantage of supporting the notion of the multi racial curriculum urged by the authorities, and of making colour and race significant, high profile issues in the classroom.

    – The successful creation by the race relations lobby of a dubious, officially approved argot which functions to maintain a whole set of questionable beliefs and attitudes about education and race attitudes which have much more to do with professional opportunism than the educational progress of ethnic minority children.

    I suspect that these elements, far from helping to produce harmony, are, in reality, operating to produce a sense of fragmentation and discord. And I am no longer convinced that the British genius for compromise, for muddling through, and for good natured tolerance will be sufficient to resolve the inevitable tensions.

  49. Everything Ray Honeyford has said is now true 1,000 times over.

    All the kids in London, white, black, Asian and so on all now speak in an aggressive-sounding Jamaican patois. All their chart music seems to be linked in some way to the same aggressive culture.

    ANy criticism is deflected with ‘It’s my culture, innit?’

    With that sort of power, it’s no wonder all the kids try to copy it.

  50. Everything that has happened post-Brexit has vindicated Michael Gove. THe only Tory (I emphasise only – I do not endorse the Tory party) I’ve any respect for.

    Boris jumped on the bandwagon expecting to lose the referendum but win the hearts of the Tory grassroots and ascend to leader.

    Now we are told Boris supports free movement of people and is running around telling foreign ambassadors.

    Gove is a funny thing. He’s what Thatcher would have referred to as ‘one of us’, in other words, one of the ordinary people. The Tory party would never let him take the crown because of this.

    Read Celsius 7/7 and you’ll realise why the Tory party hates him so. He dareth to spaketh the truth. And you never do that in moder Britain without paying for it.

  51. Jeano 10:19

    Guido Fawkes has an article on the Boris view, which doesn’t make the situation much clearer, for me, anyway!

    I do agree that Gove is a good egg, though I think being sent to Coventry is a necessary part of his rehabitation, and it doesn’t stop him passing comment. Being a reluctant agent does offer flexibility, though it can be taken too far. :). It is sometimes necessary if circumstances make continuity impossible and, while being in power makes it possible, if only because you carry the can, when not in power there is more time to think and take a completely different approach, even if the goal is the same.

  52. BOOM!

    “More than a third of births last year in England and Wales were to parents who were born overseas, latest immigration statistics reveal.

    The proportion was especially high in London, where more than 80 per cent of babies in some boroughs were born to at least one foreign parent. In Newham 86.4 per cent had at least one parent born overseas, along with 84.7 per cent in Brent, 83.5 per cent in Westminster, and 83.2 per cent in Kensington and Chelsea.

    Only three of the capital’s 32 boroughs had fewer than half of births to foreign-born parents.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/01/third-babies-england-wales-born-foreign-parents/

    Cue Sir Richard Mottram CMG

  56. Kellogg pulling advertising from Breitbart is all about Trump and the hatred of globalist corporations for alternative media.

    Globalists are absolutely furious at alternative media, what they deem ‘fake news’, while at the same time the MSM reports on ‘affordable housing’ that isn’t affordable and ‘child refugees’ with adult dating profiles.

    The MSM is a pack of lies, day in, day out.

  57. The headline is accurate:

    Joke’s over: how the TV panel show fell from grace

    But, as ever with the Guardian, the article is misleading (it is a fake news site). The panel show is dead precisely because they are all TV versions of the Guardian: frothing at the mouth political correctness. US TV is also awash with the same PC drivel – Jon Stewart et al. Ditto Radio 4.

    Between them, this bunch of propagandists have just lost two elections: Brexit and the US Presidential election. Jonathan Swift defined satire as follows:

    ‘Satire is a sort of glass wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own.’

    When did they mock their own slavering PC drivel? When did they mock the fact that they all took the world view of that 9 million quid anti-Brexit government leaflet? ‘Satirists’ siding with the government. When did they mock the evil of Hillary Clinton? When did they mock the evil of Facebook and Google for covring up the truth and distorting the news agenda? Never.

    They just mocked the public for their non-PC views. And now, after two elections, it’s clear. No one is listening. The politburo was less subtle in its propaganda.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/nov/29/tv-panel-show-format-comedy-mock-the-week

  58. Why do companies now have to have “values” that are political? They never used to.

  59. Praise be to allah, he has diverted the unbelievers yet again. We can carry on shagging underage white slags while they concern themselves with historical football kiddie fiddling issues .
    Allah ackaba

  60. EC @ 13:51

    Here’s an enlarged job reference for Kris, it fits better, EC:

    Kris Charles leads the global Communications, Philanthropy, Sustainability, Imbecility and Government Relations functions for Kellogg ….

  61. There has been corporate global taqqya in place for years now, often under the banner of ‘corporate social responsibility’, meaning we support free movement and get heap labor. The rest of you can’t complain because we’re using political correctness as a smoke screen.

    It’s working a teat. For them. Not you.

  62. David Davis claims to be a Brexiteer but says the UK could still pay into the EU, having ‘left’.

    Boris Johnson claims to be Brexiteer but wants an amnesty on immigration and free movement maintained.

    And Tony Blair avoids tax on his earnings by gifting them to a new ‘charitable’ institute that will – one day – magically morph into a political party for Remainiacs in Labour and LibDems and help to crush Brexit.

    Blair IS back! Ex-PM gifts all the money his business ventures have made to a new ‘Institute’ he has set up to write new policy to respond to Brexit

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3990292/Blair-Ex-PM-gifts-money-business-ventures-new-Institute-set-write-new-policy-respond-Brexit.html

    The Supreme court will start to crush Brexit next week. By January, you will be told the courts rule, not the people.

    The MSM is hissing and spitting at ‘fake news’ – ie, anything that is pro-Brexit.

    So that’s the political class, judicial class and media class. The last shoe to drop will be the deliberate crashing of the economy, as foretold by Peter Hitchens.

    We’ll see Lord Lucan before we see Brexit.

    Come on Bepe and Co. I always knew we would have to rely on the kindness of strangers. Come on Italy.

  63. I watched what David Davis said. It was spun out of all proportion by the BBC. Who also managed to put a positive spin on the immigration figures by showing only a friendly Romanian cake shop where the female staff wanted to obtain British citizenship.

    Appalling manipulation of the news.

  64. On the Sunday before the Brexit, Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a nauseating piece of pro-Remain propaganda for the Mail On Sunday. In the same paper was a similar article by Richard Branson. Two people I love to hate.

    Now, Lloyd Webber has delivered a racist diatribe against what he refers to as “hideously white” people.

    His musical compositions were always infamous for their plagiarism and now even his nasty, spiteful diatribes are plagiarised. “Hideously white” is a phrase he has stolen from ex-BBC head Greg Dyke.

    I have never bought any of his music or bought tickets to his shows. Now I know to make a point of it. I call Andrew Lloyd Webber hideously racist.

  65. Lloyd Webber is like the people on these panel shows. Their nasty racism is sending them plummeting down the viewing charts. Goodbye.

  67. This Thur. : Richmond Park by-election ; Zac Goldsmith ( anti-Heathrow extention )
    v. the Lib Dems (anti-Heathrow/pro-Eu ). No Conservative or UKIP candidate .

  68. Sunday 4 December :

    Austrian Presidential election : Hoffer v. ruling-caste .

    Italian referendum : Heaven-knows-what v. What-ever. ( Surly a looser. )

  69. I picked up the Guardian the day after Castro died. Front page headline: ‘The day the music died’.

    A few days earlier, the Guardian, along with others was calling Thomas Mair political errorist ad trying to link him with Brexit. No Breixt material was found on THomas Mair. He had a history of mental illness stretching bacj years and may have written some letters to obscure Soth African magazines 20 odd years ago. ANd the thing he used to carry out the act mysteriously appears out of thin air. Whatever was going on there, the Guardian had the temerity to link to VOte Leave. It had nothing to do with VOte Leave.

    Yet Castro, a bona fide multiple killer, pulling people into stadiums for klling, people ging missing, gulags, the sort or reign of political terror only nightmares are made of – why, The Guardian lionises the man. As does Corbyn. That’s what I call poltical violence. That’s what I call polrical terro r. That’s what I call politically motivated kilig.

    Yet in their fashionable salons in Islington, the crocodile tears flowed.

    This is what Corbyn and the Guardian staff would do to ordinary people. This is why we read today that Ken Livingstone’s staff cheered on 9 11. This is what these people are like under the surface: they support pltical klling.

    Next time you read some sanctimonious spite by people like David Aaronovitch, trying to connect a person to Vote Leve who had absolttely nothign to do with Vote Leave, remember the Guardian’s fond eulogy for a tyrant and murderer, Fidel Cstro.

    It’s the killing and the ruthlessness that attract the Left to Castro and that lies behind Ken Livingstone’s staff cheering the events of 9 11.

    Staff working for Ken Livingstone when he was London Mayor CELEBRATED 9/11 terror attacks, ex-employee claims

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3991016/Staff-working-Ken-Livingstone-London-Mayor-CELEBRATED-9-11-terror-attacks-ex-employee-claims.html

    The team that worked behind the scenes to get Livingstone elected mayor of London are the same team that now wrk behind he scenes for Corbyn. These people woud use others as proxy murdrers to kill us all if they could. That’s why they cheerd on 9 11.

    That’s who they really are.

  71. Paul Joseph Watson reports, early in the Alex Jones Show on December 1st, the attempts to subvert the commitment of Electoral College Voters away from Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwahDuoaSX8

    How far can globalists be allowed to go in their sedition in the democratic countries before they have to be locked up.

    Meanwhiile, I watched Trump’s speech in Ohio while I was making breakfast this morning? It was, in my opinion, his best yet. The best of the American people are behind him.

  72. Paul Joseph Watson reports, early in the Alex Jones Show on December 1st, the attempts to subvert the commitment of Electoral College Voters away from Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwahDuoaSX8

    How far can globalists be allowed to go in their sedition in the democratic countries before they have to be locked up.

    Meanwhiile, I watched Trump’s speech in Ohio while I was making breakfast this morning? It was, in my opinion, his best yet. The best of the American people are behind him.

  73. Doppelgänger…apologies

    Also, news in the above link of a demoralised and boozy Hillary Clinton. Keen on Mao, she is proving to be the Jiang Qing of American politics.

  76. Jeano, December 1st, 2016 – 19:02

    “It’s working a teat. For them. Not you.”

    Indeed! “Treat” or “teat”, both are correct!

    Meanwhile, “another useless twat climbs aboard the gravy train…” (*)

    Richmond/ Sarah Olney: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38178486

    [ * Thinking out loud upon seeing the result. Mrs EC asked if that was to be the title of my book on British politics! ]

  77. Jeano, December 1st, 2016 – 21:52

    The PC/cultural marxists at the Beeb have yet to grasp:

    “Nothing is more hopeless than a scheme of merriment.”
    Samuel Johnson

  81. You should listen to the interview I posted above. A car crash doesn’t really describe it.

  82. It’s gone viral that interview. These people are disgusting. It’s not just that it’s hypocrisy. It’s hypocrisy that really matters. I hope one of the papers puts in on the front pages tomorrow. It’s a ready-made front page story.

    To quote a certain Mr Farage: “Just who the hell do you people think you are?”

    I spoke to someone who lived in Richmond last week. There are posh houses with EU flags draped outside them. Bob Geldof and Seamas Milne live there. Millionaires in a cosseted bubble.

    You can guess what sort doesn’t live there while this lot hide behind their electric gates.

  83. A big weekend this one. Brexit was always going to be brushed aside but if the little people can answer back with a thump, thump, thump, thump. Blow after blow, we might make the damn thing crack.

    Holland voted no to the treaty trying to make Ukraine part of the EU.
    Colombia voted no to legalised drugs so George Soros could sell them and ban cash.
    Britain voted no to the EU.
    America voted no to the establishment.

    Come on Austria and Italy, I want another two hits on the globalist body politic. Hit them in the ballots.

  85. Jeano – 21:30

    Those damned “Russians” and their “fake news” will get the blame if the votes in Italy and Austria go against the Globalists too.

    Bloody hell, that Vlad’s been busy…
    YCMIU!

  88. Frank P December 2nd, 2016 – 22:47

    How come “former Labour Cabinet minister turned BBC executive James Purnell” was “supporting” her? Common Purpose again? Are they fellow alumni?

    Oh, look:-

    “Later, in 2010 she was given ‘suitable advice’ after trying to gatecrash a high-security Labour conference while off duty by pulling rank on a constable guarding a gate.”

    So another one of New Labour’s politicised and political police officers, eh? Impossible to have any confidence in the impartiality of the police when its senior officers demonstrate such blatant links to the left wing political agenda.

    Every day
    In every way
    East Germany
    Here we come

  89. I feel the LURV resonating from John Jefferson Burns on 30th November 2016 at 6:52. I am sorry to have missed him in Clovelly last week, when I checked into Ye Copper Kettle Tea Shoppe and enjoyed a quaint li’l ol’ Cornshire cream tea.

    The true test of JJB’s much vaunted Anglophilia would be whether he puts the jam on his scone before the cream, or the cream before the jam.

    (Gets popcorn)

    Seasons greetings to all you po-faced Coffeehouse tossers. Remember the good old days, eh ?!?

  91. Andy Car Park December 3rd, 2016 – 00:06

    It’s really good of you to fill in for telemachus and so much appreciated.

    Wanker.

  92. Andy Car Park December 3rd, 2016 – 00:06

    It’s really good of you to fill in for telemachus and so much appreciated.

  93. Andy Car Park December 3rd, 2016 – 00:06

    It’s really good of you to fill in for t e l e m a c h u s and so much appreciated.

  95. Andy Car Park – 00:06

    1. That’s presupposes that out Souther’ friend has mastered cutlery.

    2. Do cheer up, there’s a good chap. Hope this helps…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTu9ewdEok

    3. No? Then it sounds like it’s time to break out that Ruskie hat, your furry friend with the drop down flaps, and listen to this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prErnop1eiM

    4. If all else fails: Telephone: (020) 7367 4500

    Merry Christmas to you too, old bean
    Toodle Pip!

  97. Spin alert.

    As Peter Hitchens keeps pointing out Theresa May is one of the most spun politicians of all time, yet has somehow managed to hide this. He has written extensively about the work put in by Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill to create the work of fiction that is Theresa May. Here is a headline cooked up by those two and fed to a Daily Telegraph journalist:

    “Theresa May to dare Parliament to ‘defy the will of the people’ if she loses Article 50 court battle”

    In other words, Remainer May can avoid Brexit and avoid the blame for it. What that headline is telegraphing to the pro-Brexit readers of that newspaper is: We’re not having Brexit, but you’re not to blame Theresa.

    It’s a textbook straw man argument in public, while behind the scenes Remainer May and her two spin doctors can pat themselves on the back for having their cake (avoiding Brexit) and eating it (not taking the blame).

    Pure spin.

  99. Well, whaddya know, the Snowflakes are upset that Trump accepted a congratulatory call from a democratically elected leader and this might offend a dictatorship.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3996074/Trump-strays-diplomatic-tradition-phone-call-Taiwanese-president-37-years-likely-infuriate-China.html

    The Donald’s track record so far:

    1) TPP is in the bin

    2) The Carrier factory in Indiana stays open. The owners were told that if they closed it and decamped to Mexico Trump would impose trade tariffs.

    3) Trump stands up to an unelected dictatorship – and the Snowflakes squeal in sanctimonious fraud.

    Belt up, you spiteful Snowflakes – just belt up. We have listened long enough.

  100. The High Court’s Brexit ruling is a product of our ‘post-truth’ age
    David Green
    (Photo: Getty)
    (Photo: Getty)
    3 December 2016 10:00 AM
    Twitter

    Facebook

    LinkedIn

    Email
    In November the High Court decided that the Government had no power to give notice to leave the EU under Article 50. Leaving the EU would entail changes in the law that embodied the rights of citizens and such changes could not be brought about by the prerogative power but only by primary legislation in Parliament. The court considered the referendum only advisory, even though in the Parliamentary debate it was made clear that the decision would be implemented by the Government. Moreover, the Government had circulated a leaflet to all households giving a solemn undertaking to honour the decision.

    On 5 December the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the High Court decision. The decision of the High Court should be reversed because it wrongly interpreted our constitution. The judges argued that the prerogative power was being used to take away rights granted by primary legislation in the form of the European Communities Act of 1972. But it is not being used for that purpose. The Government has said that it will repeal the European Communities Act by putting forward a Great Reform Bill. The prerogative power is being used to implement an Act of Parliament, the EU Referendum Act of 2015, which had cross-party support, and to honour the Government’s statement in the official document it circulated to all households (famously at a cost of £9 million). The Government leaflet said: ‘This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.’ And during the Commons debate Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond had emphasised that: ‘This is giving the decision to the British people.’

    ADVERTISING

    inRead invented by Teads

    The High Court argued that Dicey was ‘still the leading account’ but then went on to quote selectively from An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution and to ignore other passages where he explained his interpretation more fully. They quoted Dicey saying that parliamentary sovereignty meant that Parliament has: ‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’ This has the corollary, they thought, that ‘it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law’ in Dicey’s view: ‘The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.’ (p. 101.) Quotations are from the online edition of An Introduction to Study of the Law of the Constitution, available here.

    Dicey’s argument was in truth more subtle than the High Court judges seem to have realised. He described how our constitution was made up of both laws and conventions. There was ‘the law of the constitution’ – the enforceable laws that laid down con­stitutional principles – and the ‘convent­ions of the constitution’ – the habits and traditions that are followed but not enforced. The conventions had one ultimate object: ‘to secure that Parliament, or the Cabinet which is indirectly appointed by Parliament, shall in the long run give effect to the will of that power which in modern England is the true political sovereign of the State – the majority of the electors or… the nation’. (p. 285.)

    Dicey strongly maintains that ‘the electorate is in fact the sovereign of England’. The whole people act through a ‘supreme legislature’ whose conduct is ‘regulated by understandings of which the object is to secure the conformity of Parliament to the will of the nation’. All the conventions that uphold the supremacy of the House of Commons in practice uphold the ‘sovereignty of the people’. To demonstrate his claim Dicey examines three conventions: (1) the requirement that the powers of the Crown are exercised through ministers enjoying the confidence of Parliament; (2) the convention that the House of Lords gives way to the Commons; and (3) the right of monarchs to dissolve parliament against the wishes of the majority of MPs (no longer possible since the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act).

    [Alt-Text]
    The rule that the powers of the Crown must be exercised through ministers who are members of the Commons or the Lords and who ‘command the confidence of the House of Commons’, in practice, means that the elected part of the legislature appoints the executive. It also means that ministers must ultimately carry out, ‘or at any rate not contravene, the wishes of the House of Commons’, which in turn means they must reflect the wishes of the electorate as interpreted by MPs. (pp. 285-87.)

    The same is true of the convention that the House of Lords is expected in every serious political controversy to give way to the will of the House of Commons. The guiding principle, said Dicey, is that the Lords must yield or the Crown intervene when it is conclusively shown that ‘the House of Commons represents on the matter in dispute the deliberate decision of the nation’. And if the deliberate decision of the electorate is the vital consideration, then conventions guiding the House of Lords and the Crown are rules ‘meant to ensure the ultimate supremacy of the true political sovereign’, the electorate. (p. 287.)

    Dicey also shows how the pre-2011 right of the Crown to dissolve parliament affirmed the political sovereignty of the people. At first glance this power looks like a continuation of earlier royal absolutism, but as Dicey put it, the reason why the House can in accordance with the constitution be dissolved ‘is that an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors’. In such cases dissolution is in its essence ‘an appeal from the legal to the political sovereign’. A dissolution is allowable ‘when­­­­ever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation’. (pp. 287-88.)

    He gives as an example the dissolution of 1834, when the king replaced Melbourne’s Whig administration with one led by Peel. He dissolved Parliament, but the election in 1835 went strongly against Peel’s administration and the Whigs returned soon afterwards. According to Dicey, the essential point was that ‘it is the verdict of the political sovereign’ or nation that ultimately determines the right of a Cabinet to retain office. The power of the ruler was only to require MPs to test in an election that they were reflecting the views of the electorate.

    All the conventions of the constitution, said Dicey, were ‘intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political sovereign of the State’. Constitutional maxims are ‘subordinate and subservient to the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty’. (pp. 290-91.) And again: ‘Our modern code of constitutional morality secures, though in a roundabout way, what is called abroad the ‘sovereignty of the people.’ (p. 286.)

    The intention of the litigants in the High Court case was to try to use the courts to overturn the result of the referendum. The judges went along with their ruse, and quoted passages from Dicey that appear to provide a rationale. But Dicey would have recognised the referendum as a ‘deliberate decision of the nation’ and clearly took the view that it was the Government’s duty under the constitution and its conventions to implement it. The Government is not planning to use its prerogative powers to obstruct the will of the people or to take away legal rights, but to give effect to the clearly expressed, legally authorised, decision of the electorate.

    Any objective reading of Dicey would lead to this conclusion, but if the High Court case is anything to go by we can expect some verbal acrobatics by some ‘brilliant legal minds’ to ignore the plain meaning of his words. It has been said that we live in a ‘post-truth’ age. If so it’s a world in which many of our lawyers and judges will feel at home. They have only just started to weave the intellectual spells they intend to use to undermine the ‘deliberate decision of the nation’.

    David G. Green is CEO of Civitas

  109. 0822 3 Dec

    My partner who occasionally scribes sensible posts at Speecie tells me that Disqus picks up specific words and Isabel has determined which such words are banned.
    Many posters write hell bent and the post goes into moderation.
    Likewise if you comment on Greg Dyke you are rewarded with moderation.
    They very soon learn to write h e l l bent and Greg D y k e.
    Google alerts on the other hand depend on the sequence of letters.
    Just saying.

  110. Isabel Censor Hardman really is the epitome of that magazine. A veneer of independence and the appearance of being intellectually aloof, but actually just one of the people in the bubble taking down dictation. It’s a Judas Goat publication.

    Austria’s countryside voted for Hofer. Only the cities voted for the Green Party.

    Oh, well. All hopes on kicking out Renzi.

  111. Jeano – 20:01

    The biggest problem with Democracy is that you get what you voted for.

  114. RobertRetyred 21-24

    Richmond Park will presumably get more low flying aircraft over their roofs.

  119. “My partner”

    Ha ha. What a load of old tosh. One and the same, still intruding here, unwelcome.

Leave a Reply

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