Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Mumbai terrorist was US agent

Here's a story destined for the memory hole. From the Asia Times:

"News that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reached a plea bargain with David Coleman Headley, who played a key role in the planning of the terrorist strike in Mumbai in November 2008 in which 166 people were killed, has caused an uproar in India..."

Hat tip: this John Birch Society article.

Ooh, isn't it big!

There is a saying; 'empty vessels make the most noise'. The principle translates into installation art thus: 'if you ain't got nothing to say, make it big!'

Hence we have the unveiling of what Boris Johnson has dubbed the 'Hubble Bubble', a huge scupture for the 2012 London Olympics, which is apparently being backed by Lakshmi Mittal (and you can bet the steel for the structure won't be made in Britain). Not long ago they were talking about installing a massive horse down in Kent. Why? Dunno, but it'll be really big! And then there's Damien Hirst's 'Virgin Mother' monstrosity - oh clever, how you ticked all the boxes there, Damien.

Bollocks to the 'Hubble Bubble'. If you want a symbol, plant a fucking tree.

Shoot that messenger!

Poor old Parole Board chief Sir David Latham is concerned his latest utterances will be distorted and portrayed in a bad light. So, without further ado...

Latham wants to let more prisoners free. He tells us there are too many prisoners who pose only a small risk of re-offending. "Society has become risk-averse over whether to release them on licence". "Once the tariff period for the offence has been served, there needs to be a proper and rigorous justification to keep anyone in prison".

Okay, objectively speaking, there's not too much wrong in what this guy is saying. Unfortunately, the public isn't feeling in a very objective mood. Why? Because people like you, Sir David, in other words, hand-wringing establishment liberals, have sabotaged our criminal justice system. You want to release prisoners because you don't believe that wrong-doers should be punished; the concept is way too simple for an egg-head brain like yours.

Now, I am a libertarian, and there are many acts that are now deemed crimes, which do not deserve to be so, because they are matters of individual choice - I am mainly referring to drug prohibitions, and there are many other ways that our individual freedom is infringed unjustifiably - and insofar as people are being punished for such non-crimes, I do not approve. You can't steal from yourself or assault yourself. Even killing yourself is no longer a crime. You can't be victim and perpetrator of the same crime. Where there is no victim, there is no crime, or at least I can't think of an example of this.

Sir David is not wholly wrong, but the principles upon which he has constructed his argument are as solid as quicksand. What he wants to do is blame the public for their stupidity and for being 'risk-averse', when all the public ever reads about is how brutal, bloody crimes are being committed by evil men who have already proven their malice with prior convictions of a similar nature. Yes, it's true the press will linger on the extreme and sensational examples, such as below, where only yesterday one of the highest judges in the country decreed that a rapist can beat a deportation order so he can get married, but these cases are real-life, and there are many more that do not make the national press. Pick up any local paper and you will find grisly crimes and it's a racing cert that those crimes are being committed by people with long criminal records.

The key problem with people like Sir David is that he's been hanging around crooks too long and now swallows every self-pitying lie and sob-story he's given, that he can only see it from the point of view of the poor little crim, and we the public have heard it all before, and we're sick of it.

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Justice Collins: what a cunt

Lord Justice Collins, laughing in the face of the public

Thanks a fucking bunch, Lord Justice Collins, for helping a Congolese rapist to stay in our country. What a good day's work for you that was. It's a difficult job, trying to bring down the judiciary to even lower depths of public hatred and disgust, but you managed it. From your position of power you looked down and said; 'It's difficult to have any sympathy' for the raping monster, BUT YOU TRIED, DIDN'T YOU? And you succeeded. So now, thanks to you - and let's be fair - thanks to all of your cocksucking, scat-munching, paedo-loving, rapist-enabling pals in the legal profession, who get rich on our money, we've got one more rapist running around attacking our women.

On your head be it, you fucking piece of rancid shit.

The cesspit of state schooling

Teachers frog-marching pupils to have their finger-prints taken 'to speed up lunch queues' ?

Yeah ... I thought it was because you're a bunch of control-freak nazis, with no sense of decency.

According to the Mail:

"Teachers fear the failure to secure consent is widespread because there is no requirement in law to gain active permission, and consulting parents at all is simply seen as 'good practice'.

The Association of the Teachers and Lecturers, meeting for its annual conference in Manchester yesterday, passed a motion demanding the union investigates the issue."

Sunday, 28 March 2010

History lessons for the day

The night the clocks went forward

We are in this country allowed a measure of democracy, but only when the people as a whole agree with the government. In all areas of life where the people cannot be relied upon to agree with the government, no democracy is permitted. So we get the occasional vote, (one day every 1826 days) but they always write the ballot.

When talking of the government, we are referred to that body of men and women with grandiose titles such as 'Secretary of State' or 'Minister' and appear at the dispatch box and wool sack in Parliament, or elsewhere (in tv world) glad-handing around the globe. But what do these people govern and what other power is governed elsewhere and by whom?

These bodies will change, but the government continues always. It is Her Majesty's after all. She doesn't step down even for a second, and if she did she'd be replaced before the clock ticked once. The king - or queen - never dies.

The wielding of power is a mysterious business in this complicated country of ours. What strange meeting chambers may there be in the heart of the City of London? Who knows where the subterranean passages of Westminster lead and follow and whose feet are heard to echo down there?

If we are allowed an election, it follows that the result is of no great consequence. It would not be wise to permit such power to the people if it wasn't well constrained from ever harming the guardians of the shadows.

Irrational fears

It's very easy to profile somebody from their internet activity. The following two tunes will enable the pinpointing of my age quite precisely.

Thursday, 25 March 2010

The Good Judge

Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of the great and strident voices of liberty in the United States, speaks out on Obama's healthcare crime, inter alia, on the Alex Jones Show.

Part 1 above. Part 2 (can't find yet); Part 3; Part 4; Part 5.

Meanwhile in Brussels...

If MEPs are paid pro rata for the contempt they arouse, then they've certainly been earning their money today, as they debate the standardisation of fruit and vegetable shapes.

This issue is often brought up by the pro-EU twits, claiming it as a myth put about by 'Euro-sceptics'. Perhaps they think we should be grateful for the good sense shown by the Brussels gravy-slurpers. Far from it. The idea that these people have a sovereign right to tell us what shape our fruit should be is appalling.

"The politics of the gutter" ?

Via Ambush Predator I note Labour are talking tough on travellers flouting planning laws and other such petty regulations they have a reputation for ignoring. Fair enough. There's nothing controversial in expecting the law to be applied equally ... except this is the party which castigated Michael Howard for saying much the same thing in the run-up to the last election.

As reported in the Independent, 20th March 2005, in an article headed "Howard stirs race row with attack on Gypsies":

'Keith Hill, the minister in charge of planning laws, accused the Tory leader yesterday of indulging in "the politics of the gutter".

He demanded: "Is Michael Howard really saying that he intends to get rid of the Human Rights Act, which offers protection to every citizen in our country? This is an extremely dangerous path to go down.

"This is Michael Howard tapping into what is probably the deepest vein of bigotry in our society - the prejudice against Gypsies and travellers." '

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

One of my favourite singers

God damn it, Janis, you died way too young.

Monday, 22 March 2010


No doubt my esteemed readers will have seen the case of the gay couple turned away from the guest house. They immediately call in the police. The Stonewall mafia bay for blood. Time will tell whether her business will be crushed by the sledgehammer of the law.

I defend the owner.

Denying someone their rights because they are gay, black or whatever is wrong, but they have not been denied their rights. They have no right to stay in this woman's guest house, no one has. She is at liberty to decide who she takes under her roof. It is a wholly private matter between the individuals involved. She declined their business, and is thus out of pocket. That is her affair.

This is how the law always was and always should be, but such principles have been well trampled under foot by the zealots of secular tyranny, who have so soon forgotten what it's like to be on the wrong side of an oppressive, illiberal law.

Virgin? I'm saying nothing

Reading through a volume of English History concerning the late Middle Ages, I noted a reference to Jean Fouquet's painting of the Virgin and Child, dating from 1450, with the part of the former played, according to legend, by Agnes Sorel, mistress to Charles VII of France.

I must say; a very striking image, incredibly modern-looking to my untutored eye. What it lacks in anatomical exactitude, it compensates in style (especially close up - click the link).

Sunday, 21 March 2010

The Battle of Cable Street Re-enactment Society

As my blogging nom de plume may betray, I have always had a great interest in the events of the English Civil War, in which the original and best Trooper William Thompson played a small but courageous part. I have not taken it to such lengths as some however, who spend their weekends staging re-enactments of Civil War battles, although I'm sure it would be great fun. No doubt participants choose their sides carefully, with reference to the history and whether at heart they are a cavalier dog or a roundhead curr (these are the boys I'd join) but I'm sure once the smoke clears they all mingle in good spirits for a cup of mead or a flagon of ale.

Would that all re-enactment societies were as easy-going as The Sealed Knot, for this is exactly what Unite Against Fascism is, intent on recreating the street violence of 1930s England. No one's told them, it seems, that Oswald Mosley is not the threat he once was (what with being dead, and all that). So, without bothering with period costume, they engage in period sloganeering, such as 'No pasaran! They shall not pass!' and set about preventing groups they oppose from demonstrating. As this is an attempt to prevent other groups exercising legal rights, they often come into conflict with the police, who do not necessarily approve of their re-enactment activities.

The problem is that this group is endorsed by so many prominent politicians, who seem content to have a militant rent-a-mob to hand if required. Hopefully the latest trouble in Bolton will force some of them to back off support for such a stridently illiberal group.

Saturday, 20 March 2010

Tutto nello stato

I was reminded of the fascist slogan “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state) by this article at Lew Rockwell's. I am further reminded by this post at Fausty's, commenting on this article in The Times, where we learn of the grotesquely-overbearing state's latest snare.

According to The Times:

"The aim is that within a year, everybody in the country should have a personalised website through which they would be able to find out about local services and do business with the Government. A unique identifier will allow citizens to apply for a place for their child at school, book a doctor’s appointment, claim benefits, get a new passport, pay council tax or register a car from their computer at home. Over the next three years, the secure site will be expanded to allow people to interact with their children’s teachers or ask medical advice from their doctor through a government version of Facebook."

Nothing outside the state, indeed.

Battling to control... who?

I dare say it's too early to tell much, and I'm too far away to judge in any case, but compare this line from the Independent:

"More than 30 UAF protesters and two from EDL have been arrested, police said."

with the headline:

"Police battle to control right-wing groups", by which it means the EDL.

Everyone has a right to demonstrate peacefully. UAF disagree. They want to drive groups they oppose off the streets, and seem to be the main cause of violence at these events, which, they believe, serves their purpose of preventing people they don't like exercising their right to free speech. They are the ones looking for violent confrontation, as this is the reason for their counter-demonstration.

I'm sure there are people on the other side who are up for a ruck too, but it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the UAF make sure that violence is a distinct possibility if not a racing certainty. I feel sorry for the police who end up caught in the middle, taking it from both sides.

UPDATE: Similar distortion is being practiced over at the BBC, with a video entitled 'EDF protestors clash with police', which shows UAF protestors clashing with police. As I said above, I am not there and don't know the full story, but it's clear that the media is lying.

More from Shooter Jennings

I love the new album from Shooter Jennings and Hierophant, so here's another track, the eponymous 'Black Ribbons'.

A difficult question...

... just which one of the Milliband brothers is the bigger cunt? The obvious answer is David, simply because his hideous clown-face has been thrust more into the collective consciousness, but the other one, Ed, whose eyes are so close together he could be a cyclops, has been working hard behind the scenes pushing the fabian agenda.

As usual when an election hooves into view, the ghastly fabian-controlled Labour Party start talking about 'radical' plans, and for sure they mean it; radically high taxes, radical control-freakery, radical sovereignty hand-over to their globalist oligarch masters, radical take-over of what's left of the private sector etc. ad nauseam.

Some of these ideas, on the surface, sound okay, but with the fabians, what you get is a pan of steaming shit, with a few olives thrown in for good measure.

The Daily Sneer

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

Degenerate control-freak scum

Lying through her crooked mouth for all she's worth (tuppence ha'penny at most) degenerate control-freak scum Home Office minister Meg Hillier recites government mantra on the hated ID cards and the concomitant database, with a new twist of unparodiable cunt-waffle, namely that the hated ID cards will 'help fight social exclusion'. Really? Yes, the hated ID cards will 'help fight social exclusion'. Right... how so?

Well, some people can't afford passports you see, and the hated ID cards are only £30, whereas a passport costs £77.50 since 2009, up from £72 in 2007, £66 in 2006, £51 in 2005, £42 in 2003, £33 in 2002, £28 in 1999, £21 in 1998 and £18 in 1997, when her degenerate control-freak party came to power.

Meg's logic it is clear to see who is responsible for the social exclusion: her greedy, thieving friends in the Fabian Labour Party.

I will leave the refutation of the rest of Meg's lies to the comment string on the article, which take her argument apart atom by atom.

Hat tip: Big Brother Watch

Sunday, 14 March 2010

Fuck Power 2010

This is not a particularly well-considered post, but - hey! It's my blog, I'll say what I like.

Power 2010 are getting on my wick. They send me an email in the style of a western wanted poster, requesting me to snitch on MPs who are committing 'crimes against democracy'. Then I visit their website, and they're crowing about how the bishops are being bombarded by their sans cullottes minions to support the idea of an elected second chamber.

Sneaking into the Power 2010 message are little clues as to who is running this show. They demand the bishops agree that "legislation is scrutinised for its impact on the most vulnerable in society - not primarily the rich and powerful" - as if the bishops, or indeed the House of Lords, actively do the latter and refuse the former, and anyway I don't remember this being mentioned at the time of their voting on policies. Not that I have anything against the most vulnerable, but it sounds like a socialist code-word for something nasty and big-state. Also they're snidey about what they're doing, because the email to the bishops says one thing and behind their backs Power 2010 are saying something else - namely that the bishops in the House are 'relics of a bygone era'. This much is true, but I can't help thinking that the bygone era was a lot freer than one ruled by the mindless jacobinism of Power 2010.

It's like democracy for democracy's sake. I want my freedom. Unbridled democracy represents a massive threat to freedom. I don't give a flying fuck what 51% of the people (who expressed a preference) think I should do in my private life with my private property.

I do believe in democracy, but it is only one leg of a stool, the others being limited government and national sovereignty. Without these other two, its worthless at best. Much as the Lords are an anachronism, they have served this country better than the scumbags in the Commons these last few years, and if those same scumbags are going to get rid of them and fashion a replacement that is to their liking, I suspect it will be worse than what we now have.

Just take a look at some of the wankers that have been shuffled up to the House of Lords from the other place - talk about lowering the tone. Bring back the hereditaries, at least they knew what the second chamber was for - it ain't for rubber stamping whatever crap the government dreams up. This isn't a principled argument from me, purely pragmatic, based on what has gone on in recent times.

Besides anything else, the idea of Power 2010's five pledges is stupid. Just because someone agrees with one of them, doesn't mean they agree with the others, and as long as someone disagrees with any one of them, they cannot support the campaign.

Harriet Harman wouldn't get this one

Via Leg Iron, I learn of the new 'Equality' Bill, which looks like it will take Fabian anti-human control-freakery to almost infinite lengths. Harman has laid aside her plate of scat long enough to fashion a rulebook so absurd, so ludicrious that it defies parody, a blackhole no satire could escape.

In my hand-wringing misery for this poor benighted country, I turn to Monty Python.

Saturday, 13 March 2010

Adam Smith on alcohol pricing

Via Fausty, I come to Dick Puddlecote commenting on our disgusting politicians, who, having given away almost all their real power, revel in the one thing left to them - the power to fuck with us. Knowing that alcohol is recession-proof and in need of ever more of our money, they have hit upon a ruse.

In order to show that there's nothing new under the sun, and also to assert both the fallacy of their thinking - or what passes for such - and their criminal lack of learning with regard to basic economics, I present some words from Adam Smith's 'Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations' :

"It is a losing trade, it is said, which a workman carries on with the alehouse; and the trade which a manufacturing nation would naturally carry on with a wine country, may be considered as a trade of the same nature. I answer, that the trade with the alehouse is not necessarily a losing trade. In its own nature it is just as advantageous as any other, though, perhaps, somewhat more liable to be abused.

The employment of a brewer, and even that of a retailer of fermented liquors, are as necessary divisions of labour as any other. It will generally be more advantageous for a workman to buy of the brewer the quantity he has occasion for, than to brew it himself, and if he is a poor workman, it will generally be more advantageous for him to buy it, by little and little, of the retailer, than a large quantity of the brewer. He may no doubt buy too much of either, as he may of any other dealers in his neighbourhood, of the butcher, if he is a glutton, or of the draper, if he affects to be a beau among his companions.

It is advantageous to the great body of workmen, notwithstanding, that all these trades should be free, though this freedom may be abused in all of them, and is more likely to be so, perhaps, in some than in others. Though individuals, besides, may sometimes ruin their fortunes by an excessive consumption of fermented liquors, there seems to be no risk that a nation should do so.

Though in every country there are many people who spend upon such liquors more than they can afford, there are always many more who spend less. It deserves to be remarked too, that, if we consult experience, the cheapness of wine seems to be a cause, not of drunkenness, but of sobriety. The inhabitants of the wine countries are in general the soberest people in Europe; witness the Spaniards, the Italians, and the inhabitants of the southern provinces of France. People are seldom guilty of excess in what is their daily fare. Nobody affects the character of liberality and good fellowship, by being profuse of a liquor which is as cheap as small beer.

On the contrary, in the countries which, either from excessive heat or cold, produce no grapes, and where wine consequently is dear and a rarity, drunkenness is a common vice, as among the northern nations, and all those who live between the tropics, the negroes, for example, on the coast of Guinea. When a French regiment comes from some of the northern provinces of France, where wine is somewhat dear, to be quartered in the southern, where it is very cheap, the soldiers, I have frequently heard it observed, are at first debauched by the cheapness and novelty of good wine; but after a few months residence, the greater part of them become as sober as the rest of the inhabitants.

Were the duties upon foreign wines, and the excises upon malt, beer, and ale, to be taken away all at once, it might, in the same manner, occasion in Great Britain a pretty general and temporary drunkenness among the middling and inferior ranks of people, which would probably be soon followed by a permanent and almost universal sobriety. At present drunkenness is by no means the vice of people of fashion, or of those who can easily afford the most expensive liquors. A gentleman drunk with ale, has scarce ever been seen among us."

Burning the books

A group of progressives, pondering their next reform programme

It's a despondent business, cataloguing the ruin of our criminal justice system, like watching a mob of mindless thugs running amock in a museum, slashing through paintings, smashing vases and toppling statues, pissing on priceless artifacts from civilisations long past...

I'm referring to this article.

From the hip

Here's a track from Shooter Jennings' new album 'Black Ribbons' - 'When the radio goes dead' .

Crooked Peter Hain labels referendum call 'extreme right-wing'

Peter Hain, the Labour MP who was forced to resign from the government when police came knocking at his door, has used a Labour Conference platform to denounce Albion Alliance as an 'extreme right-wing' organisation.

Due to the memory-erasing programme of New Labour, most of his dumbed-down audience will have no knowledge of the great number of prominent Labour politicians who fought and argued for Britain to remain a sovereign nation outside the EEC/EC/EU.

I shall be ferreting out some quotes from such 'extreme right-wingers' as Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Hugh Gaitskell etc when I can spare the time.

Sunday, 7 March 2010

Norman Tebbitt: from strength to strength

Excellent piece from our Norman. I especially like the line:

"Vote Tory for that underarm freshness"

Keep it up!

Politics cannot exist in a vacuum

Janet Daley opines that politics has lost its passion. Pinning the piece on the passing of Michael Foot, she regrets that there are no longer two competing visions battling it out, as was the case between the recently-departed and Mrs Thatcher. Now its just who's the better manager of a system that neither side question in its size and scope.

That's all true, as far as it goes, but she doesn't mention the principle historical movement in this process, which is the rise of globalist power and the concomitant dismantling of national sovereignty. When decision-making in the majority of domestic matters has been handed over to anonymous committee members in foreign countries, whose conclusions are then cascaded down to the local administrators in Westminster and Whitehall, politics ceases to play any part in the action, and becomes mere punditry.

Towards the end, she contrasts the situation with that of the United States (and rattles my cage to boot):

'The Tea Party movement, which is based on the American revolutionary principle of "no taxation without representation", is challenging a government which seems to be threatening the freedom of the individual. The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another. Where is the major British party that will engage in an argument of such force and scope? Who will question the received wisdom of the middle-ground consensus?'

Wait a moment! "The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another"?

I think, Janet, you'll find only one side is doing that, the side that loves the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and reveres the Founding Fathers, and that side is outside.

Good for Iceland pt2

The people of Iceland have voted overwhelmingly against paying the bad debts of their bankers. Fair enough, I say. This global financial meltdown cannot be avoided but I don't think confiscating the wealth of the working people and pouring it into the criminal cartel of off-shore international banksters is the way to deal with it.

"The pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice"

This man is angry. So he should be.

Update: "Geert Wilders on course to be next Dutch PM" - sounds like wishful thinking, and he better make sure he's wearing a bullet-proof vest. We all remember what happened last time someone threatened the political establishment in the Netherlands.

Saturday, 6 March 2010

"Weaponized money transactions"

Max on Soros and his financial terrorist buddies.

The Prophet Enoch

I was actually looking around for Michael Foot speeches, seeing as he was widely regarded as a great orator, and I stumbled upon this offering from Enoch Powell speaking about Britain and the EEC in December 1976, which is well worth a listen.

Steering a course

As readers of this blog will know, there are few more vociferous in their condemnation of our so-called justice system, robbed of its simple virtues, shat upon by degenerate paedo-loving judges, sabotaged from within by ivory tower-dwelling know-better, do-gooder liberals, incapable of grasping fundamental concepts such as individual freedom, individual responsibility and the necessity of punishing wrong-doers.

That said, the on-going furore over one of the killers of Jamie Bulger is not the hammer with which to drive these points home. There are rules, and there are exceptions to rules, and it is vital that we do not base rules on exceptions. This case will always be exceptional, due to the age of the perpetrators, who were ten years old at the time of their crime. In the eyes of the law, a ten-year-old boy is not capable of truly understanding the consequences of his action. As someone who was once such an age, I have to agree. If they were even 12, or certainly 16 years old, this would not be the case.

As I mention below, I believe the sentencing of convicted criminals should be done with reference to the following three principles, in descending order:
  • Punishment, because you deserve it
  • Setting an example
  • Protecting the public.
Some wolly-headed thinkers would interject something about rehabilitation, but this latter is not a consideration for a judge in sentencing a criminal. It may well be in the interests of all concerned that a convicted criminal is given opportunities to reform himself, his endeavours to do so should not be thwarted, and such endeavours can be taken into account when considering the threat he poses to the public, but rehabilitation is not a matter for the courts, but the prison authorities, the parole boards and, most importantly, the individual miscreant.

In the case of the Bulger killers, the first principle is of limited application, by virtue of their age at the time of the offence, and their assumed lack of responsibility. Nevertheless, some punishment is necessary, if only to help them understand the enormity of their crime. The second principle can be applied, because the law should be seen to condemn their action, as a warning to others. Which brings us to the last; the thorny issue of protecting the public.

It seems reasonable to me that the Bulger killers were released when they were, provided whatever assessments that can be done had been done and the authorities were reasonably assured that they were not a clear and present danger to the public. They are both now adults. If they are found guilty of crimes now, then the law should take its course, bearing in mind their childhood crime, but not disproportionately.

Finally, there is the question of what the public has a right to know. Avoiding the lofty disdain of some for the common people and the firebrand-wielding of others (with newspapers to sell), I believe the public should be told the facts of what has happened. We are the jury. Any one of us can be called to sit in judgement on criminal cases, and the better informed we are, the better we can fulfill our duty.


Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Chippy foreign bird

Poor little Ariane Sherine. People keep asking her where she's from, and she's tired of it. Luckily, the Guardian have given her an outlet to explain her family tree, which can be printed off and handed out to future questioners.

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

The Yorkshire Ripper thinks he should be set free, because he's no longer a threat.

In my view, there should be three principles involved in determining the punishment of convicted criminals, in descending order.

1) Punishment. You did a bad thing and deserve to be punished.
2) Deterrent. You did a bad thing. We don't want others to do the same thing, so we are going to give everyone an example of why they shouldn't do it, by what we do to you.
3) Protecting the public. You have proven yourself a threat to other people, so we are going to protect society from you.

Peter Sutcliffe is challenging his punishment with regard to the last principle. But Peter, we haven't finished punishing you yet. We're still on point 1. Once that's done with, we can move on to point 2 and then 3.

Point 1 will be finished when you cease to breathe.
Point 2 will be finished when you're buried in the prison cemetery.
Then, and only then, the question of the threat you pose will become relevant.

Monday, 1 March 2010

Climategate: slo-mo car crash continues

'Professor' Phil Jones, one of the chief Cardinals in the Church of Al Gore and the Latter Day Climatologists, has been explaining how peer review works amongst his fellow true-believers - seemingly a variation on "don't ask, don't tell".

"Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research."

Uh-huh? But what if somebody does ask?

"Challenged about one email in which he tells a sceptic he does not want to give him data because it will be misused, Prof Jones admitted: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails'.

But Prof Jones insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust and verifiable.

And he said 80 per cent of the raw data used to create a series of average global temperatures showing that the world was getting warmer, along with methodology from the Met Office - but not CRU - on how the average temperatures were calculated, had been released."

80 per cent?

Would you trust a witness in a court case who admitted telling you 80 per cent of the truth?