Why it would have been kosher in Cowes
THE MOST argumentative nation on Earth isn’t the drunken Scotch, or even those arrogant, Gallic, cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but those damned Israelis.
Have you been there? I’ve never seen anything like it. I’ve done my time on Bury New Road in Manchester where starting an argument with a passing pedestrian, the man in the paper shop or the shmuck behind the counter in the deli who’s cut the salt beef too thick is a daily pastime. But get the buggers on their home territory and they’re totally meshugene.
Suggest in a hotel that a couple of dodgy oranges might not be a complete breakfast and they’re at your throat like a rabid Rottweiler. Offer to pay for a meal in shekels rather than US dollars and the waiter will look at as if you’ve just taken a dump on his mother’s doorstep. Suggest that there might be two sides to every political argument in a Tel Aviv bar – where the clientele are all legally toting automatic rifles – and you’ll be happy just to make the first plane out next morning. (I was.)
These guys could truly start a fight in an empty room. OK, I hear you say, as a race they’ve got every reason to be a bit tetchy, but for how long are they going to be at war with the world, literally and figuratively?
I blame that nice Clement Atlee, who as Prime Minister in 1948 was party to the madcap decision to dump the Jewish nation down in the middle of a bunch of Arabs. I mean, who really thought that was a good idea? It’s like taking The Pope to an Orange Parade.
I’ve said it before: we should have just let them have the Isle of Wight - after sinking the ferry. They’d have been happy enough picking fights amongst themselves to start worrying about Hezbollah, and if they still fancied a bit of afters, well, France is just across the way.
WHILE WE’RE mining this rich seam of what will undoubtedly be seen by some as blatant anti-Semitism, we should deal with Lord Levy, Mr Blah’s cashpoint king and tennis partner.
Is it only me who thinks it’s a shame we can’t get the Yanks interested in the cash-for-honours case? He’d have been on the 9.38 Continental flight from Gatwick to Houston before you could blink, looking forward to two years in a Texas nick without bail before his case even came to court.
And isn’t it perverse that a hard-line extradition treaty aimed at packing suspected terrorists off to Guantanamo Bay with minimum fuss is first used to bang up a trio of possibly-dodgy businessmen? I mean, it’s the NatWest Three. They’re hardly the Guilford Four or the Birmingham Six, whatever the FBI says. In fact, the Houston Chronicle managed to print just two paragraphs on the arrival of these desperados, tucked away in the business section.
At the time of writing, I don’t know if they’ve yet been bailed or are wearing orange boiler suits on the chain gang, but it does stick in the craw that the nation that gave the world the principle of open and democratic justice (i.e. us) should now be sending its citizens off to be tried in a foreign court without a single shred of evidence being put before a British judge.
And meanwhile we can find time within the judicial system to fine a woman who chucked a green chip out of a car window. Sometimes the law truly is an ass.
I KNOW we’re all desperately worried about global warning (yeah, right), and the appalling inefficiency of our money-grabbing water companies means that we’re constantly threatened with drought, but the last time I glanced out of the window I couldn’t see any palm trees or camels lurking in the neighbourhood.
So why is it necessary for every young woman under the age of 30 to carry a bottle of water around with them? Are they frightened that they’ll get stranded somewhere between New Look and Top Shop and die of dehydration like an abandoned Foreign Legionnaire in the Sahara?
And why are they drinking so much of the stuff anyway? A couple of glasses a day used to do the trick when I was a kid; now it’s a swallow of ridiculously expensive bottled muck every five minutes. I spoke to a fat woman last week who said she was drinking eight litres a day in an attempt to lose weight. She was like a human sponge. No wonder there’s a shortage of the damn stuff.
ANYWAY, I’VE come out in this weird rash that looks a bit like chicken pox. I haven’t been near a doctor in 15 years so I phoned up that NHS Direct service to ask what to do about it.
After answering a list of questions, I was suddenly asked what my ethnic origin was. I was momentarily flummoxed. “Err … English and … err … white” I said, almost apologetically.
“White British, then,” said the very nice lady at the other end of the phone. I thought of all my Scotch and Welsh admirers and said “No, English actually.”
Dear reader, it would have been easier to claim to have been a Klingon. No box was available to tick and the computer said no. Being English simply wasn’t allowed. So there you go, my Celtic friends. I’m officially one of you lot now. And I’ve got shingles. I honestly don’t know what’s worse.
O The views of Mr Beelzebub are purely personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editor or staff of this website, of anyone who didn't sleep a wink on Tuesday night after watching Big Cat Diaries because they were worrying about Toto the baby cheetah getting eaten by baboons, of anyone who was deterred from taking up a career as an Italian lip-reader because there was no demand for the service, or of anyone who can't see the black humour in putting a chronic asthmatic on the cigarette counter at my local Sainsbury's. Every time she leant across for a packet of 20, the poor girl had to have a whizz on her inhaler. It was so entertaining that I bought 200. In tens.
posted by BarryBeelzebub @ 4:53 AM
39 Comments:
Every time she leant across for a packet of 20, the poor girl had to have a whizz on her inhaler
Good gracious, out here in the Antipodes we don't have scat and urination in our supermarkets - I suppose it's only a matter of time before we catch up with the trends in enlightened Britain. :-)
So there you go, my Celtic friends. I’m officially one of you lot now. And I’ve got shingles. I honestly don’t know what’s worse.
I'll leave it to the Scotsman with Tourettes to call you an English cunt... oops, beat him to it.
Still, agree with you about the Rt Hon Atlee: good plan to put the Jewish people in the middle of a bunch of Arabs. *rolls eyes*
The trouble predates Attlee. It started with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and really hit the fan right after WWI when David Lloyd George mixed a little religious romanticism with his empire building schemes in the Middle East (See "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin).
It was obvious by 1920 that setting this place up would cause problems.
After WWII, the victors felt guilty for abetting Hitler's slaughterhouse operations, so they figured they could make up for their mistakes by further screwing up the Middle East.
The Jews figure that they have got to defend themselves, and history certainly suggests that nobody else will do it for them, so it's hard to blame them for being combative.
The real idiots are the rest of governments in the Middle East - they sit on top of immense quantities of wealth while their people live in stupidity and squalor. They figure they can keep their pea-brained religious nutbag populace content by attacking Israel. And they lose every time.
Go figure.
Dear fee d(me)
Thank you for telling me that. I would never have known.
*snigger*
I rather suspect that the British government's policy of putting Jewish people into the midst of Arabs was a good case of "divide and conquer", especially since these Arabs were already showing signs of wanting us out, and to keep their oil to themselves. Plus access to Suez.
It's said that were you have 2 Jews, you have 3 opinions.
Israeli policy is heavily aided and abetted by the US government. The US (like Britain before it) wants an unstable Middle East, and for the same reasons. It's highly understandable in the light of the Holocaust etc that Jews should want a homeland, and it's also understandable that they should want to defend it: yet Israel's Human Rights record is appalling, and they're a very aggressive state.
The whole Middle East situation, especially in Palestine, has hardly changed for ordinary people since the 50's. Like Bazza says, poor people remain poor, undereducated, with only the Mullahs and other firebrands to influence popular opinion. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait remain practically medieval monarchies. They'd do far better to follow the lead of the tiny state of Quatar. Whilst essentially fundamentalist, this state managed that rarest of things: a top down revolution. They have elections, even women can vote or stand for office. Perhaps, though, if the rest of the world hadn't ignored the outcome of the pre-emptive war then maybe the Arab world in general wouldn't be stuck in this endless cycle.
As for being unable to state your "English" nationality, well, what do you expect? When anyone BUT the English proudly state their nationality or race, the PC crowd applaud, "Oh look, they're being all ethnic". It seems that the English aren't "Ethnic". Most of our neighbours would furiously deny being English, whilst it seems that at the same time, there's no such thing! Just ask them to put you down as NOT French, NOT German, NOT Welsh etc......
I rather liked the story a few years ago about some Irish people in London getting a grant because they were deemed an "Ethnic minority".
EXCELLENT few thoughts from Black Dog. It would be asking too much if all the bloggers were so measured and interesting in their responses, wouldn't it? Be careful old chap, the 'ignorati' will soon be accusing you of being Anti-Semitic!
The poor old Palestinians will never win, given the Jewish/Zionist lobby in the US and the UK. As an [American] friend of mine always says, "The Palestinians will never run out of rocks and the Israelis will never run out of bullets. You could say that the Palestinians are being made to pay in blood for what the Nazis did to the Jews.
There's not much to add, except sympathy for Bazza: shingles is a very unpleasant condition and you have my sympathy - a rather unkind comment from Chris I thought:
"I'll leave it to the Scotsman with Tourettes to call you an English cunt... oops, beat him to it."
A bit unnecessary perhaps?
enough children to turn into suicide bombers. Claiming the Palestinians are somehow oppressed people reduced to throwing rocks at their oppressors is a twisted depiction of reality. They display some revolting and sickening characteristics.- Anon.
OK, look at it this way. Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War- and to some extent, before, many displaced Arabs were simply left to rot. Many were living (and still live) in makeshift UN refugee camps. They've been ignored ever since. No education, no real infrastructure, no nothing.
If the entire world community ignores your nation's plight, you have 3 choices: try to reason nicely, meet their force with equal force, or resort to any means available. Plainly, Israel is a nuclear armed nation, and has a very well equipped and trained army. Palestinians do not have this dubious luxury. The world isn't listening: the Israelis certainly aren't. Israel continues expanding it's ILLEGAL expansion into Palestinian territory, and not even for military reasons, merely to make room for the huge influx of Jewish people from the territories of the former USSR.
Only the last resort is open to the Palestinians. As I said, the only ones doing the "educating" of the legions of angry and disaffected young men and women are the mullahs and other extremists. Be honest: what would YOU do if, for example, the French decided to occupy Britain, and the rest of the world armed them, and ignored us? Maybe not go suicide bombing, but you'd use any means available when it's obvious that negotiation won't work.
Yes, arming children with exploding vests IS sickening. Suicide bombers are sickening. But equally sickening is the course of events that led to this.
I hate extremists of every sort, be they Muslim, Jewish, fundamental Christian, Communist or free market advocates. We tend to forget that despite the efforts of Thatcher, Major and Blair, we still live in a safe society, under no threat of invasion, and hence it's easy to advocate peace when you've already got it.
I can't imagine what it's like to live under an invader's rules and conditions, but I know that I'd not be happy until they're gone.
Yes Blackdog, the ordinary people live in abject poverty in refugee camps etc. But their so called leaders don't. They just cream off the millions that have been poured into the area to get them out of exactly that situation.
Education? Oh sure, having worked in that business with people from that area they are very keen. Keen to cheat, lie and try every underhand trick to beat the system.There will undoubtably be those who wish to strive to improve their chances in life and good luck to them but I note that the vast majority of them do not return to their home land to assist in raising the standards there. Now just where do they end up?
I hold no particular brief for any race / faith. I have worked with people from many countries around the world in my lifetime. There are good and bad in EVERY race.
As ever, "Black Dog" provides a welcome measure of sanity and common sense.
My friend Mr Anonymous who thinks the Palestinians as a people are 'revolting and sickening' would also do well to reflect on he fact that the ONLY country in the Middle East with Nuclear Weapons [courtesy US-technology] is of course, Israel. And I am quite convinced that they would use them on whoever they considered the latest enemy - Iran, Syria or the Palestinians themselves. The world would stand by and twiddle its collective thumbs as it has always done, and as it is doing at present. Anyone notice how we are already seeing Mr Bush blaming Iran and Syria for 'aggression' - with our little Bliar in hot pursuit of course? Perhaps they could somehow figure out a way to include North Korea in there as well, so as to provide a pretext to attack THEM.
After all, the only pretexts we needed to attack Iraq were a) that they had WMDs capable of striking the UK in 30 minutes, and b)they ignored UN resolutions. They hadn't, they didn't. Hang on a minute though, hasn't Israel ignored just about every UN resolution ever passed and don't THEY have WMDs? No, of course not, I must have been dreaming - and even if not, Mr Anon, I'm sure you would say, "well, they would be justified in taking whatever action they choose to defend themselves, because they are a poor weak democratic country desperately trying to survive in a sea of undemocratic savages."
I wonder if anyone else feels that we are on a slippery slope to WW3, or at the very least least a major regional conflict which will have far reaching consequences for us all?
Agreed, Theotherhalf. I've never experienced that part of the world myself, but I have been told that corruption etc is rife to such an extent that it's normality.
The whole situation is certainly coming to a head, Tony B. I do believe that there'll be very far reaching consequences in that nations will be very much forced to take sides. The French and Germans, for example, know that Israeli actions are aided and abetted by the USA, and they're not big fans of US Miliarism. The UK, plainly, is a puppet of US ambitions- with precious little to show for it. The Russians? I think they'd like to curb US ambitions and would also like to return to being a superpower. China would dearly like to see US power limited, but currently have much to gain by propping up the US economy. The other Arab states? Who knows, because although they all seem to be anti-Israel, nevetheless, taking overt action against Israel seems a bridge too far.
In my opinion, the UK could find itself further estranged from France and Germany, (and hence the EU), and yet it's plain that tieing ourselves to the waning US is not a good idea, either. Blair would do well to stop pretending that the UK is a superpower, and pretending to be a great stateman, and stay out of it.
As for Israel, well, it's plain that they've been itching for this kind of thing. The press's ridiculous posturing about the death of Ariel Sharon would herald an era of a softer line from Israel is obviously rubbish. There seems to be no resolving the situation, and many a wider conflict started with seemingly minor events in a relatively minor part of the world.
Let us hope there's no escalation and that this polarisation of nations doesn't happen.
Black Dog might be "a little previous" about the "press's ridiculous posturing about the death of Ariel Sharon".
Strange as it may seem, the "Butcher of Sabra and Shatila" still clings to life of a sort. It's a pity he is NOT in a persistent vegetative state, because he might like to contemplate where his lifelong militarism has brought his country and the region. Still, as 'they' often say "where there's death there's hope".
By the way, I hope everyone has noticed how all this kerfuffle has been a Godsend for our dear Mr Blah: it takes everyone's mind off his "little local difficulty" with cash for peerages and having his collar felt by the Old Bill - oh, and another British soldier getting killed in Iraq!!!!
And a new phrase has popped out of the Nu Labour spin machine - after Mr Bush's "Axis of Evil, we now refer to Syria, Iran and so on as an "Arc of extremism". God save us all!!
What a relief not to be held responsible for lowering the tone of this learned and ever insightful blog!
I am bracing myself for the onslaught of criticism from Mr Bliar et al who will no doubt- again- try to put words and God knows what else in my mouth
I am no expert on Islam nor on any religion for that matter [not possessing any formal belief of my own], so I am not perhaps the best person to comment on the comparative merits or otherwise of the major world faiths. It appears to me however - essentially as an outsider [but one who has certainly "experienced" life in a strict Islamic theocracy first hand by living for 7 years in Saudi Arabia], that Islam is a most severe, restrictive, and some would even say primitive and violent belief system. One that has its origins in harsh desert environments and warring desert societies. By contrast, Christianity these days is a tolerant [some would say over-tolerant] religion which tries to bring peace and harmony to a troubled world. All of these comments are of course subjective interpretation, because it would be true to say that there are many millions in the Islamic world today who are tolerant rather than repressive, and peace-loving rather than militant. It also does not excuse the excesses of the past carried out in the name of Christianity - the Crusades and the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages, the religious wars, and the many acts of barbarity carried out by the Catholic church in the name of God and to further their conquests overseas. But all of these extreme acts are perversions of the original ideas, in the same way that suicide bombers see their actions as "holy" and worthy of being considered "martyrdom".
I can well see how Moslem youth is aggrieved for what they legitimately see as injustices perpetrated against their faith by "The West". But that is where it should stop, and the reason it doesn't is because impressionable young minds are being perverted by more sinister forces in the mosques and madrassas throughout the Moslem world. I fear that a major conflict is in the making - those same sinister forces want to convert the whole of the planet [by force if necessary - and it surely would be] to a Moslem "Caliphate". And at this point any 'normal' person in the West says, "Enough is enough - the Buck stops right here". What form the final conflict will take and when are the only open questions to my mind. The West has all the weapons, nuclear mainly, but one can't use them indiscriminately to bomb isolated radical Islamists to kingdom come, without "collateral" human damage. And if you do THAT, you risk radicalising the entire Moslem world. I think that the only answer HAS to be a change of attitude in the foreign policies of the West, combined with a root and branch reorganisation of our intelligence to pre-empt the type of attacks which at the moment are infrequent but worryingly increasing.
The police and intelligence services in the West [UK in particular] have a case to answer I feel. They have been at best incompetent and at worst their approach has been too soft on Moslems - perhaps infiltrated by do-gooders, perhaps shit-scared of any possible backlash, perhaps simply underfunded by politicians and civil servants. That said, the first responsibility of any elected democratic government is to preserve the safety of its citizens. And that means ALL of them, not forgetting that a number of totally innocent Moslems and Jews have been killed as a result of the London suicide bombings. If the government fails in this regard, we have anarchy and they deserve to be kicked out forthwith.
I have much against Islam: I consider it to be a repressive, regressive and inflexible religion, incapable of independent thought and severe in its demands of its followers. In particular, I would mention the treatment of women, of dissent, and especially the penalty for apostasy, which to this day sends a chill down my spine. How ANY religion can punish those who renounce it by putting them to death is totally beyond my comprehension. When you compare Islam to say Buddhism or Hinduism, which are essentially pacifist religions, it rather terrifies - well, me at least. After 7 years in Saudi Arabia, I have to say that I have little time for Islam, and frankly mistrust ALL Moslems, even the quiet and "moderate" ones. For those Westerners who convert to Islam I have only sadness, mystification and contempt. Fools being led by zealots.
I am quite fearful for the future. My only [rather selfish]consolation is that I probably won't be around when the balloon goes up, and neither will my good friend Mr Bliar. Which is a pity, because he would then belatedly have to accept that history has proven him wrong in his warmongering foreign policies, and that his stupidity has to a large extent precipitated the current dreadful situation in the world today.
Oh, and Kris, why don't you stick to your own Blog if you don't like being crticised?
Good points, Tony B, and I'd not disagree with you.
I do take an interest in world religions, all of them, even long-dead religions and mythologies, and I think that because I've studied them fairly closely, that's how I ended up an atheist.
Isn't it paradoxical that all major religions condemn the unbeliever, and especially the Atheist, as using his lack of belief to do as he pleases? When that's pretty much what they're doing, be it the Bible Belt baptist church or Taliban.
I absolutely agree: NO decent belief system should advocate the taking of lives. I've always said that IF I'm wrong, and the Big Man wants words with me, (and I'll certainly want a few with him), if he's as good and wise etc as they say he is, then he'll have more mercy on me than some lunatic who kills in his name. In short, if we do wrong things, let God (in all his guises) punish us.
Buddhism is indeed the most attractive of religions, although many say that it's a philosophy with the trappings of a religion.
As an atheist, I have to believe, really, that life is too precious to take, simply because you only get one. No cause is worth dying for, for the same reason. There won't be a load of virgins waiting for me when I croak (although I'd like to be proved wrong about this), no Valhalla, no fluffy white clouds, no reunion with lost friends or family. No reincarnation etc. If we all valued life that much, perhaps there'd be less trouble.
Pope Innocent III, during the Albigensian Massacre in medieval France, stated "Kill them all: God will know his own", when asked how to know good from bad. Typical.
Yet, there are many areas of the world where Muslims are far from extremists, like large chunks of Eastern Europe. Islam, like much of US style Christianity, is being misused for political ends.
I don't see that we should tolerate anyone of any faith who promotes incendary ideas. Yes, I agree, the PC crowd and the police are too slow, too ill-informed and in any case not clued up enough to root out agitators.
I have no problem accepting criticism. Those of us who have taken a stand and served our country are big enough to take it. What I object to is snivelling little igits baiting me by putting words in my mouth, attributing comments that I've never made, and then crying when I've pulled you up on it. I hope that you would now reconsider your own approach to those with opinions at odds with yours- and, quite frankly, take your criticism as everyone else on this forum appears able to do- like a man.
We await hearing from you with your answers on point.
In the meantime, I am sick of snivelling little gits, the armchair police commanders like yourself, who say we we have been to soft on Moslems [sic] and then criticise the police. Make up your mind!
I shed no tears for Jean Charles. Some people seem to think that the police should deal with suicide bombers the same way as shoplifters. Do you really think the police should take the greater risk of some muppet detonating and taking the entire carriage out?
What also gets me is that the IPCC sees fit to deal with the episode by leaking snippets of information to the press. I'd liked to hear what the officers on the scene have to say- but in this complaints industry gone mad country, we'll never have the luxury of hearing what the police have to say about what happened. I really have difficulty believing Jean Charles behaved perfectly and followed police orders- but hey, the IPCC don't want the inconvenience of that.
Sorry Mr B.liar, but I won't be wearing a Brazil shirt this week.
I wouldn't mind some gratitude for the police. What they've done and continue to so on our behalf- even if you don't thank them- saves lives.
Finally, I'm glad the Bush Blair conversation was picked up on tape yesterday- Bush made the comment that dares not speak its name in this country. It's time for Hez-bollocks to stop this shit. end of.
Thanks BB. Just read the Cowes blog. Why are you so timid? Sock it to 'em. I'm an ENGLISHMAN living in the Middle East - Thank God I don't live in the Land of Milk and Honey. Never been. Never want to. I live south in the Magic Kingdom. Very scary place. But my blood boiled when I saw the Israelis destroying that beautiful poor country AGAIN for the second time in living memory. Bombing innocents comes so easily to Israelis. They're never so happy as when they get a 50:1 body count. The hell that half of Lebanon is Christian. These lunatics kill everyone who doesn't wallow in their sense of historic grief. They just don't get it. Leave Lebanon the first time but forget to give back the POWs, and don't be surprised the story isn't over. Nick someone's country and don't be surprised they fight you forever. And I'm not talking about 1967. And forget the Isle of Wight. That's England - there's not much of it. If the U.S. wanted to give them a homeland so much, they should have given them Florida and be done with it.
Nice joke, Jimmy. You must admit, the Scottish accent is excellent for cursing in!
What are the figures like in Scotland for wanting Scottish Independence? A third is a lot, but to be honest, I don't think that this is out of either English patriotism or in fairness to the Scots: just them banging on about the "Scottish rebate".
For my own part, if Scotland wants independence, let it have it. My greatest worry is that this would pretty much doom Northern England to a future of Tory or pseudo Tory (i.e NuLabour) governments. Due to the discrepency between representation of the north versus the south, and the south's bias towards Tory/NuLabour. Losing Scotland would also lose any left of centre party many votes in a general election.
You have my full permission to get some of your mates together and invade. Come and liberate us in the north!
Kris- I suspect that a lot of flak you got was because someone called "Chris" posted and appeared to take your side. Some people plainly thought that you and he were the same person. Plus, we have had a lot of people who post negatively and don't actually say WHAT their point of view is.
The police? Sure, it's a hard job, (not that I have much sympathy for the police, my dealings with them predispose me not to), and possibly Jean Charles was guilty of pretty gross stupidity, running from armed police officers, but that cannot, really, be a good enough reason not to have some sympathy for him. Even if you take the view that it was a misjudgment on behalf of the police (and they're only human), it's way too harsh to imply that he deserved it? Sure, he was stupid to run, but from what I've heard of Brazilian police, you'd run too. It takes an act of faith to NOT run when someone points a gun at you and you're not sure they won't open fire. I agree absolutely that it's a near impossible task, to stay ahead of the terrorists and all, and some gratitude is undoubtedly due to the police, but there's a strong element in many police forces of gung-ho. I know the mentality of all too many coppers.
The problem with NOT giving the police the power they need to protect people from terrorists- and other violent criminals - is that they'll lack the means to pre-empt the criminals. The problem with increasing police powers is that they often abuse them: there's not a police force in the world that wouldn't like more power. There's little point in having them "protecting our freedoms" if, in the process, we end up losing them freedoms. Ultimately, the blame for any further attrocities cannot lie with the police, but with the lunatics who carry them out- and our government, for creating the conditions for terrorism.
T.E. Laurence: I agree. Although I've never been to the middle east, I know lots of people who have: most have been shocked at the way Israel behaves. Anyone wanting to know more should go and look at John Pilger's website,
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=401
Try that one, for starters.
Some wise words as ever from Black Dog. And some truisms from T.E.Lawrence too - sounds like you live in a place i know VERY well. We used to call it "the Magic Kingdom" too, and I agree it's a VERY scary place. If you have ever attended a public beheading it is something which haunts you for the rest of your life.
Kris, WHAT on earth are you on about now??? Beats me: not only did I not directly criticise you nor any of your opinions, I never even mentioned the De Menezes case. I simply made the point that the police have badly misjudged the Muslim [sic] terror threat, and should be held to account for incompetence. Can't recall suggesting that you wear a Brazilian shirt EITHER - perhaps a Roy Keane one would suit better?
As far as "snivelling little gits" are concerned, Kris, you need look no further than our Dear Mr Bliar and his 'conversation' with the leader of the free world yesterday. If you haven't seen it or read the transcript I recommend it to you. The way Bush dismissed Bliar as little more than an overgrown schoolboy made me squirm with embarassment and shame, and was not a proud moment for a Brit [or even a Scot, Jimmy McT, which little Bliar certainly is!]. Bush cold barely even find the time to stop eating and listen to Bliar - so much for "The Special Relationship"!!!
Oh, and if it's not controversial or "intellectual", I have long been a fan of John Pilger [Robert Fisk in The Independent too], so I was very pleased to see that you like him as well, Black Dog.
If Mr b.Liar would clearly and precisely indicate the bits of my post he cannot understand (his, "what are you talking about")I will try to use language that even he can understand.
Barry, it is not quite right to say that the US can extend the long arm of justice "without a shred of evidence". The US must show "probable cause" as compared with the English "prima facie case". I don't see that there really is that much daylight between the two concepts for there to be such a kerfuffle. Personally, I hope the NatWest Three had a nice flight: They bought a company to Enron at an undervalue and cashed in at the expense of Enron shareholders- mostly pensioners- who were left high and dry. The nexus with the US was the deal was done-on paper at any rate- in the US. Lesson One: there is no free lunch- even for city boys; Lesson Two: Don't mess with Texas.
It's alsways a pleasure checking in with you boys after a long day- Have a nice night under the watchful eye of the Met!
Dear Police Commander Kris,
It would be futile trying to go into ever-increasing detail and back and forth discussions about your blogs and your opinions - so I won't try. If you yourself can't understand why others think your ideas are a touch bizarre, then I politely suggest you stick to your own blog berating Stoke Newington council about park benches and carry on listening to Abba. You are clearly way out of your depth when suggesting that it is quite acceptable in Bliar's police state that innocent people should have 8 bullets pumped into their heads for the criminal offence of running to catch a train. Let's hope you are never late for work, eh? Well, OK, let's be charitable and say that the good Commander Cressida Dick was a little sloppy with her orders and that de Menezes 'looked a bit shifty' - still not much ground for an extra-judicial execution was it? No doubt there are those who will say "he deserved it", and "he was an illegal worker who should not have been here in the first place", but that's no crumb of comfort for his family and friends I venture. And if the other [real] 7/7 bombers were known to the police and the intelligence services, why weren't they under strict round-the-clock surveillance??? My point about incompetence [at all levels] refers.
As far as the "NatWest 3" go, I am 100% with Bazza - "it does stick in the craw that the nation that gave the world the principle of open and democratic justice (I.e. us) should now be sending its citizens off to be tried in a foreign court without a single shred of evidence being put before a British judge." These people may be odious to many, but they are certainly not "terrorists". Our friendly bankers did very well out of the Enron deal [£1.5 million each] and I personally would have hoped that they would have been brought to book - in the UK. The lesson [as you put it] is not so much "don't mess with Texas" but rather "don't mess with the US", leastways not as long as the Mr Bush and his Neocons friends are in power. I know, let's bang them all up in Guantanamo, or shoot them all in the head, that'll teach them! [I'm only joking Kris, in case you missed the point]. But to be serious, I think your statement that the NatWest bankers [sic]
"bought a company to Enron at an undervalue and cashed in at the expense of Enron shareholders- mostly pensioners- who were left high and dry."
says quite a lot about your grip of financial matters, and probably your ideas on the ethics of the case. Whatever the rights and wrongs here, the three bankers are living a privileged life on the backs of their deals, even if you feel it perfectly acceptable to defraud pensioners and NatWest customers!!
Do tell us Kris, is the real reason behind your venom because I happen to be antipathetic towards Nu Labour [and Mr T.Bliar in particular] or was there something else you feel aggrieved about? Since Black Dog, Weardale Militia, T.E.Lawrence, The Other Half and myself seem to broadly share the same views, I wonder if you'd let us all know just what rattles your particular cage????? Perhaps you are simply an "intellectophobe" like many of the "Anon" bloggers who feel it incumbent on themselves to put down a few words of wisdom every now and again??
Jimmy,
Yes! Thanks for the flowers!!!
I won't have much sympathy for rip-off con artist businessmen, either. There's all too many of them, and they usually get off damned lightly, as if being stripped of their high income jobs is punishment enough.
What IS at stake here is the PRINCIPLE of handing over British citizens to a FOREIGN power for trial. We should not ever do this. WHERE a crime is committed is unimportant: THAT a crime has been commited is what matters. Not so very long ago, the media campaigned for paedophiles who go abroad to "enjoy" the sex trade in the far east etc should be tried on return to the UK.
British subjects should be subject to British law. Think how many US laws we ALL probably break during the course of the week. Should we be tried by the US for them?
It strikes me as being extremely strange that the very sort of person who detests the EU's "grabbing our sovereignty" is the same person who thinks that the Yanks should be able to try British subjects. EU: hands off our sovereignty: US, grab as much as you can.
As I said, I agree that these crooked businessmen deserve to go through the mill: but they are British, and subject to British law.
There can be NO degrees of justice, otherwise we might as well scrap it altogether.
Quite another issue is the one-sided nature of US/UK extradition treaties. As usual, the US writes it's own rules: name ONE IRA member who the US handed over to us.
Have a nice night under the watchful eye of the Met!
Are we to take that to mean that you (Kris) are a member of the Met?
And if so, hands up who's worried? They've not banned free speech quite yet!
Dear Mr B.Liar
Thanks for your posting. Turning to what substance there is in your comments- I would have though "what rattles my cage" would be self-explanatory from my previous.
If I haven't mentioned it, I suppose what really rattles my cage is hypocrisy: It wasn't that long ago you were lecturing me about how this was an erudite blog with the focus on a civilised exchange of ideas rather than a slanging match.
Turning to Black Dog's comments- I agree that the police certainly do not need more ill conceived rushed through labour laws. what they need is to get rid of the politician Sir Ian Blair and bring back John Stephens- or Ronnie Flannagan or, I hear martin O'Neil is available.
Re Nat West Three- I agree that British Subjects should be tried in Britain for their crimes- trouble is- you commit crimes in other countries- you have to be prepared to pay the price in that country. Simple as that. That this country's CPS decided not to prosecute for the element of the crime committed here is well- the CPS all over. Try getting the CPS to prosecute anyone over anything- unless, of course, they can find some racial element they can stick on.
I can also confirm that I am not, nor have I ever been a member of or worked for any police force or "service" anywhere.
Having said that, I do know what it means to serve.
That this country's CPS decided not to prosecute for the element of the crime committed here is well
As you say, therein lies the problem. It's not very good when the US has to prosecute criminals because our own CPS won't.
Ian Blair? As you say, a politician, a careerist and certainly not an effective policeman. But that's NuLabour all over. It's incredible really, how you and I and most people have to have proven skills etc to get (and keep) our jobs, whilst ministers and political appointees rarely have to.
The problem as I see it that a government bereft of good ideas (i.e this one) tends to use legislation as a hammer to crack walnuts. Ditto taxation: rather than stop wastage and do the unpopular (tax the very wealthy), they sneak in taxes. The same could be said of increasing Police powers: all we really need is for the CPS to stop being what amounts to an obstruction to justice. We have plenty of laws, they just need to be implemented properly. I think the police are willing: the CPS etc aren't. They're more obsessed with the cost of bringing people to court than anything else.
Kris, you keep alluding to your life in the services, come on just admit you were in the scouts.
Yes, it was all rum, sodomy and the lash.
I couldn't take it anymore: I hate rum!
Mr McTourette reminds me (and not by has profile shot I might add) of some chiefs I used to know.
Sorry to be late for the party, but Cherie and I have been out enjoying ourselves.
It's getting a little difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff here, isn't it? By and large I think that Black Dog's comments are terrific - 100% spot on, thought provoking and [dare I even mention the word?] 'intelligent'. I wish it were the same for all the other bloggers out there. My main criticism has been directed towards those who a) talk nonsense, b) swear a lot [Jimmy McT excused on medical grounds] and c) don't have the courage to identify themselves.
Our friend Kris no doubt has some valid points to make but unfortunately his blogs are riddled with inconsistencies from one day to the next, and he falls into the Tourette Trap of labelling his detractors [me of course] "snivelling little gits" and "armchair police commanders" if one doesn't agree with his views on things - for example, the Police. He seems to be paranoid about being crtiticised by saying that .........."those of us who have taken a stand and served our country" then a day later hastily backpeddles saying "I can also confirm that I am not, nor have I ever been a member of or worked for any police force or 'service' anywhere". Finally, 10 minutes later he has second [or third] thoughts and says, "Having said that, I do know what it means to serve." Come on, Kris, make up your mind and don't be so coy: we are all getting VERY perplexed - come out of the closet and tell us. If you are in charge of Refuse Collection or Park Benches at Stoke Newington/Hackney Council please let us know if this is the "serving" you are talking about!!!!
Another point [which doesn't really bother me but I'll mention it anyway] is Kris frequently changing his mind about many issues when challenged. Take the "NatWest 3" : Kris said:
"Personally, I hope the NatWest Three had a nice flight: They bought a company to Enron at an undervalue and cashed in at the expense of Enron shareholders- mostly pensioners- who were left high and dry", but then a day later [when implicitly taken to task by Black Dog] "I agree that British Subjects should be tried in Britain for their crimes- trouble is- you commit crimes in other countries- you have to be prepared to pay the price in that country."
Which is it, Kris? I think we should be told. In point of fact the NatWest 3 purchased an ENRON subsidiary in the Cayman Islands at a knockdown price - so who did they allegedly defraud [if anyone], ENRON, pensioners, Nat West, the shareholders? Your call, since you seem to have more extensive knowledge of financial and legal matters than me.
Then again, on the de Menezes case, "Kompassionate Kris" seems to place the blame fair on square on the deceased in saying:
"I shed no tears for Jean Charles. Some people seem to think that the police should deal with suicide bombers the same way as shoplifters. Do you really think the police should take the greater risk of some muppet detonating and taking the entire carriage out?...... I really have difficulty believing Jean Charles behaved perfectly and followed police orders......Sorry Mr B.liar, but I won't be wearing a Brazil shirt this week."
Trouble is, Kris, Mr de Menezes is no longer around to give us HIS side of the story: the CCTV camera evidence has curiously disappeared, and the officers who fired the fatal shots are also not going to be prosecuted to enable us to find out THEIR version of events. Whichever way you cut it, the de Menezes case was a tragic illustration of outrageous and monumental incompetence on the part of the police, from the mistaken identificiation of the 'target' to the firing of the fatal shots. End of story.
I note with interest, Kris, that you have not responded to my three key questions:
1. Do you think that innocent people should have 8 bullets pumped into their heads for the criminal offence of running to catch a train?
2. Do you feel it is perfectly acceptable to defraud pensioners and NatWest customers?
3. Is the real reason behind your venom because I happen to be antipathetic towards Nu Labour [and Mr T.Bliar in particular]?
If you can't/don't want to answer these questions, Kris, I'll be more than happy to debate the destruction of Lebanon with you - having had some 15 years experience of living in the Middle East and some personal impressions of the conflict there. I guess this might count as a little more relevant "service" as opposed to an extended stay in Stoke Newington surrounded by Nu Labour sycophants and acolytes. We await your response with the usual interest.
I'm with Tony here - I can't fucking stand those who won't identify themselves (unlike him) and talk shite as well as all the bloody swearing!
"EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut.
The Muslim cleric who fled Britain last year, tried to board a ship full of women and children yesterday but was turned away.
He also wrote to the British embassy asking to be allowed back on “humanitarian grounds”.
In an email to officials, dole scrounger Bakri pleaded: “The current situation in Beirut left me without any choice but to appeal to you to grant me a visit visa to see my children for one month.”
But his bid to sneak on one of our ships was blocked at harbour gates by sharp-eyed officials".
I see this muppet now wants my navy to give him a lift out of hell! Enjoy your stay in Lebanon Omar! No doubt Mr B.liar will object on humanitarian grounds.
I think if mr b.liar would take the trouble to read my posts rather than immediately launching into yet another personal attack on a fellow contributer, he might have worked out some of my cv.
As Mr B.liar seems to be pressing the point, may I just clarify, much to his disappointment no doubt, that I am not interested in the lash or sodomy either- sorry.
He asks: "1. Do you think that innocent people should have 8 bullets pumped into their heads for the criminal offence of running to catch a train?
2. Do you feel it is perfectly acceptable to defraud pensioners and NatWest customers?
3. Is the real reason behind your venom because I happen to be antipathetic towards Nu Labour [and Mr T.Bliar in particular]?"
Adopting his numbering, I address his queries with the following: -
1. Given that we do not know all of the facts of this case, unless you work at the IPCC- or you were an eye-witness, of course, none of us are in the position to judge the police. I see that doesn't stop you. I'll all for fair trials. You won't see the IPCC report (whose conclusions will be based on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) for some time as it cannot be disclosed whilst proceedings (even health & safety) are live.
2. If you would take the trouble to read my post on the matter- you will see that I want the Enron Three to face the music. Unlucky as it is for them, part of their crime has a nexus in the USA. This entitles the USA to jurisdiction (these principles go back a ways- there are not novel under the 2002 treaty). I trust they will retain top lawyers and defend their case. I think the whole bit of lining their pockets by indulging in dodgey deals of undervalues and sales on is goning to look fairly unattractive to a jury. I don't like greedy bastards and, for the avoidance of any doubt, I'd like to see them become members of a Texas chain gang.
3. I'm afraid I can't divine the point you are attempting to make here. But if it comes to "venom", I think we only need look to your many references to: -
A) "A typical idiotic and biased comment from a right-wing Israeli supporter. You have obviously never met a Palestinian nor have the slightest idea of their history"; and
B) "...then I politely suggest you stick to your own blog berating Stoke Newington council about park benches and carry on listening to Abba" etc (too tedious to chronical).
Finally, Mr B.liar, you are starting to spook me. You've memorised my "profile" (we note for all your moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth, you have no profile or blog of your own) and you can't resist indulging in personal attacks.
I really don't want to know what you do (or did) for a living and I certainly don't want you turning up at my workplace with a dozen roses and a cheery smile looking for me!
Have a nice day. It is sad watching a man so frustrated by the limitations of his own intellect that he has to indulge in personal attack rather than exchange of ideas. Maybe you'll listen to Omar's reconsidered approach to disagreements- you never know-you might need a lift one day and having pissed everyone off for being so obnoxious, we'll all be leaving you in the dust. Shipmate.
Dear Tone,
Remember saying, "You chaps seem to have a problem stringing more than a few words together without swearing or shouting or sniping - ergo,your opinions don't count for a lot in my book".
Ditto mate. You're boring.
I think Kris has been unfortunate because of an apparent mix up involving a poster named "Chris"- I think Kris was wrongfully confused with him.
It'd be best, perhaps, to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, eh?
Bakri? Sod him, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not one of the people who believe that you have to utterly adopt the customs, opinions and worldview of your adopted country to the letter, ( I don't, and I am English), but preaching against your adopted country's ordinary people is another matter. In other words, if you want to shoot Blair or Thatcher etc, then fine, if you think that Britain is wrong to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, or to side with the USA over the Lebanon, then fine, but condoning and encouraging violent acts against ordinary Brits just isn't on.
But the language these tabloids use! It's just like reading Nazi propaganda. He's a "preacher of hate", he's a coward who wants to board a ship full of "women and children" (they've left the men behind then?), he's a "dole scrounger". He's a sneak.
Whereas our boys are "sharp eyed".
The man may well be all them things, but do we really need this Neo-Goebels type language? This is typical language of war for the simple minded. Where the enemy is not just wrong, but is also a coward, he's stupid, he's nowhere near as good as us, he's immoral, he's inhumane etc etc etc. This was also the language of anti-semitism.
Compare this:
The treacherous murder of the young German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in the office of the German embassy in Paris on 7 November 1938 by a 17-year-old Jew named Herschel Grünspan is rightly viewed by the entire German people as a contemptible sneaky attack on Adolf Hitler's new Greater Germany. Eighty million people were touched in the depth of their being; justified outrage erupted.
Hermann Esser "The Jewish World Plague" 1939
Esser's "justification" for the Kristallnacht pogroms following the shooting of Vom Rath (ironically, a man who was not an anti-semite and was actually being investigated by the Gestapo for pro- Jewish sentiments) by Herschel Grünspan, a young Jew whose Polish Jewish father had been ruined and deported by the Nazis.
Apart from being less "gruntlike" than the modern tabloid, the style bears an uncanny resemblance.
I admit, this is a pet hate of mine: tabloid language, but it's getting worse.
Good joke, Jimmy McT.
Guys, I really am struggling with the Kris / Chris supposed confusion. Black Dog, I think you are being too generous in trying to cover for Tone's behaviour. I hope he can see fit to now draw a line under it all and move, civilly, on.
Kind regards, Kris with a K
P.S. Black Dog- you're right, the quote re Bakari was cut straight from that august publication- today's Sun.
I can't cope with the obvious bias on the other end from the Guardian, The Torygraph, or the Murdoch media. Murdoch's Sun does seem to get the skinny on the latest football gossip. Krishnan Guru-Murphy at Channel 4 is getting fatter and smugger by the day, Rageh Omar has pissed off to Al-Jezeera. There's always Eamon Holmes, what a nice lad! In the states recently, I watched the Fox stormtroopers ooorah! and CNN has an agenda as well.
That leaves me with the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. Without a doubt WSJ is conservative- but extremely well written. (Believe it or not, the American papers are written to a much higher standard than what we get here- I don't suppose many americans actually read a paper though!)
The FT is is Chomsky's favourite and mine for straight talking and excellent grammar and structure.
Over and out
Yes, I've heard that the British press is the worst in the world, apart from the Australian press, that is. But then again, Oz press is owned almost completely by Murdoch and Packer and all.
If it's good enough for Chomsky, it's good enough for me, I'll have to have a read, thanks for the tip.
I only fund out about that (FT) from seeing Chomsky's film Manufacturing Consent. Superb.
I hold no special brief for Mr T.Bliar and his sarcastic pen, but if you want a REALLY good laugh check out KKKKris' blog and see what a barmy anorak HE is! A special treat is his obsession with Clissold Park and his ongoing feud with a Hackney [?]Councillor, Luke Akehurst.[blog of June 29th]
p.s. there's tons of other interesting stuff on Kris' blog too - restaurant guides, things to do in Stoke Newington, adopting cats with damaged tails etc etc.........zzzzzzzzzz
it is called Kris' Stoke Newington for a reason. All politics are local- at least that's our premise. There is room for both Bazza's Devil's Advocate and a little rant-ette about Stoke Newington, it's nu-laboour councillors and it's prawn sandwich eating supporters. I trust you'll find our remits do not over-lap!
I hope you will join me in watching Dennis Bergkamp's testimonial this afternoon.
Bazza, are you a rugby league man?
It's just dawned on my that some of Bazza's readers may think that Stoke newington's local politics my be similar to their own Vicar of Dibly parish council bun-fights over whether the £3,000 precept should have been spent on a party etc. Look and think again.
As all Tony Blair's giltterati came from Islington Council- you can bet your hat that President Brown's cabinet will be drawn from Hackney Council. You think this country has a pc gone mad issue now: wait for it!
And for those who hold out hope that David Cameron is going to get in next time- we'll he'd get my vote if he could just shut his trap about hugging hoodies!
Post a Comment
<< Home