They are at it again. They? You know who I mean, the grey
men, the blob, those who decide, without any permissions, what is considered
acceptable speech, behaviour, news, information for the hoi polloi. That’s us,
the lowly classes who toil away and pay for everything though our taxes. We
tolerate governance because we believe that there must be rules, there must be
standards. But time and again we discover that there is not a single standard
to which we are all held accountable.
Much fun has been has with the Prime Minister’s name
which, it turns out can be used as a rhyme for all manner of unsavoury
attributes, but the two-tier Keir monicker has taken hold because of his
unerring inability to shake it off. Every time he opens his mouth that droning
monotone, occasionally punctuated by failed attempts to inject human emotion,
he demonstrates that he simply does not understand people. No matter how many
times he tells us that he does. (His speechwriters really need to work harder.)
So, yesterday he told us all off for daring to have
opinions. He berated those who had demanded more information about the Southport
kid killer, Axel Rudakubana. And across social media and the press the split
was as clear as day. Nigel Farage came in for abuse as seasoned lefty commentators
lined up to printsplain what they had only just learned. And once again it was ‘the
rule of law’. As an MP you should know this. Parliamentary privilege must not
be abused. On and on it went with all the sanctimony they could muster.
Starmer went on to say that the UK faces a ‘new’ terror
threat - ‘loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom accessing all manner of
material online’ as if he had only just discovered the existence of the
internet. Of course, islamic-inspired terrorism was played down. We must not jump
to assumptions about motive, about ideology, etc. Yet he was quick out of the
blocks to slate every man-jack of the frustrated demonstrators as ‘far-right’
and equally quick to bring them to ‘justice’ and promised to change terrorism
laws to recognise this ‘new and dangerous threat’ if needed.
And there was that word – justice – a word which changes
its definition depending on who is using it and to what purpose. The outpourings
of emotion, descending into violence (although not a single person was
beheaded, raped, blown up, run down, thrown from a tall building or hanged, as
it happens) was a result of years of impotent frustration coming to a head over
what was clearly an islamic-style attack. But, unlike the incessant violence-for-Palestine
movement, those moved to protest in Southport were met with swift ‘justice’.
Now, months later, the story is that it had to be quelled
because as we all know now the ‘far right’ (which has never had much success) is
a far bigger threat than jihad (which has had success after bloody success) and
most important of all is that we must not prejudice the legal process which
demands a fair trial for the ‘alleged’ terrorist.
Can he not see why people are angry? Can he not see the
clear difference between the way the criminal was dealt with, using the full protection
of the law, and the way the protesters were punished with the full force of the
law? And as for all these newly aware legal experts trying to slap down Farage,
here’s a bit of legal advice from me; you are the problem, you are the reason
this country is so fucked up right now.
Then you have idiocies like the risible Good Law project where
Jolyon Maugham and his merry band of misfits repeatedly tout for the kind of
legislation that makes most people sick to their stomach. There doesn’t seem to
be a left-wing cause that these miserable specimens won’t advocate for. But in
reality, no matter your devotion to ‘the rule of law’ we undeniably have some
very bad law. You don’t get spontaneous rioting in the streets (except by the professional,
organised rioters of the left) unless something is very badly wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment