Don't you just hate that?

Alison Saunders says she won’t be renewing her contract. This is a contract that is now widely known wasn’t going to be renewed anyway. Why do unpopular people make slow-moving targets of themselves so regularly? This isn’t so much jumping before pushed as indicating when you’re already on the slip road. But what is Alison’s greatest legacy during her time as Director of Public Prosecutions, heading up the Crown Prosecution Service? Assessed like most other service industries, on the expansion of their ‘customer base’ you’d have to say she’s done a bang-up job. But turning us all into criminals is hard to describe as any form of success.

Imagine you are on a bus in any large city in the UK and a very fat woman in a burka gets on. She addresses the driver in a language you cannot fathom, then lumbers her way towards you, the only person occupying a double seat. Knowing there are free seats upstairs and with several stops to go, you vacate your seat and allow her to sit as you head upstairs. A low murmur comes from nearby, but you think nothing of it. When, a few stops later, you descend the stairs you are greeted by and escorted from the bus by the police. What was your crime?

You are not being charged with maliciously affording a seat to a lady – that would be sexist. Nor are you aiding and abetting the recognition of disability – that would be ableist. And fat-shaming. Thinking that beneath the burka was a woman is also assuming her gender, which is transphobic and not addressing the new passenger in her native language, or engaging the services of an interpreter could be construed as xenophobic since Mrs Saunders’ tenure in post. (Actually, referring to Alison Saunders as ‘Mrs’, even though that is her title, could, in itself be construed as a crime.) Nobody dare mention the burka.

No, you need not be charged with anything so specific and practically anybody on the bus could have denounced you to the Thought Crime Unit, because you are guilty without any form of trial of hate. Yep, you nasty, nasty, hatey bastard. It’s too late to try and defend yourself by claiming you were merely offering a seat to a lady; you could have budged up a bit but no, by leaving the seat altogether you have caused offence on a level capable of inciting actual violence among the more ‘misunderstood’ communities. Consider yourself lucky you weren’t lynched.

Lest you are unaware, the CPS definition of a hate crime is: 

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

They further ‘clarify’:

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

And the departing DPP seems to actually be proud of this. So, well done Alison. You really won’t be missed.

No offence...

It's a minefield out there as you carefully negotiate your chatty way through life, dodging the bear traps and skipping over the potholes on the oh so rocky social dis-obstacle-course. Obstacle courses used to be so much fun as a kid; laughing and giggling as you grazed your knees and bruised your egos and learned how to fend off childish insults with even better ones.

And so from the playing fields to real life; like the chilli in your stir fry, casual insults liven up our dull and dreary lives and make banter better. Accepting an insult with good grace is the mark of civilised man and giving as good as you get is a sign that you have achieved your majority sense-of-humouro intacto.

Oi, you cheeky monkey! Hey, shit-for-brains! Who ate all the pies? Don't mind him, he's a bit 'special'. You clueless fuckwit! If he had one thought in his head he'd be dangerous. Think you're a wit? You're half right. She's been banged more than a Monday morning snooze button. Wow, you're even dumber than you look. I've heard more coherent arguments from a schizophrenic with Tourette's. Oh, I could play all day...

You think I'm condescending? Do you even know what that means?

But they've banned the obstacle courses now.  In the lack-of-adventure playgrounds of today, children are taught to be kind and civilised and tolerant and oh-my-god, so fucking DULL. But being nice on the outside is sinister. It's Peter Mandelson personified. It's oleaginous and slimy and just plain wrong, because it invariably turns out to conceal contempt and malice and the underhand betrayal of what used to be common British decency.

All of which is why this kind of story, about a Glasgow pub's "Ugliest Woman Competition" is both funny and sad. The pub was visited by police after an anonymous complaint was lodged, however, "they gave manager George Hogg the go ahead after discovering it was, in fact, a competition for men dressed as women." Funny, because it just IS. Sad because only the product of years of political correctness and pompous and damaging thought crime prosecution could lead to a situation where the police response was anything other than, "You're surely taking the piss?"

So, in the spirit of all that is good and wholesome and robustly Anglo-Saxon we should track down the complainants and hurl bawdy badinage at the loathsome inadequates until they fucking well cheer the fuck up, or fuck the fuck off!

Thought So...

In the latest atrocity committed by the rambling Socialist experiment that is twenty-first century Britain a woman has been jailed for speaking out about her concerns. For the supposed hate crime of having fears relating to the uneasily and unevenly shifting demography of this country she has been sentenced to twenty-one weeks loss of her freedom and most likely her ability to earn a future living unaided by the state. Good move, Judgey.

At the same time, violent young thugs up and down the country are being given feeble tickings-off by magistrates, receiving fines which will never be paid and being offered counselling and anger management courses – at huge cost to you and me – which are almost universally ineffective. Those same thugs will go on to perpetrate ever more violent acts on individuals and society with impunity: statutory rape as they create more under-aged mothers, drug-peddling, casual theft and routine threatening behaviour, often spilling over into actual assault.

So, jail for Jacqueline Woodhouse for drunkenly saying out loud what is now considered a crime to even think about, but counselling and care for real violent offenders. The race-hate-filled Lee Jasper must be cock-a-hoop as the state spends more and more of your money pursuing new, easy targets – white people who dare to be afraid or ignorant – rather than tackling the true crimes all around us.

Woodhouse was undoubtedly drunk and disorderly and she definitely used threatening language, but did she actually hurt anybody? Her language was indefensibly offensive, but were any of her words translated into action? And since when did causing offence become an actual offence? As with the case of ‘Olly Cromwell’ in Bexley she has been punished for nothing – absolutely nothing – more than speaking her mind. Sticks and stones…

In vino veritas, they say, except often that simply isn’t true – we say things under the influence of drink that we definitely don’t mean and in any reasonable society her drunkenness, whilst a misdemeanour in itself, would be taken as partial mitigation for her words.

Even if her intoxicated tirade represented what she actually thinks, Is it a crime to prefer the company of your shared heritage peers? Really? It’s an actual offence to feel like a minority in your country of birth? It’s illegal to feel physically intimidated by persons of significantly different appearance to your own? Animals survive by recognising shapes and postures as friendly or otherwise – is it now a crime to allow evolutionary instinct to shape your views? Apparently so.

Diplomats learn foreign customs and gestures so as to fit in and to understand the ways of the countries they visit. When Woodhouse’s lawyer asked for a lesser sentence, combined with a “diversity awareness and prejudice training course” her plea fell on ears deaf to the very notion. If judges think we can re-train the uneducable chav scum of our society, why should not the same accommodation be offered an otherwise useful member of the same society?

And as for threatening behaviour, have any judges actually been to a town centre on a weekend evening and seen at close quarters what their liberalism has wrought on Britain’s moral fabric? Have they ever watched a soap opera where virtually every plotline revolves around some moral failure or other? Threatening violence? Why not just lock us all up for thinking violence?

Orwellian thought crime - Labour's legacy - will take a generation to eradicate even if we start today. But that’s not going to happen, is it? Because tomorrow’s judiciary and educators, police and politicians have already been brainwashed into believing the Socialist diktat.

We used to say you can’t be locked up for telling the truth. Well that seems to no longer be so. At least some of what Jacqueline Woodhouse said was true. We’re fucked. 

Will the last intelligent Briton please put the cat out and unplug the telly?