Troublesome Recidividuals

Recidivism, definition : a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially relapse into criminal behaviour. How refreshing then, you might think, that a more or less guaranteed recidivist recognises his weakness and has asked to remain in prison where he is getting some treatment for his addictions. There has been some debate about whether prison is the best place to facilitate his rehabilitation, or whether we can afford it, but the alternative – releasing him – is almost certain to end in his own prediction that he will return to criminal means to fuel his drug habit. But what’s a caring society to do?

Meanwhile Brian May tweets about food banks and the NASUWT Conference regales its members with tales of Dickensian squalor, as illustrated by anecdotes of unfed, raggedy children arriving in school. The cry, as always, is that we must do more, spend more to save the children the addicts, the sick, the stupid and those incapable of healing themselves. The mark of a civilised society, they tell us, is how it cares for its most vulnerable. But is colluding with that ‘vulnerable’ sector of society to increase the numbers who rely on state intervention an entirely intelligent response to the problems that same expanding sector creates?

Has it ever occurred to those who use feeble, touchy-feely aphorisms about how we treat those specimens (who would be referred to as parasites in any objective analysis) that rewarding aberrant behaviour is always going to end badly? We enforce the ‘human rights’ of clearly unfit degenerates to procreate, then - when they abandon their offspring to a life of care, delinquency, addiction, criminality and prison – throw ever more, increasingly scarce resources at the problem of containing them. We can’t create prisons, hospitals, rehab centres, probation services, hospital, schools, court and social services fast enough to cope as the uneducated and uncivilised underclasses outbreed those who have to pay for them.

And how do those who rely on the misplaced charity of a society afraid to confront cold, hard reality repay those who do pay for it all? With scorn, contempt and a sneering declaration of their entitlement to do whatever they wish. The only people who get to do as they like are the comfortably rich and the comfortably unemployable. But at least the rich pay their own way, while the ‘new poor’ have become some sort of sacred cow, to be appeased but never curbed. Give somebody something for nothing and they will value it exactly as much as it costs them.

The future Prime Minister and Chancellor greet the nation.

At some point, however, we will have to face up to the fact that curbs and sanctions will need to be deployed. Curb? What am I saying; there is another four-letter word beginning with ‘c’ that is far more apt under the circumstances. The only certainty is that unless we do something drastic soon we will eventually become too stupid a society to even contemplate it. Already several generations of teachers, social workers, lawyers, policemen, politicians and a whole plethora of various ‘rights’ campaigners have grown to depend for their living on the continuation of this impossible model. A truly caring society should wage a committed war on want and reduce to a minimum those who live appalling lives. Time for a cull. 

A Touch of Class

So, we wake to a new day and a whole new way of being labelled, classified, graded and packaged. As Shakespeare wrote, “How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.” Gone are the Upper, Middle and Lower and all the sub-grades in between. In come the seven circles of hell on earth as experts regrade our social structure... probably on the back of a fag packet.

I took the test and based on my deluded sense of self I came up Technical Middle Class. Well, that can’t be right at all. After all, I know my entitlement and I’m more what you’d call ruling class, surely? This survey must be flawed, which shows just how far you can trust the experts to screw up. An expert is, after all, another word for the unemployable who nevertheless manage to con huge amounts of money from the public purse for their pointless pontificating. 

I may as well do it myself. So here, based on extensive research on Twitter, are my new sophisticatedly nuanced and socially sensitive class grades.

Lucky Fuckers: The most privileged class in Great Britain who dine on swan and quaff champagne as celebrate their having been born into high society. They don’t do fuck-all, they don’t know fuck-all but they do fuck-all real harm to any other fucker. 

Dodgy Fuckers: These are the self-made, the Alan Sugars, who have risen high on the backs of others but like to talk about how they started out flogging hooky gear out the back of a van and deserve every dirty penny. While patronising high profile caring charities, they will nevertheless shit on any fucker who gets in their way. 

Decent Fuckers (Also known as Technical Middle Class - see my test results for reference): This is the top level of social strata that you can access without going through security controls. The salt of the earth made good, and the social class who all lower classes secretly aspire to reach.

Busy Fuckers: This is the class that does the business. Ducking and diving, dreaming up smart phone apps and making fortunes overnight. They are a young and fit, attractive and active and frankly quite annoying. (But they’ll be old one day, so…) 

Meddling Fuckers: This new class has low economic capital and little experience of real life but they absolutely believe in the sharing out of Decent and Busy Fuckers’ income among those who can’t be arsed. Often working long hours for little pay they should be applauded, but their naïve wholesaling swallowing of juvenile political agenda means the best you can hope for is that they grow out of it. (Owen Jones - this is you) They are exploited by:

Lazy Fuckers: Formerly the Working Class, few of them now admit to wanting to actually work when it’s so much easier to prey on the class above and live a life on the state. Although older examples of this class profess to missing the good old days and occasionally don the Pearly and sing about knees, boiled beef and following vans in Lambeth, they are a shadow of their former worthy status. 

Which leaves us with the final class. This was a difficult sector to classify as many of its typical members may not even be actually human. 

Useless Fuckers: The professors prefer the term 'Precariat' to describe those fuckers who fuck and breed without apparently knowing the connection between the two. Capable only of taking, they act as breeding colonies, dumping their offspring into the care of the state in the hope that one day one of them might win the lottery off the back of a stolen scratchcard or get rich in an honest trade such as flogging counterfeit fags and booze, or running a skunk factory..

I look up to him 'cause he's a Lucky Fucker.

And there you have it. I don't know how long it took the so-called experts and how much it cost but it took me less than an hour and I give it to you free, gratis and for nothing. All that remains is for you to tell the world what sort of fucker you are! Comments below...

Driving Reform

A young woman has been jailed for three and a half years for causing a fatal accident by texting while driving. So wedded (or should that be 'welded'?) to her phone is she that she arrived at court clutching at it as if it were a lifeline; a shame such a thing was denied her elderly victim. After a five-year ban (Will that ban run concurrently with her incarceration?) she will be required to take an extended driving test before regaining her licence.

This isn't isolated news; accidents are caused every day by people imagining the law doesn't apply to them and general standards of driving are as diabolical as ever. Many delude themselves into believing they can multi-task, without factoring in that driving is already a multi-tasking operation. It requires physical coordination, good observation, mental acuity, judgement and a wee bit of second-sight.

I'm constantly dismayed by drivers under official driving school instruction failing to indicate, creeping over the white line at lights, speeding and more than once - yes! - using a handset while in motion. Mind you, I see lone Police drivers committing all the same offences far too frequently. And as for the general road use, I like to play guess what happens next as I watch meandering drivers finally select a lane, or watch a vehicle drift onto a slip road and then belatedly apply indicators as if to say "Look what I just did!"

You can play the same game with pedestrians too, albeit on a longer time scale: That middle-aged bloke waddling along in trackie bottoms and untied trainers is going to visit a Gregg's any time in the next half hour. The scruffy kid in the school sweatshirt will be a smoker by the time he's twelve. That wiry youth? Soon-to-be smackhead. And his mate? ASBO Ranger. The plumpish, barely teenage girl 'wiv a a'ichood'? Mother within two years.

Last night, one of my Twitter followers (Hi Jacqui!) made much the same sweeping generalisation about Tories as I do about those on the left. Fair enough, but all my examples in the last paragraph would probably swing to Labour who have successfully managed to portray themselves as the caring party despite years of their policies contributing to many of our modern-day failings. You see, lots of poorly educated people are incapable of making good long-term life choices without guidance. New Labour's persistence in trying to pretend otherwise and please everybody, has created an unprecedented reliance on state help.

Is it fair that fat people are allowed to be labelled disabled? Is it fair that naughty kids are regularly diagnosed with ADHD? Is it fair that we are expected to bow down to bizarre notions of equality, respect and diversity when some undeserving recipients of that social largesse will use it to plunder our dwindling reserves of human kindness? Misguided social policies have worsened the divides and I believe it's time to firmly redress the balance.

Jacqui said that the only thing Tories care about is money; that's what Labour have preached for years. But Conservatives actually believe in fairness and decency and above all, independence from state handouts. If they believe in money it's in allowing you to keep as much of what you earn as possible and do with it what you wish, not robbing you of it to pay for social engineering. It's people who lust for money, as cross-party expenses fiddling and fraudulent activities throughout the social spectrum shows on a daily basis. Tax avoidance, banks miss-selling insurance, counterfeiting and smuggling, benefit scams; these are not partisan, they're human.

So, here's my plan for both driving and social reform. You fuck up, you pay the penalty. Then you take a test to re-enter society as either a driver, a worker, a parent, etc...

For instance. ASBO? Work camp; cleaning up your shit, righting your wrongs and at the end of it you have to be assessed as fit by a panel of all those whose lives you made a misery. Second offence, bollocks off. Third offence, exiled to Rockall. (I want the death penalty but some of you are too weak to go with me on this.)

Pregnant at fourteen? Two-year forced internship on after-school hospital ward work at the end of which if you can pass a written and practical assessment you can have your sprog back if you still want it. At least you''ll know both how to care for it and the medical consequences of ill-considered actions. You'll also have an insight into the shit other people wade through to keep you on your feet.

Accidents cause people

Accidents are always caused by people but we should consider how many people are caused by accidents. Practice safe texts and don't use your mobile when you're mobile. Have a happy and safe weekend, people. I'll be watching you. Always watching you...

At the end of our Teather?

Over the weekend a former minister condemned Government plans to cap household benefits at £500-a-week as 'immoral'. Sour-faced Libdem, Sarah Teather, accused the government of seeking to 'gain popularity at the expense of children's lives', claiming it as a purely political ploy to pit one class against another, or some such whining drivel. Ah, that would be the popular political ploy of bringing the ickle children into your argument, would it?

“But what about the child?” is the policy discussion equivalent of Godwin’s Law. As soon as you mention the little fascist, you have lost the argument just as surely as if you’d said “Hitler”. The kids are collateral damage in the war between granting freedom to individuals and then restricting what individuals will do to demonstrate that they don’t deserve such freedom. The children are not relevant here. They’re really not.

What is relevant is the whole way our society is structured. Some people work long hours in demanding jobs for little monetary reward. Some earn colossal salaries by dint of specialist knowledge. A lucky few inherit their living. But most of us would hope to be able to earn a living wage for a fair sacrifice of our time and talents; anybody objecting to that would surely find it hard to argue a realistic and reasonable alternative. By our joint endeavours and by our contributions to the communal pot we should be able to also help those less fortunate and run our society fairly with a bit put by for a rainy day.

Of course, there will always be a small number who will take what they want without regard for the rightful owners’ losses, but those people are called criminals and we generally frown on them, censure them, penalise them and ultimately lock them up. Depriving somebody of their hard-earned possessions is considered wrong from almost any perspective and rightly so.

I would have left it there, except, on Petrie Hosken’s show on LBC973 on Sunday afternoon, there were callers who argued that Ms Teather was right and that it was, indeed, ‘immoral’ to consider limiting the amount of unearned benefit a family could claim to a level higher than a majority of ordinary, full-time workers could ever dream of earning. What? Has the country gone stark, staring mad? (Don’t answer, it was rhetorical; of course it has. The UK lost its plot many years ago.)

But what we should be getting mad about isn't the idea of a benefit cap – there HAS to be a limit - but that such a high ceiling of benefits are being paid not to those who have fallen on hard times, not to those who need a helping hand to get back to work, but in the main to the least employable in society; those who could never command more than the minimum wage and yet have been allowed to breed uncontrolled an entire class of citizen who in turn will never work.

What’s to do? Well, I reckon two birds, one stone. Teather says we are at risk of demonising them; I say criminalise them. As many of them have subsisted all their lives on benefits – always taking and never contributing, never considering the losses of their victims, the tax-payers, they can be considered by any objective measure as thieves. And as a large part of the cost of their upkeep is housing way beyond their worth, we can redress all the wrongs by bringing back the work house.

Sorry love, the foie gras is off. Damned cuts!

Work for your keep, support your interned community, reclaim the council houses for key worker accommodation. Don’t pay, won’t pay? Welcome to Don’t work, don’t eat. Seriously you guys, you should make me King now!

Preying on People

He circled the herd, staying low. Too easy. There's one, on her own at the edge of the group... A quick reconnaissance circuit to check for observers, then quickly pounce and retreat. It's what he does; it's in his blood. Nobody notices, but now everybody cares because five-year old April Jones is suddenly national news.

How long does it take to snatch a child? How determined does the predator have to be and how easy is it for parents and guardians to be distracted for that moment? Not long, not so and very easy indeed, I'd suggest.

The amateur psychologists (that is to say 'the psychologists' - there are no experts in psychology) are out in force. It's the fault of the parents it's the fault of society, it's the fault of the police... it's the fault of government, in all probability. "If only we'd..." "if only there'd been...", If only, if only, if only.

Despite the continued progress towards some Utopian vision of societal perfection, so-called civilised behaviour is a veneer we apply individually and laboriously to each and every human. It doesn't always work out as planned; instincts are deeply laid and occasionally the veneer comes unstuck, revealing the ugly substrate beneath.

Yes, yes, yes, there's stuff to be learned. Of course mistakes have been made, will be made and will continue to be made in the future. But there is no point in playing the blame game until all the facts are in and I have to tell you that much of the chatter in the newspapers, television and radio news and whatever is said in pubs and cafes throughout the land simply does not constitute 'the facts'.

So, you can speculate all you like, but unless you're on the spot there's nothing you can do to help, except just one thing. You want there to be a 'better' society? Can you honestly say that you do everything in your power to be part of that society? You're never selfish, or arrogant, or possessive or jealous or petty? You never point the finger of blame before the facts? You never lose your temper, irrationally lose your composure, react on pure instinct?

You don't? Oh, good. Then like me, you're perfect already.

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?

No sex please, we're busy.

I've always felt I was different from the common herd. Better, for one thing; more balanced, less volatile and with a far more catholic (small c) outlook on life than most. But, as generally understanding as I am of humanity's failings, I've often been perplexed by 'your' preoccupation with sex. That, more than practically any other weakness, informs my view that if there ever was a god, he had a rotten sense of humour.

If I believed in him/her/it I'd thank him/her/it for my ability to rise above 'it'. Don't get me wrong, I'm partial to a bit of 'the other', I just don't let it - I've never let it - rule my life. Unlike mere humans, who let their base lusts drive their every waking moment, I recognise that sex is okay, just not quite as good as the real thing. And being free of constant controlling, debilitating urges has allowed me to develop into the erudite genius I demonstrably am today. It's also probably responsible for my modesty. (I'm the most modest man in the world!)

I have, however, wondered if it was just me. So I was quite pleased to find this report into the lifestyles of the asexuals. I'm not like them, of course - I'm not a freak! - but I can very easily empathise with them. Undistracted by the demands of those unreasonable hormones, we should easily be capable of outwitting the animalistic masses and should they turn nasty, we ought to be able to outrun them, unencumbered by bulging ballsacks bursting with unspent population paste.

Too many unthinking acts of wanton sexuality, churning out too many unwanted, unplanned, pointless people whose only fulfilment in life is achieving the few seconds of indescribable sensation which is pitifully inadequate reward for all the effort that goes into it, yet somehow reinforces primal urges to do it all again. How utterly tiresome.

I have no desire to procreate; the world isn't ready for another one of me. Besides, I tried it once and I can take it or leave it. Give me a good book any day.