Dead End Society

Late last week a chap called Giles Fraser wrote an article, the gist of which was:

Children have a responsibility to look after their parents. Even better, care should be embedded within the context of the wider family and community. It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom. This sort of thing is not something to subcontract.

Ideally, then, people should live close to their parents and also have some time availability to care for them. But instead, many have cast off their care to the state or to carers who may have themselves left their own families in another country to come and care for those that we won’t.

This sent people into apoplexy, of which the following is typical:

Of course, these days it is everyone’s right to do whatever the hell they want, and there  is no going back to the days where men worked, women raised kids, and families looked after one another. Well, unless you’re from outside the developed, western world in which case this is still perfectly normal. So in some ways Fraser’s piece does hark back to a bygone age which apparently nobody wants to return to.

However, his detractors are also missing a point. While we may all agree that society is much better now women can swap running families for high-flying careers in multinational corporations and men cede ground to feminists in the name of equality, it  does not follow that such a society is sustainable. As I’ve written before, pleasant societies might not make durable societies, whereas societies built around families, though often harsh on individuals, have proved remarkably robust.

So Fraser has spotted that subcontracting family care to third-world immigrants via the state system is a severe departure from some two thousand years of human development, and it’s not looking very clever. In response, everyone’s jumped down his throat saying this society-wide experiment we’ve been running for forty-odd years is so successful that questioning it is heresy. Now I’m not sure what time period we should take as a reasonable benchmark for judging societal success, but the Ottomans lasted six hundred years. The modern free-for-all isn’t even into its third generation. Perhaps some humility is in order?



So the Trump administration decides to launch a global campaign to decriminalise homosexuality:

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin.

Yes, the notoriously homophobic Trump regime which inspires fake attacks on Jussie Smollett and causes the Canadian actress Ellen Page to complain about the US vice president not approving her lifestyle choice has appointed an openly gay man as ambassador to Germany. Trump really is turning out to be the lamest Hitler ever.

Anyway, here’s how those at Out, a magazine catering to gay folks, reacted:

Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, the campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda.

The plan has reportedly been spearheaded by the U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who is also the administration’s top-ranked gay official, in response to news that a young gay man was hanged in Iran recently. Grenell has had his eyes on Iran for some time and just a week ago, he was trying to get several European nations to pass sanctions on Iran, unrelated to the country’s stance on homosexuality, to no avail.

Thank goodness for those enlightened European nations who defied Trump trying to impose sanctions on a regime which hangs men for being gay!

Homosexuality has been illegal in Iran since the theocratic 1979 Islamic Revolution. By at least one Guardian account, since the exit of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2013, enforcement of anti-gay laws has softened somewhat. Homosexuality, according to the writer, is an “open secret” and most queer people fear homophobic reaction from fellow citizens more than the authorities.

Didn’t you just say a young gay man was hanged in Iran recently?

The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook.

The conquest of Africa couldn’t have taken place without frantic reports from remote jungle outposts regarding native turd-burglary.

According to the report, the decriminalization campaign is set to begin in Berlin where LGBTQ+ activists from across Europe will meet to hatch a plan that is “mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean.”

The American plan for achieving hegemony over Iran features an auxiliary army of European LGBTQ+ activists part of which will head to the Caribbean from an HQ in Berlin?

There are two things happening here: one is a campaign to decriminalise homosexuality and the other is America’s belligerence towards Iran. The author has lumped one in with the other in order to play politics and virtue-signal, which is stupid because he does eventually make a valid point:

That sentence alone should set off several alarm bells. First of all, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean are huge geopolitical entities. Attitudes toward gay people differ greatly among countries and regions within those entities and attempting to gather a room of European activists on how to deal with queer issues in those regions is the definition of paternalism.

Now while I would like to see homosexuality decriminalised everywhere, I think this campaign is stupid and counterproductive: a bunch of ultra-woke activists turning up in foreign to lecture the locals is going to harden attitudes, not soften them. Such changes need to occur organically and domestically, but there is a large and lucrative industry in which European and American NGOs and supranational agencies based in Geneva go to places like Africa and demand society be turned on its head in order to accommodate trendy western ideas on issues such as female empowerment, environmentalism, and homosexuality. The author is quite right to call this paternalistic and liken it to colonialism. The trouble is, I can’t tell if he’s genuinely against this campaign or he’s pretending to be because the Trump administration is now involved.

The other problem is he’s downplaying the situation gay men face in Iran in order to bash Trump. There were many valid reasons to oppose the Iraq War, but a lot of lefties instead chose to whitewash the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Since Trump took office, people have been doing the same with Iran. Criticising Trump’s sanctions on Iran ought not to entail defending a regime for publicly hanging men for the crime of being gay. That a gay magazine should do so speaks volumes about where the priorities of contemporary activists lie. Quite rightly, the article and its author are being monstered on Twitter this morning.


Pucked Over

Via Steve in Calgary in the comments, this story:

Last month, a video uploaded to Snapchat showed a boy from the Fort McMurray Midget “A” Junior Oil Barons banging a hockey stick against the lid of a garbage can like a drum. As music from the Indigenous electronic group A Tribe Called Red plays, two other players can be seen dancing while the rest of the team shouts and laughs.

As I’m fond of saying, religion has not so much died in the west as been replaced by a weird sort of superficial earth-worship. Part of this entails slavish deference to anyone and anything remotely considered indigenous or native, presumably in the belief their ancestors were humble stewards of nature rather than savages of scarcely imaginable cruelty. As such, these children have committed heresy:

The social media backlash that followed saw commenters accusing the boys of mocking Indigenous culture. Many comments included hopes the boys would die in a traffic accident, specifically mentioning the Humboldt Broncos’ team bus crash.

Unlike traditional religions, this newfangled version offers no path to redemption. It’s simply death to all heretics, period.

As it turned out, the boys involved were Indigenous, with at least one player a member of the Fort McKay Métis.

As if that matters. We’ve seen elsewhere that being a member of a protected class doesn’t count for much if you deviate from the narrative set by middle class political campaigners. SJWs might despise white men but they reserve a special hatred for minorities who wander off the, erm, reservation.

“We could not guarantee the safety of our players, the families and the teams that we were going to play against because of the threats that were made against the team,” said Shane Kearney, a parent of one of the players on the team.

Threatening to cause physical harm to children for being insufficiently woke is becoming a thing in the west. These are societies which pat themselves on the back for being all liberal and progressive in contrast to those nasty Russians and Chinese.

Following the release of the video, the [Fort McMurray Minor Hockey] association released a statement saying the behaviour was “wrong and will not be tolerated.”

“We are sick to know how many people this hurts and offends and for that we sincerely apologize on their behalf,” the association’s statement read.

Two days later, a statement from lawyer Dwayne Roth, who is also the CEO of the McKay Métis Group, said the teens were Indigenous and called the dance was intended to be motivational.

The apology was later pulled from the association’s website and social media accounts.

Half the problem here is those who end up running modern organisations – companies, government departments, associations – have been selected due to their slavish adherence to hierarchical diktat, not because they are competent, courageous, or particularly bright. As such, like a priest who’s been caught watching pr0n by a passing bishop, they’re prone to blurting out the first thing that comes into their heads according to their indoctrination. If they were capable of rational thinking, measured language, and reasonableness they’d never have got the job in the first place.

The statement from the parents blames the response of the association for mismanaging the incident. The group says leadership of the association never met the parents or team staff members before posting an apology, which they say gave the video further exposure online.

This is because their priority is their careers, not the reputation of the association nor the welfare of the boys.

“They are out there to protect all the kids that are in minor hockey . . . we don’t feel that they protected these 17 kids with what went on,” said Kearney.

Faced with the choice of a potential black mark on their performance appraisal or putting children in physical peril, they chose the latter.

“We feel that the people that were in place, the executives, need to take responsibility for what they did and own up to it and make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”

If they were capable of taking responsibility, this situation would never have arisen. What they need to do is be fired and replaced with people who aren’t so obviously self-serving.

Roxanne Janes, another parent of a player on the team, said the parents have reached out to the association on two separate occasions with no response.

Well, yes. Why should they talk to you? They’re the ones in charge.

“Unfortunately what ends up happening is a lot of these kids end up quit playing the game that they love because of the decision of adults that are put in place to protect these kids,” said Kearney.

A small price to pay for the elimination of racism in our society.

While this may only concern a minor league hockey association in a remote Canadian mining town that even old hands think is a dump, the incident has all the hallmarks of what you see playing out on a much larger scale across the western world. Those running the association are the exact same sort of people who now make up our ruling classes. They’re also running every company and organisation you can think of. Fun times, eh?


Lynch Spin

A couple of weeks ago, a young black celebrity actor/songwriter named Jussie Smollett was walking down the street at 2am in a dodgy part of Chicago when he was set upon by two honkies wearing MAGA hats and carrying a noose and a jug of bleach. Apparently his assailants knew he was gay and wanted to lynch him, but he fought them off and returned home, the Subway sandwich he was carrying at the time miraculously unscathed. The response from blue checkmark Twitter and seemingly the entire Democrat party was to immediately declare the incident a premeditated, racist, homophobic attack of the sort which is now commonplace in Trump’s America, and that the MAGA hat is no different from a Klan hood. If there was a lesson to be learned from the Covington Catholic school debacle which happened only a few days before, the media, politicians, and NeverTrumpers chose not to apply it.

Meanwhile, deplorables were casting doubt on Smollett’s story. Not just because it was full of inconsistencies, but also because any story which has noose-bearing white supremacists wandering around Chicago at 2am in winter sounds more like something from a Coen brothers film than a police report. There’s also the small problem that near enough 100% of these high-profile hate incidents – slogans drawn on Air Force lockers, swastikas on walls, homophobic messages carved in flesh – have proven to be fake, carried out by provocateurs to reinforce the narrative that the US has reverted to the 1950s. Compounding this are the UVA rape hoax, mattress girl, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, and other false claims which the media and politicians lapped up then doubled-down on. And sure enough:

Chicago police are pushing back on media reports that said the alleged attack on “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was a hoax and say the reports are “unconfirmed by case detectives.”

Two Chicago media outlets reported Thursday that multiple sources told them that investigators believe the attack was staged.

Police spent much of Thursday interviewing two persons of interest in the case, who are believed to have been seen on surveillance images on the night of the attack.

Charlie De Mar, a reporter at CBS Chicago, spoke on Thursday with family members of the two men who were being questioned. They told De Mar that the men are brothers from Nigeria. They left for Nigeria on the day of the attack, De Mar reported. De Mar posted a search warrant receipt, showing that investigators had found a laptop, shoes, and bleach at the home.

CBS Chicago also quoted Gloria Schmidt, an attorney for the two men, who confirmed that they know Smollett.

“They do know Jussie,” she told the station. “They have worked with him on ‘Empire.’ My preliminary investigations show that on set it’s very tight. They’re all very cordial with each other, so they’re baffled why they are people of interest.”

I expect over the next few days the official narrative on this story will unravel faster than a middle-aged feminist’s dating plans. The media will bury the story, and those who reacted will simply switch to slandering three-quarters of their nation via some other incident of manufactured outrage. The problem is, these people want the story to be true. They’re so invested in the narrative that America is full of hate-filled white supremacist homophobic rapists that they’re positively begging for someone to be violently assaulted or killed in order to validate it, and are almost disappointed to find their worst fears unfounded. There’s something seriously wrong in the head of America’s elites, and I’m not sure there’s any fixing them.


Girlz an’ the ‘hood

This amused:

A madrassa that gave a lesson suggesting Muslim girls should have children rather than careers has been ousted from a secondary school amid safeguarding concerns.

Langley Academy has terminated its contract with the Al-Miftah Institute, which provided ‘IslamHood’ Sunday school classes from its campus in Slough.

It appears that feminism has scored a rare victory over the top-ranked protected class in a game of victimhood poker. But that’s not what I find so amusing. Rather, this is:

It followed complaints by a member of the public and the National Secular Society that IslamHood had hosted speakers with controversial views about homosexuality. Another speaker complained about women in hijabs making social media videos and described non-Muslims as “pigs”.

The folly of trusting a journalist to get the story right notwithstanding, it seems this was not enough to get Islamhood booted out of the school. But suggesting perhaps women might be happier raising families instead of clogging up a cubicle in a pointless department is enough to (temporarily) re-write the poker rules.

A recording also emerged of an IslamHood class showing a lesson by Shaykh Shams Ad-Duha Muhammad on why Muslim girls should have children instead of careers.

In the video, which was recently deleted from IslamHood’s You Tube page, showing girls in the audience, he said: “Smart career women give it up to have children.”

Quelle horreur! This is almost as bad as when they objected to a gay activist promoting homosexuality to primary school children.

A spokesperson for Langley Academy said: “We fully support the government’s Prevent Strategy. Therefore we take any allegations that extremist views or ideology might be being promoted on our premises extremely seriously.

It’s odd what gets considered extremist these days, isn’t it? I expect if this outfit was handing out ISIS flyers and subsidising one-way tickets to Syria, no-one would have batted an eyelid.


Cryin’ Lyin’ Zion

I see the Somali woman who has somehow become a US Congresswoman is once again fending off accusations of antisemitism following a series of tweets which suggested American politicians defend Israel because lobbyists pay them to.

This prompted a Twitter thread by a British contributor to The Economist on the practice of disguising antisemitism as anti-Zionism, and the similarities between its adoption by hard-left American politicians and what we’ve seen in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn. It’s actually not a bad thread, but here’s how it ends:

It seems a lot of Jews in the media are incapable of speaking about antisemitism without an obligatory swipe at Trump and other right wing politicians who hold unapproved views. I’ve written about this before; it’s a common phenomenon. Trump is the most pro-Jewish president America has ever had; he had absolutely no problem with his daughter converting to Judaism and marrying her Jewish boyfriend, who Trump fully embraced. He’s also the most pro-Israeli American president for a long time, motivated by such concerns as security and sovereignty. This ought to have Jews on both sides of the Atlantic turning cartwheels in celebration, but it appears their concerns over antisemitism are outweighed by a desire to remain popular in left wing, liberal circles and keep those dinner party invites flowing.

Trump is racist only by the insane definition of metropolitan newsrooms and western academia. What Orban is supposed to have done that is not part of Israel’s founding policy I don’t know. And I bet this Pfeffer chap took his views on Bolsonaro from an article some know-nothing, idiot journalist wrote from an office in London. Hell, it was probably a colleague at The Economist with a pencil neck and an English degree from Oxford hanging over his desk. Ilhan Omar, on the other hand, really is racist and the same goes for a good portion of those allowed to settle in the UK under successive governments. If the likes of Pfeffer can’t bring himself to differentiate between them and Trump, is the problem as grave as he makes out? Personally I think it is, but if Jewish journalists aren’t going to take it seriously, why should I? He should be looking to recruit allies and build bridges with those (like me) who have no skin in the game. Ordinarily I’d side with British and American Jews over racist Somalis, but if their spokesmen are going to spend time bashing Hungarian and Brazilian politicians and virtue-signalling about how much they despise Trump, maybe I’ll just sit on the sidelines and say nothing. What’s my incentive to get involved?

I’ve written recently about how American Jews are going to have to decide whether they want to join the ranks of white deplorables or continue to stoke the fires of identity politics which enable those who truly detest them. British Jews are similarly going to have to decide whether they want to enlist the help of ordinary, decent people in opposing antisemitism or continue to paint themselves into a corner because maintaining their social status is more important than ensuring their safety.


Food for Thought

Consider this tweet by Israeli journalist Lahav Harkov, who is sound on a lot of issues:

Now I know there’s a whole swathe of the alt-right who believe women should never leave the kitchen, and I know the expectation that a woman is obliged to cook for her husband every night is old-fashioned. But that said, if a woman does cook for her husband that will go some way to defining her worth, both in his eyes and those of outsiders. Imagine the roles were switched, and Harry was cooking for Meghan every night: his stock would soar in the eyes of most women.

I know a lot of men my age and younger who can cook, and part of this is because feminists told recent generations of women they ought not to learn. “If he wants dinner he can cook it himself,” was the prevailing attitude. Well, that’s what they did and I know several families in which the man is the main cook (and enjoys doing it). The problem with that is it removes a valuable tool women of my mother’s and grandmother’s generations used to attract and retain a husband. Men of that era couldn’t boil an egg, so it was a huge incentive to settle down with someone if you wanted to eat properly the rest of your life. The phrase “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” isn’t repeated across languages and cultures for nothing. Of course it placed a burden on the woman, but having a stable job (that was often dangerous) placed a burden on the man. A marriage is a partnership in which mutually beneficial tasks are divided between the couple, each doing what they’re best at. If women decide they don’t want to cook, the man will either find someone who can or learn to feed himself. He isn’t going to starve. The standard feminist response to this would be: “Well, if all he wants me for is to be his slave, he can get stuffed.” And quite right too. But as I’ve just said, a relationship is a partnership. If she’s not cooking, what is she offering? Sex? That’s not enough, especially in the Tinder age. Sassy feminism? No thanks.

I’m being unfair. There are many women who bring plenty to the table, if you excuse the pun, without cooking for her partner every day. But on the other hand I keep reading articles on how hard it is for modern, middle class women to find a decent man who sticks around. Apparently, they’re only interested in Tinder hookups these days, and many don’t want relationships. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if these women had cooking skills in their armoury along with a willingness to deploy them regularly, they’d find men a lot less keen to skedaddle as soon as the first ray of sunlight touches her bedroom window on a Sunday morning. I base this on the fact that, if a woman meets a man who can cook well and likes doing it, she brags to all her friends and spends more time at his gaff than her own.

My point is, to find a decent partner you need to maximise what you bring to the relationship, and focus on those skills they might lack. You would be amazed at the degree to which my relationships have been based on an ability to unblock sinks, take down heavy boxes from the top of wardrobes, fit insulation strips to ill-fitting windows, and bleed radiators. Having someone who is willing to cook is a huge asset in a relationship, regardless of who is doing it. Being able to share the duties is even better. But modern feminism has taught women that being able to cook should not contribute to their worth in a relationship, and they ought not to even bother learning. Stripped of one of the most valuable skills they can bring to a relationship, they’re now howling at the lack of men who are interested in one.

As I’m fond of asking: whose fault is that, then?


A Product of Dumb Luck

When I arrived in my MBA program last October I had to spend a bit of time preparing my backstory. All my classmates are in their twenties and have yet to start their careers, whereas on some measures I’ve done quite well for myself already. I had to come up with a way to explain it without my coming across as a complete d-head. During a car trip to Bern with a fellow student, I emphasised the importance dumb luck played in me achieving a relatively comfortable standard of living, rather than my sheer brilliance.

First off, I chose my parents carefully and was born with above average intellect into a stable, middle class family. These two alone are the markers of probably around 80% of life outcomes, unless your parents smoke crack pipes in the living room (mine didn’t). I was fortunate enough that my dad earned enough money to send me to a school which, for all its faults, got me the grades to get into a decent university. Secondly, I happened to stumble into the oil industry during the biggest boom it had ever seen, complete with skyrocketing salaries which were sustained for more than a decade. Sure, I made stuff happen by making a few smart decisions, working (when absolutely necessary), and taking opportunities when they arose, but without those two things I’d be nothing.

Thanks to my being a well-educated, white collar professional who enjoyed a lucrative career, most of my social circle is the same. From those who rode the oil boom with me, particularly those who got in early, most are millionaires (asset-wise) with multiple properties, international marriages, children in expensive private schools, and who enjoy luxury foreign family holidays at least once per year. Turning up at my school, I found this describes many of my professors, too. Often when I’m introduced to people in my social circle, I find them to be very intelligent, successful, and staggeringly rich by the standards of even the last generation.

The trouble is, I’ve detected a severe lack of self-awareness among what I can accurately describe as my social peers. It takes the form of a sneering, dismissive attitude towards anyone they deem “uneducated”, which means they hold views they disagree with. It appears to be the policy in my business school that lecturers make a random, disparaging remark about Trump once per session, without stopping for a single second to put themselves in the shoes of those who voted for him. If challenged to do so, they’re dismissed as uneducated racists who were manipulated by his fearmongering lies. Similarly, those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union are routinely insulted by phenomenally wealthy people in my social group who’ve done extraordinarily well from the status quo, and blithely assume anyone who hasn’t is stupid or lazy. Unfortunately, thanks to my membership of Facebook, I have to see this every day from people who really ought to – what’s that term? – check their privilege.

There is nothing uglier in a person than a lack of self-awareness, particularly an inability to appreciate that there by the grace of God go I. Yes, we all worked to get where we are, some of us damned hard, but sheer luck played a large part as well. Too many of my social peers are trapped in a self-delusional bubble which is, quite frankly, turning otherwise decent people into a-holes. A lengthy career in an international oil major, where sneering down your nose at the lower ranks is actively encouraged, can scarcely help with that. When I moved to France I gradually started mixing with people who weren’t oil industry professionals or expatriates, and nowadays my social circles are made up of many such people. Some of them earn less in a year than my oil industry colleagues spend on the education of a single child in the same period. I’ve noticed you don’t hear them airily dismiss whole swathes of society as readily as those in my more natural social circle. Indeed, they tend not to mention politics at all. These days, voting is a middle class hobby; for those lower down, nothing changes no matter who gets in. I have friends who express opinions which would make my other friends choke on their organic veggie burgers. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but given who they are and where they come from, I can see why they think that way.

I’ll wrap this up by saying I have a good friend who has done very well for himself as an international banker, and is very well-educated and wealthy by any standards. But he remains extremely down to earth, and can rub along with anyone. Why? A child immigrant, he grew up in his parents’ restaurant in the (almost) Deep South. As he put it:

“If you’ve grown up scrubbing pots in a kitchen full of Mexicans, it’s hard to get too far ahead of yourself.”

Indeed. I didn’t have a hard life, and most difficulties were self-inflicted out of pure masochism. I got lucky. If I didn’t make the effort, I might not know how the other side live. I’m glad I did, and I do. I wish more of my peers did.


Ranks Defiled

A common response to stories demonstrating the moral corruption infesting the British police forces is that the attitudes of the leadership do not reflect those of the rank and file. While I am sure this is true in many cases, I’ve seen enough large organisations to know that corrupt leaders quickly find willing enablers among the workforce, who take to their new-found duties with enthusiasm. Before long anyone who isn’t on board with management directives is threatened, demoted, or ostracised while the quislings advance their careers in positions of ever-increasing importance.

Supporting this theory are examples of British citizens who have encountered rank and file policemen and discovered they’re less dealing with Dixon of Dock Green than state apparatchiks of middling intelligence burdened with a childlike vanity. Back in March I wrote about this story:

A van driver was arrested by a group of police officers after challenging them because they were parked on a double yellow line. Andy Mayfield, 53, was held in custody for 12 hours and strip searched under anti-terror laws after he started filming the cops, who were parked illegally outside their own police station in Ashton-on-Ribble, Lancashire in January. He was detained under the Terrorism Act and submitted to a rigorous questioning at the Newton Heath terrorism centre in Manchester before eventually being released.

Yesterday I read this one:

Mr Warner was charged with an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, namely that he used threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result. This is a summary offence, which can only be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, and the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000).

The charge arose from an incident that took place outside the school where Mr Warner was picking up his young daughter. There appeared to be some confusion over where his daughter actually was, which understandably caused him to become agitated.

A nearby police officer, who could see Mr Warner’s agitation, approached to enquire what the problem was. During the conversation the police officer said “I can see you’re angry”, to which the concerned father replied “no sh*t I’m angry”. It is important to stress that the comment was a response directed at the police officer. Nobody else expressed any concern about the casual remark at the time.

Mr Warner’s daughter was located and he left the scene thinking nothing more about it.

Three weeks later the 45 year-old received a letter from the same police officer, inviting him to attend the police station to discuss an alleged public order offence.

At the recent trial the police officer recounted events exactly as described above, including the “no sh*t I’m angry” comment. When questioned about whether anyone else had been offended by the comment the officer suggested that members of the public had voiced their concerns, but the prosecution had offered no evidence to that effect.

It is quite clear that in many instances, should certain, non-protected members of the public fail to adopt the correct stance of cowed submission and deference before a police officer, they will have you arrested. Given the process is the punishment, it matters little to them that you may not be found guilty (as this man was) should you choose to contest the charges and it goes to court: you will have a file, your DNA will be on record, and you will have to declare the arrest on job application and visa forms for the rest of your days. While your life is being turned upside down through court appearances and lawyer’s fees, the officers concerned carry on with theirs as normal. They rarely face any penalty, even for lying in court.

That the British police should behave in this way is not surprising; this is how the police behave in much of the world. This is why in most countries you avoid the police at all costs, do not engage them in conversation, and most certainly do not view them as people who are on your side. As I’ve said on many occasions, the quicker the British public realise the police are not their friends and are best avoided, the better off they’ll be.


Straight Flush

Regular readers will know I like to watch games of victimhood poker being played out in the wild. We already established that being homosexual beats being a black man. But what beats being gay? Ah:

Andrew Moffat MBE, assistant headteacher at Parkfield Community School in Saltley, has been criticised by parents for piloting No Outsiders – a programme run alongside sex and relationship education (SRE) lessons.

Its ethos promotes LGBT equality and challenges homophobia in primary schools.

Books now being read by pupils at Parkfield Community School include Mommy, Mama and Me and King & King – stories about same-sex relationships and marriages.

But Mr Moffat and the No Outsiders programme have come under fire from some Muslim parents who condemn such teachings, as homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam.

Mr Moffat, who is openly gay, and the school have defended the programme, which they said had been fully explained to parents. They added: “No Outsiders allows us to raise awareness of these differences so that children are able to tolerate and accept differences in our society.”

But outraged mum Fatima Shah, who has taken her 10-year-old daughter out of the school, told BirminghamLive: “It’s inappropriate, totally wrong.

“Children are being told it’s OK to be gay yet 98 per cent of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community.

Personally I think the protesters have a point – primary school children should not be indoctrinated with sexual identity politics – but if anyone who wasn’t a member of a top-ranking protected class brought this complaint they’d be hounded from public life and likely facing criminal prosecution for hate crimes. As for Mr Moffat, he should have read the rulebook he himself helped write.