Articulated Laurie

This tweet from Laurie Penny is interesting:

For all her pretensions of being a rebel, Laurie Penny – the private school and Oxford educated darling of the left and writer for New Statesman – is very much part of the Establishment. Almost every institution in the land has been captured by those whose views she shares, or which sit further to the left than her own. The polyamory, the red hair, the profanity, the hardcore feminism, all point to dreary woke conformism rather than rebellion, which is why she gets invited onto the BBC and other mainstream media outlets that wouldn’t touch genuine dissidents with a barge pole.

What’s got her worried is she and her ilk thought by capturing the institutions they’d won the war and secured the peace. But just as American soldiers came to learn that taking nameless hilltops didn’t defeat the North Vietnamese, the Establishment is now seeing their fortresses bypassed, overflown, and undermined by guerrilla warfare. They thought they had complete control and under the old rules they did, but the game has changed and power is increasingly moving away from the centralised institutions in the manner Laurie describes perfectly in her tweet. Which is why she’s worried. Who do you think will have more influence in the next decade: podcasters like Joe Rogan or Independent columnists like Laurie Penny?

The bit she’s got wrong is that this is not fascism, it’s a reaction to the wholesale takeover of the Establishment by the forces of the left. She’s calling it fascism because she has no idea how to counter it, and hopes by pointing to imaginary Nazi flags the ruling classes will launch Operation Rolling Thunder. And look how well that turned out. For all Laurie’s self-declared progressivism, she’s actually a reactionary, terrified of losing the power and prestige she’s accumulated under an outdated system whose foundations are crumbling beneath her. The irony is she’s as much to blame for the demise of the old system and the birth of the new one as any.

More please, and faster.


Kim Karmeghan

Sky News reports breathlessly on the scandal that is Meghan Markle getting abused on social media. My immediate thought is why are members of the royal family using social media? The entire point of the royals is they are not like the plebs, they exist – in theory anyway – on a higher plane. That’s why they get to live in a palace. So what the hell is this?

Earlier this month, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex created their own Instagram account, under the name SussexRoyal. It features professional photographs of their work and has already amassed over four million followers.

However, it has attracted criticism online and some people attacked its branding, which appeared to feature an ‘M’ with a tiara above it.

Yes, famous people will attract nutters wherever they go, and this is especially true for the royals. This is why their public life is carefully managed, or at least it was. Opening an Instagram account is the equivalent of turning up unannounced on the terraces at the local football ground.

An account with over 14,000 followers almost exclusively posts criticism of Meghan, sharing negative news articles and conspiracy theories.

Since when have royals anywhere in any era not been the subject of gossip, speculation, and conspiracy theories by the masses? That’s part of their role, I thought. The difference is that in previous eras they would have risen above it, remaining unaware or at least indifferent to what the peasants were saying about them. My advice to Mr and Mrs Wales is to do the same thing now.

Message boards 4chan and 8chan were found to host orchestrated attacks against Meghan. The sites allow users to post anonymously – without needing to create an account or even pick a username – thus eliminating any threat of accountability.

I’m pretty sure Meghan Markle doesn’t use 4chan, so what Sky are complaining about is that people can get together and say bad things about her. Twenty years ago these conversations would have taken place in a pub, equally anonymously for all practical purposes. Now things have shifted online, but the thing which has really changed is the royals have decided to wade into the social media sewer. As the name suggests, it’s not for the likes of them. They cannot claim a divine right to a life of taxpayer-funded privilege while at the same time demand to be treated equally by the plebs if they’re silly enough to get down among them. The royals need to stay off social media, or quit being royals. Otherwise they might find it’s not just trolls on the internet who take a disliking to them.


Knaval Architects

Yesterday I said this:

I have no doubt Notre Dame will be restored, but there will be small but noisy campaigns for the money to be used elsewhere or the building replaced with something “more inclusive”.

Sure enough:

Yet the damage wrought by the Notre Dame fire has also raised important questions about the cathedral’s symbolic significance in an increasingly divided France, and how to rebuild (or which version of the cathedral should be rebuilt) going forward — and in some ways, these questions are one and the same.

It has been my experience that anyone who uses the term “going forward” is either trying to distract you from a catastrophe of their own making or is trying to sell you something which goes very much against your interests.

But for some people in France, Notre Dame has also served as a deep-seated symbol of resentment, a monument to a deeply flawed institution and an idealized Christian European France that arguably never existed in the first place. “The building was so overburdened with meaning that its burning feels like an act of liberation,” says Patricio del Real, an architecture historian at Harvard University.

If the claim is that “some people in France” resent Notre Dame, why the need to quote an American academic? Surely a Frenchman on the streets of Paris would suffice, no? Or did they tell you va te faire foutre?

What it means to be “French,” however, has obviously changed a great deal over the past few centuries.

I don’t think this is obvious at all. What is obvious, though, is that over the past couple of decades cultural Marxists have done everything they can to destroy any tangible means by which people can feel themselves French.

Although Macron and donors like Pinault have emphasized that the cathedral should be rebuilt as close to the original as possible, some architectural historians like Brigniani believe that would be complicated, given the many stages of the cathedral’s evolution. “The question becomes, which Notre Dame are you actually rebuilding?,” he says.

The one that was there last week, you cretin. And why does anyone care what an Italian professor in New York thinks?

Any rebuilding should be a reflection not of an old France, or the France that never was — a non-secular, white European France — but a reflection of the France of today, a France that is currently in the making.

Ah, finally we get to it. These grifting foreigners don’t want the French to restore Notre Dame to how it was, they want some steel-and-glass monstrosity to arise in its place, preferably bearing their name. That, or a mosque.

“The idea that you can recreate the building is naive. It is to repeat past errors, category errors of thought, and one has to imagine that if anything is done to the building it has to be an expression of what we want — the Catholics of France, the French people — want. What is an expression of who we are now? What does it represent, who is it for?,” he says.

If it’s up to the French people, why are you sticking your beak in? Now I know this is only Rolling Stone but the ashes on the floor of Notre Dame are still warm and already the postmodernists are turning up with a crane and a wrecking ball. Thankfully I’m confident the French will tell them where to shove it and restore the cathedral properly, but if this were Britain and St. Pauls a blackened shell you can be sure these sociopaths would be welcomed with open arms by half our political class. Knowing both countries quite well, the big difference I can see between France and the UK is the French establishment, at least for now, doesn’t seem to detest France quite as much as the British elites hate Britain. Right now, that’s a valuable edge.


Worse than a crime

Yesterday I discovered via Twitter that Notre Dame cathedral in Paris had caught fire, and not long after this photo was circulating:

The reason 9/11 had such an effect, at least on me, was the visual impact of the towers falling in real time. It was surreal, and the next morning I woke up wondering if it really happened. The death toll was appalling, but it was watching the towers collapse on live TV which made it an event equivalent to previous generations’ shooting of JFK whereby we’ll always remember where we were when the news broke.

I felt a similar sensation yesterday watching the spire of Notre Dame fall, knowing things will never quite be the same again. It sometimes takes a lot to move me – I can walk around concentration camps and WWI trenches and not feel anything other than the wind – but the sight of a monument to western civilisation, over 800 years old and the survivor of wars, invasions, revolutions, plagues, and occupations, going up in flames left me incredibly sad.

It also left me angry. This should never have happened. Fires during construction and renovations are common, and renovation work recently started on Notre Dame. There are hundreds if not thousands of rules, regulations, standards, and best practices which exist precisely to prevent fires breaking out on building sites. I know this because when you do work on an oil and gas installation with hundreds of tonnes of pressurised hydrocarbons all around you, you pay attention to them. It seems someone working on Notre Dame didn’t. I doubt this was arson, despite the increasing number of arson attacks on churches in France, not to mention a priest getting his throat cut by Islamists.

I expect the investigation will find the cause was either someone not making his equipment safe before leaving for the day, e.g. he didn’t switch it off or put something hot on something flammable (in the offshore oil industry, someone must stand watch for an hour after work stops to make sure nothing spontaneously combusts), or it was an electrical fire. When renovation work is going on there are a lot of cables lying around, temporary junction boxes, and other equipment which gets bashed around and overloaded. That a fire risk is well known on such sites ought to have led those in charge to apply prevention and mitigation measures to 150% considering the importance of the building. I expect cost was one reason they didn’t, and I’d be willing to bet the modern managerial technique of loafing around in offices at the expense of employing good quality tradesmen and supervising them properly also played its part as well. I expect the investigation will state the technical facts of how the fire started and say little about organisational failings, especially if there’s someone important or a union involved. This is the modern way, an inevitable result of the utterly shameless being put in charge of a no-blame policy.

I also noticed what is probably a minority of morons on social media celebrating the destruction as just desserts for a hodge-podge of alleged sins on the part of the French including colonialism, antisemitism, slavery, and every other grievance they think they can make a buck out of mongering. A lot of them seem to be from the former French colonies, particularly Algeria. I’m not surprised by their remarks, but the question I have for those people wringing their hands is where did these attitudes come from? Who has been banging on about the evils of colonialism, Christianity, western civilisation, and European history for decades? Who have made whole careers out of telling non-Europeans they have been and continue to be oppressed, enslaved, and exploited by the evil white man? The answer is western institutions which have been captured by Marxists and other lefties who hate our civilisation, culture, and history and want the whole lot destroyed. I wonder, how many professors at the Sorbonne who this morning look across the Seine at the blackened, roofless masonry of Notre Dame perpetuated the mindset which is now upsetting them so?

I have no doubt Notre Dame will be restored, but there will be small but noisy campaigns for the money to be used elsewhere or the building replaced with something “more inclusive”. If you think I’m exaggerating, consider that a sizeable chunk of Britain’s ruling classes think ISIS butchers should be welcomed into Britain and given free housing and the western response to terrorist attacks is to arrest those who talk about them in an unapproved manner. The fire at Notre Dame is a tragedy because a wonderful monument to an incredible civilisation almost got destroyed. The greater tragedy is that the civilisation itself is almost destroyed, and few have the courage or desire to put the fire out.


Pride and Prejudice

Some news from Edmonton, Canada:

Mayor Don Iveson said he was sad to hear the 2019 Pride Festival was cancelled but also understands it’s a complex situation and not unique to Edmonton.

“I know many Edmontonians from all walks of life enjoy the spirit of inclusion and diversity and everyone being welcome at Pride,” he said Thursday. “A lot of people are mourning that today, concerned that they won’t have that opportunity this year. So it’s very unfortunate.”

So what caused the 2019 Pride Festival to be cancelled? Angry Christian fundamentalists? Alt-right incels in Make Canada Mediocre Again hats? White supremacists? Not quite:

A member on the society’s board of directors, whose name Global News has agreed to keep anonymous, said a funding and volunteer deficit, as well as a belief the organization could not fulfill its goal, led to the decision to cancel the event.

“We felt that we were not fulfilling our mission this year, which is to unify our community.

“And so we felt it best to step back now at a point where we can do that without causing harm to the society’s structure.”

Be patient, soon all will become clear:

In another email, festival organizers wrote about a heated meeting last week between EPFS members and other LGBTQ+ groups called Shades of Colour, which advocates for “queer and trans Indigenous, Black, and people of colour,” and RaricaNow, a group that promotes human rights for LGBTIQ+ refugees and newcomers in Canada.

“The festival has been provided demands, involving a complete restructuring of our festival and our commitments to sponsors, which we needed to bring to our membership,” the Pride Society said in an email dated April 6. “A special meeting was called as per our bylaws.”

So what was presumably a fun day out for the sane if a little extravagant gay community in Edmonton has been hijacked by a tiny bunch of lunatics who think the event should focus more (meaning, only) on non-whites, transsexuals, and refugees.

Police ended up being called when the disagreements became heated.

Which is a polite way of saying when the intersectional headcases didn’t get their way they turned violent.

“They really need to ask themselves: where is that fear coming from?” said Victoria Guzman, a member of Shades of Colour. “Because we are not the source of that fear. Who taught them to be afraid of us? We have been trying to sit at the table peacefully with them for months now. If anyone is going to be violent, it’s going to be the hate groups that show up.

Such as yourselves?

“We never asked for the festival to be cancelled whatsoever,” Guzman added. “We just asked for… We were negotiating on needs that needed to be met.”

We never wanted the guy’s restaurant burned to the ground, we just wanted our money.

She said the groups definitely made demands, but that they were negotiable.

“We made these demands because we felt that the meetings we were going to for the last 10 months weren’t really going anywhere and that they weren’t taking our needs seriously.”

Kevin Michael Grace has generously provided me with the list of demands (word doc). Let’s try to figure out why they weren’t taken seriously:

Reorganize the structure of Pride. Open Pride with a protest lead by QTIBPOC, trans folx and their allies. Allocate funding for QTIBPOC and trans folks to host community building and creative workshops – and make this the main feature of Pride in the Park.

The entire festival must be restructured so as to be in celebration of us.

It is essential, and in line with the theme ‘Stonewall’, that Pride is lead with a protest against systemic injustice. This protest will be filmed in the News…

…and a plane fully loaded with fuel will be waiting on the tarmac at Edmonton airport.

Shades of Colour Community and RaricaNow will assess via email who applies to partake in the protest and ensure the applicants adhere to a set of criteria based on the values and principles of the protest. Upon inspection by Shades of Colour and RaricaNow, applicants will be either permitted or denied entry.

This must be what SJWs mean when they say they’re inclusive.

Workshop themes can and should include: Poetry writing,
songwriting, visual art workshops, navigating gender, navigating race, spirituality and race, unlearning misogyny for masc individuals, queer and trans representation in the media, refugee storytelling workshop, refugee support workshops, cultural music, dance & drama activities, QTIBPOC mentorship, Climate Justice activism, protecting our land, indigeneity, etc.

The only bit of that I recognise is the navigating race, but why they don’t just call it orienteering like everyone else I don’t know.

These workshops and resources should take up the most space and be at the centre of Pride

For all their anti-colonialist rhetoric, this lot make the Conquistadors sound humble.

End Pride in the Park with a vigil to honour the lives of LGBTIQ2S+ activists and community members that were lost due to systemic oppression including transphobia, racism, classism, capitalism, etc.

And that nasty junction out on Highway 216.

Part of this would include setting up a memorial wall listing the names of LGBTIQ2S+ lives lost including those in other countries where their identities are delegitimized and punished.

So the organisers of gay pride need to construct a wall to keep out Mexicans, carving into it a list of unknown locals and foreigners who have died from, among other things, classism and capitalism. I have no idea why their demands weren’t taken seriously.

Moving forward, we desire Pride in the Park to continue this activity and make it a tradition in the following years.

That’s a lot of wall-building.

Let us also acknowledge the LGBTIQ+ refugees who have suffered not only in refugee camps but also within their own countries due to their sexual orientation.

I’m sorry, I’m trying to picture a tranny wandering around in a refugee camp and I’m having a hard time keeping my composure. All that, by the way, was merely Demand No. 1. Here’s Demand No. 2:

Rework the budget, and provide Shades of Colour (SoC) and RaricaNow with $20,000 each.

At least this now looks like an old-fashioned shakedown.

While we feel that $20,000 is necessary – we are open to negotiations.

How generous. But they’re not done yet. Here’s Demand No.3, and it concerns money again:

Provide the SOC Team and the RaricaNow team with money to access ongoing training so we can best create these spaces for our communities.

At this point a blank cheque will do.

As community organizers we often find ourselves facilitating the training for other agencies, and unfortunately, do not have the opportunity to access conferences ourselves. Often, the knowledge we’re desperately seeking isn’t here yet, and can only be found outside of Edmonton. In these situations, we realistically may need to travel to larger more established cities such as Brooklyn, Oakland, etc where this knowledge exists. Our demand is that the Pride Board funds these learning opportunities so that we can bring the knowledge back to our own communities.

There isn’t enough intersectional lunatic expertise in Edmonton so you need to pay for us to go on jollies to hotbeds of degeneracy such as Oakland and Brooklyn. Demand No. 4:

$1500 to fund a SOC organized QTIBPOC sober dance party on the evening of pride.

I get asking $1500 for a pissup, but who the hell shakes down an organisation for money for a sober party?

Our vision is to provide QTIBPOC with a space to move their bodies in ways that they may not feel safe doing in everyday life or mainstream queer spaces.


When people face queerphobia, transphobia and racism collectively, it can be difficult to form positive relationships to their bodies. For some, dance offers a way to work through those difficult feelings.

Anyway, we need $1500. And shouldn’t you have made a start on that wall by now? Demand No. 5:

Write a public accountability Statement outlining the harm the EPFS has caused the QTIBPOC community and a public commitment to rectifying this harm. This statement will be publicly released with this document by the EPFS.

You, the relatively normal people who were previously minding your own business when we showed up, must release a public statement denouncing yourselves.

We appreciate that the EPFS agreed to meet our demands in 2018. However, there is still some public confusion about your stance on supporting QTIBPOC communities. Our demand is that the EPSF writes a public accountability statement about the harm that the EPFS has caused QTIBPOC+ communities, and also about their commitment towards change.

But don’t forget the twenty grand each we asked for earlier. Demand No. 6:

Feature Shades of Colour and RaricaNow on the front four pages of the Pride Guide.

All your newspapers are belong to us. Demand 7:

Work with RaricaNow to support QTIBPOC refugees and newcomers. Provide resources in writing support letters when necessary, and make a public commitment to centre these communities.

Thought you’d joined Pride to mix it up with like-minded gay folk? Think again: you’re now in the refugee business. Little wonder the organisers decided to pull the plug on the whole thing. Here’s what the mayor said:

The mayor said he’s heard of Pride organizations in other cities encountering similar situations.

“This is not something limited to the city of Edmonton. We understand Pride organizations are encountering challenges around North America, with increasing complexity and what does it mean to be inclusive to everybody.

“I have sympathy for the Pride board and the challenges that they faced trying to figure out how to create an event that is welcoming to everyone, which is the spirit of Pride, that’s its heritage.”

In other words, the tiny minority of intersectional headcases are ruining it for everyone everywhere.

Iveson said it’s not really the city’s place to step in and either mediate the dispute or organize the event itself.

Which is the mayor’s way of backing away slowly, very slowly. I’ve said many times before that gays will rue the day they appended the T to LGB and hooked their campaign wagons together. Although the way the gay lobby works these days, e.g. hounding Colorado bakers to the Supreme Court, my sympathy is limited.


Plod Trans Action

I don’t remember when the legislation was debated, or even if it was debated, but I expect when the police asked for the powers to force website owners to reveal the identities of their subscribers it was done under the guise of identifying murderers, child abusers, drug traffickers, and terrorists.

But as always, once a government authority gets some power it wields it way beyond its original scope:

A transgender activist has won a High Court ruling ordering Mumsnet to reveal the identity of a user who allegedly abused her.

Stephanie Hayden tweeted an image of the court order, issued by Mr Justice William Davis, which requires the parenting website to name the anonymous user and provide their address, email and date of birth.

On the caption she wrote: ‘The days of defaming, abusing, and harassing transgender people on Mumsnet behind the cloak of anonymity are over.’

At the beginning it’s to thwart al-Qaeda’s plans to set off a nuke in the middle of London. Pretty soon it’s to prosecute people for upsetting transgenders online. Activist transgenders, that is:

Ms Hayden has been involved in several of online spats in recent years.

In 2018, she reported Father Ted creator Graham Linehan to the police for ‘transphobic harassment’ after he shared a tweet saying she was a ‘dangerous troll’.

Sitcom writer Mr Linehan was given a verbal harassment warning by West Yorkshire Police after transgender activist Miss Hayden reported him for referring to her by her previous names and pronouns on Twitter.

Wait, there’s more:

And in February, a mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to Ms Hayden as a man online.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an Ms Hayden on Twitter over so-called ‘deadnaming’.

The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken.

Mrs Scottow denied harassing or defaming Miss Hayden and said she holds a ‘genuine and reasonable belief’ that a human ‘cannot practically speaking change sex’.

As well as potential police action, she is facing a £25,000 civil lawsuit over alleged defamation, use of private information and ‘harassment’.

She has also agreed to been made the subject of an injunction that bans her from writing about Miss Hayden online.

I expect that Hayden targeted Mumsnet – a forum mainly for mothers, i.e. women – quite deliberately in order to goad someone into saying something she could go running to the police with.

There are two things happening here. Firstly, the transgender movement – which the gay and bi-movements have decided to hitch their wagon to – are engaged in seeing just how far they can push the public until they no longer need to invent claims of being persecuted out of existence. Because if stuff like this keeps happening, that’s what’s going to happen. Secondly, the police and judges are involving themselves in a similar experiment. Pendulums swing in both directions, and when this one returns it’s going to take on the size and force of a wrecking ball.


Taylor Grift

The other day I listened to the TRIGGERnometry podcast with a comedian called Fin Taylor. I knew nothing about Taylor, but he describes himself as a comedian who is happy to make fun of both sides of the cultural divide, mocking identity politics which has earned him the ire of the left. One of the main topics for the first part of the show was an article which appeared in The Independent criticising his jokes as being offensive, misogynist, and outdated. Taylor’s position is he is an edgy comic taking things right to the line, and if the snowflakes get triggered then so what? Which is refreshing, right?

Well, not quite. The second part of the show (at about 30 mins) discussed the situation surrounding Count Dankula, the Scottish chap who was arrested and convicted of a criminal offence for getting his pug to do a Nazi salute. Taylor – who enjoys regular work with the BBC – says jokes need to be “defensible” because there are laws around broadcasting which “we all sign up to”. He sees the internet as a free-for-all which can bypass these supposed standards and thinks this is a bad thing because “there is no machinery to uphold the same principles of maintaining the social fabric”. He then talks about people “pumping hate speech into the ether”, claims that “teenage girls are killing themselves because of things they’re seeing” and then mentions the massacre in Christchurch. Taylor casts doubt on whether Dankula was actually joking, doesn’t seem to have a problem with Dankula being fined, and refuses to defend him. He later claims every woman in public life is constantly told she’s going to be raped or killed, hence the need for government regulation of jokes on the internet.

It’s not hard to see what’s happening here. For all Taylor’s “trigger the snowflakes” reputation he’s a paid-up member of the political establishment’s approved list of comics. This almost certainly works well for him in terms of paid gigs. The absolute last thing someone holding a coveted “approved edgy person” role wants is someone genuinely edgy outflanking them, so to maintain their position they have to denounce anyone even an inch to the right of them as being beyond the pale. In practice, this means Taylor should be paid and celebrated for his offensive jokes because he’s a skilled comedian but principles of free speech shouldn’t apply to Dankula’s jokes because he’s on YouTube and not really a comic. If the two podcast hosts were worth a damn they’d have torn him to pieces over this but they didn’t, which is why I’ll not bother listening to them again.

Fin Taylor isn’t the only one who does this. I’ve quoted this from the ZMan before, talking about Ben Shapiro:

These edgy guys serve as a palace guard, maintaining the line between what is and what is not acceptable. Their job is to make sure that none of the bad think from the outer dark creeps into the thought of the orthodoxy.

Like all of Conservative Inc., he is for free speech that pays him well, but otherwise sides with Antifa against his competition. He’ll never talk about the fact that corporate America is willing to sponsor an Antifa convention in Chicago, but coordinates their efforts to prevent VDare from holding a private gathering.

I also mentioned so-called conservative journalist Stephen Pollard in the same post:

This is more virtue-signalling than anything else, letting his readers and progressive colleagues know he doesn’t associate with those thick, dishonest Tommy Robinson supporters, thus ensuring he’s not cast out of polite society.

I later found out Pollard had blocked me, which I can only imagine was for posting this. What brand of conservatism do you think he represents?

One of the reasons conservatives have been utterly demolished in the culture wars is because the people they pay attention to aren’t conservatives at all, and are just feathering their own nests while making sure they don’t upset those who are dismantling our culture brick by brick.


15 Feral Street

This BBC story did the rounds on Twitter a couple of days ago:

“It is very scary,” says mother-of-four Melanie Smith, sitting on the sofa which doubles as her bed, a few feet from the oven and sink of her one-room studio.

Pressed close to her couch is one of the two beds that fill the rest of her flat and upon which her two sons eat, play and sleep.

Ms Smith is one of hundreds of residents placed at Terminus House in Harlow by councils in and around London, often many miles from everything and everybody they once knew.

The former office block – the Essex town’s tallest building – is one of hundreds up and down England which have been turned into housing without ever needing planning permission.

Almost everybody thought this was an example of appalling government housing policy, and did the usual thing of blaming heartless Tories. But while living in a tiny flat may be uncomfortable, there’s no reason why it should be deeply unpleasant. I’ve been to enough Soviet-era Russian apartments to know that’s true. What makes them unpleasant is this:

But since the building was resurrected as a housing complex in April 2018, crime has soared.

Police figures show that in the first 10 months after people moved in, crime within Terminus House itself rose by 45%, and within that part of the town centre (within a 500m radius) by nearly 20% – to more than 500 incidents – compared with the previous 10 months. More than 100 incidents involved violence or sex crimes.

Incidents included anti-social behaviour, burglary, criminal damage and arson. There has also been at least one drugs raid.

She said it was not safe for her children to go downstairs, even during the day, because of drug users who are “out of it”.

“It is very scary. You don’t know who is outside the door,” she said.

“Any arguments that happen, it is always, constantly, outside the door. Often you hear them banging against the door where they are fighting.

“The wall next to me – I had to clean the blood off it two weeks ago.”

It doesn’t matter where you go in Britain, areas where there are a lot of poor people or welfare recipients are plagued by a minority of anti-social scumbags most of whom are career criminals and many of them violent. It wouldn’t matter if the poor were housed in luxury flats in Canary Wharf if this element is not dealt with. Now I don’t know how you  can deal with anti-social people making everyone’s life a living hell without giving governments appalling arbitrary powers, but I do know that any initiative to tackle the problem – withdrawing welfare payments, harsher prison sentences, exile to the hinterlands – would be fiercely resisted by those now bawling at the situation the residents find themselves in.

The fact is British people are far too lenient when it comes to scumbags, and insist on subsidising their criminal lifestyles via a generous welfare system. So long as an industry exists to support and defend these people as they terrorise their neighbours, there’s not a housing policy in the world that can provide safe homes for the poor.

And isn’t this just typical:

Terminus House is covered by nearly 100 high definition CCTV cameras.

“We just want to make sure that all the areas are covered,” says Paul Jackson, regional manager at Caridon Property, which owns and runs the building.

“We do have some people that are vulnerable and it makes them feel safe. And should there be any incidents then they are covered and the police can use our system.”

The police can’t be bothered keeping law and order, probably because they know the court system won’t prosecute miscreants. So it falls to the building management to install that great British catch-all solution – more CCTV cameras – to enable the police to identify who battered that old lady half to death a few days after the incident. Politicians, the justice system, the police, and just about everyone else has utterly failed the poor. This whole story has little to do with housing, but by pretending it does the middle classes can virtue-signal while avoiding any discussion of the real problem.


Trans Saharan Stayed Route

Some news from Paris:

A transgender woman has spoken out after a video went viral of her being attacked near a rally in central Paris against Algeria’s ailing president.

Julia has described being targeted by three men in the Place de la République.

Julia, 31, was set upon on Sunday as she walked up steps at the metro station in the Place de la République. A big rally was taking place in the square against Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s long-ruling 82-year-old president, who has since announced his resignation.

Wearing a black-and-white striped blouse, Julia was blocked by protesters who taunted her in Arabic.

I’m losing count of the number of incidents involving opposing victim classes getting into a confrontation, while ordinary people look on in amazement at what’s become of their country. For what it’s worth, I’m on Julia’s side here: she should be allowed to walk wherever she likes in public, free of harassment. Although it seems some lessons take a while to learn:

Julia later made clear that the attack had nothing to do with the Algerian community but was carried out by ignorant people, regardless of their origin or religion.

Just the facts please, ma’am. Now who attacked you?


Banana Splits

It looks as though the game is still on to thwart Brexit by any means possible; in theory the UK is supposed to leave on Friday, but whereas withdrawing Article 50 requires an act of parliament, as does any deal agreed with the EU, apparently extending the 29th March deadline required only a letter. No doubt the shenanigans played out in the commons yesterday are aimed at either forcing Brits to accept a leave-in-name-only agreement or cancelling Brexit altogether. At this point, I’d be very surprised if either of these is not the final outcome; leaving with no deal looks almost impossible from here, as MPs and Bercow simply move the goalposts every time it looks imminent.

So what we have is rock-solid confirmation that the political classes are happy to ignore voters, break promises, circumvent laws, and generally make things up as they go as if they running an island nation with little industry except bananas. Furthermore, there is a sizeable section of the country – mainly the urban professional classes – who are quite happy with this, and genuinely believe their position is morally sound. From what I can tell, most believe the referendum was rigged and the vote should never have been held; they also think if Britain doesn’t leave the EU, it will be as if the whole thing never happened except the oiks will now be aware of their own stupidity.

So what will happen? The first thing is the Conservative party will implode, because the number of ordinary people willing to tramp the streets knocking on doors will plummet. Canvassing for the Tories is hard enough as it is; what’s a volunteer supposed to reply when a householder says “Why should I vote for you? I voted for Brexit and you cancelled it.” Leave-voting Tories will simply stay at home, and combined with defections to The Independent Group they’ll be incapable of forming a government outside a coalition ever again. Traditional Labour voters will abandon their party, and seek a new home. Into this vacuum will spring all sorts of new parties ranging from half-sensible to insane, none of which can form a government but together can do enough to prevent either of the major parties doing so either. Labour may be the first to recover by ejecting Corbyn and installing a centrist leader, but the damage will be done.

Disgruntled leave voters will take every opportunity to punish the ruling classes, casting their vote in whichever way will make their lives more difficult. Single-issue parties will attract protest votes, and some candidates offering some rather unpleasant policies might gain a seat or two, throwing coalitions into chaos. The European elections will be entertaining affairs where leavers turn out in droves to send the most rabid anti-European parties to Brussels in order to embarrass the politicians back home. So just from a political standpoint, Britain will become a lot harder to govern and it’s not like the current crop of politicians were competent beforehand. They’ll no longer be able to blame the EU without their constituents hurling them into a void, which is probably what’s terrifying a lot of them right now.

I said things will get ugly, and I stand by that. I don’t think we’ll see mass protests and violence like we’ve seen with the gilets jaunes in France, most Brits don’t have the stomach for that and will get slaughtered in the streets by riot police who have no qualms about laying into the citizens on behalf of the ruling powers. But ugliness can take many forms, and one of the things which made Britain a lot prettier than most countries is the degree of social cooperation. In the main, Brits like to do the right thing, to do whatever’s necessary to help everyone and everything rub along as best as possible. This means obeying laws, not acting in an anti-social manner, and generally cooperating with the authorities. In some levels of society this never happened, and thanks to the importation of millions of foreigners from quite different cultures, social trust and cohesion has already been severely eroded. I expect we’re going to see this process accelerate, and really take hold among the middle classes. Passive aggression, indifference, and acts of spite will become far more prevalent among people who could previously have been relied upon to make small sacrifices and do the right thing.

For example, I’d be willing to bet fly-tipping increases, along with vandalism. More people will abuse the system, particularly the NHS. Citizens calling in to report crimes will fall, and policemen and other obvious representatives of the government will say levels of abuse have increased. Which won’t actually be the case, it will just seem like it because fewer people will have a kind word and they’ll be ignored more frequently while the underclasses carry on as normal. Tax fraud will increase, people will feel less guilty about cheating the VAT man by paying in cash, more people will see the government as an authority to be opposed and outwitted rather than cooperated with for the good of society. In other words, Britain will become more like Spain, Greece, and Italy. I expect we’ll also see instances of vindictive legislation being passed; the complaining from the City of London when the EU finally passes its financial transaction tax will be music to the ears of many Leavers. We can expect wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, removal of the charitable statuses of private schools, and other class-based laws proposed out of sheer spite by minority parties who know such moves can win them votes from people who feel let down by the professional classes.

If Brexit doesn’t happen, I think we’re going to see a tough few years in Britain as social cohesion erodes and politics fragments. Getting anything meaningful done will be nigh-on impossible, despite desperate calls from Westminster about “unity” and “moving on”. I suspect it will become a rather unpleasant place to live, especially London which will be the main battleground between the professional classes, the EU, and the rest of the country. Banana republics are rarely success stories, and Britain will be no different. What will probably surprise the professional classes when the effects start to bite is how nonchalantly they chose to go down this path.