Tuesday, 26 February 2013

RIP Aaron Dugmore, aged 9

Aaron Dugmore, 9, killed himself in his bedroom after months of being bullied by Asians at his school for being white. His mother had complained to the school, which is 75% ethnic minority, but she was told, "you chose to come here," as though the bullying were her fault.

Aaron Dugmore: bullied to death by Asians

If Aaron were black there would now follow days of national mourning with blanket coverage all over the media as happened for Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence.

But Aaron was white so instead he is just going to be swept under the carpet.

Monday, 25 February 2013

AAA becomes AA1

It's business day one of the UK's newly reduced credit rating, AA1 down from the hallowed triple-A that we were all so proud of. At least according to Moody's that is. Standard & Poor's still has the UK at AAA whereas it has the USA at a mere AA+ (their equivalent of AA1.)

The effect so far has been that sterling has fallen less than a penny against the US dollar, the FTSE100 is up 40 points and the UK CDS rate has actually gone down! (This is the Credit Default Swap rate which measures the cost of insuring UK gilts against default. Currently it costs about 0.51% of the capital assured to insure for five years. Contrast that with 0.39% for the USA or 0.81% for France - or 41% for Greece!)

The main reason for the lack of drama on the markets is that S&P is the more significant ratings agency and the main "AAA funds" such as pension funds and other very low risk funds can still point at S&P and say: too soon to panic. These funds will need to sell their UK gilts when (if) S&P also downgrades since their rules force them to hold only AAA paper. The big sell off is yet to come. This blog imagines they are starting the process now though.

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Trial by immigrant

Continuing the theme of yesterday's post about the Vicky Pryce trial, the Daily Mail has today reported that the jury which took four days to fail to come to a verdict after which they sent the judge a note asking such fundamental questions as, "What is reasonable doubt?" was composed of ten immigrants of Afro-Caribbean or Asian stock and two white people.

Southwark Crown Court is located in a very immigrant-rich area. Even the two white people on the jury are likely to have been immigrants, possibly from Eastern Europe. The jurors were summoned by letters written in eight different languages to encourage participation by people with poor English.

Obviously this is absurd. Only fluent English speakers should be allowed on English juries, and jurors should really be screened by some sort of comprehension and intelligence test.

This blog has occasionally suggested that certain occupations are too sensitive to be given to people who are not "native British" ie not immigrants even if naturalised, and not descended from immigrants in recent times - say since 1945. Jobs such as police officer, army officer, civil servant, MP and the like should be reserved occupations.

And it's time to add "juror" to the list.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Trial by jury on trial

The jury considering whether Ms Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of convict Chris Huhne, broke the law by taking speeding points rightfully due to her then husband, has been discharged without returning a verdict. Ms Pryce will have another trial starting first thing Monday next week.

The judge said that the the jury had shown a "fundamental deficit in understanding" of its role in the trial process. They had sent him a list of questions such as "define reasonable doubt" and "if she promised to obey her husband at her wedding would that get her off?" Or words to that effect.

It seems the luck of the draw produced a very dim bunch of jurors for this trial. Better luck next time.

Time was not just anyone could be a juror. You had to be over 21 years old (now 18 is the minimum) and a property owner. Indeed some courts in the middle ages struggled to empanel a jury because there were not enough men in the area with enough property to qualify. Generally the more serious the crime the more important the jurors had to be.

But modern egalitarianism allows just about anyone on the electoral register onto a jury - although clergy, judges, MPs, soldiers and the insane are ineligible and others may be barred for various reasons. The net effect of this has been to lower the social standing of the typical juror and shift the balance of power in the court room towards the judge. Over the centuries juries have become spectators in the trial process. In times past they carried out their own interrogations and investigations. They still have powers which they never use because they do not know about them, such as the power to return special verdicts not in the list provided by the judge.

Sometimes it is mooted that jurors should have some hoops to jump through: an IQ and education test maybe. But the problem is most people called do not actually want to serve; it's two weeks out of their lives they would rather have back, thus they would fail the test deliberately.

So we have the current unsatisfactory system of trial by the dim-witted. Perhaps we could put the hurdle at the electoral registration stage - you have to pass an IQ/education/numeracy/literacy test to get on the register, but the downside of being on the register is you may have to serve as a juror.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Horsemeat won't hurt you

It looks like we've all eaten it; horsemeat that is. It has been found in beef, lamb and chicken and the major supermarkets are still not giving categorical assurances that it is out of the food chain. I haven't heard of it being found in pork pies yet but that can only be a matter of time. (Pork pie eaters won't be upset - they know the deal when you eat a pork pie. It's like gays in the US military: don't ask, don't tell.)

It may be slightly disconcerting to be eating horse when you wanted to eat cow but if truth be told it is probably a better meat anyway, less fat, especially if the horse in question was Romanian and was worked until it dropped before being tossed in the vat. It is unlikely they gave it any drugs we need worry about, unlike cows which are stuffed with hormones and antibiotics and fed on meal made from each others brains (OK that was a few years ago, but UK cows are still heavily medicated.)

No, the real problem is that there is a backdoor into the food supply chain. And anything could get in through that backdoor. All animals entering through the front door of a slaughterhouse are checked by a vet - they must at a minimum be able to walk on their own four feet and there are a battery of other tests. And they have to show their passport to get in. (If they've lost their passport they are unfit for human consumption and their only option is to become chickenfeed. The resultant eggs are fit for human consumption.)

Anything could enter through that backdoor. Infestation of rats in the slaughterhouse? Don't waste them, sling them in the vat. Stray cats and dogs? All grist to the mill. The output of that vat is known technically as "pink slime" and is an essential ingredient in many foodstuffs, especially convenience food such as microwave meals.

Did you notice how the attitude of journalists reporting this story changed suddenly when Waitrose admitted their meatballs tested positive for horse? Previously they had been fairly nonchalantly reporting problems at Aldi, Tesco and the likes - then suddenly Waitrose is on the radar and it has become personal.

The nationalist solution is to ban imported processed meat; livestock fine; whole caresses fine; sides of beef and other recognisable cuts are acceptable, but minced meat and meat sludge should be turned back at the border. We can police our own meat packing industry; we cannot police the world.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

The perverts are taking over (the language)

Yesterday the House of Commons voted by 400 to 174 votes for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill to proceed to the next phase, this being a line-by-line scrutiny followed by asking the House of Lords what they think. The end result will be homosexual marriage in England and Wales, but not Scotland - except that the government will have the power to rule that a same sex marriage in England or Wales be treated as a civil union in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Of course these days with marriage comes divorce. One major ground for divorce is infidelity. However homosexual marriage will be different: only adultery with a person of the opposite sex counts! This seems prima facie totally bizarre. It stems from the fact there is no actual legal definition of homosexual sex; especially with women no-one quite knows what would constitute sexual intercourse.

The Bill also contains a load of guff about people who change sex. Previously when a married person changed sex their marriage automatically ended (even if the other spouse changed sex in the opposite direction at the same time!) Now though, the marriage can continue but the other spouse must consent to the change of sex.

What you will not see anywhere in the Bill is the word "gay". Admirably in their online reporting of the Bill the BBC have also managed to avoid the word "gay" - except when quoting directly from speeches made by politicians. Unfortunately on air they have not been so scrupulous. TV and radio journalists have been brandishing the term "gay marriage" with gay abandon. This blogger reckons all marriages are gay, a sad marriage would be rather pointless. The politically correct media seem determine to ram the word "gay" down our throats as a synonym for homosexual. This is a complete perversion of the English language and a transparent attempt to curry favour for homosexuality and make it seem harmless.

However homosexuality is not harmless. Where a sexual offence is committed against a child, it is twenty times more likely to be homosexual offence than a heterosexual offence. The relationship breakdown rate among homosexuals is many times that of heterosexuals; and when doctors treat homosexuals for sexually transmitted disease they are advised to look for multiple combined pathologies - homosexuals don't catch one disease at a time.

That said, although nationalists generally regard homosexuality as an abomination, the policy of the BNP is probably correct - it should not be recriminalised, merely derecognised by the State. What consenting adults do in their own homes is up to them; just don't force it on the rest of us.

Friday, 1 February 2013

Thinking deficiencies and old racist views

Financial Adviser Ricky Lee Davies of Swansea, was told by magistrate Chantal Patel that he clearly had thinking deficiencies and old racist views before she sent him down for 8 weeks (suspended for 2 years) and slapped him with 150 hours of unpaid work and £85 costs.

His crime? After watching a programme about muslim extremism he tweeted, "Why don't you f*** off back to the desert, you c**ts." Which is not very polite. However, it seems to have been aimed at terrorists rather than any particular racial or religious grouping, which makes his punishment unfair.

The trouble is Ricky pleaded guilty. He would have lost his job if he had been sent to jail so he opted for the more lenient sentence and the suspended jail time rather than risk the nuclear option of losing his job. In all likelihood he would not have been convicted had he pleaded Not Guilty.

The exact wording of the law here is:

4A.–(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he–

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Clearly a tweet is a "visible representation", but the Crown would have needed to prove that a) he made the tweet, and b) he intended that some people be alarmed, harassed or distressed. He could argued that the object of his ire, terrorists, are far too robust and insensitive to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by mere tweets. Certainly the High Court has recently ruled that swearing at police is not a crime since they are used to it! How much more used to it must terrorists be?

That said, the magistrate certainly had no business telling him off for his "views". He is entitled to any views he likes. Referring to "thinking deficiencies" is Orwellian. Thought cannot be a crime in the UK. She could have told him off for "expressing his views publicly" but just having the views is entirely his right.

And really, the law is too widely drafted. Some people should be alarmed or distressed or harassed. They deserve it. If criminals are alarmed by a "Neighbourhood Watch" sign - is that unreasonable? Of course not, although it could be unlawful.

The Turbine Taliban

The Turbine Taliban are the latest, greatest terrorists in the UK. They are so new they may not actually exist.

Check out their work...

Wind turbine: "fell over" in the night

Of course that wind turbine might just have fallen down accidentally in the 50mph winds - after all it was designed to withstand 120mph winds. Rumour has it some bolts from the base are missing - the company which built and maintains it is not commenting.

A saboteur would not need to actually remove any of the bolts at the base; just loosening them would be sufficient to cause excessive wear followed by a collapse.

That said, the most recent turbine designs have been adapted to prevent vandism and the bolts are actually inside the tube which can only be accessed via a hatch which is kept locked. However these turbines are still vulnerable to hunters shooting at birds sitting on the blades and accidentally hitting  the blade itself. This knocks a small hole in the blade and the resulting imbalance wrecks the machine's gearbox next time there is a heavy wind.

Whenever this happens the locals do not seem particularly concerned.