Timmy elsewhereNovember 23, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere25 CommentsAt the ASI. We truly are ruled by scum. They’re bringing in internal exile in the United Kingdom. previousYou what?nextI get quoted in the New York Times. Sigh 25 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Ljh November 23, 2014 at 12:06 pm I agree on giving them the benefit of equality under the law, if they are citizens, a right they insist should be denied to women and nonRoPers. As they are enthusiastic deniers of freedom of speech if you disagree with them, or freedom of conscience should you wish to leave RoP or manage your own sexual preferences, they cannot be citizens of a democratic society underlain by these rights and so should be denied the benefits of living in in a social democracy and encouraged to emigrate to a shariah compliant patch of sand to live out their ideals. It would make everyone happier. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 12:24 pm enthusiastic deniers of freedom of speech if you disagree with them, or freedom of conscience Like the Progressives who run our society then, ironically. Do we get to put the “No Platformers” and their ilk into internal exile too? Separate them from their networks, all that? Yes? Ljh November 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm Ian B, I do think we have allowed the principle of freedom of speech to be seriously undermined by pcers and offencetakers. Without freedom of speech, all liberties become privileges the ruling class may choose to revoke. Time for fight back. I am astonished progressive heads have not yet exploded from defending misogynist RoP as “Islamophobia” and attacking a scientist for wearing a garish shirt on feminist grounds. Mr Ecks November 23, 2014 at 2:23 pm More and more I wonder if this never ending stream of oppressive shite from that hag May’s Dept is just about her plan to be the new Thatcher. She must know giant forehead is on the way out . (Plus is there time for any of her ordure to actually get thro’ the Westminster toilet before the next round of” X marks the spot” in 2015?) So she is setting herself up as top hard-faced hag in the hope that the “clapping seals” (tm IanB) will mistake arrogance and tyrannical tendencies for character. Does anyone know if the baggage has a safe seat?. It would be nice to think UKIP could help put her out on her Hugh Jarse. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 3:01 pm Ecks, thanks for the hat tip 🙂 Richard Allan November 23, 2014 at 3:09 pm I may be a whippersnapper of 27 but I can’t remember a more authoritarian UK politician. Wherever she stands, it seriously needs to be a two-horse race between her and her most viable opponent. And there are still Tories on my Facebook wall who tell me their party is the home of libertarianism in the UK. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 3:23 pm She’s MP for the appropriately named Maidenhead. Solid Tory. Challenger for the last 3 elections according to Wikipedia was Lib Dem with Labour trailing very badly on a falling vote- but still well ahead of UKIP who did not much better than the BNP. Unless UKIP could pull off (fnarr fnarr) a massive swing from the Tories, she’s safe as houses. If the Limp Dims all switch to Labour, UKIP might stuff the Tories enough to let them in, which would at least have the effect of upsetting Theophrastus. I’m inclined to agree with Ecks though that she’s doing the hard woman thing and that will appeal to many Tory clapping seals; bear in mind as well that many Tory women are in favour of Marxist feminist policies because they benefit (the dangerous Femiservative vote) so I can’t see May losing her Maidenhead. (Did you see what I did there?) ukliberty November 23, 2014 at 3:31 pm I may be a whippersnapper of 27 but I can’t remember a more authoritarian UK politician. I think all the Home Secretaries since (and including) Michael Howard have been authoritarian. Howard, Straw, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid, Smith, Johnson, May. Something in the Home Office water? Ian B November 23, 2014 at 3:49 pm I think it’s mainly that the only way to make a mark as Home Secretary is to look like you’re Tough On Stuff. Liberals tend to be denounced by the media as ineffectual. PF November 23, 2014 at 4:29 pm Two fruitcake Tess threads in one day..:) From the link: “However the government is still doing too little to enforce the present law” Is this yet another example of the usual numpties creating new laws where perfectly adequate existing ones simply aren’t being used properly? I don’t know the answer, but they have form..?? From the Rochester thread, I guess I’ll add these to the ever lengthening list of why the Conservatives are utterly guaranteed NOT to get my vote next May. If you consider that – if either Labour or the Conservatives had an outright majority then either of these parties would be quite happy enacting all sorts of extreme authoritarian nonsense – then neither of them having a working majority does have its attractions? Mr Ecks November 23, 2014 at 4:54 pm In two days 3 have turned up * Internal Exile *Govt inspection of YOUR marriage * Govt encourages employers to rat out anyone-ie any female-they THINK might be being bashed. Of course if is a bloke with the black eye no one will give a shit. This is like some Gilbert & Sullivan version of the Starsi. Add to this the attempt at the “Savilleisation” of the Westmonster gang (which is what–I think anyway–the search/struggle for a Chaircreature is really about) and radfems are rapidly becoming the chief danger to our Liberties. NB– No3 above is from an SMFS posting link yesterday. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 4:59 pm Plus, the insane sexting/”revenge porn” jihad, thanks to the estimable Alison Saunders, she with her hand up the arse of Chris Grayling. PJF November 23, 2014 at 5:07 pm From the DM: “The Deputy Prime Minister has agreed to re-instate the so-called power of relocation – which was scrapped in 2011 at the demand of his own Liberal Democrats. … But the abolition of the power…” Is this an actual previous power being reinstated or a scrapped proposed power being reinstated as a proposal? If the former, then somehow we survived as a society until 2011 and I don’t see what all the fuss is. If the latter, then Mr Ecks is correct in that it’s just politicians advocating lauranorder laws safe in the knowledge that because they wouldn’t survive the first trip to European courts they’ll never actually end up on the UK books. Tim wrote: ” …or whoever should be, must be, accorded exactly the same rights a you or I have. Punishment can only come from having been charged, tried in an open court, with a jury, evidence, defence, a judge and the right of appeal right up through the system.” For peacetime, I agree. I think we should make more use of the treason laws and update to them to this modern scenario if necessary. And bring back the death penalty for treason. Lee Rigby’s killers should have been hanged or shot (properly). Ian B November 23, 2014 at 5:11 pm Treason? They didn’t attack the State. They committed a murder. PJF November 23, 2014 at 5:26 pm That’s what they were charged with and tried for, Ian B. But that’s not what they did. They attacked a soldier specifically because the soldier was a member of our state’s armed forces. Sadly, the state (and you, unsurprisingly) chose to pretend they did something else. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm I don’t think it ever has been treason to kill a soldier. I may be wrong on this, but I think it never was. The IRA murderers were never charged with treason were they? So Much for Subtlety November 23, 2014 at 7:40 pm Mr Ecks – “This is like some Gilbert & Sullivan version of the Starsi.” The only plus side to this “Tory” government is that at least they are not Labour. Who would be worse. For instance: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846345/Now-Labour-wants-stop-drinkers-having-ONE-PINT-beer-day-glass-wine-women.html Labour wants to stop drinkers having more than a pint of beer a day – sparking fresh accusations that it is out of touch with ordinary Britons. Shadow public health minister Luciana Berger said she wanted to slash the numbers of people who drink more than doctors recommend. Now, admittedly they imply legislation rather than prove it. But I think it is a safe assumption that they will pass laws to this end should, or when, they get in. So Much for Subtlety November 23, 2014 at 7:44 pm Ian B – “I don’t think it ever has been treason to kill a soldier. I may be wrong on this, but I think it never was. The IRA murderers were never charged with treason were they?” They were in 1916. Executed for it too. “if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere” That seems to pretty much cover it to me. They simply did not have to guts to charge members of the PIRA with it during the Troubles. They should have. Richard Gott too. Ian B November 23, 2014 at 7:49 pm SMFS, I think the point you’ve overlooked is that the Tories will pass it if Labour don’t get in. They will just do so after some ritual grimacing and foot dragging. Paraprhasing Paul Gottfried, organised conservatism is a movement that at one point in time opposes X as not traditional, then some time later grudgingly accepts X, then some time later declares X to be an essential tradition and the bedrock of Western Society. So Much for Subtlety November 23, 2014 at 8:05 pm Ian B – “I think the point you’ve overlooked is that the Tories will pass it if Labour don’t get in. They will just do so after some ritual grimacing and foot dragging.” I am afraid you’re right. Is it better to delay it by a few years and so get in a few extra months of semi-freedom or is it better to hope for the worst so that the inevitable backlash comes about sooner? Tough call. I think I will go with bringing on the rope sooner. So another reason to vote Labour. “Paraprhasing Paul Gottfried, organised conservatism is a movement that at one point in time opposes X as not traditional, then some time later grudgingly accepts X, then some time later declares X to be an essential tradition and the bedrock of Western Society.” Indeed. As we see around here – especially where feminism is concerned, conservatives are simply defending the feminism of the mid-1960s. theProle November 23, 2014 at 9:44 pm [Quote]Labour wants to stop drinkers having more than a pint of beer a day – sparking fresh accusations that it is out of touch with ordinary Britons.[/quote] I kind of hope they actually try to legislate that one. If you wanted a to ensure they never ever got elected again, I can’t think of a better proposal… Thom November 24, 2014 at 8:50 am I have to agree with SF on this; this smacks of mps fishing for political capital amongst the law and order vote despite there already being adequate legal avenues available to deal with islamistoloons. Where I disagree with Tim on this is yes it would be internal exile of they were being ejected from their homes bought and paid for by themselves but these people are (usually) in receipt of housing, benefits and state-patronage in order to have so much time to spread their bile; rules already exist to evict nuisance neighbours in social housing but these can be largely ineffectual when private homeowners are involved. I for one reject the notion of continuing this patronage by proxy to islamistoloons; if they don’t like being told what to do they are welcome to pay for it themselves. Johnnydub November 24, 2014 at 1:42 pm Link from Tel today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11250092/Schools-prisons-and-councils-will-be-required-to-fight-radicalisation-Theresa-May-says.html So essentially fighting Islamism has become an existential challenge. So why the fuck are we still allowing immigration form Islamic nations. It’s utter stupidity. Mr Ecks November 24, 2014 at 6:53 pm Allow large numbers of potential terrorists in and then declare the need for a police state to deal with the problem. Seems like an almost straightforward tactic by the standards of political scum. Getting increasingly pig-sick of the fat Hag-secretary tho’. It seems she is taking over this blog as a warm up for the entire country. Squander Two November 26, 2014 at 1:33 pm PJF, > That’s what they were charged with and tried for, Ian B. But that’s not what they did. They attacked a soldier specifically because the soldier was a member of our state’s armed forces. Exactly. Which is why I would say they aren’t terrorists. They’re war criminals. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.