But, but, this is impossible!

Racist headteacher who called parents ‘b—–s’ banned from the classroom

Isn’t it a standard point that you can only be racist if you are white, a member of the hegemonic class?

A headteacher who racially abused staff and complained if they had more Muslims “it is going to start looking like Al Jazeera” while checking CVs has been banned from the classroom for life.
Anupe Hanch, 49, asked a special needs pupil: “Do you want to become a paedophile?” and said she wanted to “chop off” the head of a Polish colleague, a professional conduct panel was told.

I couldn’t swear to this but Anupe is a Hindi (or possibly Sikh) name isn’t it? and Hindus (which is a religion of course, not a race, but….) are not normally thought of as part of the hegemonic white class, are they?

So, therefore it’s impossible for her to be a racist.

So, various possible outcomes possible here.

Hindus are now part of the hegemonic class.

She’s not a racist by definition.

The idea that only whites can be racists is bullshit.

Your choice really, but you cannot support her being a racist, a Hindu (assuming she is), and also that only whites can be racists.

Over to you SJWs.

77 thoughts on “But, but, this is impossible!”

  1. Rather proves that the hyperbolic vitriol flung by the SMFSs of this world (white hetero males who believe they are the ones being diskrimunated) is at least somewhat bollocks, doesn’t it.

  2. And not sure what is either flatulent or tosspottery about finding someone like this is not a fit person to run a school and therefore stopping them from running a school.

  3. What is it with this pathetic redaction? Not only is this word supposedly too terrible to put in print, but the way they’ve redacted it we don’t even know what it was: bitches? bastards? bollocks? bumfuckers? blacks? (assuming that last one is now offensive, I don’t know, I can’t keep up)

  4. BiG, Tim’s post doesn’t make any judgement about whether this person is fit to run a school. It’s purely about the double standards on display from the usual suspects.

  5. Of course they can be racist, anyone who thinks *wrong thoughts* can be racist to an SJW. So both Ben Carson and Thomas Sowell can be classed as racists because they won’t hew to the victim mentality.

    Get with the program, when did hypocrisy and double standards become judgement points that matter to the SJW crowd ? (unless they’re yours).

  6. @JuliaM, what double standards? Which usual suspects? It looks like an efnik has been booted out for behaviour that would also have seen a white person booted out. Might you possibly be drawing conclusions from the imaginary actions of the imaginary SJWs in your head?

    Indeed – we all know the double standarding by usual suspects goes on, but it doesn’t help the cause to attribute imaginary actions to them, or claim there are SJWs implementing double standards here, where they clearly are not..

  7. Re “SJWs”, they’re not remotely interested in justice, they’re crybabies and wusses not warriors, and in my experience they aren’t very social either. Can we find a better acronym?

  8. Re the tosspottery, I assumed Tim was talking about the tosspots who spend their lives obsessing about racism and ‘social’ ‘justice’ when they could be enjoying their lives.

  9. Finally Tim Newman +1. How on earth can we judge that particular part of the issue when it’s asterisked out?

  10. Ironleft–The quality of the blokes teaching ability is not up for question. If he is a Hindu or a Sikh he has lots of reasons to hate islam as have all creeds and races who have suffered at the hands of the RoP over the 14 centuries of their fun filled activities. You can hate something and still do your job. If I was a fireman I would still pull leftist scum out of fires much as I despise them. It may be that this fellow sees the danger of ever-rising numbers of islamists and spoke his mind. In obviously the wrong context and foolish of him in a world poisoned by stooges like you and BiG. Massive fools who have just enough gumption to see the value of freedom in economic realms but can only spew sanctimonious leftist cant on cue everywhere else.

    Also we don’t know the what has been going on. If the kids know this guy to be a Hindu or a Sikh (a turban would be a giveaway) or a non RoP person maybe the kids have been giving him the benefit of Islamic ideas about his people and his faith or lack of it. Kids are never bigoted or try to antagonise their teacher of course. Esp kids raised in a belief-system as open, free and flexible as the RoP.

  11. What actually make a person ‘fit’ to run a school.
    assuming that schools should be ‘run’.

  12. Interested, we don’t need a new acronym for SJWs. We can just call then what they are: cunts.

  13. Only right-wing people can be racist. Hindus vote Conservative. Therefore yes, Hindus can be racist.

  14. What are b—–s? :-S

    Bollocks? Bumcheeks? Bastards? Or something really offensive, like bankers?

  15. Mr Ecks

    Thanks for your honesty. So you think this person’s behaviour doesn’t disqualify them from running a school and their colleagues should just out IP with hearing their shit.

    Brilliant, just brilliant.

  16. Mr Ecks has done so much research on this issue that he can’t even get the sex of its subject right.

    Sorry, but I’m not seeing any SJWs jumping up and down here. Just those in the libtards heads. A female efnick has been correctly fired for doing the kind of stuff that gets people fired. No one – absolutely no one as far as I can tell (doubtless there will be the odd nutter) is saying this is a bad thing or that she is being diskrimunated for being female and efnik.

    The nutters are those imagining any kind of social justice warrioring in the orbit of this case. That is the same pool of nutters that think I am somehow a fount of leftist cant.

  17. It’s a theory versus practise thing. The theory taught in every “studies” class and believed by SJWs etc is that only members of hegemonic classes can be racists, sexists, *phobes etc.

    When this gets implemented in legal systems and State regulations, they are then faced with the reality that it’s not true, so you get the reluctant prosecution of non-hegemons, as with those irritating female teachers who shag their male students (but never get called paedophiles by the Daily Mail, one notes).

    There is also the problem of having to play Victimhood Poker in many situations. Muslims versus Hindus and Sikhs, Muslims are the winning victim class since people like Ms. Hanch are much more westernised, so get to be Uncle Toms.

    Etc.

    You can’t expect consistency from an untrue theory; it always has to give when reality forcibly intrudes.

  18. I just read that article in the Torygraph.
    Mmmmm…..
    I remember Gearies Junior. We had a bit of a war with them, around 1960. That part of London’s undergoing the Great Cultural Takeover. Old schoolmate of mine recently gave up, sold up, moved to Clacton. You won’t be needing three guesses for the ethnicity of his buyers.
    So looking at the article, what have you got?
    “She locked the assistant head teacher in her office for three hours in July 2010. ”
    We don’t actually know the details on that one, do we? Do deputy heads have their own offices now? Or in her own office? One can imagine how one might accidentally lock someone in an office. If schools run like they used, when I was at school, all rooms tend to be locked when unattended. Stop the little b…….s wreaking havoc.
    Past that, it’s pretty well all hearsay, isn’t it? Maybe she just doesn’t do the “cultural cringe” with enough sincerity. Has a too direct manner of expressing herself. As in ” If she sticks her head in here again, I’ll cut it off” Depend on what provoked the threat, wouldn’t it.
    Sounds to me if the profession might just have lost one of its better members. You can see why certain factions would regard that as a result.

  19. Will someone please link me to somewhere an SJW is claiming this firing is wrong because Hindus can’t be racists.

  20. A female efnick has been correctly fired for doing the kind of stuff that gets people fired.

    I think the double standard is that had this female efnick made the same remarks about white folk, she’d still be in a job.

  21. BiG: The gender is irrelevant. Or are you sexist? As for research neither you nor Rustboy paused for breath to appear as the first condemning this individual and praising the justness of the sacking.

    Being fired that was inevitable. I don’t regard the holding or expression of an opinion to be grounds for sacking. That you do marks you correctly as a regurgitator of said leftist cant.

    In truth the woman does appear personally unpleasant–but that has nothing to do with her right to have and express her beliefs. She may be a poor Headmaster but that is not because of her beliefs. Shouting at people is uncouth behaviour. But had she expressed her opinions in a polished speech at an appropriate venue she would have been sacked just as surely.

    I’ll bet far worse goes on in madrasahs all over the UK.

  22. You won’t, BiG.
    Hindus, along with Jews & of course the White Scourge, draw very low cards in Victim Poker. Too successful.

  23. @Tim, that is pure supposition (though I will admit not entirely without merit). But honestly, if we are reduced to criticising nameless people for views we think they might hold, we are on pretty thin ice.

    It’s the same as a lot of other out-group definitions. The out-group, to the extent it exists at all is defined purely by the views the in-group believes them to hold. There are many out-groups defined this way: neoliberals and anti-feminists, for example. You get defined into such a group by someone else, inside their head, coming up with a bunch of stuff they think you think.

    I’d be interested to hear our resident sociologist IanB’s views.

  24. @Mr Ecks,

    Some of us read several papers before turning up here. This one is just “below the fold” on the torygraph, for example.

  25. After a number of comments along the lines of “we don’t know the facts” and “heresay” and of course condemning “dou le standadrs”, we claim that she wouldn’t be sacked for abusiing white colleagues and then defend supposition.

    The truth is BinG has nailed it. The Law in theory and practice has been colourblind here and sacked a nasty piece for her unacceptable behaviour. There are no SJW quotes to condemn (in truth there just wouldn’t be) and yet we can’t let go of our little white boy victimhood. So we’ve knitted together a straw man and roundly abused him.

  26. As others have stated, this is victimhood poker. Muslims trump Hindus.

    Think of it this way Tim. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Your position on the scale – white, middle class, male, able bodied, small businessman etc means you are entitled to complain about 25,000 people worldwide. Meanwhile just shy of 7 billion can complain about you.

    I stand at number 27,000 so hand over your ill gotten gains, You bastard!

  27. @Ecks, the subject’s sex is indeed completely irrelevant. The fact that you got it wrong is highly relevant. It proves you are spouting about something that you haven’t even skimmed the most cursory report of.

  28. Rustboy: “little white boy victimhood”

    No- quite right- there are no SJWs posting on here.

    Had the woman been sacked for being unpleasant and uncouth there was a case for that.

    She was sacked for expressing an opinion. That is wrong and fuck racism and all the other shite of the left. There should be no law-based or official punishment for the holding or expressing of an opinion EVER.

    Given that such injustice exists–we now have SJWs (who don’t want to accept that is what they are) exulting that an ethnic individual has also been punished for expressing an opinion that the leftists disapprove of. This is supposed to prove that the application of social oppression approved of by the left is being done “fairly”. Even if that were true it would still be an immoral injustice . However that supposed fairness isn’t true and any member of the lefts favoured groups expressing an opinion approved of by the left would be regarded and treated very differently.

    As witness little Mr “white-boy victimhood” on this very blog– a case in point. He feels perfectly free to make a remark about white people. Yet if someone else on here spoke so of some other ethnic group –he would be on here like a shot to denounce racism.

    No, no SJWs here.

  29. BiG : What– like your remarks about how the EU works over on the Surprise! thread?. Perhaps your prosperous Teutonic lifestyle leaves you lots of time to read newspapers (which I mainly avoid for reasons of mental hygiene anyway). Probably most of us on here sometimes do more and less background reading depending on time and interest and level of rage du jour. Don’t be pretending that you are Mr Always-Thorough. You only live in Germany.

  30. The head teacher was not punished for expressing an opinion but for “unacceptable professional conduct”. You can read the full report here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434505/Prohibition_order_Anupe_Hanch.pdf

    It also shows that the word the Telegraph thought its readers would find too shocking was “bitches” (referring to parents) an insult that they were happy to print regarding a different incident earlier this week.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11665309/Allison-Pearson-What-should-you-do-when-sat-in-economy-next-to-Kate-Moss.html

    It makes you wonder if they were deliberately trying to mislead their readers about the nature of the insult.

  31. I’d be interested to hear our resident sociologist IanB’s views.

    “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our father, me, my brother and father against the clan, the clan against the tribe…”

    The Ingroup is contextual.

    /your resident sociologist

  32. Don’t bother, Ecks sits in his echo chamber and sees no reason to step outside.

    My irony meter just went off the scale.

  33. This is a mischaracterisation of how SJWs believe racism works. Racism is a function of power relations. Effectively, the approach is, “Is this person making a judgement with reference to race in a context in which that judgement might adversely impact on someone else?” If the answer is yes, it’s racism, if it’s not, it’s not. That’s why if you’re analysing a society as whole you can make reference to so called ‘hegemonic’ types of people who are [i]more likely[/i] to have that sort of power, but for any particular situation you have to examine the particular power relationships at work. In this case the headteacher did have power and was making judgements based on race. In an instance in which a poor black homeless man was yelling obscenities about white people, it wouldn’t be racist because his judgements have no power and no-one cares what he thinks.

    It’s really just common sense. You should care about what people with influence do and not care about what people with no influence do.

  34. Ironman: “JuliaM

    It really can be left unsaid that this person isn’t fit to run a school, can’t it?”

    Not necessarily. How’s her teaching? You know, the task she’s supposedly paid for?

  35. BiG:“…the imaginary actions of the imaginary SJWs in your head?”

    Oh, would that they were imaginary!

    Right now, they are all over the Internet screaming that a white person has dared to dress to look like a black person and identify as a black person to the extent of a NAACP position.

    That they were only days ago excoriating anyone who pointed out that Bruce Jenner’s no real woman is a nice touch of irony.

  36. Adam Bell: “In an instance in which a poor black homeless man was yelling obscenities about white people, it wouldn’t be racist because his judgements have no power and no-one cares what he thinks.”

    That people can believe this sort of hogwash is incredible.

  37. Adam Bell–and so a poor white person–like the woman on the London bus who shouted various remarks against ethnic minorities–because they are powerless, state-supported nobodies– should not be guilty of racism then. Phew –lucky that eh-kept her out of court. Not.

  38. Judge: Yes she was fired for “unprofessional conduct”. However, had she just shouted and been just rude on a social level–minus her ethnic related opinions–would she still have been fired?. I say no, she wouldn’t. It was the expression of forbidden opinions that got her the boot not shouting or speaking rudely to staff/pupils. If she had said the same words in the manner of a (real not ironic) charm school graduate she would still have got the boot.

  39. @Mr Ecks
    Ah But she was a member of the White Hegamonic Power Consortium.
    She’d left her membership card in her other Ferrari

  40. @ Adam Bell
    That is *your* definition of racism. It is *not* the definition that got a man sacked for making anti-Semitic remarks in a stock-jobbing business. Don’t ask me for an internet link – people didn’t post stuff on the internet in the 1980s, but I vaguely remember it as a career example of a “Darwin award”.

  41. Julia

    So, having read the gross misconduct for which she has been banned for life, – you have actually read it have you, because it turned out Ecks hadn’t – you have concluded hat it all isn’t a problem and she should be able to carry on as a head teacher. So the culture she fostered in her schools, the disgust her staff felt on hearing this vile crap; just silly SJWS are they?

    P.S. BinG’s charge still stands: where are these SJWs? Where are their comments on this?

  42. Ironman: “the disgust her staff felt on hearing this vile crap”

    You mean such awful, terrible stuff like:

    “In or around 2011, she told Witness D that Witness C’s sick leave was “a waste of school funds”,”

    And:

    “shouted at teachers,.. stating that they were “incompetent” for not having arranged an event for Mother’s Day”

    And not forgetting:

    “e instructed the office staff not to make a cup of
    tea for Witness C and her union representative when they arrived for a meeting”

    Truly, she’s worse than Lucretia Borgia.

  43. But thanks, Ironman, for proving yourself to be the sort of delicate little flower that hates to hear the words ‘incompetent’ or the thought of a union chap having to do without a cuppa.

    And those (fellow) SJWs will be along in a minute, when they’ve finished having hysterics over Rachel Dolezal…

  44. Rustboy: Hearing a form of words and having a shitfit/ mental breakdown is one of the characteristics of SJWs- yes. That would be you and “BinG” Don’t come the “sacked for bad behaviour-not waycism” shit. Had her shouting and snide remarks been of a non-ethnic nature she would still be on the job. The culture she fostered could hardly be more vile that the PC cockwaffle that already exists and is paid for with the tax money of those who rightly despise it.

  45. Julia: Those offences were just added to the pot to try and bolster the idea that it wasn’t all punishment for PC crimes. Since when have the boss class in any organisation been sacked for being rude and imperious with those beneath them in the hierarchy? You get sacked for offending those above. If she had made no ethnic remarks she would not have been sacked let alone banned for life.

  46. BiG is a sensible cove (IMO) with whom one can usually have a congenial disagreement (and with whom one often finds oneself in agreement).

    Ironman, on the other hand, is a certifiable narcissist with significant anger issues and (I’m pretty sure) a drink problem. And he aslo can’t sepll to save his fcuking file.

    If he was important enough for anyone to give a shit about, this piece by Jon Portes might even have been written about him.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555142/jonathan-portes-master-of-correct-politicalness/

  47. Julia

    So that’s it is it? That’s all she said you think? Then I ask again, have you read it or are you just sounding off? Because you see, here we have yet another British institution that deems somebody’s conduct completely unacceptable and here we have you and Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS yet again screaming about political correctness and SWJs (see your “Rolf Harris is innocent” campaign).

    And my fellow SWJs may well be along in a minute. Or maybe they won’t. Because here we are, well into the afternoon, BinG and I keep reminding you of their absence and they’re still not fucking here are they. So maybe it’s all in your sad loser heads.

  48. I haven’t screamed about anything. If you’re going to tool around the place demanding other people read stuff you could at least try it yourself.

  49. This is why the EU referendum is lost already. Because there is no way the average decent voter is going to identify themselves with the complete horror show that is Nigel Farage’ people’s army made up of Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS and JuliaM

  50. Nigel Farage’ people’s army made up of Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS and JuliaM

    In the last couple of days you’ve also abused johnnydub, Tim Newman and (by extension) Bloke in Spain. Not to mention, ian B of previous posts.

    I think you’re gonna need a bigger boat!

  51. Well then you take your views on race and of course sex with teenagers and you enjoy life in the People’s Army.
    But please God stay away from the referendum next year. Some of us would like to win that and really don’t want our chances ruined by your ‘shock ‘n’ awful slimefest.

  52. I have no views on sex with teenagers (that’s Ian B) or on race (I don’t like the racism panic) and I have no idea what you mean about the People’s Army, you loon.

    I shall be voting in the referendum as I am an Englishman, not a turncoat Boer coward who fled the blicks in terror and is trying to exorcise his guilt and self loathing.

    🙂

  53. So Much for Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “Rather proves that the hyperbolic vitriol flung by the SMFSs of this world (white hetero males who believe they are the ones being diskrimunated) is at least somewhat bollocks, doesn’t it.”

    How precisely does it do that? Given my point is that only White people have even pretended to give up on racism and pretty much everyone else is racist. Against a lot of people. Including but not limited to White people. The fact that a brown person hates other brown people is hardly a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

    Bloke in Germany – “but I’m not seeing any SJWs jumping up and down here.”

    But are you looking? Does it matter? The standard Leftist and academic (but I repeat myself) definition of racism is as TW said – it is about power. So racism against White people is not racism. This is a confusing issue. It is like Vietnam invading Cambodia to over throw the Khmer Rouge. Of course they are keeping quiet. As they kept quiet when the Cherokee dispossessed all the descendants of Black slaves who had been counted as Cherokee until recently.

    “That is the same pool of nutters that think I am somehow a fount of leftist cant.”

    Leftist cant? So close. Just one letter off.

  54. Over to you SJWs says Tim. Except is hasn’t worked out that that has it Tim. Because it’s the People’s Army that has been thrown into a spin by this.

    You see, here we have an example of a bullying racist, abusing her position of authority to inflict her her horrible ideas on her staff and pupils; absolutely unprofessional. And here in the UK in 2015 we respond in a colourblind manner and sack her. So a racist is a racist regardless of colour and certain standards of behaviour apply.
    Except the People’s Army sees it differently. It sees this, as it sees everything, through the prism of race. So it decides your first option is the only one that fits: Hindus have joined the hegemony. SMFS’s opinion on this hasn’t been heard, which is very very curious.
    And there is a second factor at play in the People’s Army: the cyberkippers. These loons are fundamentally no different to the cybernats in Scotland. In their eyes this person’s behaviour is absolutely fine. What others see as standards of behaviour they see as political correctness. So they are outraged that anybody is entitled to complain about this her.

    So, all-in-all, I’m not going anywhere and I do indeed think I am a better person than quite a few on this blog.

  55. You meanies need to leave Ironman alone. If she/he wants to be a person of colour she/he can be a person of colour.

  56. So now the list of people it thinks it’s better than is:

    Interested
    Mr Ecks
    SMFS
    JuliaM
    Tim Newman
    johnnydub
    Ian B
    Tim Worstall

    I must have missed somebody. Any more for any more?

  57. Hello IanB

    So you think her behaviour was just fine as well do you? Just me losing my shit? Feel free to disagree with me; we have VERY different views on what is an isn’t decent.

  58. Ironman:

    I don’t agree with (a) any of the cultural marxist analysis or (b) and more importantly the Moralist approach that we should all be required to render a judgement on everyone else in our society, so the question has no relevance for me. I reject your framing.

    Did she violate anyone’s negative rights? No. None of the law’s business then, either.

  59. “Over to you SJWs says Tim. Except is hasn’t worked out that that has it Tim. Because it’s the People’s Army that has been thrown into a spin by this”.

    If refuting SJW bollocks can be defined as spin then we be spinning.

    “You see, here we have an example of a bullying racist, abusing her position of authority to inflict her her horrible ideas on her staff and pupils; absolutely unprofessional.”

    She comes over as big-mouthed and uncouth. That is –for the 50 millionth time –not why she was sacked. Organisations all over this nation–including leftist ones– are full of bullying and uncouth boss-class cunts who are not in the slightest danger of being sacked. And indeed, in many cases said boss class will close ranks to ensure that said uncouth will NOT be sacked. She was sacked for expressing opinions not acceptable to middle-class Marxists. Had she expressed those opinions in a genteel manner between the covers of the Ladies Home Journal (and this had come to light) she would have been dismissed with equal alacrity.

    ” And here in the UK in 2015 we respond in a colourblind manner and sack her.”

    Who is this we Chemo(sic*) Sabe?. But at least you admit that she was sacked for her opinions. Or can we take it that had she been a non-bullying racist you would be ok with her continued employment?

    “So a racist is a racist regardless of colour and certain standards of behaviour apply.”

    The ones that you and your leftist buddies dictate and fuck anybody else’s opinion on the matter eh? Also you have repeatedly been told that the “racist is a racist” line is NOT how the left define it. You simply assert your version. You do not even attempt to refute the “only whites can be racist” shite that is the lefts actual definition of a racist. You again prove to be a useful idiot for PC oppression.

    “Except the People’s Army sees it differently. It sees this, as it sees everything, through the prism of race. So it decides your first option is the only one that fits: Hindus have joined the hegemony.”

    Leaving aside your bizarre terminology ( anything with “the peoples” is almost certainly leftist crap)–it is you who can’t see how race is being used to forge an oppressive society where certain opinions are not to be allowed. Indeed the endorsement of such as you helps bring about a society were opinions must be approved by the state.

    ” SMFS’s opinion on this hasn’t been heard, which is very very curious.”

    You won’t like it–why ask for it unless you hope to discredit it and force others to accept/endorse your opinion.

    “And there is a second factor at play in the People’s Army: the cyberkippers. These loons are fundamentally no different to the cybernats in Scotland.”

    Didn’t Patrick Troughton battle the Cybernats back in the sixties? Pets of the Cybermen they were if memory serves. He didn’t do a very good job of it did he.

    ” In their eyes this person’s behaviour is absolutely fine.”

    Shouting etc is uncouth. It is not uncommon in jumped up members of the boss class. In itself a sacking offense? Possible but unlikely. The boss class of anywhere looks after its own. You get sacked for upsetting those above not those below (the majority of the time). This woman would most likely not have been sacked for just being mouthy and domineering.

    ” What others see as standards of behaviour they see as political correctness”

    Because that is what they are. She was sacked for her opinions not her behaviour. It helps PC pukes to have uncouthness to put forward but it was her opinions that did it.

    ” So they are outraged that anybody is entitled to complain about this her.”

    Doesn’t make sense–this her what? I or anybody else is entitled to complain–cos free speech. If the complaint is that her opinions are not leftish enough the complaint should be resolved by a “Fuck off” letter.

    “So, all-in-all, I’m not going anywhere and I do indeed think I am a better person than quite a few on this blog.”

    At least you remembered the “am” this time.

    * =Irony

  60. @ironman – This is why the EU referendum is lost already.
    no, its lost because the Brits don’t want to leave the EU. UKIP, like the parrots plumage, don’t enter into it.

  61. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “This is why the EU referendum is lost already. Because there is no way the average decent voter is going to identify themselves with the complete horror show that is Nigel Farage’ people’s army made up of Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS and JuliaM”

    Actually the majority of British people have consistently shown that they are more intelligent and far-seeing than the elites that rule them. The majority of British people thought Enoch Powell was right. The majority have always wanted stronger limits on immigration.

    What you mean is that you do not have the moral spine to stand up to the PC bullies who run the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media. What you mean is that you are too scared of being Mau Mau’ed that you will sell out your own country, your own people and your own principles rather than pick a fight supported by most British voters. What you mean is that you think if you sell out everything you believe in, they will leave you alone.

    How’s that working out for the Church you claim to believe in?

  62. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “You see, here we have an example of a bullying racist, abusing her position of authority to inflict her her horrible ideas on her staff and pupils; absolutely unprofessional.”

    If she inflicted any horrible ideas on anyone, she should be sacked. I cannot be ar$ed to read the article, but it looks to me that people are complaining she said a bad word. That is not the same. A good head is hard to find and it is probably worth tolerating a little abuse of parents if she can actually make the school work.

    “It sees this, as it sees everything, through the prism of race.”

    Actually that would be TW.

    “And there is a second factor at play in the People’s Army: the cyberkippers. These loons are fundamentally no different to the cybernats in Scotland.”

    I have yet to hear of anyone here being bullied to death but it is early days yet.

    “In their eyes this person’s behaviour is absolutely fine.”

    And again you need to make sh!t up.

    “So, all-in-all, I’m not going anywhere and I do indeed think I am a better person than quite a few on this blog.”

    Of course you do dear boy, of course you do. Without your self regard, what would you have? Of course your self regard is the sort of thing that has made Sweden the rape capital of the world, but hey, at least the victims have the comfort of knowing that they don’t live in a racist country.

  63. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Here’s a thought: perhaps SMFS is really a Hindu from Mumbai.”

    Damn. Busted again. Actually it is my right to be a Hindu from Mumbai if I want to be. Although of course I would call it by its genuine and original name Bombay. Because I like to think of myself as more Nirad C Chauhudri than Nehru.

  64. Am I right in thinking our moral arbiter claims to be a Catholic? If so, where does that leave him vis a vis the deadly sin of pride, what with him being better than all us sinners?

  65. Jim, it’s ok – he just says an Our Father, two Glory Bes and a Hail Me and it’s all cool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *