And wouldn’t this be great radio?

This is the problem with Thought for the Day. It is three minutes of anodyne, flopsy-bunny drivel filtered through the sphincter of a spineless liberal BBC apparatchik. What we want is an evangelical railing against sodomites, a left-footer ranting about abortion and a Presbyterian raving about the Whore of Rome.

49 thoughts on “And wouldn’t this be great radio?”

  1. Johnson would be a prize fool to allow any such GNU bullshit.

    Once in the fixing cunts would never be done. And talking about Marxist shite like Jizz and Co and “Rule of Law” in the same breath is Special Brew level fuckwittery.

    The HoTraitors has shot their bolt. The real danger is their tame EU owned lawdogs.

    The old cow has already demonstrated brazenly and publically her pro-EU bias. The Judgeboy trash must be broken.

    Since –if he delivers a decent Brexit –BoJo is likely the next PM –he can destroy Bliars toxic “legacy” and bring the Supreme scum crashing down–he has no need to worry about upsetting said Judgeboy scum.

    Shut the entire court system until further notice if need be. Or declare the Supremes biased–to be investigated by a Royal Commission or somesuch –after a GE.

  2. Does it have to be established religion, or can we put the eco-evangelists into that three minute slot too, instead of the other 57 minutes that they seem to occupy?

  3. Don’t forget yourself HB–you deserve 2 seconds of your weak-wankery tacked on to the broadcast.

    Your opinions are nearly worth that much.

  4. Herr X, i just see very little difference between your fantacised world where people are ex judicio strung up pour encourager les autres and much of the mid 20th Century European continent whether eastern or Western portions. To the extent that some of your frothing is , well… froth then it’s ignorable. But start doing any of your wild wank dreams when they do lock you up you’ll be glad of due process.

  5. Classic Rod..

    On the subject of who might lead a GNU:

    Or how about Dominic Grieve? A ray of February sunshine glinting on a coffin lid in a Hertfordshire funeral parlour. A lousy attorney-general who has reinvented himself as an unlikely Che Guevara, or possibly Gandhi, of the remainer cause.

    Choosing Grieve would be a cheerful middle finger raised to the majority of voters who elected to leave the EU. It would say, succinctly: “Do you not understand, you idiots? We don’t care what you voted for and we don’t care what you think. Our sovereignty trumps yours. You, actually, have none.”

  6. HB–Due process–like Assange is getting just now–or Tommy Robinson did?

    Your kind of stupidity and ignorance of how it really works is what creates the AFCs who populate this sad planet.

    Scum have fixed the system to serve scum–but you want the “rule of law” which will allow them to fix our wagon–possibly for ever give the likely possibilities of techno-tyranny but certainly for a very very long time.

    Oh yeah–lets go with the rule of fucking law and due process.

  7. Ecks

    That would be awesome. Purely for the ensuing farce and comedy.. Maybe he’ll then appoint himself as Her Maj – he is big fan of all that rainbow stuff.

  8. It’s a three-minute interlude of religiously-tinged Progressivism during several hours of standard Progressivism.

  9. I would listen (to) the fuck out of that.

    Christianity is not, contra the cunty cant of cowering clerics, a religion of peace. It was born in blood and oppression, and it is thanks to the courage of Christian fighting men that we aren’t speaking Arabic.

    Its decline since the 20th century is directly attributable to the malicious obfuscation of healthy, muscular, masculine Christian virtues in favour of feminine hand-wringing, confusion and doubt.

    Jesus took a whip to those who defiled his father’s house. Constantine conquered in the the sign of the cross. Charlemagne, Edward I, Sixtus V, Henry VIII, Jean Parisot de Valette… not known for being ecumenical pussies.

    “I came not to send peace, but a sword” – Jesus H. Christ

    A fatwa on kumbaya, and pass the ammunition.

  10. Rob,

    One of the best things I ever bought was a bluetooth radio for the car (around £150 fitted). I can tell my phone (via google’s voice thing) to play a certain playlist, or have podcasts going through the radio. Why listen to garbage like radio?

  11. Alas it is everywhere. Early Sunday and holiday mornings on Austrian radio had a religious affairs programme that was pretty muscular in its catholicism. Since 2017 it has been replaced by some multi-faith wankfest that sounds like Radio4’s Sunday translated into German.

    Whereas Thought for the Day and Sunday genuinely make me angry, the old Austrian effort just had me muttering “F- the pope and the whore of Babylon” as I tried to get back to sleep.

  12. Herr X . ok i’ll engage. Take the Supreme Court, i take it you don’t like their decision. Ok fine.
    Here’s how i look at it. They had the right to adjudicate. Say Boris prorogued, say for 12 months in order to rule with existing laws, but avoid scrutiny. That’s may be arguable as technically possible, but obviously not in the spirit of this thing we call democracy. If he did such a thing you’d expect a court could rule that a constitutional No No.
    Ok so here in that actual world we have a question on whether 1 month or even 5 days is acceptable or not. We’ve already established with the more extreme example that they have the right to adjudicate, so it’s a question of judging on where the boundary is. And yeah i share the skepticism that remain bias will have had nothing to do with it but they had the right. The judges got to where they are for their legal minds not their political ones so i say let it be.
    I do say that Speakers office needs to be de-politicised. notwithstaning its weasle words the Benn Act, obviously, plainly impinged on the Royal Prerogative and John Bercow ruled it didn’t. In hindsight John should have been replaced the moment he refused the wig and tights.
    And the fixed term parliament act should be repealed or amended to avoid the situation of MPS who know they would be de-selected or lose their seats avoiding a general election whilst frustrating a manifesto pledge issue.

  13. A legal question.

    Is Brenda, in Privy Council, permitted (legally, whatever the current conventions / practices) to turn down a request to prorogue Parliament?

    If yes, then Hallowed Be, that would be the answer to your question. Ie, there would legally be a check there in extremis – hence there was no need for the SC to sully / politicise themselves in the way they obviously did?

    If no, what legally is the point of the Privy Council meeting?

  14. HB – The Supreme Court was always a dodgy Blairite innovation and they’re very obviously trying to set themselves up as an unelected and unaccountable political body in the miserable tradition of their American inspiration.

    Their prorogation piffle was simply the camel’s nose under the tent, expect these coffin-dodging commissars to start assuming more illegitimate power whenever people vote for something the establishment doesn’t like. (“Sorry, bigots, we’ve decided it’s actually illegal to control immigration or stop schools encouraging kids to become trannies, whatchagonnado about that huh? :-D”)

    Unlike the Yanks, we don’t have to put up with this bullshit, and a future government will have no choice but to put them all in a home, or something.

  15. If the judiciary want to behave like politicians, they should be treated like politicians. With all the respect due (and no more).

  16. Pf- Brenda can refuse but it’s convention she doesn’t. She acts on the advice of her ministers/ privvy councillors. The moment she acts on the advice of a.n. other advisor we’re in very dangerous waters. I suppose in future she’ll have to have assurance that the attorney general has deemed whatever the advice is as legal.

    The case hinged on the purpose rather than specifically the actual length of the prerogation, althought length wasn’t irrelevant. Avoiding scrutiny was not legitimate, clearing the decks for a new queen’s speech was fine. The innovation (if that’s what it was) was that the courts get to decide on the ‘purpose’ of the prerogation rather than leave that up to the political sphere.

    And Yes Steve, camels noses are my worry too. Once a convention’s broken, or the courts have gone on manouvres in the political sphere, the only legitimate way to kaibosh it is statute. (and they still get to interpret those, so you go back to needing very good draughtsmen and ironically parliamentary scrutiny.)

  17. P.s we don’t want the Queen doing nought on her own initiative. Under tim’s long espoused principle replace Queen with King, and then decide whether that’s a good solution.

  18. I would listen (to) the fuck out of that.

    Steve, I haven’t watched Liddle’s journey from left to right closely, but I suspect he’d like that stuff on the air for a different reason than yours: to laugh at.

  19. @Hallowed Be
    But surely the point is that a PM might have had the ability to prorogue parliament for a year but no prime minister has ever done so. There was certainly no intention by Boris to do so.
    The law is a binary system. It only takes account of what is being done, not the reasons or the circumstances. It’s also self defeating. The sort of PM who would prorogue for a year wouldn’t be hindered by the law. They’d just govern without parliament in defiance of the law. The circumstances of the time would have given them the raw power to do so.

  20. …and they’re very obviously trying to set themselves up as an unelected and unaccountable political body in the miserable tradition of their American inspiration.

    It’s not in the American tradition. In the US arrangement, the justices are nominated by the President and then examined and confirmed / rejected by the Senate. Both the President and Senate are chosen by the Sovereign People. In the UK arrangement, a commission made up of the judiciary (including those already on the supreme court) chooses a justice and the Pime Minister is required by law to put that name (and no other) to the Queen to appoint.

    The US Constitution recognises that the Supreme Court has a partially political role and so places it under some political scrutiny. Tony Blair recognised that his supreme court was almost entirely political and so made sure it would always be unelected and unaccountable; in the control of people like his wife.

    The UK supreme court is a leftist abomination.

  21. Emergency powers to set aside the Surrender Act and FTPA. CCA supposed to be reviewed by Courts and Parliament but since they are the source of the wannabe “Government of National EU Control” you set that aside. Until after the most important part of the move. You set a GE date. Just after Brexit pref.

    Also to suspend any Court proceedings and the enactment of any lawdog tricks for the duration of the suspension. And then a new HoC is there to stop legal trickery in its tracks. And punish the Beaks hopefully. Or at least humiliate them.

    After that GE a new HoC and the Courts can review use of CCA. But if the Supremes kick off for their EU masters the new HoC is there to smack them down.

    If people think this is BoJo brand tyranny–they can vote for EU brand tyranny at the very handy GE. Instead of being GNEUC’d (Gnuked) into EU tyranny by the HoTraitors without a choice.

  22. “Steve, I haven’t watched Liddle’s journey from left to right closely”

    It’s left and right that moved. Labour used to be the party of the producers, the people in factories, the painters and decorators, while the Conservatives were the party of the parasites, like landowners. After the decline of landowning and trade unions, Thatcher flipped it. Labour became the party of the big state, while the Conservatives became the party of producers.

    Cameron tried to ruin this, but it still didn’t really change because Labour didn’t seize the opportunity. It remained the metropolitan public sector party. Many producers jumped to UKIP.

    It’s why all these old strongholds are falling apart. They had deeper Labour roots, but they’ve realised that most of Labour aren’t interested in working people in Bolsover or Workington. Skinner’s majority used to be hilarious. 20K majority +. It’s down to 5K now.

  23. HB

    “Brenda can refuse but it’s convention she doesn’t.”

    Thanks for that.

    My comment stands – it was in response to your “prorogue for a year” problem, ie in extremis. if Boris genuinely did something materially unconventional, so could Brenda; hence, the “check” stands, which is why Boris proroguing for a year would be a straw man, never going to happen. That’s the point of conventions. Ie, the so called SC did not need to consider such an issue.

  24. PJF – Oh, sure. But I find life simpler when you stop caring about motives.

    Anyway, he reminded me of something PKD wrote:

    Getting to his feet he crossed the waiting room to the Padre booth; seated inside he put a dime into the slot and dialed at random. The marker came to rest at Zen.

    “Tell me your torments,” the Padre said, in an elderly voice marked with compassion. And slowly; it spoke as if there were no rush, no pressure. All was timeless.

    Joe said, “I haven’t worked for seven months and now I’ve got a job that takes me out of the Sol System entirely, and I’m afraid. What if I can’t do it? What if after so long I’ve lost my skill?”

    The Padre’s weightless voice floated reassuringly back to him. “You have worked and not worked. Not working is the hardest work of all.”

    That’s what I get for dialing Zen, Joe said to himself. Before the Padre could intone further he switched to Puritan Ethic.

    “Without work,” the Padre said, in a somewhat more forceful voice, “a man is nothing. He ceases to exist.”

    Rapidly, Joe dialed Roman Catholic.

    “God and God’s love will accept you,” the Padre said in a faraway gentle voice. “You are safe in His arms. He will never–”

    Joe dialed Allah.

    “Kill your foe,” the Padre said.

    “I have no foe,” Joe said. “Except for my own weariness and fear of failure.”

    “Those are enemies,” the Padre said, “which you must overcome in a jihad; you must show yourself to be a man, and a man, a true man, is a fighter who fights back.” The Padre’s voice was stern.

    Joe dialed Judaism.

    “A bowl of Martian fatworm soup–” the Padre began soothingly, but then Joe’s money wore out; the Padre closed down, inert and dead–or anyhow dormant.

  25. …and they’re very obviously trying to set themselves up as an unelected and unaccountable political body in the miserable tradition of their American inspiration.

    That is not actually the case with regards to the Supreme Court of the US. Like the UK, it is because the House of Representatives like the House of Commons wishes to avoid political accountability. The US Constitution has several checks on the SC; defunding, non-concurrance on appointments, and removing certain areas from the Court’s purview. However, since the Roosevelt administration, the HoRs (how’s that for an acronym?) has found it politically convenient to defer to the SC as they don’t need to be accountable for writing clear laws that might hurt them at the polls.

    All it looks like here is that the HoCs is looking to become HoRs.

  26. The thing about the British Supreme Court, this most recent decision (which I think is an abomination) and Blair’s creation of it, the thing that sticks in my mind is that even if we still had the Judicial Committee of the HL instead, it would still be staffed by now by exactly the same people. I’m not at all sure the outcome of the Miller case would have been any different.

  27. BiS and PF-
    So even if you don’t like my 12 month example because that would i agree only be invoked by Sir Joffrey Putin, there is undoubtedly, despite the absence of a codified document, a constitution. And if not a court to decide what’s constitutional then what?

  28. ELud- Quite right. They’re the same Law Lords. And blairite “reform” yes but blairite stooges don’t know about that. And so i say where does hanging or in herr x’s more benign moments humiliating the judges actually get him? I’d say a far far worse system. As i say the correct response is to get a majority, pass a law that says judges this is a political decision in the gift of the PM,keep out.

  29. Bloke in North Dorset

    IIRC the SC came in to being because the EU/ECJ told Blair to separate the judiciary and legislature, Blair being more than happy to oblige. As Edward says, prior to the SC the same people sat in the HoL and were appointed in the same way.

    The real thing about the SC is calling it Supreme, that was smoke and mirrors to placate the paroles. It isn’t, that would be the a ECJ which can overrule it on many issues, and with every a EU law and rule change that takes place under QMV it will be less Supreme, giving it more of an incentive to prove its importance by meddling in local politics.

    Anyone who thinks Rod Liddle is right wing should listen to him on the Brendan O’Neil show. Two old school working class lefties ripping apart progressives and pretend lefties warms the heart, as well as being amusing.

  30. HB–The system it gets us is NOT the EU system. Which– if BoJo does not act decisively against these traitorous shite– is going to be imposed on us for good.

    The second VONC vote –once any CareGiver cunt is installed– will be to NOT have a GE . The Gerrymandering will begin big style and by 2022 its goodbye UK never mind Brexit.

    So fuck what system MIGHT occur once we are out–if it isn’t good I will help you change it because it will be ours to change.

    The system we will have forced upon us if we don’t get the fuck out is what should worry you and all the rest of us.

  31. “BiS and PF-
    So even if you don’t like my 12 month example because that would i agree only be invoked by Sir Joffrey Putin, there is undoubtedly, despite the absence of a codified document, a constitution. And if not a court to decide what’s constitutional then what?”

    In any political system, democratic or dictatorship, communist, theocratic, king, emperor, president, prime minster, the final authority is the Mum of the guard on the palace gate. Piss her off & you’re in serious trouble.

  32. HB

    “They’re the same Law Lords.”

    Denning? Hale? You sure….

    “And if not a court to decide what’s constitutional then what?”

    It was a political decision. More experienced judges (albeit sitting in the lower English court) disagreed with them. 11 so called 0 – bollocks..;)

  33. My Scottish chum pronounces ‘Lady Hale’ as a euphemism for ‘Cnut’. I think he got it in one.

  34. @HB October 6, 2019 at 12:42 pm

    Supreme Court had the right to adjudicate

    I disagree. Judiciary, like Church, should not interfere with politics as England and NI courts ruled.

    The “Supreme Court” is a Blair creation and the “Judges” are not Judges as we know them; they are like ECJ “Judges” anyone from anywhere. Lead “Judge” Lady Hale is an academic.

    Their judgement has put SC above Parliament and the Queen and created a de-facto Republic with head of SC an unelected President

    .
    @PJF October 6, 2019 at 3:04 pm

    Liddle is still Left, old fashioned patriotic freedom loving non-PC, non-SJW Left – Libertarian Left I guess

    Same as Brendan O’Neil

  35. Pcar , Denning? wasn’t he the text book example of judicial activism. IIRC He had the most dissenting views ever in his career, because most judges weren’t activists in those days, and still managed to create more law than the current parliament. Mind you he probably would have dissented just because….

    It was all likelihood influenced by politics but they had some wiggle room and they used it. What are you going to do? Reduce their wiggle room is the only correct answer not string em up or ignore them. (or god forbid as steve says start the USian political appointment or even more horrifying running elections)

  36. HB – They had no wiggle room, and no right to adjudicate.

    The 1688 Bill of Rights established that. The Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice reminded them of that.

    What the Supreme Court did was what Supreme Court justices in America have been doing for donkey’s – they lied. They lied through their false teeth in order to obtain the outcome they wanted to obtain, for temporary political purposes.

    What to do, then?

    I’m not in favour of importing any more American innovations to our judicial system, especially not confirmation hearings. The disgusting way Brett Kavanaugh was treated isn’t something we should want to emulate, and in any event political confirmation theatre would only formalise the Supreme Court’s new political role.

    We want to nip their political aspirations in the bud instead. The next government should simply pass a law abolishing the court, declaring its ruling void, and preventing the 11 political judges from working in the legal profession ever again.

    Then reinstate the Law Lords, as part of a reformed House of Lords where all the appointed members since 1997 have been de-ermined and future new non-hereditary or clerical members are chosen by lottery. It’s not a perfect solution, but it should be good enough.

  37. “they lied” i think perhaps i’m going to read the full judgement. If i conclude the same, then maybe i’ll change my view.

  38. HB – definitely worth reading it and then contrasting with the High Court decision.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling depends on them pretending – for the first time in British constitutional history – that proroguation is not a “proceeding in Parliament” (because they have no jurisdiction over proceedings in Parliament).

  39. If Parliament doesn’t like what Johnson is doing then it is at perfect liberty to have a confidence vote in him.

    (In fact, they did have one, and he won, which he can take as giving him the authority to continue what he’s doing.)

  40. Parliament is indeed entirely free to throw out it’s Johnson any time.

    I can only hope people remember how important “who” they vote for is as well as what colour of idiot rosette they wear.

    Also we gonna need new constitutional law after all this. No ifs, no buts, not question. No government can function with this much vulnerability to Lawfare….

  41. Worth a read:
    https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-unconstitutionality-of-the-supreme-courts-prorogation-judgment/

    About the Author

    Professor John Finnis FBA QC (Hon) is Professor Emeritus of Law & Legal Philosophy in the University of Oxford and Biolchini Family Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.
    Between 1972 and 1989 he was Rhodes Reader in the Laws of the British Commonwealth and the United States in the University of Oxford. In 2011, Oxford University Press published five volumes of his collected essay and a second edition of his magnum opus Natural Law and Natural Rights, and in 2013 a major Festschrift in his honour. Finnis was appointed Queen’s Counsel (honoris causa) in 2017.

  42. Bloke in North Dorset

    Chris,

    Good link, thanks, and goes to something that has bothered me about that SC judgement and it’s not the verdict.

    When you’ve got learned minds like that, the Master of the Rolls and many other well read scholars having differing opinions it’s hard to believe that the SC came down 11-0 without a stitch up. If it been, say, 7-4 I might have shrugged and said that’s the way these things go, but 11-0 makes even me have Ecks like conspiracy thoughts.

Leave a Reply

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