Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Time to rebuild those priest holes.

I see, via Constantly Furious, that the Paul Clarke 'help-the-police-and-go-to-jail' story is now on Twitter and turning into quite a brushfire. The MSM don't seem to have noticed anything yet. They did, however, notice that Scottish Labour want to make possession of a knife a strict liability offence with a mandatory prison sentence (via Samizdata).

Glasgow North East contains a fair number of people who like to smoke, drink and carry a knife. Oh dear, folks, look who you've just voted for.

This Christmas, if you were considering buying someone a set of kitchen knives, don't. Or a saw, plain or electric. Chisels, potato peelers, junior hacksaws, anything that has a bladed edge over 3 inches long and doesn't fold is illegal to have in your possession on the street and Labour want to send you to jail simply for having it. What you intended to do with it is irrelevant. Taking a 12" pruning saw to loan to your pal down the road? Irrelevant. Possession equals prison. No defence.

Ah, you say, but if I just bought it, it's still in its plastic packet and I have the receipt. I'm just carrying it home. Even if you carry it to the police station, you'll get arrested. There is no excusable reason for carrying it because it's a strict liablility offence and you go to jail. At the moment it's legal to have these things in your home (if you can get them there) as long as you don't step outside with them. At the moment.

What the hell, eh? Who's going to know if you have anything like that in your house? As long as you don't take it outside, no problem, right?

Better get hinges on that wall panelling because you'll need to hide a lot of things behind it when this lot come round. Note that this is to prevent 'unintentional injuries'. It is not targeted at child abusers. It is targeted at you.

About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital each year for home injuries at a cost of £146m.

Approximate and most likely hugely inflated number - check. For the cheeeldren - check. Costs the NHS millions - check. Same techniques, recognised by smokers, drinkers and fat people everywhere by now. Well folks, it's rollout time. Now you are all smokers, drinkers, and fatties. Now you can all be censured, fined and punished at will and you'll have no comeback at all. Welcome to our world.

Take another look at Al-Jahom's link. Scroll down the list of Righteous organisations involved. Pretty much all of them. This is supposed to be about children's safety in the home - the national audit commission? The bicycle helmet initiative trust? The department for transport? What in Hell's name are 'the centre for excellence in outcomes' or the 'council for subject associations'? These sound like something the Daily Mash made up! This is a massed Righteous association of vicious, spiteful people who are making one big push for total control before their time runs out. If they succeed, it will be extremely difficult for the Cameroids to unravel, and that's assuming they're even going to try.

For the moment, if you have no children in your house, you are safe. Unless your work or daily life involves any contact at all, at any time, with anyone under 18. So far, they get to you through children. Why do you really think they wanted gay couples to adopt? They've got you too. Also anyone who looks after your children for any period of time. It's now at the stage where, if I see next door's kids waiting in the snow after school for their parents to get home through the Christmas traffic, I'll have no option but to leave them there. The moment they step through the door, in come a thousand government inspectors.

It won't take them long to find a way into childless homes. Children living next door? Better be sure your house won't spontaneously combust and put next door's children at risk. Children living across the street? Best make sure your curtains are up to scratch so they don't inadvertantly see you in the bath. It won't take them long. Remember the days when people left their front doors unlocked? Those days are coming back because if you lock them, the State will batter them down. Why bother with locks when you cannot stop them anyway?

This is what Labour have done to the country and its people. Take a bloody good look, Glasgow North East. You voted for this. YOU voted FOR this.

Those 70% who did not vote, hang your heads. You had the power to slap them down and you stood aside. You could have taken out all four of the idiot bands at once, you couild have relegated Labour, SNP, Lib Dem and Tory to the bottom of the heap and you did nothing. All you needed was an X in a box. Not voting is not a protest. It is submission. Not voting is like standing aside while burglars ransack your house, making them a cup of tea and helping them carry your TV out to the van. Not voting is like starting a game of chess by toppling your king. Not voting sends no message to those in power other than 'Carry on, we don't mind what you do'.

I vote. Every time. I vote for a small party or an independent, never for any of the big parties because to me, they all look the same and they all look very dangerous indeed. Nobody I vote for ever wins. That's not because I wasted my vote. I didn't waste it. I used it. It's because on average, about 60% of people with a vote waste theirs by not using it, then complain when another band of money-grabbing tyrants get in.

These people are getting in on the back of a small percentage of the electorate. If everyone voted, they could be wiped out entirely. Imagine a parliament with not a single Labour, Tory or Lib Dem MP. Imagine it for a while.

Then make it happen. With two strokes of a pencil.
wordpress blog stats


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
15th Nov, 2009 23:50 (UTC)
I don't have any kids. I never wanted them, so I just didn't bother. And although I've never regretted not having them, I've never been particularly glad about it, either - any more than I was glad I never played golf or went skydiving or read War & Peace - it just wasn't something which was important to me, so I just got on with enjoying life doing all the things that I did want to do.

Until now. With every passing day and every latest pronouncement I find myself breathing a little inward sigh of relief and thinking to myself: "Thank goodness I never ......" Of course, you're right - nobody will escape the clutches of the Righteous forever, but hopefully parental objections (particularly once even more children start being whipped away "for their own safety") will be enough to keep them occupied for at least a few years.

In the meantime, I'm taking precautions(!) Quite simply, I've banned children from my home. Smokers, drinkers, people with big fierce-looking (though usually unbelievably soppy) dogs, people who have a Swiss Army knife in their pocket - all are welcome. But kids? Absolutely not. Far too dangerous. They have to sit outside in the car with a coke and a packet of crisps. Which is, of course, just as it should be.
16th Nov, 2009 02:33 (UTC)
Pensioners next
Childless homes won't be safe. They'll start in on the over 65's next. Watch out if you happen to know a pensioner. You'll need to be checked out by the state before you can have Granny come over for a visit.
17th Nov, 2009 01:20 (UTC)
Re: Pensioners next
Maybe. But I think they know they'll be hoist by their own petard on that one. After all, they quite clearly want us all to be so weighed down with all the responsibilities of life so that we don't have a second to (a) enjoy ourselves or relax and (b) start thinking about what they're up to. And what better way to achieve this than, just as children are becoming more independent and growing up and leaving the nest, to burden people with the full responsibility of their increasingly elderly parents? Just look at the way they're running down good, affordable care for the elderly. Pretty soon the only humane alternative for everyone's dear ol' mum and dad when they get too old to look after themselves will be for them to move in with younger relatives. Bingo! By the time anyone from our generation has the time and opportunity to start seeing what's going on around us, or doing anything about it, we'll be needing geriatric care for ourselves – and by that time you can guarantee that there'll be NO decent public provision for the elderly at all. And so the cycle will continue with the next generation.

How ironic is it, then, that they should try and emotionally blackmail people into stopping drinking and smoking and eating salt/fat/sugar "for the sake of your cheeeeldren." It may turn out that drinking and smoking oneself into an early(ish) grave could be the best favour you ever do for them. Morbid? Certainly. But a guaranteed thought-provoker (or outrage-inducer) for one's next cocktail party ......
16th Nov, 2009 05:49 (UTC)
Well, if I had children, there'd be difficulties. You see, my children would be agoraphobic, and would also have a morbid fear of strangers invading their 'safe place'. They would thus be unable to leave the house, or tolerate any unwelcome guests entering.

So any attempt by these inspectors to enter my property would have to be rebuffed on H&S grounds. It's for the good of the children, and the inspectors as the children would be sure to suffer an extreme and violent panic attack.
16th Nov, 2009 06:52 (UTC)
other peoples children
The other morning I had a late breakfast/early lunch in a popular local pub. The only other people were a large group of young mums with their pre-school children.
As I was leaving one of the sprogs was pushing against the heavy wooden doors ( which opened outwards ).
This presented me with a quandry. Obviously I did not want to make a scene by calling out to the group ( thus accusing its mum of being a 'bad mother' ) nor did I want to tug the child away from the door and leave my DNA on it.

Luckily another woman as about to enter the pub and would thus be responsible for the child running out into the street but I caught her eye and said " this child is trying to escape... but it's not mine".
She scooped him up, took him inside and no doubt dealt with the situation properly.
I sat and had a cigarette outside just in case someone decided to investugate my 'behaviour' ( better than having someone note down my vehicle registration number and report me ).

What a world we have made.
16th Nov, 2009 08:07 (UTC)
Strict Liability
Errm? Don't think so. Yes, they are going down the "mandatory jail sentence" route, carefully steered by the social engineers in the ACPO(S). But they are still, depending on the source, allowing the carrying of knives "with lawful excuse" or "with an excuse acceptable to the authorities", depending on whether you believe STV or Perry. So we are not in a "strict liability" offence mode here. Yes, I believe they will continue to ratchet down the lawful excuses and I wouldn't put it past them to reverse the burden of proof (as per the Misuse of Drugs Act) but this isn't quite the same thing.

Okay, Glasgow has a knife problem and, as we have just seen, for Labour: Scotland = Glasgow. So, just because the ultimate in ned chic is a machete, we all have to suffer. Those of you in the frozen north who might just need a machete to slaughter the yeti on your way to the pub, and me in the Central Belt who might want to use one to cut the lilac bushes back.

17th Nov, 2009 02:28 (UTC)
Re: Strict Liability
Not strict liablity yet? Well, it'll soon be treated as though it is.

The yetis are thriving here due to climate change. If it wasn't for the polar bears eating them, we'd be overrun.
16th Nov, 2009 19:51 (UTC)
Cranking it up
I swear your prose gets better by the day.

If only the Taxpayers Alliance wasn't funded by Tory supporters, their clout and relentlessness could push the non-voters into doing exactly as you propose. It's going to take a very big movement to get the thing rolling. But, as you say, just imagine the elation (and freedom) when it does.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )