On BBC Breakfast this morning (I was waiting for Saturday Kitchen) was someone who apparently gets paid by the Guardian. The Guardian is the Left wing paper that is losing large sums of money and is owned by offshore trusts, so it pays no tax in the UK. Polly Toynbee also writes for them and claims to dislike tax avoidance intensely, but has never criticised her employer.
Anyway, this dupe held up a paper saying that Anne McIntosh, a Conservative MP who has been deselected by her local party, was the subject of a dirty tricks clique. Ignoring the truth and the headline in front of him our Leftie said, 'this is the fifth woman Conservative who has decided not to stand as a Conservative again'. Which of course is a complete fabrication. on his part. If you have a tendency to lean to the Left, do please ask why it is that the Left seem to have a need to lie over ever single thing. Do they not have any cogent, intelligent points to make?
Showing posts with label Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guardian. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Nick Clegg Picks Riot Team
The inquiry into the recent riots seems not destined to reflect the public mood. Firstly, absent-minded Nick Clegg (I don't mean he forgets things, I mean his mind is absent) has been given the job of selecting which left-liberals should lead the official apology. Apology for an inquiry that is.
Secondly, if all the rage and 'lock em up' and swift justice, was the government's reaction to the wanton destruction, why now a limp wristed, effete inquiry team? Why have such people been picked? Did Clegg pick them or just advertise in the Guardian?
And why should socialist state sector job-hoppers only be applicable? If the inquiry panel has 'I feel your pain' members, why not some from the wrecked establishments and communities; 'I have actually felt your pain'?
We know why they rioted; because they could. We know why they looted; because they always want to. They exist in a dead-in-the-head, materialistic community. One that has a high opinion of itself and owes nothing to anyone. An opinion based on no substance.
What the inquiry should almost exclusively look into is why they were able to riot. Why the police response was so, so Guardian. But of course, that would mean going against the instincts and actions of fellow socialist, social worker senior police officers. So the result will go like this; it can't be the rioters fault, they are victims of a cruel and divisive, Tory society and it can't be the fault of the police, who just wanted to care for these helpless souls. Not to judge and punish, but to find ways to meet them on equal terms, by perhaps giving them free, exotic adventure holidays, or vouchers towards trainers if they lay off burning down important buildings for a while.
No, it must be our fault. We don't pay enough tax to properly supply the outreach workers and level of financial support these people demand, er need. I think 'Bonfire of the Vanities' may have been hitting the wrong target. Can you think of a title that more accurately depicts the loathsome character of the socialist cabal that infects and infests the public sector? Self satisfied and mutually congratulatory for no input and no effort, taking ever larger salaries and creating meaningless empires. And pontificating about why riots happen.
Secondly, if all the rage and 'lock em up' and swift justice, was the government's reaction to the wanton destruction, why now a limp wristed, effete inquiry team? Why have such people been picked? Did Clegg pick them or just advertise in the Guardian?
And why should socialist state sector job-hoppers only be applicable? If the inquiry panel has 'I feel your pain' members, why not some from the wrecked establishments and communities; 'I have actually felt your pain'?
We know why they rioted; because they could. We know why they looted; because they always want to. They exist in a dead-in-the-head, materialistic community. One that has a high opinion of itself and owes nothing to anyone. An opinion based on no substance.
What the inquiry should almost exclusively look into is why they were able to riot. Why the police response was so, so Guardian. But of course, that would mean going against the instincts and actions of fellow socialist, social worker senior police officers. So the result will go like this; it can't be the rioters fault, they are victims of a cruel and divisive, Tory society and it can't be the fault of the police, who just wanted to care for these helpless souls. Not to judge and punish, but to find ways to meet them on equal terms, by perhaps giving them free, exotic adventure holidays, or vouchers towards trainers if they lay off burning down important buildings for a while.
No, it must be our fault. We don't pay enough tax to properly supply the outreach workers and level of financial support these people demand, er need. I think 'Bonfire of the Vanities' may have been hitting the wrong target. Can you think of a title that more accurately depicts the loathsome character of the socialist cabal that infects and infests the public sector? Self satisfied and mutually congratulatory for no input and no effort, taking ever larger salaries and creating meaningless empires. And pontificating about why riots happen.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Sky News Newspaper Review
Well confirm the stereotype and go to the foot of our bed! Last night I caught a bit of the Sky News review of the papers, which featured a ghastly, patronising, rude and persistently sniping man from the Guardian. He absolutely oozed 'I'm right on everything you know' and belittled any opinion he disagreed with. The woman from the Telegraph was treated as if she and her words were of no consequence and, well, you couldn't expect anything more could you, the poor deluded love.
The delightful moment was when, despite him imploring the presenter not to, she mentioned, with the price of gold soaring, Gordon Brown's decision to sell vast amounts of the stuff, cheaply. Having to issue some kind of put down he said (unbelievably) that 'well he didn't just sell it, he invested in something else I believe'. Where to start with that defensive claptrap? Firstly, Brown drove down the price of gold by announcing his sale, thus achieving the lowest price possible. Secondly, despite Guardian man claiming people running to gold in a crisis was bizarre, the value has gone up greatly, during our current difficulties and so Brown threw away wealth. And investment is exactly what the gold represented, as it has gone up in value at a time of instability, but what did Brown 'invest' in? He bought paper money, mainly Euro's. He claimed that it was safer than gold, a tangible and reliable product. He presumably doesn't remember the barrow loads of German Marks it took to buy a loaf of bread. What scale of fool believes that paper has an intrinsic and lasting value?
The same ones I guess who are persisting with their political power game known as the EU. This Franco German construct to avoid war by achieving what they otherwise would have to fight for again, by political means, is currently destroying Europe just as completely (though without actually killing people). The EU doesn't work at any level and yet the politicians for whom it is their life and who never step outside this bubble will not concede as much. So the financial crisis they have created will continue.
The delightful moment was when, despite him imploring the presenter not to, she mentioned, with the price of gold soaring, Gordon Brown's decision to sell vast amounts of the stuff, cheaply. Having to issue some kind of put down he said (unbelievably) that 'well he didn't just sell it, he invested in something else I believe'. Where to start with that defensive claptrap? Firstly, Brown drove down the price of gold by announcing his sale, thus achieving the lowest price possible. Secondly, despite Guardian man claiming people running to gold in a crisis was bizarre, the value has gone up greatly, during our current difficulties and so Brown threw away wealth. And investment is exactly what the gold represented, as it has gone up in value at a time of instability, but what did Brown 'invest' in? He bought paper money, mainly Euro's. He claimed that it was safer than gold, a tangible and reliable product. He presumably doesn't remember the barrow loads of German Marks it took to buy a loaf of bread. What scale of fool believes that paper has an intrinsic and lasting value?
The same ones I guess who are persisting with their political power game known as the EU. This Franco German construct to avoid war by achieving what they otherwise would have to fight for again, by political means, is currently destroying Europe just as completely (though without actually killing people). The EU doesn't work at any level and yet the politicians for whom it is their life and who never step outside this bubble will not concede as much. So the financial crisis they have created will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)