Tag Archives: violence

Perhaps we Islanders have a racial problem


NB:- Not a “racist” one, but a “racial” one….rac“ism” is being used as a weapon against us: but everyoone knows that different races react to different things in different ways….

David Davis

I am now going to proffer wild suppositions and hypotheses.

It says on the BBC , via the UN (who else?) that Scotland is the “most violent country in the developed world”. Next highest are England+Wales, Australia and New Zealand. The USA, our first large child, today’s whipping-boy of leftist anti-gun-mums and “liberal” campaigners, and the home of beer-fuelled-pickup-driving-rednecks with-guns-in-their-trunks,  is at a level about one-third of Scotland.

With my evolutionary-paleobiologist’s hat on, a hat which I sometimes wear in bed (while reading such things as Richard Dawkins as is natural for a human) I think here and there about the selection-pressures acting on early hominids. Then one also wonders about the survival-related-usefulness, or otherwise, of genes which confer intra-specific aggressiveness as a strategy for survival, as opposed to whatever its opposite might be called. But then one comes up against a difficulty: aggressiveness, which can lead to you braining another hominid with a large nearby log (or a special one which you’d previously shaped in the dead of night) for such things as “looking at a couple of your own five current breeding-females in a funny and sexy way and then saying “Ugg-Ugg-Ugg!” while pelvic-thrusting” or “trying to pinch Sea-Buckthorn-berries from your huntergathering-patch of duneland”. Or, tell it not in Gath to the paleoFabians, for “throwing his sharp stick at the wild-bison’s jugular-vein more successfully than you did”, so his children would enter the forward-Gene-pool at higher frequency that yours will, and your breeding-females would “go to him” in his cave each time just after the Full Moon, rather than stay in yours…

Is it that the “Anglic type” peoples have been more successful at settling “foreign parts” and turning them into things such as “Dominions” _because_ we might be more naturally aggressive as individuals (as suggested circumstantially by the BBC report on Scotland – remember that there are more places on the earth called “Mackenzie” than any other place! – or is the opposite? Is it that _because_ we have been so successful at sidelining the problem of individual aggressiveness in an emergent modern civilisation through notions such as the Rule Of Law, Minimal-Statism, Individual Liberalism and the like, that other places bearing lots of people with our genes have also proved to be successful and orderly places?

If it is the latter and not the former, then is GramscoFabiaNazism, home-grown sadly and home-nurtured through our failure to stamp it out aggressively at the first appearance of it, then to blame for our terrible standing at the top of these personal-violence graphs?

Advertisements

Maybe nothing can now be done for these people


Michael Winning

I meant the hoddies, not the woman and her daughter. Labour’s artificially-created client-underclass may contain many individuals for whom there will be no earthly use. It is a tragic and useless waste of human potential.

And ive just found this here.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100011721/24-hour-drinking-is-not-to-blame-for-broken-britain/

I,ll reprint it just in carse, I’m sure the man won’t mind. The blog master says it should be in red to show its been lifted.

Ed West Politics Last updated: September 29th, 2009

8 Comments Comment on this article

Well, this is possibly Labour’s last ever party conference in power, so I was expecting some big gimmicks, but Gordon Brown’s attack on 24-hour drinking is weak.

The move will be part of a wider package of crime measures that the Prime Minister will unveil in his crucial pre-election party conference speech. He has previously indicated that he is unhappy with parts of the licensing law changes that were brought in while Tony Blair was Prime Minister but has stopped short of overhauling the legislation.

As a teenager the one cause I really felt passionate about was not global warming (as we called it back then), third world poverty or the Rwandan genocide (which I don’t even remember) – it was 24-hour drinking. I hated the fact that all pubs shut at 11 and we then had to find a nightclub, queue for ages, and then pay over the odds to stand around somewhere so loud you wouldn’t hear Ian Paisley if he was standing next to you. Lloyd George ruined my teenage years.

Conservatives, who win most arguments through the law of unintended consequences, were strangely averse to the obvious fact that our First World War-era licensing laws only encouraged people to drink quickly and then head to even boozier venues. It was left to New Labour, in a rare moment of liberalism, to change the law.

The phrase “24-hour drinking” is misleading, creating the image of some Oliver Reed-style epic bender – often it just means theatre-goers popping in for a couple or people choosing to stay in their local past 11 rather than making a night of it. And it does not make alcohol-related social problems any worse – it doesn’t make them hugely better, but it doesn’t make them worse. In fact the number of venues open 24-hours is tiny, and the number of pubs open past 1 am is not huge, either.

The Government knows this, of course, but the real problems with alcohol are too difficult to deal with. The initial inconvenience is that too many city centres are dependent on alcohol – if they raise the duty on alcohol or arrested drunks wholesale or did anything to reduce the number of rubbish chain pubs then they may as well evacuate Liverpool or Newcastle.

Secondly, and more importantly, too many members of the violent community are also part of Labour’s 5-million-strong welfare army, people who do not pay fines because they know the authorities won’t chase them, and who do not modify their bad behaviour because they know the state won’t kick them out of their taxpayer-provided homes. This is why “drink Asbos” won’t work:

The measure will be part of a wider package of anti-social behaviour policies that the Prime Minister will unveil. It includes “drink anti-social behaviour orders” being extended to force courts to consider imposing a Drinking Banning Order against anyone convicted of a crime who was under the influence of alcohol.

The Drink Asbos will give magistrates the power to bar problem drinkers from bars and off-licences, Mr Brown will say.

Parents of any child guilty of anti-social behaviour will be given a parenting contract and where they refuse to comply with them, their benefits will be stopped. He will also announce a four-fold increase in the number of families covered by ‘family intervention projects.’

He will say: “These are binding contracts which require people to take one to one support or lose their benefits. We will double the number of these family intervention projects so that for the 50,000 most chaotic families and their 100,000 children there will be clear rules, and clear punishments if they don’t comply.”

But Asbos have been a terrible failure – half of them are breached and most of the time the authorities simply give the hooligan another “last chance” warning, like some ineffective and weak teacher. On the other hand they are genuinely illiberal and can and have been used by the authorities to persecute the merely eccentric or children with serious disorders.

This issue is relevant to the suicide of Fiona Pilkington, driven to her death by yobs while the police did nothing (for fear of “criminalising” the bullies by sending them to prison), because even if the authorities did intervene to stop her ordeal, they would still be bound by the law to re-house Miss Pilkington’s tormentors, the Simmons family, and scumbags everywhere know that.

If Labour really wanted to get tough on anti-social behaviour, whether committed drunk or sober, it would change the law so that the state no longer had to find a home for criminals among ordinary, decent people. But then, you wouldn’t want people to actually take personal responsibility for their behaviour, would you?

I’ll probably get rotting cabbages thrown at me….


David Davis

….but in 1967, the world MSM, the UN (implicitly) and all politically-consicous individuals who had any education whatsoever, sided with Israel in the “six-day-war”. In my school, I was in a minority of two, among 551 boys and about 45 masters.

Today, David Miliperson “calls for” lots of stuff about ending the violence.

As a libertarian, I ought, ought I not (?) to be concerned about violent threats to the only approximately-functioning Western pluralist democracy in the Middle East – and I didn’t mean Iraq, or even Jordan (at least it’s run by Sandhurst graduates, we should be thankful for small mercies there) both of which are still even more approximate.

In a world entering endarkenment, and where some states still partially if imperfectly resemble democracies bent on individual liberty in principle if not in practise, it is not sensible to do nothing or (worse) to have no opinion, or (even more worse!) to have the wrong one. Just as it was not sensible not to attack Axis Powers with bombers when we had nothing else.

Approximations of political pluralism – such as Israel –  are less harmful in the short term than refutations of it – such as “Hamas”. Sorry. I can’t help pissing myself in hysterical mirth….I think of “hommous” in Waitrose, of all places. How can you seriously project a grave and important image, and expect unbrainwashed Western  Telestalinised masses (not many of those now) to take you seriously, if you sound like a holiday-food they eat in “Greece” or “Turkey”?

(The afforesaid masses don’t know where those places are…..they flew there. And the young Chingfordettes who thought they’d married the hairy barmen they met last week at the Taverna, have also been flown back….)

This blasted ongoing business in the Muddle East has got to stop. What now comprises “Israel” was a pile of dessicated rocks lightly coated with congealed dried blood, until the British saw sense in 1917 and allocated it to the prevailing ethnic majority in possession – Sephardic Jews. Fascist cockroaches unwittingly – and it would certainly have been unintended if you’d asked the bastards V. I. Ulianov and his chums, followed by their later chums Hitler and Stalin – did it a favour, by causing a leakage to it of Askenazy talent and population. If the surrounding populations didn’t like that, then there was – and is – still plenty of dessicated rocks and dried blood for hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of miles, all about the place, for them to inhabit.

I don’t think many libertarians could take issue with the position that if Israel keeps on getting rocketed, by outfits laregly supported by western fascists like the EU and the UN, then it ought to be allowed to defend itself, if needed by draining the swamp: that way the “violence” will stop……for a bit. After all, it was all right when Russia did it to Georgia, wasn’t it….. (anybody heard anything of Georgia recently? Tony, any ideas?)

It’s very interesting how, in a mere 40 years, the whole direction of world discourse can turn 180 degrees. i faind that very very fast; don’t you?

Have the Trash Who Rule Us Done Something Half-Decent?


Sean Gabb

(For those not familiar with the background to this story, the Blogmaster adds a comment:-

Since the Socialists set out to destroy British civilisation in earnest for what they thought would need only to be the last time, in May 1997, there have been carefully-disguised but also sharply-rising crime levels against the person.  In particular a recent spate of lethal stabbings of (mostly) teenagers and young men, in the citadels of New-Labour-urban-Stalinist-Soviets, such as Britain’s major cities – where their Political Writ runs most surely.

So……the government seems intent on letting citizens take back some of the burden of law-enforcement and retribution. Truly, we are heading backwards into the future. The real solution is of couorse based on only two things:-

(1) Better people, this to be ensured (but it will take some time) by abolishing all the trappings of politically-correct socialist “education strategy” in the UK,

(2) Armed people, which is to say that weapons, possibly up to and including semi-automatic firearms, may be kept by Freeholders or (nett) taxpayers.)

(3) And here’s some other stuff about crime statistics and “reporting” of same.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Criminal+Justice+and+Immigration+Act+&Year=2008&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3479635&ActiveTextDocId=3479738&filesize=6582

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4)
  Main body
  Part 5 Criminal law
                          

Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.
(1)
This section applies where in proceedings for an offence
(a)
an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence ( D) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and
(b)
the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person ( V) was reasonable in the circumstances.
(2)
The defences are
(a)
the common law defence of self-defence; and
(b)
the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.))(use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).
Click to open 76 Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.Prospective - this provision has not yet been brought into effect

76

(3)
The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.
(4)
If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances
(a)
the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but
(b)
if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not
(i)
it was mistaken, or
(ii)
(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.
Prospective Version Click to view attributes for this levelProspective - this provision has not yet been brought into effect

Self-defence etc.

(5)
But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
(6)
The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.
(7)
In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)
(a)
that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b)
that evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
(8)
Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).
(9)
This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).
(10)
In this section
(a)
legitimate purpose means
(i)
the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or
(ii)
the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);
(b)
references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and
(c)
references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.