Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Mentioned on this blog a week ago.
Today reported to have resigned, or offered to resign, or something equally plausibly deniable.
The list is long.
[After Eric Frank Russell, Wasp (1957)]
Do please read this, by Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish. It is a complete, correct and concise statement of the problem and applies even more in class-ridden England than it does in the USA:
Utopia’s middle class expects to live the way that our middle class does. And yet none of them actually produce anything… Their public service actually inhibits production. Whatever the rhetoric, they spend all their days killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. And then they are insulted when the goose doesn’t recognize their contribution to her golden egg-laying.
I knew a goose once who laid a golden egg, but her friends persuaded her to see someone about it and she’s perfectly all right now.
Seriously, though. What are we going to do with a few million people who passed their exams, went to college, got a job-for-the-girls out of the Guardian and now expect to be paid by the state as though they were senior industrial managers to do whatever imaginary nonsense they profess? Even when this involves inhibiting, defacilitating, demotivating and generally rendering unserviceable what is left of British industry, and turning British society, entirely for their own purposes, into the major contribution to the theatre of the absurd which we see around us every day?
What are we actually going to do? It’s all very well to point fingers.
Ars Technica has been fed yet more patronising prolefeed by the godawful Ministry of Truth:
“We know the vast majority of people are law abiding and would anticipate those who need a licence for the first time will buy one. We have a range of enforcement techniques which we will use and these have already allowed us to prosecute people who watch on a range of devices, not just TVs.”
And I have sent an e-mail:
The BBC have fed to the media yet another scare story about detecting online TV viewing.
Last week’s one, which I can’t be bothered to look for now, involved a mysterious green-anodised cylindrical thing about a foot long which allegedly can detect anything at all, at any range, by a secret method; doubtless from that same company that makes the bomb detectors so popular in Iraq.
Even though they now say they will require a login for the iPlayer, the absence of any application for which might be seen as evidence for the defence, I imagine that their login system will be hacked to cruft within eight seconds of going online; maybe seven.
Accordingly they will still have to act as they always have in assuming that every address – and increasingly, owing to continuous regulatory changes, every individual TV-capable device – must have a licence.
When they come here I would like if possible to have them brush me aside and enter the premises by force to search for equipment or software, naturally with admissible but covert recording equipment running at the time, for the greater glory of YouTube and my lawyer’s convenience.
Icing on this cake (“…and mix it up with Poison / ‘Til it turns a tempting green…”) would be a formal statement from you as my computer consultant (letterhead, invoice, etc.) to the effect that you have visited my premises on [date] and have inspected [number of] computers identified [thus] and confirmed that no BBC software of any kind is present on any of them.
My brief will of course present this (and that) in court as evidence that I am so intimidated by BBC terrorism that I feel obliged to pay money to a consultant to ensure that the BBC do not stealthily implant their wholly unwanted software into my computers in order to entrap me for gain.
In a civilised country (Trinidad? Vietnam? Burkina-Faso?) I might even be able to sue.
If as is remotely possible the BBC’s old school chums at GCHQ, having read all this, proceed to tip them the wink, then of course they won’t come, vindicating everything we said during the Cold War about ‘the maintenance of a credible deterrent posture’.
However if they are not warned (if, for example, GCHQ are also tired of the threatening letters) they may yet walk into my parlour, against which possibility I currently prepare.
The Ars article suggests that nothing will happen before 2017, though of course this could be just another helping of prolefeed from Minitrue.
Would you at your convenience oblige me with a quote?
Regrettably I have to say that on sober reflection I think that the algorithm which is cleverer than all the people at TV Licensing put together has probably already concluded, quite rightly, that my TV tax might just cost them more than £145.50 to collect.
Perhaps instead I ought to stage a spectacular event which captures the whole world’s attention, something like the Glastonbury Festival or the trial of Hillary Clinton, so that I can deny the BBC not just special media access but also any kind of ticket at all, obliging them to stand around in the rain outside waiting for some drunken vox pop to lurch into shot and give them something to broadcast.
Fine article by Fred on the poor value for money offered by the American defense (hey, got it right!) establishment as presently constituted.
Though I am sympathetic to the American position it is clear that US policy is aligned far more closely with pragmatism than with principle on this point – what matters here is defense contractor jobs in marginal constituencies, not theoretical puff from bespectacled nerds at the Brookings Institute.
The challenge faced by anyone trying to change this is around finding something for US industry to do other than arming the place up to fight the war before last. Let’s face it, without the globalists’ aggressive hegemonising swarm [Banks] it’d be largely redundant.
Actually defending the USA in the 21st century, as opposed to desperately seeking a venue in which to re-enact WWII, would be an entirely different undertaking and would be a whole lot easier and cheaper.
Who in their right mind, or even some distance out of it, would try invading the USA? Hitler’s ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ wouldn’t be in it:
I have attracted the attention of writeforthemasses, a writer with whom on a couple of points I’m going to have to disagree.
First, on the matter of the US constitution, he proposes a series of ‘rights’ which do not seem to me to be such.
These would be temporary, rescindable entitlements which the people would have to beg to have granted by politicians, not ‘rights’.
They are full of undefined value-judgement terms such as good and adequate which are subject to wide variations in interpretation. For example, a member of the Amish sect, a third-wave feminist and a devout Sunni Muslim would, I suspect, differ rather widely on the meaning of ‘a good education’.
For myself I recognise only two ‘human rights’, which are the making of fire and the use of tools. A few animals use tools, but none also make fire. These two things together set humans apart from animals. Denying them to us reduces us to something less than human. They are our human rights.
‘Tools’ naturally includes ‘weapons’, so of the Amendments to the US Constitution only the Second embodies what I would describe as a ‘human right’.
Second, on the matter of dehumanization, he claims:
A customer walks into a fast food restaurant, at the counter he does not see another human being, he simply sees the servant that is ready to take his order. This is an incredibly dangerous thing…
It might be, were it true, but it isn’t. I try to make a deliberate policy of dealing with other peoples’ employees like this:
Remove hat. Remove shades. Make eye contact. Smile visibly. Speak first, before they can babble out their programmed greetspeak. “Hi, how’s it going?” Anything will do. The message: I’m not one of those; I’ve done crap jobs myself, and we’re all in this together.
It works brilliantly. I never have to pay the fee for topping up my currency card, I sometimes get a worthwhile discount on all kinds of things, and a couple of the supermarket ladies now seem rather fond of me.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Were I as an old writer to be so presumptuous as to advise a younger writer it might be along the lines of performing some experiments before allowing one’s views to be dominated by theory.
Patrick Crozier, at Samizdata, bewails the action of Twitter in banning Instapundit:
…Reynolds is not a nutter. If they can ban him they can ban us all.
No no no no no [Brecht].
Twitter is not a public service funded by a benevolent World Socialist Government. It is a profit-making corporation. It makes and applies its own rules as it sees fit within its own virtual ‘premises’ and there’s sweet Felicity Arkwright that anyone can or should do about it.
Apart from voting with their mouse and taking their business elsewhere, of course. But he goes on:
Worse still, it is not as if Twitter is alone. It is remarkable how quickly internet stalwarts like Google, Facebook and Twitter have gone from being dynamic, “don’t be evil”, believers in freedom to being fully paid up members of the bansturbationary elite.
I have never trusted or used Google, whose cutesy rags-to-riches story is just a tad too Hollywoodesque to be believed, and I’ve never used the other two either. I don’t believe they were ever ‘on our side’.
Get a grip, man! If a huge, secretive corporation that wasn’t there last week and now knows everything about everyone claims repeatedly that it is “not evil”, what do we all think it is, children?
Mr. Crozier’s colleague Rob Fisher suggests the use of gab.ai as an alternative.
(1) It is entirely possible to establish online comms without having to ‘sign up’ to ‘social media’ at all. Here we are doing it.
(2) If Instapundit got hit by flak then there’s a good chance that it was right over the target at the time.
…why don’t we ban contact sports, motor sport, running, jumping, walking, or, indeed any activity that might, possibly, result in injury that will need treatment by our glorious socialised healthcare provider?
We will. And the ranks of the mighty public-sector unions will be swelled by the new army of enforcers.
There has been talk (I’m damned if I’ll rummage for hours in the fascists’ loathsome websites for a link, frankly) of not allowing anyone off the public highway at all – and thus into places from which they might have to be expensively rescued – until they have been on an approved course, have bought approved insurance, and have submitted to being ‘guided’ in approved groups by an approved official.
And this is about walking. Everything else that Longrider mentions is already doomed.
Another indication of the official attitude to being out without one’s minder is the fact that despite receiving regular new covers, now featuring cheap stock-shots of po-faced self-righteous path-wreckers on mountain-bikes, Ordnance Survey maps have not been redrawn or updated for decades, and some are now dangerously out of date.
Perhaps the idea is to wean the public off the idea that they are allowed to know what is between the roads programmed into their satnavs, in case they might have the temerity to suppose that they are permitted to go there.