Politically Incorrect Thought For the Day 57


If I were married to Jacqui Smith, I would probably watch a lot of porn too. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Meantime I see the police have arrested some teenage “Terrorists” in an “anti-terror raid” in Plymouth to foil “an attack on the G20”. They have discovered “explosives, weapons, imitation firearms and extremist literature”. Why do I suspect these to be knives in the kitchen, fireworks, a toy gun and something by Kropotkin?

By and large, it is better to protest without making anything go bang. It scares cats.


57 thoughts on “Politically Incorrect Thought For the Day

1 2
  • technicolour

    Apologies for lowering the tone, but Phil and Pete’s comments made me a little sad. Anyway, Ruth, I agree with you. Who doesn’t?

  • MJ

    On the subject of the evolution of the language of protest and opposition, one of the most interesting developments of recent times is the emergence of the word ‘insurgent’ or ‘insurgency’. What was wrong with ‘resistance’ and ‘resistance movement’? The French Insurgency just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

    Regarding Jacqui and her husband, I find that any allusion to British MPs and sexuality makes me feel slightly queasy. I think it goes back to that story about John Major and Edwina Currie. It still gives me nightmares.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s an even more terrifying image for you to contemplate, Craig. Brace yourself… they watch blue movies together to get in the mood for lurrrve!

  • ruth

    I think it’s a little bit sad; the husband at home fiddling with himself and the wife at work fiddling her expenses.

  • MJ

    I think Jon got it about right when he referred to how the husband must be feeling a plonker…

  • David McKelvie

    “When election time comes we’ll all be relieved and more pacified to have a resurgent Conservative party in power but they’ll be exactly the same because I don’t believe for one minute they will control important policy.”

    Does anybody think that Cameron is anything other than a NeoConservative? I can’t see him being any different from Stephen Harper and the PCP. He failed to stand up for Parliamentary Privilege in the Damian Green case. I can’t see him lifting a finger to undo the Constitutional damage done by Blair and Brown during the past 12 years. I think he’s a waste of space. Unless the tragic death of his son has made him realise the need to do the right thing while the Almighty has given him the chance.

  • Darren

    The thought isn’t particularly politically incorrect – just insulting, really. That’s fine if you like insulting people, I guess.

    But are you telling me you’d rather watch a £5 skin flick than pump your baby gravy over Jacqui Smith’s voluminous funbags?

    Now, that’s a politically incorrect comment, my friend. Consider yourself corrected. 😉

  • Yakoub

    Interesting the way some hacks have dismissed the porn thing as an embarrassment rather than as something about which said husband should be ashamed. I know wives who would divorce their husbands for watching porn. Says a great deal about journalists’ leisure activities, perhaps…

  • anticant

    What sticks in the gullet is the sheer effrontery of “two homes and let the taxpayer buy me an 88p bath plug that I could have got elsewhere cheaper” Jacqui Smith whining about her domestic privacy being invaded when she is busily engaged in demolishing the privacy of everyone else, placing us all under 24-hour surveillance, snooping in our dustbins, and reading all our emails.

    Obviously “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” doesn’t wash with this despicable government. The only commandment they obey – not very successfully – is “Thou shalt not be found out”.

  • eddie

    Craig, have you seen yourself up in lights on Harry’s Place? You are famous. If you only have a picture of yourself wearing a vest and a baseball hat with your wife in your arms you will be in Private eye, ad nauseam.

  • technicolour

    Re: Privy Council and Cameron, there is a marvellous open letter from Lord Onslow to Cameron, published in the Guardian in 2006. Of course, it has vanished down the memory hole, but it’s worth repeating:

    “In no order of awfulness, this government has emasculated the House of Commons by the permanent use of guillotines. On the whim of the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellorship has been neutered, removing a voice of law from the cabinet.

    Those instances are on the parliamentary front, but what the government has done to the liberty of the subject is far worse. Note that I say liberty of the subject, not the rights of the citizen. That is because liberties are boundless unless circumscribed by law and rights are, by their nature, circumscribed.

    It has repealed the law on double jeopardy. With Asbos, it has sent to prison some of the young on hearsay evidence for things that are not even criminal. It has created a centralised register held by the government on all citizens and proposes to force them to have ID cards. It has formed a police force with unprecedented powers of arrest – the Serious Organised Crime Agency – over which the Home Secretary has authority no predecessor has previously enjoyed.

    Through its control orders, it has introduced a system of deprivation of liberty without trial on the say-so of the executive. It has passed the Civil Contingencies Act that allows a minister to override any statute after the calling of a state of emergency and now there is the Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been described as ‘the abolition of parliament bill’ and against which our party did not even vote at second reading. This gives gauleiter-like powers to ministers which we are blandly told will not be used.

    The government has allowed the retention by the police of DNA details of thousands of innocents and it has given us section 81 (6) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claims) Act 2004 which amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylums Act 2002, creating a single-tier appeals procedure which Lord Steyn, in a recent lecture, described as, in effect, ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The government has introduced anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers that are constantly being misused, such as when the elderly Walter Wolfgang was ejected from the Labour conference.

    This list is by no means comprehensive. What surprises, worries and depresses me is the apparent relative quietude on the part of the Conservative party on these issues. I repeat – it did not vote against the Regulatory Reform Bill on second reading. It has not remembered the great Edward Gibbon’s comment on Augustus Caesar’s Rome: ‘The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the executive.’

    It was dozy on the Civil Contingencies Act until the excellent Peta Buscombe in our house took it up; this from the party which, since the restoration of Charles II, has been so jealous of our constitution. Have we a guilty secret? Remember Burke saying: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ Why are we not shouting from the hustings that we will return to the people their ancient liberties?

    Why, Mr Cameron, is the Conservative party passing by on the other side while our old liberties fall among thieves?

    Yours sincerely, Onslow”

    There you are. As far as I know, there was no reply. I wonder how Onslow has been treated ever since. When the late Earl of Cardigan, a horrified observer, tried to stand up for the hippy convoy who were violently attacked and beaten by police on their way to Stonehenge (in what became known as the Battle of the Beanfield) he found himself ostracised and targeted. The establishment had closed ranks. In an interview he said he shouldn’t have been surprised by this, but he was.

    Does anyone think there are enough decent Conservatives left for the party not to use these powers when they’re handed to them on a plate? Could they actually want them too?

  • Craig

    eddie

    I don’t think being featured on a forum for sad losers united only by an unquestioning adoration of any military action or use of state force against Muslims, makes me famous.

    Nor do I care what they think of my private life.

  • Anonymous

    All those who support or ignore the repressive measures brought in by the government believe they are supporting the best interests of the UK; that the mayhem brought by the economic crisis will need containing.

    I have been told that in the early 90s the UK became bankrupt; the economy has been/is far more fragile than people understand. During the middle 90s onwards the economy improved partly because illegal activities were implemented on a grand scale to balance the books. This includes the secret removal of VAT from the country. Corruption is endemic. It pervades the judiciary who bring in verdicts to hide illicit activities. Those in the know believe they are behaving altruistically. But corruption breeds corruption and hence it has become the norm at all levels.

  • eddie

    Craig

    Your private life is your own. But Harry’s Place is a better site than this one will ever be. More content, better discussion, fewer nutters.

  • Anas Taunton

    Cameron has stated that Muslims are like Nazis because they want everyone to have the same opinions as theirs.

    There is no compulsion in Islam. I do not believe that Mr Cameron would allow me the same respect that his political correctness gives to homosexuals, that like it or not, I find it, as if in my DNA, to believe in God and His scriptures and in telling the truth and condemning falsehood. Or as Eddie puts it being a Nutter/ fanatic/ insurgent/ anarchist. Cameron is a front for that other bunch of greedy liars. I’m voting for Craig next time.

  • Anas Taunton

    Cameron has stated that Muslims are like Nazis because they want everyone to have the same opinions as theirs.

    There is no compulsion in Islam. I do not believe that Mr Cameron would allow me the same respect that his political correctness gives to homosexuals, that like it or not, I find it, as if in my DNA, to believe in God and His scriptures and in telling the truth and condemning falsehood. Or as Eddie puts it being a Nutter/ fanatic/ insurgent/ anarchist. Cameron is a front for that other bunch of greedy liars. I’m voting for Craig next time.

  • Peter

    What is politically incorrect about the thought? Making derogatory comments about a woman’s appearance is not an act of political incorrectness.

  • technicolour

    Peter, there is no such thing as “political correctness”! They made it up, remember, and keep making it up. It is another excuse for the government to police you by policing your thoughts and words. As David Mamet says, once we start using their stupid phrase seriously we are lost.

  • MJ

    Eddie: “Harry’s Place is a better site than this one will ever be. More content, better discussion, fewer nutters”.

    If it doesn’t have idiots wittering on about “self-hating Jews” (or was it self-basting chickens?) then you’re most probably right.

  • technicolour

    Having just taken a look, I’d love to post on Harry’s Place, in one way, as I’m somewhat concerned about the humourless, salacious nastiness of some of the posts and posters – what is it doing to their self-esteem/families? But, even though some of the stuff is quite interesting, I don’t think I want to register with their site as a result. I would bet this is a common reaction, too.

  • Jon

    @technicolour – I’m not so sure about the system of political correctness being made up by the government. In fact, its roots are quite radical. It has been put forward (for several decades I believe) by feminists, civil rights activists, and minority representative groups who believe that our shared political outlook can be improved by purging the language of allegedly discriminatory terms.

    Hence we no longer say ‘black sheep of the family’ as it supposedly suggests that blackness is a negative concept, and may subconsciously promote racist ideas. Similarly ‘mankind’ or other male-specific words may promote sexism.

    Despite the scorn heaped upon the idea, I am in favour of being careful with language, to a limited degree. The problem with PC is that it has been taken too far – possibly even further than its original proponents intended. Hence some folks now even suggest that ‘blackboard’ is discouraged (now chalkboard) and ‘whiteboard’ (now wipeboard). I am sure millions of other examples abound.

    My guess is that the ideology has become prevalent because the idea that social change without substantial action is quite appealing, even though an end to racism and sexism etc will require much more than tinkering with language.

1 2

Comments are closed.