Key Posts Category
Avid technophile, program developer, and educator, William Ralph “Bill” Fink, whose master functions were harnessed by Microsoft Corp. as a technical evangelist has sadly passed away at the age of 46.
Mr Fink, from Belleville, Illinois, encountered an unhandled exception in his core operating system, which prematurely triggered a critical STOP condition on Wednesday, December 16, 2015.
He is survived in legacy by his wife, Rhonda Michele, nee Gardiner, Fink, his children, Cassidy Gardiner and William John Fink, his parents, William and Nancy, nee Kaiser, Fink, and his brothers, Michael and Matthew (Kelly) Fink.
Diagnostics indicated multiple cascading hardware failures as the root problem. Though his hardware has been decommissioned, Bill’s application has been migrated to the Cloud and has been repurposed to run in a virtual machine on an infinite loop. < END OF LINE >
Jermaine Baker, 28, was shot dead by police. The Daily Star says police will “lay down their weapons” if one of their number is charged over the shooting.
Baker is an “alleged gangster”. It is claimed he was killed whilst trying to “spring too crooks from a prison van” in Wood Green, north London.
What’s odd is that only one shot was fired. The police favour the double-tap technique; two shots fired in quick succession. One shot to kill can be unreliable.
Baker was shot in the chest.
Was he armed? Well, an imitation firearm was found nearby.
The officer who fired once has been arrested. The Independent Police Commissioner has been investigating.
The Star calls it a “police farce”. It doesn’t say what Baker’s nearest and dearest call it.
The Express takes up the story on its Page 5. The headline, “Cameron: Let police shoot to kill”, argues that policemen cannot operate if they fear they will “dragged through the courts for opening fire to save lives”.
Would Cameron’s view change if his loved ones lived in rougher parts of town and actually encountered police when they were not acting as the elite’s bodyguards?
Was Baker a clear and present dancer to human life?
On the Mail’s Page 4 we hear more that the PM “may give more legal protection” to police marksmen.
We hear from ‘The Eliminator’, a chap called Anthony Long, who says he “did not give any thought at all” before shooting dead three criminals. Long says shooting a suspect is “not an accident”. He says the current laws are “quite adequate”.
In July, Long was cleared of murdering Azelle Rodney, a gangster.
In the Mirror, we hear that the review over shoot-to-kill policing is “not linked to Jermaine Baker”.
The BBC has news from the other side.
Haringey Borough Commander Victor Olisa said police did not believe Mr Baker was a gang member, as had been suggested in some newspapers. Community spokesman Darren Henry said: “The police officers murdered Jermaine. He was asleep when he was shot. There are witnesses who are afraid to step forward because of the witness intimidation in the Mark Duggan case.”
The police shot dead a sleeping man? PS: Duggan was killed with a bullet to the chest. Duggan had no gun in his hand when he was shot dead. A gun was found nearby. One informed Met source said: “It was death by a thousand fuckups.”
Duggan was hit by two shots. Tap. Tap.
David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Jermaine Baker’s life is no less than anybody else’s who die in these circumstances. And if we live in a civilised country, you lose your life as a result of a police action, it should garner the greatest of scrutiny. That is the basis of having policing by consent in our country.”
What about cameras? Londonist notes:
After the death of Mark Duggan, armed police were supposed to start wearing body cameras to record incidents. However, in October the IPCC pointed out that the camera’s positioning meant its view was blocked when an officer raised a weapon to the shoulder.
Even if this had been rectified, the Commissioner has said that there are two types of firearms officer deployment: overt and covert. Cameras are noticeable: wearing one would give away the identity of any plainclothes officer on the scene. The operation in Wood Green was apparently of a covert nature.
What we want to know is: why only one shot fired? Was this death an accident cause by a itchy trigger finger?
Have yourselves a happy Christmas, folks. Here are the top five Christmas songs written by Jews:
“White Christmas” – Written by Irving Berlin. Bing Crosby’s version is the bestselling single of all time
“The Christmas song” (“Chestnuts roasting on an open fire”) – Written by Bob Wells and Mel Torme.
“Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow” – Sammy Cahn.
“Santa Baby” – written by Joan Javits.
“Winter Wonderland” – written in 1934 by Felix Bernard.
Take it away, Eartha Kitt:
Mom wanted to make a glass with the phrase “friends are therapists you can drink with” written on the side.
“My mom made wine glasses to give to her friends for the holiday,” explains redditor Shagen34. “Her spacing was a little off on the first one.”
Therapist. The rapist. There’s a B-movie in this.
Spotter: Tech Insider |
The headline is, of course, bunkum. The BBC has not refused to televise Tyson Fury fights because the State broadcaster shows no meaningful boxing, just as it transmits no live Premier League football or club rugby, The Open golf tournament, fishing and international cricket.
What the BBC will do, however, is dream up a boring televised AGM awards do, call it – get this – BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards, and then agonise over the inclusion of any sportsman or woman who refuses to let only their feet or fists do the talking.
And so it is that Tyson Fury, the world heavyweight boxing champion, finds his position as a State TV-endorsed personality under threat because he said a woman “belongs in the kitchen” and “on her back”. Fury also considers homosexuality a crime against the Christian God he wears on his sleeve. For his sins, Fury is being investigated by Britain’s thought police.
Fury is clearly a bigot. Anyone who hears him talk and finds themselves nodding is most likely punch drunk or pitifully – but not criminally – thick.
But he is a more than decent boxer. Beating Wladimir Klitschko to become world heavyweight champion was admirable. He out-boxed his opponent. He did not out-opinion him. He didn’t have to. The debating society is not so rough. A decent right hook can secure you a top job in the Labour Party, but that mob are desperate and flailing.
Neither was the fight a battle of morals. You like Mohammed Ali, the boxer voted BBC Overseas Sports Personality of the Year twice? You know his view on race? Here’s a dose:
Last year’s winner of the BBC shindig was Lewis Hamilton – the British tax-exile who lives in Switzerland.
Don’t vote for the morals or the words – vote for the sporting achievement.
If you watch a football match and find yourself wondering, “I’m unsure about entering the war in Syria, so I’ll wait and see if Andy Murray wins this point. If he does, I think we should start bombing” you need psychiatric help.
Of course, you’ll have to watch the champions on a broadcaster other than the BBC, which largely eschews sport as a battle of skill, preferring to spend its days inviting the audience to answer the saddest question of all, as it put it to them via Radio 5 Live: “Are sportsman role models”. What it means, of course, is are these athletes cheered by the guileless unknowing, the great unwashed, the kind of people who read red-top tabloids and watch sport in pubs – a demographic so brainless and lacking in parental guidance they see Wayne Rooney as a father figure? Do people not like us see sportsman as role models?
To which we’d say: is the BBC a role model? That question to you, Tyson Fury.
Big news in the Sun, whereon Rita Ora is trailing the X Factor grand final – and pointing to what this year’s winner can expect from pop stardom:
“RITA – I’ve lost count of times my boobs popped out”.
It’s sensational front-page news – with a key pulled quote from a two-page interview – that has Sun readers asking, ‘Popped out.. for a curry / to the shops?’ And, moreover, what of ‘nipped out’, which certainly lends itself to a better pun.
We’d leave it there, but spread like a bikini-clad St. Agatha over pages 12 and 13, Rita has more news of her wayward, fresh-air-seeking breasts.
X Factor judge Rita Ora is becoming as famous for her unruly boobs as she is for her singing career.
Rita’s music might be middle-of -the road, but her tits are most certainly punk.
But she doesn’t care and admits she has lost count of the times her nipples have accidentally gone on display.
Gone on display? As in been exhibited, perhaps, in a museum or on Simon Cowell’s mantelpiece? Says Rita:
“It’s fun. It has happened to me lots so I am not paranoid about it anymore. You end up losing track of them.”
Here’s a tip, Rita: why not keep tabs on your boobs by making your next tattoo a barcode. If your breasts gets out, then call UPS and have them trace your primary female characteristics and pick them them – making sure your in between the hours of 8am and 5pm.
Have you seen the new “mini city” in France? Called The ‘Jungle’, the city features: a dozen shops, libraries, restaurants, makeshift hotels, a sculpture garden, a dome-shaped theatre, an Eritrean night-club, a playground, a book shop named Jungle Books (gerrit?) and a church.
The Mail’s Josh White says his place looks like a “mini-Glastonbury festival”, only cleaner, and with less kids called Scarlett, 4x4s and lice.
And the great news is that this city of culture can be reached by ferry, or li-lo, what with it being in Calais. It’s the kind of place that ‘edgy’, liberal white people looking for a dash of ethnic colour head to to feel daring and fulfilled. The danger, of course, is that Jake and Lara will buy a second home there, so raising the property prices and driving out the poorer, swarthier inhabitants. But it’s not yet an enclave of London. That for later when the Pizza Express and artisan bakers open – when arriviste Lara hires one of the former locals as a nanny.
It turns out that those people who want to reach the UK for a better life are efficient, innovative, daring, creative, driven, resourceful and sociable.
Or as the Mail puts it elsewhere:
Last one to book the Jungle mini-break’s an Aldi shopper!
Linda Stasi has news on the massacre at a social services center in San Bernardino, California. She shines a narrow beam of light on one of the 13 people murdered: Nicholas Thalasinos.
They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage. One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.
The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.
To recap: one man wrote things on Facebook. One man murdered 13 people. Keep in mind these intrinsic differences as you read on:
What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.
To recap that recap: one murdered 13 people; one wrote things. To Stasi’s adipose mind each of those actions – murdering 13 people and writing on your Facebook page – defines the man.
When anyone is murdered in the US – an unarmed man or woman at a do, say – you should withhold sympathy until you’ve seen their Facebook posts, trawled through their tweets and bon mots for signs of gurning stupidity, gayness, fascism, carbon neutrality, football team affiliation, weirdness and so on. This is why mawkish Channel 4 news presenters always emphasise children as the true victims of war – it locates a victim viewers of every prejudice can surely agree as unequivocally deserving of our tears.
(Of course, we who know what utter swine some kids are remain unconvinced by the ploy. Did you hear what spiteful Julie whispered about Zed the bed wetter? Better to sob for Billy, who was good at football and came top in spelling.)
One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)
That wife radicalized him and fueled his hatred. The FBI is investigating her ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Go to the Middle East, meet your new wife, meet some terror leaders, begin your wedded bliss back in the USA.
Cherchez la femme, eh.
The other man, the victim, Nicholas Thalasinos, was a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew, who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her.
The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.
And on Stasi goes. As for being Bonnie & Clyde, mass murderers Syed Raheel Farook and Tashfeen Malik were not driven by any greed for filthy lucre. Nothing so noble. They sought only death.
Stasi then adds:
The killers deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them. And more. But…
…the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man.
What d’yer know about the corpse, Linda?
Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. Death can’t change that. But in the U.S., we don’t die for speaking our minds. Or we’re not supposed to anyway.
Which makes you wonder what the point of Stasi’s story is? She doesn’t like what the murdered man wrote on Facebook. He didn’t deserve to die for what he thought, she graciously concedes. But now that he is dead, we should spare the pity because his politics were not within the Stasi-acceptable part of the mainstream.
Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.
He was murdered. He was shot dead at a party.
He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.
His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”
He was asking for it? He was asking to be murdered? Shed no tears for him. He said things Stasi – and how about that name for nominative determinism, folks – does not agree with.
Stasi then nails her bigotry:
We have freedom of speech but…
No buts, Linda. But them no more. Freedom of speech – the right to speak your mind and debate your point of view – has no buts.
It’s war, then. It always is. Britain has entered the war in Syria. MPs voted, backing the bombing with a majority of 174.
The Daily Mirror says this is “CAM’S WAR”, nailing the battle to David Cameron’s lapels. Something in the history books for Dave, then, who had been relying on footnotes about ‘Sam Cam’ and ‘LOL’ to mark his place in the ledgers.
The Mirror leads with news that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn “warned” that not everyone is in favour of fighting. Says Corbyn: “The Prime Minister’s approach is bomb first talk later.”
But they did talk and talk and talk in the Commons. For an age the talk was about Cameron’s comment that the naysayers were a ” bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. Labelling them all as such was crass and clumsy. Cameron might have surveyed the Opposition benches and been more pointed about those with “friends” in Hamas.
The Sun says Corbyn “cosied up to IRA during its campaign of slaughter” and called Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”.
The Mirror says politicians from all sides demanded Cameron apologise. “12 times” he refused to do so.
Mirror columnist Kevin Maguire looks at the vote and concludes that Cameron “lost the argument” to bomb Syria. Very few journalists are good at maths. But to say that a 174 majority represent a moral defeat is monocular to the point to tunnel vision. Maguire then shares his observation that Cameron is a “posh Tory with no class”.
Maguire also agrees with Corbyn that attacking Islamic State will make us a target. Newsflash: we are a target.
The Mail says Corbyn was “crushed”. In all 66 Labour MPs voted against their leader, including Hilary Benn, who called he jihadis “fascists” and an “evil” that must be defeated. Corbyn was “ashen-faced” and “eviscerated”.
The Indy leads with Benn’s speech. Cometh the hour, cometh yet another Labour MP to show just how feeble Corbyn is.
The Mail says pro-war Labour MPs were sent pictures of dead kids and attacked online by hard-Left moralists. Stella Creasy MP saw her home and office marched on by “hundreds” of protestors. The Sun sees her tweet one righteous tweeter, “Seriously do one sunshine.”
You can’t beat ISIS on twitter, but you can call out a few bellends.
Let’s get our war on, then.
For two days the Daily Mail has published this photograph of TV chef Gordon Ramsay’s four children: Jack, 16, Matilda, 14, Holly, 16, and Megan, 17. It was twins Jack and Holly’s joint 16th birthday party, and the family were dolled up for a party.
The Mail’s Sam Creighton said the children had been the victims of “online attacks”. Well, not the children so much as the three females, who had their outfits appraised by sweet Sam. Cop a load of “14-year-old Matilda, wearing a black-and-white crop top with matching short skirt”, oozed Sam (age on application).
One day on and Sarah Vine, aka Mrs Michael Gove MP, is offering her opinion on the outfits. As you can see, Jack has been cropped from the family photo. Sarah opines:
Poor Gordon Ramsay – now there’s three words I never thought I’d write. The 49-year-old chef posted what he thought was an innocent picture of his children on a night out – and was hit by a tsunami of online criticism about his parenting skills. The problem was the girls’ outfits. Matilda, 14, in a stripy crop top and skater skirt; Holly, 16, in a slip of a sequin dress; and Megan, 17, also in a crop top and spangly mini-skirt.
‘Way too much skin,’ observed one critic; ‘keep their innocence a little longer’ suggested another; ‘those are some short skirts,’ said a third. I can certainly see what they mean…
The online comments which will have cut Ramsay most deeply, the ones that prey on every protective dad’s (and mother’s) darkest fears, are the ones that said his daughters looked like ‘hoochies’ — slang for promiscuous young girls.
Having sympathised with those online attackers, Vine concedes:
…today it’s different in a way I’m only beginning to understand. The pressure to look a certain way is so much more intense. When I was a teenager, you hardly ever saw a photo of yourself. But in the age of photo-sharing apps such as Instagram, girls are constantly reviewing and analysing their appearance.
To say nothing of the horror of being analysed by middle-aged moralists in the Daily Mail, which she doesn’t.
Pictures of Princess Charlotte occupy the front pages of the Mail, Telegraph, Mirror and Express.
The Mirror says the child’s hair is “light brown – somewhere between the colour of Kate’s darks locks and William’s blond ones”.
The Mail says the photos taken by “proud Kate” show a child with a “sweep of dark hair and sparkling eyes”, making her “most definitely her mother’s daughter”.
Some confusion about the hair, then.
The Mail can’t make its mind up about anything – the headline to Rebecca English’s story on Kate’s mini-me tells us Charlotte’s a mini-him
The Mail than further contradicts itself by saying Charlotte’s “twinkling blue eyes are inherited from her father.” Maybe she has one of Wills’ eyes and one of Kate’s?
Make that three eyes, because the Mirror says “six-month-old Charlotte seems to have inherited her late gran Princess Diana’s big blue eyes”.
The Mail notes how she sits “unaided in a shabby-chic-look armchair” at the family’s 10-bedroom Anmer Hall pile. She is “gazing almost wistfully at something in the distance…perhaps her nanny, Maria Borrallo”, or perhaps at grandpa Charles whose talking to a pot plant and looking at her for traces of his own features.
The Express concludes that the child looks a “Lotte like her mum”. It assures all paparazzi that Charlotte is a “natural for the camera”. Phew!
The Mirror makes it a multimedia event, somehow noticing from two photos that Charlotte is “shrieking with delight”.
And on its goes. But what’s also bizarre about this story is the number of brand’s checked. Kate uses a Canon EOS 5D Mark II (Express) camera. Charlotte wears a dress by Liberty (Express) and ribbed baby pink tights by Amaia Kids (Mail). She looks at a Jelly Cat Fuddleworth Puppy (Mirror).
Is everything sponsored? Let’s hope so. It’s high time the Creosote Royals paid for themselves,
When the Independent vowed to say no more on former reality TV contestant Katie Hopkins’s to-deadline polemics, we wondered if it would last. The paper’s story, headlined “Dear Katie Hopkins”, was an Indy manifesto:
“You don’t know us, but sometimes you retweet the articles we write about you. You might retweet this one, who knows. We’re writing today to say we’re ignoring you from now on.”
The open letter contained links to six Indy articles on outrageous things Katie Hopkins had uttered in other publications and social media. It was pretty clear that when Katie spoke, the Indy listened. But no more. That was then.
So how many articles has the Indy produced on Things Katie Hopkins Says since its open letter of September 25?
Answer : 26.
Why don’t they just employ her and cut out the middleman?
Can it be that Chelsea are ready to pay £45million for Bayern Munich’s Franck Ribery? Yes, says the Daily Mail. It’s true! The paper declares:
“Roman Abramovich to break the bank for Bayern Munich star”
That’s lot of cash for a 32-year-old. Indeed, Matt Lawton says it will “break the bank”.
Well, not quite. Roman Abramovich has already lent Chelsea over £1bn of his hard-earned cash. So what’s another £45m between pals? And, in any case, he’s broken that bank before.
The story goes:
Roman Abramovich has told new Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay to make signing Franck Ribery his top priority
Only, Mr Gourlay is not the Chelsea chief exec. He’s not even on the board, having left his post last year.
By now you’ll have noticed that the Mail’s story from 2009 was wrongly republished on its website this week. But other newspapers, like the Daily Mirror, which replayed the news on its transfer blog, did not spot the glaring error.
ESPN told us: “Chelsea may make Franck Ribery Transfer Move”
The Guardian added: “Football Transfer Rumours: Franck Ribery Chelsea for £45m”
Yeah, just £45m, Guardian readers:
Neither Man United nor Chelsea ever did bid for Ribery. He didn’t sign for Arsenal, either, although the Guardian did say he would:
Such are the facts.
If you believe in free speech, the idea that nothing should be censored, that nothing is unsayable, then you should defend Ursula Haverbeck’s right to liberty. Haverbeck, a far-right Nazi fan, has been convicted of sedition in a German court for denying the Holocaust.
Ursula Haverbeck is a deeply-unpleasant individual. Her repeated Holocaust denial makes liars of the ghostly murdered and the honourable living who vow to never forget the German-state’s industrial murder of Jews, gypsies and other Untermensch who fell short of the ideal. At 87-years-old, it’s unlikely she’ll read any more books, listen to the facts and change her mind. Her cherished bigotry defines her. And that’s the way she likes it. In 2010, a Munich court gave this racist a suspended sentence of six months for much the same offence. She didn’t stop.
The question we are concerned with is why her words constitute a crime?
Haverbeck has been sentenced by the district court Hamburg to ten months imprisonment for telling a German TV show that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, but a work camp, that millions of Jews were not murdered. Perhaps she thinks they drowned in their own sweat? But let’s not now delve into the Haverbeck mind. We’ve seen books, films, bones, tattoos, scars and testimonies to know the inside of her head is a poisonous and cramped place. The German prosecutor spoke of her “hair-raising bullshit” and “fanatical blindness”. We’ve seen enough.
Our problem is with the State deciding what can and cannot be said. Haverbeck and her supporters should be out-thought in open debate, their twisting of history and perversion of the mighty human spirit shown for what it is.
But criminal? If expressing your beliefs is criminal, then what of the ritualistic way in which Halal meat is killed? Those liberal Danes want it banned, reasoning that slitting an animals’s throat is barbaric and far less morally right than firing a bolt into its brain. Denmark’s minister for agriculture and food Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion”.
In 2013 the Council of Europe read a report by former Germany MP Marlene Rupprecht, thought it rather brilliant and passed a resolution stating how it “is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others… the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons…”
Hang the Jews’ covenant with God that makes circumcision a must. The rights of a cow are more vital than Islamic mores and spiritualism. Ban it all. The defiant can wait for the glare of the searchlight and the Gestapo knock.
Let us be in no doubt. Once you allow the State to tell you what beliefs are criminal, however well-meaning the impetus behind the purge, the result is the same: repression, censorship, division and an abdication of free thought and will.
You wonder who is playing God – and why we let them…
Women-baiting Sarah Vine is talking about “pushy parents” in her Daily Mail column.
Excuse me while I perform a quick victory jig. A little wiggle of delight. Why? Because a new study reveals that being a pushy parent can actually harm a child’s chances of success in life….
Their ambitions arise out of pure vanity — because it’s all about them, you see. They believe the performance of their offspring directly reflects on them.
Not that Vine would ever be a pushy parent. You can read about how un-pushy Sarah is all over the media:
“Life lesson: Sarah Vine is pictured with her 11-year-old daughter Beatrice and nine-year-old son William” – Daily Mail
“Both my husband and six-year-old son are huge Smiths fans. We have The Sound Of The Smiths in the car CD changer, and on family outings it’s a popular request from the back. And yes, there is singing along” – Times
“One of Beatrice’s own teachers went on strike and then she said that she saw him on Newsround holding a banner going ‘Michael Gove out’ which I think is quite a strange experience for a small child – and I don’t know how it’s going to affect them at all. Part of me wants to put them on a plane to go and live with my mother in Italy, but part of me thinks it will make them tougher… I do think at some point there is going to be payback” – Ham & High
Vine said Beatrice was writing a book about a boy who flies away to “a land without bullies” – Telegraph
Like thousands of families across the UK with children in Year 6, we found out on Monday evening which state secondary our daughter Beatrice, age 10, will be attending. Unlike most other families, however, our choice of school made the news.
This is because Beatrice’s father (for her sins) is not only the current education secretary but also, it transpires, the first ever Conservative education secretary to enrol a child in a state-funded secondary school.
Don’t get me wrong: Grey Coat Hospital Church of England Comprehensive School for Girls (in Westminster) is not exactly Sinkhouse High. It’s an amazing school, rated outstanding by Ofsted. It was the first one we went to visit, back in 2012 when we started thinking about secondaries – Guardian
And this gem:
Michael Gove’s nine-year-old daughter has been pulled out of her ballet classes because of fears that they were making her worry about her weight. The Education Secretary’s wife, Sarah Vine, says she took the decision after Beatrice did not want to eat on the days that she was due to attend the dance lessons.
“It began when she mentioned that some of the girls in her group were better than her, even though they hadn’t been doing ballet as long, because ‘they were more the right size’. Another time, I collected my daughter, customary lollipop in hand (our little ritual), and she refused it. When I asked why, she just said she didn’t want to talk about it. She started complaining of a tummy ache on the days when she had classes.
Then she wanted to wear her old leotard, the one that’s too small for her. She clearly felt that if she could fit into a smaller size, that would be a good thing. That was the final straw. What used to be a fun way of exercising and a good excuse for a floaty skirt and a bit of glitter had become a stressful and somewhat sinister ordeal.”
The columnist, who lives with Gove and their two children in North Kensington, adds: “I only hope I’ve caught the rot early enough.”
You can read about Vine and the rot of making women and girls fret about their weight in her Daily Mail column:
Not such a Klass act
Universal excitement as Jorgie Porter, the pretty, sexy, young one in this year’s I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!, changed into a transparent white bathing costume for that all-important Myleene Klass memorial jungle shower moment.
And briefly, it looked like it was going to be a triumph for the 27-year-old Hollyoaks star: the swept back wet hair, the mouth dripping with water, the half-closed eyes.
And then … the legs. And there all similarities with Myleene Klass end.
Ah, there is a God after all!
You just know who gets to play God at Sarah’s school play…
Jane Moore has a few words to say on Muslims in the wake of the Paris massacre. She tells Sun readers, some of whom might be Muslims, but not any based in Liverpool, obviously:
After the brutal Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris earlier this year, a damning poll revealed that 27 per cent of British Muslims quietly sympathised with the attackers.
And thus a quarter of British Muslims are damned.
Assuming there are around three million of them, that’s approximately 800,000 who, while they might not be cold-blooded murderers themselves, are radical enough to think that the murder of 11 magazine staff and five others was justified because it printed a satirical cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.
Following the recent slaying of 129 innocent people going about their daily lives in the French capital, how many of that deeply worrying statistic still feel these thugs murdering in the name of Islam have a valid point?
Might? Moore is wrong on that, and wrong on the data – 27 per cent of British Muslims said they have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks”. They did neither support nor foment murder. The expressed an opinion that caused offence to some. And as for being radical, the poll was commissioned by BBC Radio 4, a station about as radical as wearing socks on your feet.
The BBC reported on the poll it commissioned:
Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can “never be justified”, 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable. But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied “don’t know” or refused to answer.
And what about the poll? Anorak is suspicious of all polls. They suggest something but prove nothing. Who has the time to answer a poll? Are people who answer them more likely to say something dumb? At college I occasionally took part in market research tests. I didn’t give a toss about the questions and products in front of me. I did it because it gave me food, drink and £50 cash. If I was bored, I’d say something challenging, like the cigarettes should be green; people with short arms should be banned from buying the new bags; the new recipe made the drink non-kosher.
The BBC poll did not ask non-Muslims if they sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It did not poll Guardian journalists, or people like Peter Herbert of the Society of Black Lawyers, who tweeted that he’d consider reporting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons “as incitement to hate crime and persecution before the International Criminal Court”; Pat Buchanan, who said “there is no doubt” that the dead brought it on themselves; or the New Statesman which opined “none of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech”.
The BBC poll went like this:
ComRes interviewed 1,000 Muslims living in Britain aged 18+ by telephone between 26th January and 20th February. Data were weighted to be representative of the known population. Sample was drawn from two sources, as outlined below:
National Random Digit Dialing (RDD) Surveys: A database collected from national, RDD surveys where respondents identified as being Muslim who were happy to be re-contacted for research.
Super Output Areas: RDD sample was drawn based on the Office for National Statistics’ Output Areas – the statistical regions created by the Office for National Statistics that are the lowest geographical level at which census estimates are provided – in order to determine the Middle Layer Super Output Areas that have the highest density and incidence of BME adults (18+).
No, us neither. The upshot is that 1000 people who say they’re Muslim on forms, have time to reply to polls, most likely do not read Charlie Hebdo, and do not think someone asking them if they “feel loyal to Britain” is deserving of a smack in the chops created a news item about race and tolerance.
The 1000 were also asked if they felt victimised. Sheesh. Ask anyone – anyone – if they feel victimised and they will most likely say ‘yes’. Ask Prince William and aristos if they think the country is being less tolerant of the landed gentry, and what will they say?
The poll is utter balls. Moore’s comment that 800,000 Muslims”might not be cold-blooded murders” is clumsy and ill-judged – but at least it’s not like that BBC poll: well-intentioned, knowing, superior liberal bilge presented as a worthwhile study into the minds of Others.
Elizabeth Dickson has won damages from Playboy Enterprises for an incident at the Playboy Golf Finals at the Industry Hills Golf Club in Industry on March 30, 2012.
Dickson’s job was to act as novelty divot. Lying face down on the grass, her shorts shirt lipped down to help the golfer focus, the tee tucked between her taught buttocks, Playboy Morning Show host Kevin Klein stood over her and took aim.
Klein swung the club and “struck plaintiff on the buttocks, causing her injuries and damages,” her lawsuit suit alleged.
Writing in the Sun, former England football captain Alan Shearer mentions the horror in Paris. He says he was in Paris only recently. It never crossed Shearer’s mind the city was dangerous as he ate dinner at a restaurant. He talks of the thought that all football fans will wonder about their safety at the match. All true.
But then he turns football into a moral force. He recalls the great France side that won the 1998 World Cup, and how its players from a range of backgrounds “brought French people…together”:
“It is even more important now that Euro 2016 does that again and show a united front in the face of those terrorists.”
That France team did not win because the players were black, white or brown. They won because they were the best team. In Shearer’s call for sport to have a public message, the public are cast as bovine, simple minds who know only what they are told.
It’s suggestive of the insecurity that allows the enemy inside the gates; the idea that if France drops or picks a Muslim, Jewish or black footballer there will be massacres and race riots.
The lack of trust in ourselves aligns us with the loons aiming to murder Western ideals and ways of life. The jihadi seeking reason in a death-cult will not be appeased by a quota of Muslim footballers in the France side, just as picking a team to a proscribed, compliant, morally pure, self-conscious agenda fails to show a nation in a positive, liberal, progressive and confident light. One side seeks to annihilate the West; the other to undermine it and bare its uncertain heart, a culture riddled with self-doubt and self-loathing.
If freedom counts for anything, it means freedom to choose; to say what we feel; to pick a football team based on hope not fear.
We’ll sing what we want to. We’ll pick who we want to.
The Daily Express says there are “450 Jihadis on The Loose in the UK”. That’s a precise number. Where are they, and how do we know they are ‘on the loose’?
One line into the story and we read that there are “up to 450 battle-hardened jihadis on the street of Britain after fighting in Syria”. Surely if these people have been to Syria and then arrived or retuned to the UK, the border forces know of them?
The paper’s headline comes from a warning issued by Charles Farr, director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism in a speech last week.
He said that about 750 British citizens “of interest to the security and intelligence services” had travelled to Syria of whom “about 60 per cent had returned”.
What the Express does not note is what Farr said in June:
“It’s not to say the challenges they pose are not significant, they are. But … the more we overstate them the more, frankly, we risk labelling Muslim communities as somehow intrinsically extremist, which actually despite an unprecedented wealth of social media propaganda, they have proved not to be. So I think we need to be cautious with our metaphors and with our numbers.”
In other Express news:
The Express picks up the news that one of the Paris murderers could have been a ‘refugee’ from Syria. It invites readers to respond to a premium-rate phone poll:
Does the Express have an agenda?
As the Express builds fences and divides, the Mirror says 2000 “extra spies” are being recruited to protect the UK”. To which the obvious question is: recruited from where?
Inside we learn that spies will be taken from SAS and SBS troops and seconded to Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command. These, presumably, would be crack troops not needed on the streets of Iraq and Syria to off the enemy?
The Mirror ads that any Syrian’s entering Britain as migrants are being vigorously screened.
But is it enough? The Mail leads with “THE DEADLY BLUNDERS”. It says suicide bomber Ahmad Almohammad “was waved into Europe posing as a Syrian refugee”. Salah Abdeslam “was in police clutches – but they let him go” – he was stopped and let go by police close to the Belgian border.
Let go? Or followed?
One other murderer attracts the Mails‘ attention – “blue-eyed” Ismael Omar Mostefai. Why his eye colour matters is odd, and something neo-Nazis are free to discuss.
The Mail then thunders: “They ever butchered fans in wheelchairs”.
Again, one for the Nazis.
The Mail then cites the aforesaid Farr: “450 jihadis back in UK but has a single passport been seized?” Like the Express, it too fails to note Farr’s other words on Muslims. But it does say:
Why is that news? Are all Muslims not under suspicion – the man in the newsagents, your friend at work, the bank manger, the wonderful singer Nadine Shah?
Over in te Sun, the message is that it’s “Time for Britain to take the fight to ISIS”.
Better yet, why not just give the Kurds guns and personnel. For some time the (Muslim) Kurds have been protecting Western civilisation from the Islamist nutters. Might be an idea to recognises your allies and back them.
Sky TV’s Kay Burley has news from the carnage in Paris:
Beyond parody. Or is it?
You should see the hyenas…
The US Registry of Motor Vehicles says Massachusetts woman Lindsay Miller can, as a Pastafarian, wear a colander on her head on her licence photo. The RMV only allows drivers to wear hats in their pictures for a medical or religious purpose. Miller says her Pastafarianism counts.
“As a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I feel delighted that my Pastafarianism has been respected by the Massachusetts RMV,” says Miller. “While I don’t think the government can involve itself in matters of religion, I do hope this decision encourages my fellow Pastafarian Atheists to come out and express themselves as I have.”
She was represented by The American Humanist Association, which said Pastafarians believe the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is “just as probable as the existence of the Christian God”.
“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” said Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, which works with the American Humanist Association. “We appreciate that the RMV recognised the error, apologised, and issued a licence respecting her First Amendment rights, and hope that RMV staff will be trained to respect diversity.”
Good to see that Rastafarians are not touchy about someone lampooning them. No bombs. No cries of how offended they are and vows to attack Miller.
Take it away, Barrington Levy – collie weed for the colandar:
Mass murder in Paris. And WikiLeaks attempts to make a point:
If we are all Charlie Hebdo – and we should be; we must be – then this kind of balls by WikliLeaks must be mocked for the apologist bilge it is.
French President Francois Hollande promised early Saturday morning that France would respond to terrorist attacks that killed more than 120 people with a “pitiless” war against the group responsible.
“We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless,” he said at the Bataclan, the site of one of the attacks, according to the Guardian.
“Because when terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together and does not let itself be moved, even if today we express infinite sorrow,” Hollande added.
Does he mean it?
A bizarre take on the situation indeed. Or perhaps not so bizarre considering the fact that HP has been writing about this insidious ideology which has people thinking that any attack on a Western country is richly deserved. That radicalization is an inevitable side effect of foreign policy and that any death at the hands of a terrorist is not the fault of the terrorists but of the government of the citizens who are murdered.
Australian Sam Davies tells us about the Le Carillon:
“This isn’t a tourist area, this is young, hipsters,” he said. “Le Carillon is the hipster ground zero of Paris.
“For me, it’s an incongruous attack. It’s a friendly, vibrant area of young people where all the cafes and bars are opening up.
The butchery in Paris – the latest episode – happened only a couple of hours ago, so there has not yet been time for the soma-peddlers of the professional media to regurgitate the stock line that it is Muslims who are the real victims of an attack that may well have claimed the lives of scores of non-Muslims. Coming soon, as sure as night follows day, there will be denunciations of “Islamophobia”, followed by the insight that food poisoning/sharks/road accidents/pick-your-peril kill many more people than terrorists, therefore it can only be bigots and xenophobes who think of Islam and Western civilization in terms of oil and water.
I am not going to blame Barack Obama entirely for what happened in Paris Friday – but mostly. And that’s not just because he famously called ISIS the jayvee team, when they are now unequivocally the New York Yankees or the Manchester United of terror, repellent as that analogy may be (he started it).
But what is clear from the carnage at the Bataclan Theatre and elsewhere in Paris that we will be studying for weeks or months to come is that the West has no leader in our evident civilizational war – no Churchill, no Roosevelt, no DeGaulle, not even a George W. Bush. It’s certainly not Barack Obama, a ludicrous man who thinks the world’s greatest problem is climate change in the face of Islamic terror. This is the same man who oversaw, indeed instigated, a large scale American démarche for the first time since World War II.
And look what happened. Well, we all know. We are living at a time when the Islamic world is having a nervous breakdown, actually more like a violent psychotic break, in its encounter with modernity and is determined to bring us all down with it.
Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.
But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.
And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.
Vive La France!