OUR FREEBIE LOVING LABOUR POLITICIANS

It's extraordinary by any measure.  The two front runners for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party - and Deputy Prime Minister most likely - Bridget Phillipson and Lucy Powell respectively,  were both high up the Gravy Train List of Labour Party politicians  who accepted tens of thousands of GBP in freebies in the very recent past.  And don't forget to add  Prime Minister Keir Starmer as the Number One Freeloader.

The Labour Party is rotten to the core and that is without touching on former Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson,  until today Ambassador to Washington, and Peter's long association with the seriously wealthy - and seriously criminal - offender Jeffrey Epstein.

What on earth is it with Labour Party politicians and money?  Can anyone explain?

   

REFORM UK

We are overwhelmingly uneasy about this overwhelmingly dubious lot. We understand the leader to be one Mr Farage who is notoriously thin-skinned and with a very short fuse and as dodgy as a £4 note.  Mr Farage was much to the fore over Angela Rayner's financial arrangements but is noticeably reticent about his own.

'Twas ever thus,  Mr Farage,  'twas ever thus.  But beware,  and as we said about Angela,  what goes round,  comes round.

ANGELA 'THREE HOMES' RAYNER (2)

She's gone!  The foul-mouthed and loud-mouthed Angela,  Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary,  resigned her posts yesterday.  With a little bit of luck,  we will not hear of her again.

While we can readily forgive Angela for a little bit of diddling the taxman,  we cannot forgive her so readily for blaming others for her misfortune instead of taking it on the chin.  And we cannot forgive her at all for calling political opponents 'scum'.  Angela lost any public support she may have had with her world-class hypocrisy,  spectacular even by the standards of the Labour Party. 

A classic case of what goes round,  comes round.

 

SIR MARK ROWLEY, COMMISSIONER, METROPOLITAN POLCE

Sir Mark Rowley is the handsomely-paid Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.  As such,  he is not only in overall charge of policing  London  but also has tentacles  in many subsidiary aspects of national policing.  The arrest of Irish comedian,  Graham Linehan,  a few days ago has thrust Mark into a limelight that he finds very uncomfortable.  It is,  however,  a limelight entirely of his own making.

Mr Linehan,  57,  is a well-known comedian and anti-trans legislation supporter.  In April of this year he posted three tweets to social media platforms one of which read that 'if a trans-identified male is in a female-only space,  he is committing a violent,  abusive act.  Make a scene,  call the cops and,  if all else fails, punch him in the balls.'  

Every sane,  sensible copper in the land would take that as,  at most,  just another joke from a comedian but,  for his troubles,  Mr Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport  on his return from America.  He was locked up in a Police cell and liberated on a bail undertaking pending further investigation.  The allegation is said to be 'on suspicion of inciting violence'!!!!!  Seriously, and this from what is claimed to be  an overstretched Metropolitan Police Service and the best police force in the world!!!!!  No wonder they are overstretched,  investigating drivel like this.

An unprecedented furore followed with politicians from the Prime Minister down angry with the Metropolitan Police over the arrest.  Inevitably,  Mark,  as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police,  was drawn into the furore.  Realising that he was caught on the back foot and,  to distance himself from the furore,  Mark called for the Government to 'change or clarify the law'.  Mark went on to say,  most correctly,  that 'I don't believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates and officers are in an impossible position' but those comments came only after the horse had long bolted.

But, Mark, but.  Officers are not in that 'impossible position'  because of the Government;  they are in that situation because you,  as Commissioner, didn't have the gumption and the guts to address the problems caused by the Public Order Act 1986 long before now.  

Furthermore,  you,  and you alone,  are responsible  because you have failed manifestly in your duty to direct your officers how to proceed in situations such as those experienced by Mr Linehan and,  most certainly,  you should never be attempting to enforce any legislation that requires any clarification from Government.  Incidentally, are we right in thinking that only  courts can clarify the law and never the Government?

And we're still awaiting you to explain the precise chain of events that led to Mr Linehan's arrest and the officers responsible therefor.  When are you going to tell us?

GRAHAM LINEHAN, Comedian (1)

Well,  well,  well.  The ink was still drying on our blog about repeal of the Public Order Act 1986 when  a prime example of what we were talking  about fell straight from the heavens the very next day. 

Graham Linehan,  57,  is a well known screenwriter and comedian and creator of the famous Irish TV comedy 'Father Ted'.  He is also well known for his opposition to trans-legislation,  opposition that is teetering on the balance of  being illlegal in the UK  and one that a great many intolerants would like to silence completely.

Mr Linehan  was arrested by five police officers at Heathrow on Monday after arriving from the United States.  The arrest was 'on suspicion of inciting violence in relation to posts about trans-people on a social media platform'.  He was taken to a Police cell and questioned before being released on Police bail after agreeing no further tweets meantime.

The joke Mr Linehan posted was quite funny as it happens but the arrest has caused uproar with allsorts from the Prime Minister down getting in on the act and even the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police,  Sir Mark Rowley,  calling for repeal of this dreadful legislation.  We're at one on that, Mark,  old boy.  The circumstances are a truly shocking state of affairs with politicians appearing from  everywhere to criticise what has happened. They're a bit late,  the spineless creeps.  They should have been doing something about this legislation years ago.

We do not for a second criticise those five officers who arrested Mr Linehan.  Our anger resides with whatever idiot of a police officer authorised the arrest in the first place.  He,  or she,  should be suspended immediately.

A comedian getting arrested for telling jokes?  George Orwell's 1984 has well and truly arrived.

REPEAL THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986

We have been hearing a lot lately about section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 and with good reason.  When the law gets involved in the application of this Act and imposes sentences of imprisonment over petty,  juvenile,  online postings and with accused railroaded into pleading guilty,  then it is time to wake up and think hard about what is being done by the State allegedly in our name. 

Our agitation is  exclusively with Section 19(1) of the Act which is about publishing and distributing  written material,  the sort of thing  people write online many millions of times a day like we're doing here.  It is nothing  at all to do with yobbos throwing stones and flares at Police during riots such as happened at Southport.  Sentences in  such cases of rioting must always be severe,  10 years and upwards with no quarter given in our view.  

Scction 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 states that  'a person who publishes and distributes written material which  is threatening,  abusive or insulting  is guilty of an offence if  (a)  he intends to stir up racial hatred or (b)  having regard to all the circumstances  racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby'.   The operative words are,  of course,  'if he intends to stir up racial hatred' and  'racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby'.

'Racial hatred' under the Act is defined as 'hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour,  race,  nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins'. What on earth does that mean?  What is hatred? What's the difference between hatred, aversion, detestation, loathing, dislike and disapproval? Is there anyone in this world who can tell us? Why does it have to be hatred in law?  Would two people form a 'group of persons'?

So,  if we,  for whatever reason, suddenly take strongly against,  say,  the Italian football team and post  online rantings venting our view,  could we expect seven years in the slammer?   Or what if we railed against the present-day remnants of what was once Nazi Germany?  And what if we ranted and railed  what some might consider to be home truths against  both the current Russian  Government and the Israeli Government?  And what do the terms  'abusive'  and 'insulting' mean anyway?  And what if the content of such material is true, could  that be abusive or insulting?    

And how in this world can anyone,  including the most erudite of judges,  adjudicate rationally,  sanely  and sensibly on the words 'likely to be stirred up'?  He simply cannot. He's speculating - the one thing a judge must never do - and he doesn't have a crystal ball either.  It's pie in the sky stuff.  And what,  by the way,  is  'stir up'?  Is it like stirring  a pot of soup? And,  while we're at it,  what is this crazy word  called 'colour'?  Does it include mixed race,  a sort of half-colour,  a quarter-colour,  or what?

Does anyone in this country,  the Government and Crown Prosecutors apart, think this is good law?

Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a headbanger piece of legislation that must be repealed and  replaced with legislation that makes sense and looks at every situation objectively,  rationally,  calmly  and through the lenses of ordinary,  everyday  people with no axe to grind - a jury,  in other words.  It must never be left to be carved up between Crown Prosecutors and the Judiciary alone.  No wonder Americans,  with their innate  sense of freedom of speech,  are taking a keen interest in what is happening in this country.  

The Police have infinitely more important things they should be getting on with - such as patrolling the streets and investigating  crime - than trawling  the internet for infantile postings.  But, with the dreadful calibre of senior officer we have nowadays - where facial stubble is an almost-statutory requirement for the job  - don't hold your breath for any improvement.

Maybe George Orwell's 1984 is not so far away after all. 

 

ANGELA 'THREE HOMES' RAYNER (1)

Angela Rayner is the bodily-tattooed Deputy Prime Minister.  She is also Secretary of State for Housing.

A month or two back Angela bought  a flatted seaside property for,  it is said,  £800,000 in prime position on the south coast of England.  This is in addition to her home in her North of England constituency - and also in addition to her grace-and-favour residence at Admiralty House.

We have always said,  from Day One of this accursed Labour Government,  that the brain-dead and utterly shameless Angela has the capacity to bring the government down all on her own and without a scrap of assistance from anyone.  

She's as awful a hypocrite as anyone could ever come across and utterly without shame.  This is what the Labour Party is reduced to.

What on earth will her new and well-heeled neighbours make of her?