Oh, Marvellous!

He's an avid cyclist, known for taking swipes at bad drivers. But Jeremy Vine admits his three-point turns aren't always up to scratch - with one scrape costing him £1,000 in damages.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !  

The TV and radio presenter scratched a Land Rover while doing the manoeuvre in a car park.The 60-year-old, who courts controversy online with his videos of dodgy drivers, claimed it was 'microscopic', adding that 'oversized SUVs' have ruined the atmosphere in the Devon village where he bumped the Landrover.

The scratch probably only cost £50 to buff out - the rest was an asshole surcharge!  

Let's Call It What It Is....

'Asian' gang, eh? Can I expect the defendants to be named Akimoto, Kihara, Myung, and Kim?

Mustafa Iqbal, 43, Ziaullah Badsha, 25, Mohamed Arshad, 36, and Jaswinder Singh, 65, face 28 charges between them, including accusations of trafficking for sexual exploitation, rape, supplying drugs and sexual assaults. They deny the charges.

Thought so. The MSM lies all the time, describing men as women, illegal immigrants as 'migrants', and Pakistani Muslims as ‘Asian’… 

And glossing over the fact that they have help in their offending from a race traitor:

A woman, Sarah Gray, 53, from Gronant, faces charges of conspiracy to supply cocaine and cannabis. Gray is accused of allowing her house to be used by Iqbal for sexual exploitation and perverting justice by washing bedding following a rape, which involved handcuffs, of the 16-year-old girl.

Is there any sign that this is yet another case where the police and courts have failed to get a grip and deal with the issue?  

Iqbal is also alleged to have breached a slavery trafficking risk order.

Gosh, it’s almost as if some cultures are just not law-abiding, isn’t it? 

This Man's Downfall Is Going To Be So Satisfying...

 

...and I can't wait to see how Matt covers it on Friday May 7th! 

Proof That Someone At 'The Guardian' Has A Sense Of Humour...

 ...and it's the typesetter (or whatever the digital equivalent is)!

Sunday Funnies...

 I don't think No 4 reckoned with the WFH epidemic and the rise of Teams...

No! You Can’t Handle The Truth!

Besieged by questions about his war on Iran and his wife’s statement on Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump tried to shift the national conversation back to his immigration crackdown by posting a graphic, distressing video of a woman in Florida being killed last week by a man he described as an “illegal immigrant” from Haiti.

Did he get it wrong? 

The video, taken by a surveillance camera outside a Fort Myers gas station, showed a man identified by authorities as a Haitian immigrant using a hammer to bludgeon to death the woman, who was reportedly a clerk at the gas station. Trump’s decision to elevate such graphic images of a woman’s death by posting it for his millions of followers on Truth Social was startling, but in keeping with a pattern of using shocking video of violence attributed to undocumented immigrants to sow fear about immigration and justify mass deportation.

No, the man was an immigrant though there’s every chance that he was legally in the States, like so many imported by the Donald's predecessor. And so it transpired… 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that the suspected attacker in custody was “released” in 2022 by the Biden administration and given temporary protected status, although it is unclear whether that information is accurate.

Meanwhile, over in the UK, someone else has a problem with people's free speech:

Sadiq Khan has called on ministers to take significantly stronger action against social media companies that spread disinformation after a study showed a surge in hostile accounts posting falsehoods about London’s crime rates and integration.

In an intervention on what he called “the outrage economy”, the London mayor, who has also written to social media firms demanding change, said a lack of action could prompt more domestic terrorism by people who believe conspiracy theories they find online.

What a world we live in, where people are more outraged about people breaking the Eleventh Commandment (thou shalt not notice!) than any of the other Ten…  

We Don't Need To Stop Women From Competing In Men's Sport...

Last month, the International Olympic Committee announced that transgender women athletes would be barred from competing in all Olympic events in the women’s category – but not the men’s events.

Well, that’s right, they are men, after all. No-one’s suggesting they not be allowed to compete at all, are they? 

The new rules effectively redefine womanhood – but not manhood – as a novel and previously unrecognized category consisting only of those with a specific set of genetic prerequisites.

No, they aren’t doing any such thing, they are simply expecting women to compete with women and men with men, like it was before the madness of transgenderism spread across the globe like a plague. 

To comply with this new requirement, women athletes – but not male ones – will be made to submit to genetic testing, to determine whether their womanhood meets the committee’s standards

Because women aren't trying to cheat their way into men's sport, you idiot! 

The move comes as increased political and media attention to the issue of trans rights and visibility over the past years – along with pressure from the Trump administration – has led athletic federations to ban trans women from sports competitions, a demand that has largely not been made for transgender men in women’s or men’s sports.

See my last point!  

Those who support the bans claim that testosterone, male puberty or male genetics confer an advantage in athletics, and that trans women must therefore be banned in order to preserve the integrity of women’s competitions. This sounds like the kind of argument someone could make without being unreasonably motivated by bigotry; the IOC, for instance, claims that its new ban is backed up by science and evidence.

It is, undeniably, as a fellow columnist points out.

This new insistence that a complicated scientific question is in fact a simple one – and that it is determinative and relevant only for women, and not for men – suggests that something other than a robust commitment to fairness is at play.

No, that's exactly what's at play here. 

It is possible to approach the question of trans participation in sports in a way that respects the dignity and identity of trans athletes and grapples with this range of possibilities.

Dignity? Lady, a man whose decided to play dress-up in womanface so he can cheat at sports hasn't got any dignity to lose.

Women who are not dainty, who are not weak, who are not reticent or passive or demure, will now be accused of being men. They will be hounded, smeared and degraded in ways that arise from transphobia but redound, finally, to more old-fashioned forms of homophobia and misogyny.

No, they'll simply have to take a swab to prove they are women. Far less undignified than peeing in a cup, which they are used to doing for drug testing.. 

Not All Book Bans Are A Bad Thing, Or Even ‘Book Bans’ At All

Those wokies at Reactormag are at it again:

On March 17, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce advanced H.R. 7661. There is no word regarding when the bill will be voted on, but the vote is expected to occur sometime in the coming weeks. While that bill number may not sound familiar, there’s a good chance you have recently heard it referred to as the National Book Ban Bill.

 Anyone calling it that is lying to you. Deliberately and with malice aforethought 

Though that title is not formally associated with the proposed resolution, it does speak to the concerns many have regarding the bill’s language, intentions, and potential long-term impact.

Formally, what is sometimes referred to as the National Book Ban Bill is being presented as H.R. 7661 or the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act.”

Which it is. Be assured, there no Guy Montag going round visiting bookshops and libraries and publishing houses and consigning copies to the conflagration. It's simply to stop gender identity rubbish spreading amongst the educational establishment even further, by cutting off the federal funding for schools that allow that.

It has also been referred to as the “National Don’t Say Gay bill,” a reference to a 2022 statute that triggered significant school policy changes, including legislation that restricted public schools from introducing material in kindergarten through 3rd-grade classrooms that was deemed to be related to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity.

And it didn't work, so they are trying again. 

A sweeping initiative, the Don’t Say Gay bill (formally referred to as the “Parental Rights in Education” bill) established several education restrictions regarding both curricula and school policies that could be enforced via various means (including potential legal action). It required schools to inform parents if their children received any mental health services at school, it allowed parents to have greater access to formerly private documents related to their kids, and it enacted a series of moderation policies that effectively enabled legislators to have greater control over what is (and isn’t) taught to students in those age ranges via funding decisions and similar policies.

The primary purpose of H. R. 7661 is to enable the U.S. government to deny federal funding to schools that use those funds for programs and materials the bill deems to be inappropriate.

Nothing else has worked, so let's hope this does. If parents want their children reading  this rubbish so thet can have the latest must-have accessory just like their Hollywood heros, they are still free to buy it for them, after all... 

The broad nature of that language is one of the more controversial aspects of the bill. For instance, it would deny schools the ability to use federal funding for programs, literature, and related texts that include “sexually oriented material” and “material that exposes such children to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.”

So no more 'Drag Queen Story Time'!  

However, H. R. 7661 would expand the definition of “sexually oriented material” to include material that “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.”

Good!  

More Suicidal Empathy

 

Gary Freeman, 65, was leading a group of tourists on a guided hike when he brandished his revolver to try to scare off the animal but did not pull the trigger.

If he was only equipped with a revolver, its only use would have been to put it to his own head before the elephant could reach him! 

Judy Connors, from Johannesburg, attended Mr Freeman's safari camp at Klaserie in February, writing on Facebook: 'In the past we have heard Gary speak of his deep respect and love for the elephants. 'He said he would rather be killed by an elephant than shoot one. 'Perhaps this is what I want to believe but there must have been a special bond, soul-to-soul, for this elephant to be the chosen one tasked with his deliverance.'

This is the sort of nonsense I expect from Greens and little children. 

Another friend, Thomas Marshall, said: 'I had the pleasure of joining Gary three times on his wilderness hikes and he was totally at one with nature and told the most amazing stories around the camp-fire. 'The word legend is much abused but he truly was one.'

I wonder in his final moments if he regretted being ‘at one with’ such nature? 

Though he died on April 9, the circumstances of Mr Freeman's death have just emerged and police in Limpopo Province have opened an inquest into the episode.It is understood no action has been taken against the elephant but experts have been called in to study its behaviour and assess its threat to others.

In any era but this one, there would be no question whether or not to cull it.

And Nothing To Do With Activists Like You, Eh?

 

No, the world isn’t going to hell in a handcart. But yes, a good many items are being stolen – in plain view, with apparent impunity – from the shelves at Tesco, M&S and all the major high-street stores.

As a former police officer, having been a chief superintendent during 30 years in the Met and having sat on the London policing board, I often reflect with former colleagues on why we are where we are in terms of policing and public confidence – and how we dealt with shoplifting during our time in the force.

So, you did once do an actual policing role before you became just another race grifter. 

When I was a probationer PC in Tottenham, north London, I regularly attended calls to shops to arrest shoplifters.It was valuable experience for new officers, good for the shops and good for society.

Why did it stop then?   

Where we stand today shows how deterioration and decline has set in, and were you to ask when and how it started and who is responsible, my reply would be unequivocal: j’accuse Theresa May, now Baroness May, the longest-serving home secretary of modern times.

He has a point with some of his reasons, below,  but it seems to me he’s glossing over others:

First, the reduction of police numbers in England and Wales by almost 22,000 officers and more than 20,000 police staff – which included police community support officers (PCSOs) – was plain wrong.

Yes, that undoubtedly didn't help, but having more police is useless if they aren't the right sort to be police in the first place, and there's plenty of evidence that the Met Police in particular are incapable of hiring the right sort.

May’s second offence was the hyper-politicisation of policing, with the introduction of police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales in 2012.

Yes, well, the ACPO ranks seem to have accepted hyper-politicisation just fine, as long as they feel the politics run in their favour...

Third on the charge sheet: the introduction of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This legislation decreed that in England and Wales the shoplifting of goods valued at £200 or less would become a “summary-only offence”.

OK, she's bang to rights here. 

Fourth, May failed to listen to the experts who said that reductions in policing would result in an increase in crime.

Experts? Name names, man!  

Finally, the shake-up of police leadership meant that, for a period, the most senior officers chosen by crime commissioners lacked experience of working in different forces.

It's not their experience or lack of it that concerns most people; it's their wholsale take-over by the enemy within, and  adoption of every left-wing cause going atound, likr BLM and #IBelieveHer (except when it suits them not to). In sort, because they've listened to people like you for far too long.