More Retail Cowardice...

Another shop falls prey to the hysterical ninnies amongst us, as Longrider notes:

The shop has since removed the image and apologised on Instagram.

'We will keep this brief,' the post read. 'The image that has caused offence has been removed. We apologise unreservedly for any and all distress that it caused.'

Mr Harriman posted screenshots of the apology, with a tweet from Surrey Police confirming that the image has been taken down.

The 'offending image'..? A photo of a tobacco plantation. In a tobacconist.

After filming inside the store, Harriman, 46, spoke directly to the camera outside it, expressing his fury that a shop in 2023 could use an image of oppression to promote its products, calling it 'triggering' and 'damaging to many people'.

Something's damaging all right, but it isn't a sepia photo of a byegone age... 

A Climate Of Fear...

The customer, who asked not to be named, said: "I was recently at Fortes and noticed they have a figurine of a monkey depicted as a human being begging for money. I believe they used it for tips."

So..? 

"Given the heightened issue in the pub in the UK displaying golly dolls, and the fact that these types of caricatures are racist towards black people, I asked to speak to the manager about it but they were not there.

"A member of staff seemed to be indifferent about the figurine saying it was just decor. It is highly offensive."

Why do I get the feeling this customer isn't themselves any kind of minority? Except of the sort that get their kicks from taking offense on behalf of others, and bullying people? 

Of course, sadly, though they are a minority, people are ceding them the power to act out of all proportion with their numbers... 

“I am very glad the owners have since decided to remove the figure. It’s really important that we reflect on how welcoming and inclusive our environments are here in the south west to people of all backgrounds.”

/facepalm 

Claire Heard, who runs the cafe with her husband Andy, said: "We would never endorse the use of any item which may have racist connotations as we take this very seriously. The figure of a monkey business card holder was removed as soon as the gentleman mentioned it may cause offence.

"We invite the gentleman to contact us directly for us to apologise further if he wishes and we thank him for his comments."

This kind of reflexive cringing is bound to encourage every Tom, Dick and Karen to have a go at anything they deem 'offensive', so thanks for that Claire... 

Danger Is In Their Job Description, Judge...

Sentencing was adjourned because Richards refused to leave his cell. He refused to do so again today when he was jailed for life.

Judge Jeremy Richardson KC told Sheffield Crown Court: 'I regard the refusal of the defendant to attend court to be an act of cowardice. His arrogance is also demonstrated by this conduct.

'It is plain the defendant is replete with habitual violence. It is deeply ingrained. He is, in my judgment, an exceptionally volatile and dangerous man.

'I have my doubts whether it will ever be safe to release him.'

So, why not have him dragged before the court, as you can do? 

He added that he was 'not prepared to endanger the lives of prison officers to secure his attendance' by exercising the powers available to him.

*sighs* 

That's Nothing Compared To The Damage It's Causing To Our Political Elite!

Angela Rayner warned today that the ongoing culture war over gender rights is causing 'damage' to young people - and it is unacceptable to ask a trans woman if they had a penis.

The Labour deputy leader struck a conciliatory tone as she said that women-only spaces should be protected at the same time as people changing gender should be supported.

Good luck with squaring that particular circle, Angie baby! Of course, it's all an attempt to row back after her boss showed his lack of fortitude:

It came after her boss, party leader Sir Keir Starmer, yesterday refused to say if a woman can have a penis during a debate about trans rights. 

Asked if a woman can have a penis, Starmer told LBC yesterday: 'I'm not... I don't think we can conduct this debate with... I don't think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run.'

It's certainly not helping your party, is it? Not that the Tories have anything to boast about on this score, either... 

She was asked about Liverpool's Walton Centre NHS Trust, which has begun to ask all men whether they are pregnant before undergoing scans. The procedure can affect unborn children. 

Ms Rayner said there will be circumstances where it is reasonable to ask a trans man if they are pregnant, but added: 'It wouldn't be a reasonable question for me to say ''Have you got a penis or not?'' because that's not acceptable. She said the issue is not about 'men coming into women-only spaces', it is about 'supporting people in their lives'.

That's not all she says:

So shut up, peasants, and let Ange decide the hard issues of the day!
 

You Don't Have To Be Mad To Work Here...

...or, , if you work for Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust, maybe you do:

A psychiatrist who downed three bottles of wine before a head-on crash has been allowed to keep her job after she was deemed 'no risk' to patients.

Unless those patients are driving home when she's clocking off, I presume? 

Dr Deborah Staite, 50, was uninsured and did not even have a driving licence at the time of the collision in 2020.

She had failed to renew it after serving a previous ban for drink-driving, a tribunal heard.

/facepalm 

GMC lawyer Laura Barbour told a hearing of the medical practitioners' tribunal service: 'The public are entitled to assume that the doctor treating them abides by the law.

'This is a case where the doctor's conduct was so serious that action must be taken to protect members of the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

'There is a risk of repetition.'

Well, yes. clearly. She's already a multiple offender! 

Philip McGhee, for Staite, told the tribunal: 'A reasonable and properly informed member of the public would not expect Dr Staite to be punished by an order of suspension… given what she has already gone through.'

Wanna bet? I'm one of those, McGhee, and I expect her to be suspended. 

The tribunal found Staite's fitness to practise was impaired but that suspension would be 'unnecessary, disproportionate and punitive'.

She will face a review hearing in three years.

What's wrong with a punitive measure? Do they think she shouldn't be punished? 

There's A Lot Of Ignorance Going Around, Stella...

Stella Headley, co-founder of Rastafari Movement UK, said Ms Farrell's treatment was 'abhorrent'.

She said: 'Within our faith, females tend to cover their hair and the dress code is to wear longer skirts and dress modestly.

'We don't wear tight clothes and don't reveal flesh.'

Accusing the force of 'institutional racism', she added: 'There's an ignorance that runs through the force that doesn't respect people's faiths or cultures.'

Well, while we're discussing 'ignorance', what about ignorance of the law and how one behaves when there's a dispute? Because Hertfordshire Police had to put up with a lot from your client... 

Miss Farrell was arrested in August 2018 when she sat on her partner's car to stop it being towed away in Stevenage.

When she refused to give her name at the station she was moved to a cell monitored by round-the-clock CCTV.

As will always happen when you obstruct the police. Why would you assume that this would be a winning gambit?

Except...these days, it is: 

Deputy Chief Constable Michelle Dunn said: 'I am extremely sorry for any injuries that you suffered as a result of the actions of Hertfordshire Police.'

The force said detainees are now given 'joggers and jumpers'.

Miss Farrell had to appoint a solicitor to handle her civil claim for wrongful arrest after Hertfordshire Police's professional standards department rejected her complaint.

And £45,000 of taxpayer's money handed to this woman is the result. Plus the amount of wasted time and resources. 

Dal Babu, who was one of the UK's most senior British-Asian officers as a former Met chief superintendent, said Hertfordshire Police had made a 'catalogue of mistakes'.

They weren't the only ones, but they are on the hook for it. Enjoy the £45k (or however much of it is left after your legal fees are paid) but if you think I had a low opinion of the Rastafarian religion before, imagine how low it's sunk if you're a typical example of a follower...  

Remember When Adults Wrote For This Newspaper?

I have a fantasy and it goes like this: a political party is formed, running on an anti-social-media platform. It campaigns on a pledge to ban social media. (“SWITCH IT OFF” is its straightforward, and elegant, slogan.) The party wins a general election and at midnight, on what comes to be known as Social Media Freedom Day, the prime minister pushes a giant button that blocks all access to social media. Crowds cheer. On the anniversary of Social Media Freedom Day – which becomes a bank holiday, of course – children burn effigies of Mark Zuckerberg and dress up as the Twitter bird.

The ravings of a demented madwoman? Well, yes. It's a 'Guardian' column, after all! What else would you expect?

I write this as someone who owes her career and her partner to social media. I had no journalism qualifications, (Ed: Really...?) connections or experience when I began blogging in the mid-2010s, and through Twitter I was able to get a paid internship that gave me my start in journalism.

But as time has gone on I have become more and more certain that the solution to many of the most pressing issues of our time is simply to switch social media off.

We can all do that, any time we want!

Of course I could delete all my social media accounts. Cancel my season ticket to The Discourse; stop watching as a new villain of the day is crowned on Twitter. You think I don’t want to do that?

What's stopping you? 

I need a responsible adult to do it for me. I’ve had enough of the bad feelings machine. Won’t somebody switch it off? Please? Can we switch it off?

Aren't you one of those? Oh, silly me. Of course you aren't... 

"These Underclass Scum Are Just Smarter Than Us Oh-Too-Caring Professionals!"

Predictably, the 'Guardian' wheels out a stooge (professor of social work, no less!) to try to deflect blame from the state's agents over the horrific Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case:

...it is very important that inquiries take the effects of poor resourcing and the wider impact of austerity into account when looking into how social workers interacted with Arthur.

All that's missing is a whine about 'Thatcher!'...

It wasn't resources they lacked, it was clearly common sence and a desire to put the child's needs first! 

Which brings us to a final hugely influential factor: the parents and their emotional impact. It is clear that they were frighteningly strategic in their abuse of Arthur and no doubt in concealing it. It has become commonplace for inquiries into such cases to conclude that social workers and others lack “professional curiosity” and miss the obvious because they are too “optimistic”; that the “rule of optimism” results in professionals naively and hopefully believing what parents tell them, and denying what is in front of them.

Because once again, that appears to have been the case here. The photo of a whopping great bruise that social workers 'didn't see' proves that! 

What did these fiendishly cunning Moriartys do, hypnotise them? 

But perhaps sensing that isn't likely to fly, he switches tack effortlessly: it's because they just care too much and can't cope, you horrible right-winger press!

My years of practice and research into child protection social work suggests that far from being optimistic, when faced with such aggressive and manipulative parents, social workers’ states of mind are often closer to helplessness. They are outmanoeuvred and overcome by the suffering and sadness in the atmosphere of such homes and in the children’s lives.

Then they aren't the right people for the job, and they shouldn't be in it. If I failed a task because I was 'overcome with hopelessness' I'd be sent for retraining or fired! 

Why doesn't that ever apply to these people? 

Covid, social distancing and the personal risks social workers routinely had to take to see children in their homes increased the complexity still further. The more that is taken into account – along with the emotional demands and funding deficits and systemic problems that mean social workers are faced with obstacles that make their job much more difficult than it needs to be – the more can be learned from Arthur’s tragic death.

We learned all we needed to learn from Baby P, Dylan Tiffin-Brown and Evelyn-Rose Muggleton, Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka, Ellie Butler... the list goes on and on and on. 

And it will continue to go on and on and on until social work is overhauled and this kind of incompetence is not tolerated and excused.

Maybe You Shouldn't Have Just Stood Guard..?

Police were forced to protect a dying seal on a beach as crowds hurled stones at it in its final moments.

The seal died just hours after officers attended the scene in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk to guard it on Tuesday.

Some people were spotted throwing stones at the grey seal, while parents were seen taking pictures of their children alongside the dying mammal.

Maybe you should have arrested a few of the ghouls and morons? 

Or some of the grandstanding idiots who claim to 'help wildlife' (as long as it's not too inconvenient for them, of course): 

Daniel Goldsmith, chairman of Marine Wildlife Rescue, attended the scene.

"Upon arriving we realised that we needed to euthanize the seal, which would be the most humane course of action.

"We needed to do it as soon as possible, otherwise it would end up at sea and its suffering would be prolonged. The crowds that had gathered made it difficult to do this safely."

Really? Why? The police were there standing guard, weren't they? 

"We contacted Great Yarmouth Borough Council in order to assist with the removal of the seal after it was euthanised but they said they could not do so without advanced notice. We hoped to return later that day so the crowds would be quieter and hoped that the council would help then."

Wait, what? You knew the animal needed to be euthanised then and there. Why didn't you do it, instead of whining about 'crowds'..?

"Unfortunately they still couldn't. We returned at 4.30pm and the seal eventually went back into the sea, where it was seen floating limply but was not really swimming.

"It may take several days or weeks for a seal in this state to die and will likely turn up elsewhere along the coast in a poor state."

Well, yes, because you let it! And no, the council isn't on the hook for that, you are! 

Great Yarmouth Borough Council said: "We received a call yesterday from a man who was on his way to Yarmouth to potentially put down a seal that had been found on Yarmouth beach.

"We were happy to assist and advised that the council could collect it from the beach once it was dead, but not before as the council does not handle live animals.

"The council advised we would be able to collect the dead animal the following morning. Normal council policy is for collection of animals within 24 to 48hrs, dependant on their location and how easy the access is to the site."

Someone needs to ask some hard questions of Mr Goldsmith. The behaviour of the spectators has drawn all the media attention. He should be getting some, too. 

Now They Are Worried..?

Sir Lindsay Hoyle spoke to Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel following the fatal stabbing of the 69-year-old MP in his Southend West constituency.

He added: 'Those people who do not share our values or share democracy, they will not win and we won't let them win. We will continue to look at security, that is ongoing and it will continue.'

Very Churchillian, Sir Lindsay, but Churchill fought to keep the Nazis from landing at Dover. 

What's Border Farce doing under Priti Patel? Escorting them in by the hundreds... 

Every politician is currently thought to have had a security assessment in the constituency, and they get a 'standard' package such as alarm systems, shutters, CCTV and personal alarms for staff.

However, there are concerns that most of the measures are applied to offices and homes, while surgeries often happen at churches or other buildings that might not be secure.

That sounds like a failing of security assessments then. A gap you can drive a truck through.  

A senior Parliamentary source told MailOnline: 'The Commons will have a complete review again. Police need to be at surgeries. It is the only solution.'

We don't have enough police to keep our streets safe, and you want more of them standing idly by while Mrs Miggins complains about the amount of dog poo on the street outside her house? 

It's not, of course, the only solution at all. And you know it.

No, It's A Stain On Your Organisation's Reputation...

Former Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter (Ed: Surely not..?!) last week described the Wembley scenes as 'a stain on our country's reputation'.

Why? Like millions of other people, I was sitting at home watching it, not taking part. And millions of others were having a meal out, watching TV, painting the bedroom, reading a book...

Why should it be 'a stain on our reputation'? 

The Metropolitan police farce, however, has questions to answer:

The male Metropolitan Police officer, who has not been named, had been speaking about the chaotic scenes at the London stadium during England's match against Italy on July 11.

The officer told The Times that he and his colleagues had not been 'allowed' to use robust deterrents as senior members of the force were reluctant to give the go-ahead.

He told the publication: 'The best we did was manhandle them down the ramps away from the stadium...

'It's all about the brand image. It is just annoying we are held back from doing our job. We are in public order gear for a reason.'

Do I detect the cold, clammy hand of the Dame of Disaster herself here? 

The officer also made a series of claims to suggest that authorities were not adequately prepared.

He said that many officers attending were hesitant due to being newly trained in public order policing.

Funny, when I'm newly trained in something, I can't wait to put it into practice. What sort of people are they hiring here? 

Release, And Let Them Scream...

The National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) – made up of 32 crime commissioners and their forces – ordered the research into serious and organised crime in the countryside and found the traveller community featured prominently in offences such as hare coursing, fly-tipping, farm vehicle theft and poaching.

The only astonishing thing is that it required research... 

The study was due for release last October, but the organisation’s bosses ruled it should be delayed so more evidence could be gathered.

Because 'more evidence' will help them fend off the woke mob? What a waste of money! You cannot reason with people like this. No amount of evidence will ever convince them. 

A police source said: ‘The report has been hugely delayed as there were real concerns at the fall-out because it found travellers played a big part in rural crime. They’re terrified the woke brigade will jump down their throats, so they asked for more supporting evidence to ensure against that.

'But every month delayed is another month we delay having this out in the open and a proper debate about how we help rural communities who feel under siege.’

The woke mob will scream. Let them. No-one who matters should care. 

Last night, Conservative MP Peter Bone said: ‘We’ve had problems in the past when police forces have gone soft on certain sections of the community and, as a result, finding out terrible crimes have been carried out.

'People feel there is one set of rules for us, and one set of rules for travellers. Let’s have the report out and let’s have the arguments.’

There is indeed one set of rules for them and one for the law-abiding settled population. It's been going on for years. And if people are too afraid to admit that, it'll keep going on. Enough is enough.  

"You Stand Accused Of Heresy. How Do You Plead?"

'Guilty'.

The BBC has removed an educational page laying out the “benefits” of climate change after a furious online reaction.

BBC Bitesize, its website for schoolchildren, claimed warmer temperatures “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” and that a benefit of climate change could mean easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia.

And...isn't that a possibility? Should we ignore it. 

Other apparent benefits highlighted by the BBC included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.

Also true. But we can't, apparently, handle the truth. Says who? 

After a backlash from climate experts and campaigners, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot, the page, aimed at year 10 students, was amended to only include the negative impacts of climate change.

Ah. The usual suspects. 

The exam board Eduqas said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding: “Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet.

“As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.”

What are you doing advocating any viewpoint? Why not just lay out the facts and let people think for themselves? 

Scotland’s exam board recently came under fire from the Scottish Green party for teaching the “positives” of climate change.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority geography course gave benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.

The political party said it was “deeply inappropriate” for the SQA to specify the pros and cons should be given equal consideration.

Clearly, across the border, they are made of sterner stuff: 

The SQA responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.”

Which we must discourage, lest people indulge in wrongthink.