Having given over her top slot to rumours about whether Pippa Middleton was wearing knickers at the Royal Wedding, columnist Carole Malone in The News of the World then lambasts Cameron over the circus issue.

We're fighting two wars we can't afford and we've got a Euro debt crisis that could see off the single currency yet Downing Street is busying itself issuing threats against an MP who wants to ban wild animals in circuses, she opines.

"Hell's teeth! Hasn't our Prime Minister got more pressing matters to attend to than trying to stop circus animals (just 39 are left in Britain) seeing out their days at some nice sanctuary in Devon", she then declares – demonstrating a staggering lack of self-awareness. She should really have been looking in a mirror when she wrote that.

View full article here

I rapidly arrived at the conclusion where social workers involved in child protection are concerned that (often) they were in possession of significant levels of psychopathology of their own which mutates into rather peverse projection onto the cavass of the daily world they inhabit.

Due to their own adverse developmental precursors they draw biased conclusions with respect to the behaviours of others (which is a common and understandable outcome in such cases) and will heroically resist contrary evidence that exposes such a bias.

In the case of Mr Headley he, most unfortunately, came up against self-loathing chronically basted in misandry. That and a pathological caring syndrome to atone.

The damage inflicted never completely heals.

All in the best interest of the cheeeldren of course. Even the male ones...until they reach 18 (or 16 depending on the level of self-hatred of the assessor) when they naturally all become sadistic paedophile rapists.

I would like to make clear that I do not have a personal view of these things based on hypothetically bitter (and now hypothetically twisted) experience.

Honest. No bias here guv.

A true non-sarc point I will make is that, of course, they do not all conform to the grotesque parody that I sketch above.

Not all.



P.S. As for Pippa......FWWWOOOORRR......the dirty little c*m-sl*t....who'd have thought it eh?. She'd clearly be comfortable accepting that offer of a porn-shoot in the U.S.

The public interest is clear....

Well, just how distracted do you think the nation would be?. It would certainly keep the pending social unrest at bay until the novelty wore off and then there would be a sequel(s). A woman of her fine breeding would be watchable for the next couple of decades and that doesn't include her MILF phase.

Before she completely lost her bankability I reckon we'd be in the grips of a full-on, cull-level famine with a cast-iron totalitarian system without anyone even noticing.

Such is the power of the Skinners cage.

Now, where's that lever gone???

As in the Orkney Child Abuse Scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Rona ... se_scandal

Where the social workers appear to have been evangelical fanatics who thought they were fighting the Devil in a direct and tangible way.

Or the Cleveland Child Abuse Scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_ ... se_scandal

Where another sort of nutty evangelism was at work.

Does 'inverted paedophilia' make any sense when describing these people?

I dont want to be offensive to Pippa M but she looks much older than her age .

We have seen how the Labour Party while in government set out to change the UK and its people to fit in with their world view. The party set themselves up as experts and judged ordinary people against their, the party, standards. These standards were and are at odds with the British people. Therefore the people and their views had to be changed by state education, state media, and the supporting bureaucracy at home and abroad - this includes the police and social workers.
One aspect of this party view is the wrong sort of people are having children and too many of them. We can see the anti marriage workings of these people and how they promote abortion. This is an anti children view, and is in line with their green policies - too many people using up scarce resources. Their anti children view leads them to believe the answer is cull the children and wage a war on marriage, an institution that is pro children.
The Labour Party is an outcrop from academia, who consider themselves the experts and the only people who know the truth. This faith in their knowledge leads them to use violence and coercion on non believers - a truly evil crowd of people.

PE,

I'd say it was more a case of power to make people's lives a misery without a direct comeback, and part of that is the power to impose a judgement based on a personal set of values or even backhanders.

Of course, it's a question of picking the right targets, with the wrong targets there will be a comeback - like having a good professional working over, legal or otherwise - so they overlook those.

It's another example of the state attempting to meddle where it can't intervene effectively, so we have a mare's nest of raised expectations that it can, nonsense cases which are clearly unjust and other cases where children have been done to death in the most horrible circumstances and no one carries the can.

I believe that this kind of behaviour is known as codependency. The "helping" person actually needs the needy person as much as the needy person needs the helper. It has to be viewed as a system in which the participants prop each other up in a cycle of dependency.

I was on the bus on Friday listening to a young man talking loudly into his phone saying he'd done a careers test at school and it had told him he should be a social worker. Didn't seem like the type to me to be honest. He also said it suggested something else but annoyingly I can't remember what.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-13918856
Whatever the truth, this is a metaphor for where the Cameron led Tory party is.
It is a Divine Sign.
It is not a good one.

Michael Eavis is saying he committed suicide but Eavis can't really be regarded as a reliable source and it seems unlikely to me. The fuss seems to be over what was published in the Mail on Sunday (the full article doesn't appear to be online, I can't find it anyway):

And that's in Cameron's own constituency! He's right on the money as far as I am concerned.

It seems unlikely that he committed suicide to me too. However, a large percentage of people die of heart attacks whilst on the toilet. There's also the venue, making it a possibility that snorting a line contributed to Mr. Shale's demise, or that may have been his reason for being in the toilet. No need to speculate that one of Cameron's hit men, disguised as an ageing hippy, caught him with his pants down and shot him in the bum with one of those shellfish toxin firing guns the CIA developed.

As for the eulogy, this is standard stuff for a politician to churn out when someone in the political circle dies. What do you expect Cameron to say, "The bloke was a pain in the arse and hearing he'd cashed his chips in put a spring in my step"?

Not sure this can be landed on just our thieves and their PR crew. We have a culture where, given that most don't actually create anything of measurable value, the object of the game is to tick all the right boxes and hope that some statistician down the road gives an OK to your 'output' and next years funding arrives. The real problem with a system like this though is that the better you perform, the less boxes you get to tick.

Let's suppose that new revolutionary policing methods in a particular district result in zero crime, what then? No crime means no ticked boxes, no ticked boxes means nothing to show for your hard work and no funding next year. Anybody who has worked in the public sector will recognise the problem. Prevention is always better than cure but there are no tick boxes for prevention, only cure. The incentive, once the work drops off, is to create some more. While I'm certain that there will always be children who need protection from one form of abuse or another and we should have that protection available, the devil will make work for idle hands to do.

I don't recall the precise term but you've nailed the gist of it. People who display certain personality traits tend to react in one of two ways when faced with a society that frowns on them. They either embrace what they are in secret, in a sense "giving in" to their drives, or they attempt to deny and suppress them. This latter activity often requires deflection, seeking out and punishing others on whom the undesirable traits have been projected by the sufferer. They are seeing their own personality reflected in everyone else and so they always see more of the "threat" to be dealt with, a never ending stream of abusers and abused. It never occurs to them that they're only chasing phantoms of their own suppressed desires.

I'm reluctant to comment on that until we know whether it is suicide or natural causes. If it is suicide - or even a heart attack - one wonders whether it is related to the article in the Mail on Sunday.

Where are we here? The 70's? Labour? Conservative? Frankly, here in 2011, they are all one and the same, you can't slip a cigarette paper between their CV's, their education or their policy ideas. The sooner we get away from this idea that there are any real alternatives amongst the parasites we 'elect' the better. They are thieving parasites who will disappear when their scam collapses just as fast as the taxpayer cash they, and their Goldman Sachs allies, have banked over the years.

Every time I hear people trying to separate the LibLabCon I'm reminded of one of the very best Futurama episodes "A Head in the Polls". And not least because Nixon returns as President of Earth.

[One of the candidates, Jack Johnson, begins the (TV) debate.]

JOHNSON : It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".

[The other candidate is John Jackson.]

JACKSON : Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!

FRY (on the couch) : These are the candidates? They sound like clones. Wait a minute. They are clones!

LEELA : Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.

JOHNSON : I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

JACKSON : And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

FRY : If I were registered to vote, I send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.

(Thanks to http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futura ... Polls.html for saving me the trouble of transcribing this bit of the episode)

Frankly, there is no party line. Theft, assistant to global scale theft, speaking gigs, Euro millions and eventual taxpayer funded retirement to somewhere nice - there's your LibLabCon mouthpiece and it's CV. I'm thinking that re-armament is the way to go - not to invade our neighbours but just to force them to deport our swindlers for our lamp post decorations. It's gun boat diplomacy of sorts but I really do want these thieves to stand trial at some point. Can't help but laugh at the reasons we cut off the head of Charles - divorced from reality, borrowing on behalf of the country to enrich his friends and allies..... all sounding a bit familiar ... no taxation without representation ...