Thursday, June 26, 2014
The ridiculous Savile hysteria continues unabated, still on no evidence
Nothing in the 'report' published today throws any light whatsoever but merely further stokes the witch-hunt against a deceased DJ and charity fund-raiser.
What the report authors identified were merely opportunities for potential abuse, and no evidence of any kind other than the mere allegations of behaviour, most of which would be fully expected to have been subsequently re-defined as abusive – 'inappropriate touching' is all down to interpretation. The three rape allegations are no less merely allegation; and, furthermore, the incidence here is a surprisingly low one given what would be anticipated from what is known about the widespread occurrence of false allegation -- conservatively 35% of all formal reports to police, on Home Office figures, and likely over (if not well over) 50% based on what police rape investigators state in surveys; and for often very trivial reasons ( see Prof Soothill's research and that of Dr McDowell).
Nothing in this pattern of reporting would be unexpected after such a very high-profile police-cum-media 'trawl'.
By far the more likely truth about Jimmy Savile is simply that he was a very high-profile, famous male individual whose job was to excite pop fans, and naturally this resulted in girls either throwing themselves at him or being fully open to sexual encounters. Given the wholesale lying by girls to get round the age-16 age bar re the Top of the Pops studio, then Savile is very likely to have had sex with a number of girls slightly under-age; but this would be fully expected re anyone in his position at the time, no matter how careful he had been to try to establish a girl's age. In any case, this was a technical legal infringement only, in that all of the girls were post-pubertal – so however misrepresented, it was not 'paedophilia'. With the high incidence of false allegation re sexual assault, then the outlier of the one pre-pubertal (nine-year-old) girl amongst the hundreds coming forward is the 'exception proving the rule' here.
The witch-hunt against Savile actually is not as lurid as the idiotic 'satantic ritual abuse' nonsense that the media, police and social workers swallowed hook line and sinker two decades ago; though now we have with Savile multiple allegations from supposed male victims – when we know that Savile had absolutely zero sexual interest in males – and that he supposedly indulged in necrophilia at Broadmoor. This last is all too predictable a ludicrous development from the way that similar sex witch-hunts have progressed in the past.
The authorities have made complete numpties of themselves in stoking the Savile debacle. It remains of course a possibility that Savile had an abusive side, but there is still no evidence of this, and the circumstantial indications are that he was simply a lucky bloke who capitalised on that luck, and that rather than causing any harm and distress added to the gaiety of the nation and put some sparkle into the lives of ordinary and less-than-ordinary individuals, and, not least, raised huge sums for worthy charities. In time, this hysteria will go the way of the hideously stupid 'satantic ritual abuse' cases, every single one of which turned out to be 100% perverse imagination.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
A “hardline view of immigrants? Come off it.
A "hardline view of immigrants? Come off it.
NO. That's the political-class spin.
The supposed conclusion of those behind the latest NatCen Social Research British Social Attitudes survey is false. What they found is expression of common-sense and not "anti-migrant" but anti-'political class' – a well-deserved curse on the policy-makers.
To make out that ordinary people en mass are xenophobic [sic] is to show scientific illiteracy. Research into in-grouping psychology reveals that it's all about in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'.
The authors of the survey point out that the better off / better educated are more pro-immigration (60% graduates v 17% of the rest). Of course they are! THEY are the more prejudiced: against ordinary people. Their natural elitist-separatism is heavily compounded by the great backlash by the political-Left (the elite) against 'the workers' for not buying the 'progressive project'. They've been educated OUT of common-sense and into a gullibility re 'PC'-nobbled stats.
What's more, ordinary folk are right on all these topics: even when the snooties running the survey think they've got 'em trapped.
That a quarter reckon migrants come here for benefits is a low proportion when you consider that in the UK benefits system being inextricable with the laxity re immigration and the near certainty to never being thrown out, there is a major cushion underpinning the willingness of migrants to come here for work, let alone for 'family reunion', etc.
When nearly a half reckon immigration leads to rising crime rates, they are simply reflecting what is known to result from both past and present inflows: the heavily disproportionate perpetration of street crime by 'blacks' and the criminal activities of Roma.
With only just over a half even of Londoners reckoning immigration is good for the economy (it's 28% in the rest of UK), people are indicating their accurate perception of the huge strain on infrastructure and the dis-economies of scale this produces: the need to incur vast expense to build a new supra level of new infrastructure.
And the now more than half the population who reckon to be "truly British" you need British ancestry are fully in line with all the recent research demolishing the "we're a nation of migrants" tosh. It turns out (from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA extensive studies) that the vast majority of UK citizens can trace their descent directly back to the mesolithic (middle stone age) and paleolithic (old stone age).
The rest of what is discovered in the new survey is even more straightforward common-sense: To be "truly British" you must speak English (95%), have lived most of your life here (77%), or have been born here (74%); legal immigrants who are not (as yet) British citizens shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as British citizens (actually, surprisingly low at 27%); EU migrants should wait three years+ for benefits (61%).
One of the study authors stated that people were "unaware of policies to control immigration" What ... like the recently rushed-through rule that benefits (supposedly) can't be claimed until you've been here for three months? That's a weird interpretation of 'controlling' immigration. Ordinary folk aren't stupid enough to be taken in that there is in place any 'control' worthy of the term.
Overall – not just re the economy – 47% regard immigration as negative; 31% positive. This is the most surprising stat from the whole survey: how come more than half are still hoodwinked?
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Home Office axing all checks re borders YET AGAIN
So the Gnome Orifice is at it yet again.
It is absolutely standard at the Home Office that they have no planning to deal with huge accumulations of applications re migration – whether it's visas, passports, or whatever – and then they are left with no other course but to completely eliminate all checks: ALL checks, of any kind. Rubber-stamping all applications as valid, irrespective of how fraudulent they are.
Of course, there is the 'watching their backs' ruse of making what they well know is the wholly empty claim that there is no threat to security or integrity of the system in doing this. They are very well practised in all this abuse: they fully know that there is no system worthy of the name in the first place re our borders.
So it was that again they used standard weasel words: to "enable overseas applications to be processed more quickly without compromising the quality and security of either the process or the passport".
The reason they continue, as ever, with this abomination is that the Gnome Orifice firmly believes that (1) movements across borders are in all respects not possible to control, and (2) that the political imperatives of 'identity politics' (enforced by the 'political correctness' ethos) in any case means that UK citizens are in no way privileged over any other citizen of any other nation in the world.
It really is THAT stupid.
To say that the Home Office is in all its facets – not the least re its pernicious impact on jurisprudence – is dysfunctional and 'not fit for purpose' is now so long a firm part of the national fabric that nothing registers any more. Just how the total wankers at the Gnome Orifice would like it.
