Blog powered by Typepad

« I owe 'Shuggy' a large glass of 'Scottish water'! | Main | Death where is thy sting ... ouch! »

Thursday, 14 December 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can see you put a lot of thought into that post, "Dave", so I'll give it the response it deserves: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HO-HO you cunt.

Well, there you have it, folks, a perfect example from a recent graduate of the English-speaking (sort of) 'edukashun' system. And you paid for all of that!

David, I honestly can't tell whether your sarcastic comment is in response to Mr McShot's offering or the post of your own that precedes it. Probably both.

There are indeed some prostitutes who pay tax and N.I, though not I suspect the poor souls doing it for drugs money. The tax man is not squeamish about where his money comes from and some in the oldest profession take the view that they're in enough trouble already. If memory serves me correctly 'aromatherapist' is a popular cover. I do have a reference for this somewhere, which I will try to unearth if the chaos wrought by the builders ever subsides.

Welcome, as always, Barry, but I expect rather more from you!

Clairwil, yes, of course, at the 'higher' end of the market no doubt they do declare something just to keep the taxman off their backs but down at the street level, not a chance. Apart from anything else, I suspect most of them are collecting benefits!

What truly enrages me is when *feminist* liberals condone young girls being enticed into the sex trade but only complain because they don't have union rights! And all because they dare not risk losing their 'street cred' by admitting what is obvious to any human being with a glimmer of imagination, that commercial sex is degrading and truly inhuman. For example:

I think the libertarian argument regarding the top end of the profession has been won, though the law doesn't reflect this. I can't say that I condone anyone entering prostitution, however they do and I can't find an argument to prevent anyone setting the terms for which they'll have sex.

As for the 'lower end' you are spot on, though this has as much to do with the degradation of addiction as anything else.

On a purely personal level I'm furious to the point of murder every time I see some young semi-toothless female addict being dragged into town by her 'boyfriend' to earn 'their' money. If prostitution is such a breeze I'm at a loss as to why more men don't hire themselves out.

Clairwil, I think you're in danger of 'selling the pass'. There is *no* intrinsic difference between up market whoring or down market, except possibly clean sheets - or indeed, any sheets! The degredation is the same. The girls on the Playboy Channel may be better looking and earn more money but they are just as damaged as the sad sacks on the streets of Ipswich.

Another point that no-one, as far as I know, has raised is the startling fact that Ipswich *has* a red light district in which prostitutes openly hawk their wares. Fifty years ago that would never have been tolerated. Of course, there would have been some sort of semi-hidden sex trade but it would have been tiny in comparison to now, and the reason for the growth is contained precisely in that word 'tolerate'. The liberals have convinced us, or to be exact, they have subverted us with that insidious temptation of a society in which 'fun for all, all the time' is the motto and so any kind of behaviour must be 'tolerated'. Of course, it's not much 'fun' for the stupid, working-class girls who fall into drugs and prostitution and who, in times not that far past, would have been shamed out of even approaching such a life. Today, everyone is ashamed to be ashamed!

Morning David, I see your morals are butting heads with reality again.

Since it's always two minutes to midnight in Britain for you, I thought I'd refer you to this article from yesterday's Times.,,1072-2502113,00.html


Thanks, 'Ratty', but the writer of that article should know that most writers on the subject, including me, allow for the very obvious distortions produced by Shipman.

However, in the spirit of fraternity, allow me to point you in this direction:

Also, I would remind you of yet another 'adjustment' to the figures *not* included by the writer to whom you referred me, which is the tremendous advances in A&E medical techniques in recent years which has saved so many of the stabbed, shot and battered who are trolleyed in every weekend!

Well, I thought that article might cheer you up David, but if you're determined to see Britain as a blasted hellzone ravaged by murderous gangs, I can't reassure you.

What scale are you talking about for these miraculous advances in medical science? Thirty years?

As for that article, are you really relying on the old "statistics can show anything" wheeze?

Are you implying that there are thousands of murders that go unrecorded? Scotland and England may have different legal systems, but murder is still murder and is reported as such by the Procurator Fiscal.

I spent five years working in Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and I can say with absolute certainty that the incidence of violent crime remained constant throughout - higher than I'd like, but not quite at Mad Max II levels.

I still work in the justice system, so I hope this will calm you down - Scotland is no more violent now than it has been in the past ten years.

Maybe England has turned into Lord of the Flies and the government and the media are conspiring to keep it quiet, I don't live there.

Anyway, cheer up Duff. “It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen.”

'In the words of the great Richard Littlejohn'

I think that says it all. Oh, if you were after a link or more of a response, you'll have to troll a little harder.

'Ratty', I'm surprised at you! Here we are discussing the effect or otherwise of the death penalty and you're talking of how things haven't changed much in *ten* years. I'm talking about the statistics that might cast some light on the problem, that is, the last *45* years from 1960 when the death penalty was, in effect, fading out prior to being abolished in 1965. To quote from my reply to 'Dr. Teabag' in a previous discussion: "I refer you to:

and suggest you scroll down to the first graph ..."

Look hard at that graph, 'Ratty', and see if anything occurs!

Next, I will quote *you*: "if you're determined to see Britain as a blasted hellzone ravaged by murderous gangs, I can't reassure you." Now tell me true, 'Ratty' would you take your wife or mother down the High Street of any moderately sized town on a Friday or Saturday night? When I was a young boy/man in the 1950s you could do that quite safely.

And are you intimating that A&E technologies and expertise have *not* increased enormously over the last 40 years such that very many more badly wounded people are saved who would otherwise have died? And if you are fond of statistics, take a look at the number of attacks involving weapons or severe brutality and see how they compare to 40 years ago.

I liked your quote - please save me the trouble of trying to find it by tipping me off.

Rachel, I am never very sure what Bloggers mean by the word "troll" and its derivatives but in most cases it appears to mean some-one who comes on your site and disagrees with you! Well, this is *my* site so I can hardly indulge in 'trolling' here but, anyway, unlike yourself, I never mind anyone disagreeing with me, in fact, I welcome it. It's called debate you see. You'll have to get used to it if you are determined to stand on a political platform - well, assuming it is *democratic* politics you are pursuing, that is!

Herodotus, David.

I walk through Edinburgh city centre with my girlfriend all the time, I wouldn't have any qualms about taking my mum out for dinner there. None whatsoever, and Edinburgh has some fairly nasty slums in close proximity.

I looked at your graph, it looks terrifying, doesn't it?

And wouldn't you know, the murder rate has increased, by about five hundred a year.

Nine hundred murders a year sounds unbelievable for a population of 55 million.

But here's the little secret you learn in the court service - you're many times more likely to be murdered by your Dad, your partner or your best friend than by a stranger.

Want to know how many cases I saw in which an innocent punter ambling down the street was murdered by complete strangers, in five years at the court?

Two, and only one could be described as intentional murder rather than a mugging gone wrong.

I couldn't count the number of parents killing their kids, men killing their wives, brothers killing each other etc. I saw.

All of those crimes had one thing in common - they were done in hot blood, on the spur of the moment, and in most cases the cops arrived to find the accused in floods of tears, protesting that they hadn't meant it to go so far.

Basically, these murders were committed by someone the victim knew, who was so enraged that they didn't even realise they were about to commit murder. Only an idiot would imagine that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the incidence of such killings.

I think I've showed you this before, but it seems relevant here.

And reading your post again, who's middle class?

My dad's a car mechanic and I grew up on a council estate, you condescending arse.

David, I call it trolling when someone posts personal insults. As you are someone who spends a very great deal of time on the internet trolling, flaming and baiting people to apparently fulfil some deep-seated need in your character and personality, I am surprised that you have not come across the word before. Certainly you are considered quite a well-known troll, stirrer, and curmudgeon on many websites. I always asssumed that was your aim: to be known for such things. Each to their own.


Calling me 'Stupid'is a personal insult. As you seem incapable of attempting to debate without resorting to insults, I choose to ignore what you say, much as I would ignore someone who tries to start a debate in a pub by shouting out 'are you looking at me, you c**t?' Or a small boy who tries to get attention by getting his cock out.

I began this, apparently never-ending, series of posts by metaphorically spitting at liberals whose lofty complacency in the face of the mounting pile of murdered corpses is, in my opinion, despicable. Perhaps some of you think I exagerate. If so, just read this quote from 'Ratty's' comment up above:

"I looked at your graph [showing the murder rate accelerating since the abolition of the death penalty], it looks terrifying, doesn't it?

And wouldn't you know, the murder rate has increased, by about five hundred a year.

Nine hundred murders a year sounds unbelievable for a population of 55 million."

There you have it! 500 *more* innocent people slaughtered every *year* and it is treated with humorous irony and dismissed as inconsequential, no need for any action, it's all part of life and, er, death; now, where did I put my Guardian?

And for an example of Olympic standard obtuseness, try this from 'Ratty':

"Basically, these murders were committed by someone the victim knew, who was so enraged that they didn't even realise they were about to commit murder. Only an idiot would imagine that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the incidence of such killings."

Does he think those motives were *not* present in, say, 1950 when the death penalty held back the murder rate? In fact, I suggest that because the general population was more disciplined then, the proportion of domestic murders against stranger murders was probably higher then than now. In any event, on what authority does he suggest that the severity of a punishment has *no* effect on people's behaviour? He, apparently and unsurprisingly, works in the 'Justice' system (please don't giggle!), and if his proposition that punishment has no deterrent effect was generally accepted, he would soon be out of a job because there would be no point in having Courts to dish out punishment!

In a final question of total irrelevance he asks, "who's middle class?" You are, 'Ratty', and so am I, and beneath us there is no longer any 'working' class only a sub-class of 'Calibans' whose lives would be infinitely safer if the middle-classes hadn't succumbed to hedonism and refused point blank to have their 'rights' to enjoy porn, booze, drugs and whatever else took their fancy, restricted in any way. The sad, pathetic, knock-on results can be seen littering the countryside round Iswich!

Rachel, calling you "stupid" may or may not be an insult but it is certainly a statement of fact. I cannot be blamed for the third-rate quality of what passes for your thought processes on subjects about which you know nothing and which might have elicited more respect from me if they had come with even a modicum of doubt, or at least, as tentative conclusions instead of the strident certainty with which they were expressed.

If my remarks upset you then may I suggest, in a kindly and well-meant way, that you forgo the career in politics to which you are attracted and climb down off the platform upon which you cut such a sorry figure of fun.

I see I have stung you by naming your behaviour: good. I expected an immediate personal attack if my words hit home. Followed by a quick denial, and an attempt to pourr scorn on the psychology, then a final round of abuse, counter-accusation and self-justification.

The one thing people who bully and troll can't bear is someone pointing out what the bully/troll has a personal need that is being gratified by their bullying/trolling. That your behaviour tells me more than perhaps you would like me to know about you, Mr Duff. That your determined attempts to seek internet notoriety by flaming, trolling, insulting and posturing here and elsewhere show me that you have a quite desperate need for attention. And this is how you get it met.

The thing you can't bear is having this pointed out, as evidenced by another personal attack on me for pointing out your behaviour. The other thing you can't bear is being ignored. Having done the first, I am now about to do the second.

I will sign off by pointing out an inaccuracy: I am a blogger and author, and as I said on 18 Doughty St last week, I do not want to be a politician. I do not seek a 'platform', but seem to have attracted a small readership simply by writing a blog about my thoughts and experiences, like millions of other bloggers. Nobody has to read it if they don't want to.

Occasionally I am asked to be a commenter or to write on political matters. I additionally campaign with survivors and families for an inquiry into 7/7, perhaps that is what you refer to as a 'platform'? In which case I do not see why you seek to be rude only to me, you should also be publicly insulting the other survivors and bereaved.

Personally, I do not feel a need to go about the blogosphere insulting other bloggers in order to be controversial, I simply blog, write and get on with my life. It matters little to me that you have sought to attract my attention by calling me stupid, you may go on to call me ugly or deluded or selfish or cruel or whatever else you like, Mr Duff, because I know, as I have pointed out, that you need to behave this way.

I am not going to indulge you any more however, by taking further notice of it. Good luck with your hobby of winding up people on the internet, I hope for your sake you continue to find an outraged audience as I am quite worried about how you would cope psychologically without one.

Rachel, I'm afraid to tell you that I remain remarkably 'unstung'!

Normally, I do not comment on other bloggers' typos, spelling mistakes and awkward grammar being all too aware of the Biblical precept concerning motes and beams, but in view of your proud boast to be an author and writer on political matters I can only hope that you have a good editor because in your 442 words up above, you made 4 spelling mistakes and failed to punctuate properly several times. One or two of your sentences are ungrammatical to the point of incomprehensibility, for example, "... someone pointing out what the bully/troll has a personal need that is ..."; or downright ugly, "And this is how you get it met". The "[T]wo men who changed my life when they told me I was a writer and must keep writing: Fergal Keane, journalist/writer and Gary Duffy, the UK editor of the BBC News website" have much to answer for. Still, I always thought Keane sounded like a sanctimonious, Paddy pillock!

The fact that you used the first person singular on 19 occasions, I leave as a private matter between you and your psychologist but it augers well for a political career.

Finally, and just for the record (as though anyone cared) I have never called you "ugly" (how could I, I have no idea what you look like) but I did once salute your courage but I suppose that was "trolling", too!

Fine David, I can see I'm wasting my time.

I may be speaking from personal experience, rather than hysteria, but your facile and symplistic worldview is clearly far more accurate than mine.

Best of luck with the political campaign, there's always a ready market for easy answers to complex questions.

At the risk of making a post without an insult, do you think the killer in Ipswich may be not quite sane?

Do you think he makes a rational calculation that says "well I'll kill as many whore's as I can, because its worth spending the next few decades inside. However I do hope they won't bring back capital punishment, as I couldn't face the gallows.."

Now there, 'PS', unlike 'Ratty', you touch upon a relevant and interesting topic.

What do you mean by "sane" or its opposite 'insane', and how do you know? And before you admit, quite honourably, that you are not a psychiatrist, how would *they* know, either? The fact that many highly qualified psychiatrists keep letting men out of asylums after which they go off to kill yet more people might give you a clue!

And if insanity is nigh on impossible to judge with accuracy because no-one can get into the mind of some-one else, why should it be a defence? Is Peter Sutcliffe insane?

And finally, the vast majority of murderers are *not* insane and the fear of the rope will have an effect on them.

I'm merely suggesting that something isn't quite right with the person doing the murders.

Regarding the fear of punishment, surely this only applies to those murders that are actually planned. Punishment is largely irrelevant for unplanned murders (fights that go too far, muggings that go wrong, crimes of passion, those committed by the mentally ill etc). I'm interested to know whether your rope applies to everyone, or whether you are going to restrict its use to those types that can be deterred - planned murders. What age is the youngest you would hang? etc.

"I'm merely suggesting that something isn't quite right with the person doing the murders."

I can't argue with that but putting an *accurate* name to it is very difficult. You might call it 'insanity', I might call it 'wickedness', but what, precisely and accurately, those words mean, I would not care to explicate. I think we should just ignore them and instead concentrate on what people do, and the results.

It seems to me that premeditation is crucial. If some-one reacts instantaneously (that is, something happens to them or is likely to happen to them) and a death occurs, that is manslaughter and the penalty should be as wide as possible depending on the circumstances. If some-one takes deliberate steps, or, takes repeated steps, or, is a helpful party to some-one else taking such steps, to damage another person and the result is death, that is murder and they should hang.

I would add this rider; that in such cases the rope should not be the only penalty. The judge should have the freedom to sentence some-one to prison for life or to the age of 80, whichever comes first. I would provide that choice for two reasons; first, too many soppy juries would fail to convict if they knew the rope was next, and there are always odd cases where the circumstances are special.

To be honest, I do not have a view on age limits except that they should exist but at what age ... I don't know ... my gut feeling is 16.

You may well be interested in this:

regarding statistics for the murder rate. It explains what I was attempting to explain a few weeks back, but better.

Someone else thinks that Duffster's attack on Rachel was rude, personal and distasteful.

'PS' and Ion, I have responded respectively on both the sites you mention.

And Ion, following your admonition, I really did pause and think for a bit whether I had overstepped the bounds in my assault on Rachel, but on the whole, bearing in mind her ability to dish it out, I think not. The words "heat" and "kitchen" occur!

Why would I ever expect you to take the upper hand when the lower path will do. It's so convenient.

You mean I lived down to your expectations!

The comments to this entry are closed.