Blog powered by Typepad

« The Cycloptic vision of your average liberal | Main | "Oh Fool, I shall go mad." »

Tuesday, 25 September 2007

Comments

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

And what? In the interests of full disclosure it would be useful if you could also state your agenda in the body of this post. Why are you posting this list? Is it simply to summarise BBC reports for those of us who are pressed for time? Is it merely intended to pay respect to the deceased? Or do you have another purpose in mind? Casual readers of this site should not be misled as to the nature of this cynical exploitation.

Make of it what you will, Mr. Hosehorse, and if *you* are one of the "casual readers of this site" and find yourself 'cynically exploited', then more fool you!

"Why are you posting this list?"

Why not...?

Or are you saying you'd prefer not to see it all gathered in one place.

Closing your eyes to the reality of modern life helps, does it...?

If memory serves, David said he believed that the police were deliberately misclassifying murders to save face - as David often reminds us, we should "just count the bodies".

Of course, David's survey looks on course to closely match the police's annual figures, but I don't imagine that will disabuse him of his conspiracy theories.

Feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong, Mr. Duff.

Indeed you are wrong again, 'Ratty', which is such a comfort in an otherwise ever-changing world! It is not the police who classify murder incorrectly but the judicial system led by a liberal movement which has enjoyed a pernicious influence in our affairs since the 1960s. I am neither seeking to prove or disprove anyone's statistics. What I am doing is confirming my own suspicion that this country has degenerated over the last 40-plus years and offering a tiny memorial to some human beings who have been slaughtered because several governments of different hues have betrayed them. If you, 'Ratty', and other liberals find it uncomfortable to face the facts of death, many of which are the product of policies you espouse, then pass by on the other side of the road and avert your gaze. Liberal idealists are awfully good at that sort of thing!

What I am doing is confirming my own suspicion that this country has degenerated over the last 40-plus years and offering a tiny memorial to some human beings...

(Stifles laughter, maintains composure with difficulty)

What a load of self-serving old cock David - the majority of murder victims are men aged 18-30 who are in the lowest-earning section of society.

Precisely the type, in other words, who would get both barrels from your elephant gun if they took a short-cut across your back garden. The same type that feel the edge of your razor-sharp bloggy wit when their boozy rowdiness has spoilt your evenings out with the missus.

Honestly, I don't believe for a second that you feel any compassion for any of these people. All they are to you is a bloody shirt to wave while you point at the liberals, a group that you define so broadly that you render the term utterly meaningless.

As for "liberals are discomfited by the facts of death", try spending a few years doing this job...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition_(Scots_law)

...And we'll talk.

"...the majority of murder victims are men aged 18-30..."

Whew! That's all right then...

As long as they are in the majority, women and children can sleep at night, knowing the odds are in their favour.

I mean, who cares about men aged 18-30, eh...?

"Honestly, I don't believe for a second that you feel any compassion for any of these people."

It would appear, from your comment (vacuous as it was) that neither do you...

Julia, you mustn't be too harsh with 'Ratty' because I rather like his interventions here, he makes me feel so intelligent! For example, with perfect timing he came on here last night to sneer at my notion that the country was degenerating and we wake up this morning to find that *four* people were shot last night in Manchester, two of them boys of 12 and 15. If this had occurred in 1957 instead 2007, there would have been pandemonium and I do not exagerate when I say that such an event on the streets of England might well have brought down a government.

That's the 'progress' that the great liberal movement of the last 40 years has brought us. Any re-actionary calls for a return to the disciplines of the past are howled down by the liberals with the likes of 'Ratty' leading from the front.

Oh hell, I take it back, Julia, be as cruel as you like!

ADDITIONAL: I READ IN MY MORNING PAPER TODAY THAT LAST THURSDAY IN MANCHESTER A YOUNG MAN OF 24, HOLDING DOWN A JOB WHILST TRAINING TO BE A TEACHER WAS STABBED FOR HIS WALLET AND DIED IN A POOL OF HIS OWN BLOOD. "OH BRAVE NEW (LIBERAL) WORLD!"

JuliaM: Or are you saying you'd prefer not to see it all gathered in one place.

I expressly asked David if that was his intention, Julia. I don't have any problem at all with the gathering of information, provided it is presented in good faith and the intentions of the statistician are clear for all to see. The problem I have is that David is exploiting the memories of these people in order to pimp his own grubby agenda, about which he is atypically coy lest his grotesque pretense of compassionate memorial be exposed.

All you have to do is ask him what he thinks we should do about the problem of rising murder rates; eventually, after a lot of tedious "what do you think?" from him, he spills the beans. I just think he should upfront about the purpose of this project, is all. I'm asking him for honesty, and he offers us evasion. Are you happy with that?

Closing your eyes to the reality of modern life helps, does it...?

Oh shut up, you sanctimonious bore. If David really cared about "the reality of modern life" outside of his own petty, selfish agendas he'd be posting about the suicide rate in this country, or, if you want some really jawdropping, heartbreakingly immense numbers, the mounting death toll in Iraq. But these don't help sell his so-called "solution", so they don't warrant a mention in David's disgusting charade of a "tiny memorial". It's a tiny disgrace.

Who cares about men aged 18-30, eh?

Not David, if they inconvenience him in any way - and if you want a reasoned response from me, you can consider the point I'm making and respond to that.

So, would my comments receive any better consideration if I prefixed them with chest-beating, tear-stained tributes to the victims of violence? If I joined in David's fraudulent wailing for strangers, would I get a fair hearing?

Of course not, because that's not the point of David's little posts.

It's just an exercise in demonstrative emoting for the glorification of Duff's immaculate conscience, and every corpse is merely a platform for David to stand on to better bewail the horrors of the modern age and wave his little noose.

Of course, when others engage in such flagrant appeals to emotion to mask their ulterior agendas, Duff is the first to put the boot in.

Wouldn't you agree that what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander?

Cut away the crocodile tears and you're left with this premise - Bring back hanging and very harsh sentencing, and the crime rate will drop drastically.

Well, maybe, maybe not - it's up to Duff to demonstrate that this is the case, and he will never do that by engaging in disingenuous emotional blackmail.

Steady on, Hosehorse, old chap, remember you're British!

I can't quite follow your logic, perhaps because there isn't any. If I am quite so "coy" and 'evasive', how is that you claim to know my, er, *hidden*, *secret* "agenda"?

Nor do I follow your apparent belief that a "statistician" should have an 'intention', that is, outside the mere production of facts and figures. I provide both of those and very occasionally I add a comment which is clearly labelled as such. If you don't like these particular stats, if they upset you in some way, if they give you momentary pause to wonder and doubt and you find that uncomfortable, then please don't read them. Obviously I cannot be expected to grade them like a film with a warning that they are strictly for adults only!

'Ratty' jumped in as I was replying to Hosehorse.

I really do seem to be touching a few nerves here, at last. The tinge of anger, fear and loathing that is so evident in the comments from the 'liberalocracy' is a strong indication of their aversion to facing up to the results of their great liberal experiment.

I put forward my suggestion to improve matters and receive the expected deluge of sneers and abuse with equanimity whilst I wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, for them to come up with *their* possible solutions to the dire state of affairs we find ourselves in. This non-appearance of any suggestion may be due to their belief that there is nothing wrong in our society, or, more likely, because they haven't a clue how to put it right.

I really do seem to be touching a few nerves here...

Yes, you are David, but it certainly isn't because we can't handle the terrifying truth of your words.

It's because you repeatedly make assertions unsupported by evidence and then thoroughly patronise any attempts at rebuttal.

Further, you're demanding that commenters come up with crime-reduction schemes, while utterly failing to demonstrate that the ones you're proposing will work.

And here's the point - It's your blog. You're the one who has to demonstrate that your opinion is correct, not your commenters.

deluge of sneers and abuse...

Why do you think that is, David? Could it be because you love dishing it out, but can't take it?

Here's the deal - if you want me to consider your contention that the murder rate is a direct result of the great liberal experiment, then you should make an effort to demonstrate that this is true.

What you're doing at the moment looks like this...

Is it a coincidence that microwave ownership has gone from near zero to millions in the past thirty years, while the murder rate has doubled?

I conclude that microwaves are scrambling the brains of the populace and driving them to murder. If you don't agree, I'd like to see how YOU would counter the threat of microwave-inspired butchery!

How can anyone argue against that? Once you've said But that's obviously wrong, there's not much else to be added.

Now, I've asked you to look at this kind of thing before, and I'll ask you one last time - please, acquaint yourself with logic and fallacies.

The one below is the one you commit most often and most brazenly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

And still I wait ...

Steady on, Hosehorse, old chap, remember you're British!

Yeah. This from the person who tells us that his previously stiff upper lip is all a-quiver at the thought of all these poor murdered people.

If I am quite so "coy" and 'evasive', how is that you claim to know my, er, *hidden*, *secret* "agenda"?

You are being coy and evasive because you refuse to acknowledge, either in the post itself or when specifically requested to do so in the following comments, that these sordid little exercises of yours are in the service of a particular agenda. The words "hidden" and "secret" are yours, not mine. I know what your agenda is, because I’ve seen you go through with this tedious charade so many times before. I’d just appreciate if you’d come out with it and display some semblance of honesty and good faith. It would save us all so much time. Do you want to tell us yet, or are you going to insist on playing this childish "no, you tell me" game for the zillionth time?

Why don’t you admit it? I think it’s because even you feel shame at the way you exploit the memories of these 190 men, 49 women, and 25 children for your own cynical purposes. (And no, the numbers do not cause me to look away from the screen in self-disgust, much as you would like to imagine, you great big drama queen).

Nor do I follow your apparent belief that a "statistician" should have an 'intention'…

Sorry, I suppose “politician” is more appropriate here.

Again: nobody has a problem facing up to these figures. Believe it or not, the current murder rate has absolutely nothing to do with me, as I am not a part of, nor am I in any way invested in, this so-called "liberal experiment" you keep harping on about.

So quit pretending you have touched that particular nerve and face up to the real criticism here: (1) you are shamelessly exploiting the memories of nearly 300 dead Britons in order to sell your own political views; (2) you don’t even have the balls to say so; and (3) that you insist on playing this ridiculous runaround game with your commenters instead of having the decency to lay your cards on the table.

And still I wait...

See? You haven’t even answered the very first question put to you on this comment thread, and here you are with your annoying little games. It’s small wonder nobody takes you seriously, David.

"I'm leaning on the lampost at the corner of the street ..." Well, what else can I do as I wait, and wait, and ... oh, you know ... wait, for some one, anyone, to contribute a suggestion that might allow a conversation to proceed. It's no good me offering any, all that happens is a ton of smelly stuff falls on my head - not that I care!

Still, the questions remain unanswered: do you think there is something 'rotten in the state of Britain', and if so, what would *you* do about it?

Meanwhile I think I might try and actually finish a crossword as I wait ... and wait ...

"what would *you* do about it?"

Place all over-14s in forced labour camps.

You might as well buy a whole book of crosswords, because you'll be waiting a long time if you're going to continue to act like such a big kid about this.

We all know that you are not waiting for our ideas in the genuine interests of a good faith discussion; lord knows we've been through that before. You are merely waiting for someone to give you the opportunity to bring up your own favoured "solution", so you can continue to pretend that you weren't cheapening the names of the dead in this sleazy fashion.

So, again: why don't you just tell us what the point of all this is? Out with it, Duff, you disgusting fraud.

Can't you read, 'NIB'? I've heard all your diatribes concerning me, now, I want to hear what passes for your thoughts, God help me, assuming you think there is a problem that requires a new approach.

No, David, it's your turn: If you don't like my suggestion, explain why, and come up with a better one.

I'm waiting...

Duff, for goodness sake act like a man and come clean about your sleazy little ruse. Ignoring me is even more childish than your previous games.

"Oh shut up, you sanctimonious bore. "

Gibes a little with:

"...if you want a reasoned response from me, you can consider the point I'm making and respond to that."

I see your 'reasoned' response right there...

"...cheapening the names of the dead in this sleazy fashion"

Oh, God, that's rich. The only 'shirt waving' the likes of you object to is the sort David is doing here, with real victims. Given half a chance, the Left-leaning side are only too happy to wave their own bloody shirts (poor banged up murderers having to slop out, poor little terrorists shot by the SAS, poor misunderstood paedophiles who were only looking at pictures, sob sob, boo hoo).

Your problem is that these are the bloody shirts that none of the vast majority of law abiding people gives a damn for - and that is what you can't stand.

"..posting about the suicide rate in this country, or, if you want some really jawdropping, heartbreakingly immense numbers, the mounting death toll in Iraq."

Ah, I see. If he did, you'd be happy wouldn't you? Would you wander over here & ask him why he was posting these numbers, or what his agenda was? Nope, it would be just fine, I bet - because it would be the same agenda you have.

I have your number chum. You are a hypocrite of the first order, whatever your self-proclaimed politics.

You'd have a point, Julia, if you hadn't mixed up two different commenters.

There's a difference?

Naturally, David - I'm the one who sobs whenever killers and paedos are sentenced to jail time, and Hosehorse writes love poems to Jihadists.

Did you look at the Wiki pages about critical thinking yet?

You are different, eh..? You write the same incoherent, sanctimonious claptrap, so I'd naturally assumed you were just sockpuppets.

Julia, no need to worry about the murdered dead, this afternoon a callous young thug, 23, was actually found guilty of murder, and more-over, in one of 'Ratty's' favourite 'MacCourts' up in Jockland. Apparently he walked into some one else's house because they had complained about the noise and stabbed a young man repeatedly until he was dead in front of an 11-year old girl . According to his defence counsel, "His actions can only be explained by the huge amount of alcohol he consumed that night." Oh, I see, but I'm just surprised he didn't try for 'diminished responsibility', because, after all, it was really the booze's fault. Anyway, happily, he drew a really fierce, not to say, ferocious, sentence, er, by today's standards - life(?) but parole available after 14 years. So, he'll only be 37 when he steps jauntily out of gaol. I wonder if he'll bother laying some flowers on the grave of, er, 'wotsisname', you know, the bloke he slaughtered?

Well, Julia, since you already seem to know my opinions on a range of issues, I won't take issue with "sanctimonious" - it seems fair enough, since I'm lecturing Duff on his appalling logical errors.

But really, "incoherent"?

As for you, Duff, I see you're still hiding behind corpses. I'd expect nothing less.

"According to his defence counsel, "His actions can only be explained by the huge amount of alcohol he consumed that night.""

Funny, I (celebrating with my work colleagues) consumed a 'huge amount of alcohol' last Friday night.

Strangely, I was able to refrain from murdering someone. My colleagues must all have been similarly disciplined, as they showed up for work on Monday.

That leads me to suspect that alcohol is less to blame than the fact that he was a worthless and violent excuse for a man, but I'm not a defence solicitor, social worker, judge or 'Alcohol support worker' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7014285.stm), so what do I know....

"...since you already seem to know my opinions on a range of issues.."

Well, you show up on a lot of blogs I read, and you are not shy about your views...

"But really, "incoherent"?"

Like I said, you show up on a lot of blogs. I didn't say you made a lot of sense... ;)

Incidentally for anyone who believes that attempting to reason with David is the ultimate exercise in head-against-wall futility, I'd like to introduce you to Julia M.

Why, 'Larry', such a poor sport. Just because you can't win a game, you suggest taking your ball home. For shame!

Ah, so this *is* a game. Who'd have thought?

Julia, I’ve made my objections to David’s post perfectly clear, and none of them involve any "self-proclaimed" agenda on my part other than trying to compel David to confess to his own motives for posting these murder stats. That's really all I ask! It would be helpful if you could address what I’m actually saying instead of conjuring up spectres such as "the Left-leaning side" or "the likes of you". You don’t have to worry about the likes of me, since you are free to respond to the actual me if you please.

Another thing that’s a giant waste of time and a monumental stupidity is the repetition of this notion that David’s collection of victims makes me gasp and turn away like a vampire from the light. It really, really doesn’t, and I’d be happy to discuss these matters if our host would deign to show some honesty and good faith, rather than continue to pretend that he isn’t using these victims in the most shabby manner possible. He is apparently unable to do this, though, so the discussion remains at a stalemate.

My point about suicide rates and Iraq war death tolls was simply that if David were genuinely concerned about human suffering he might spend some time talking about these figures in addition to domestic murder rates, which pale in comparison. But he doesn’t care, so he doesn’t post. He posts death tolls only when they are useful for his particular political purposes, and given his track record in this regard, I think I certainly would be skeptical if he all of a sudden started posting about dead Iraqis or suicides.

One last thing: in your post you gave us a sample of the kinds of dead people that you do not care about (and as far as I can tell, neither myself, N.I.B., Larry or Flying Rodent - the "self-proclaimed" "left-leaning" leaders of the "liberal experiment", or whatever - have done such a thing). These included murderers and paedophiles. Have you considered, in that case, that you might have to spend some time looking into the backgrounds and possible criminal pasts of the 250-odd people that David lists here? After all, a good many of those victims may well have done time for murder themselves, or looked at paedophile porn, or fiddled with kids, and are therefore clearly not worthy of your sympathies. It would be a shame to waste some good crocodile tears on them.

"...given his track record in this regard, I think I certainly would be skeptical if he all of a sudden started posting about dead Iraqis or suicides."

In other words, you've made your mind up already, no matter what David posts.

So much for discussions and dialogue....

I have been running this blog for some years now and offered my opinions on this, that and the other, many a time and oft' - too oft', according to some readers! By publishing these stats in one place as a continuous stream I had hoped to provoke a discussion, *not* on my opinions but on the opinions of my readers. Of course, there is a catch - well what else would you expect from a former second-hand car dealer? - a particularly nasty catch for readers of a liberal disposition, because it is necessary, before you offer some idea as to how this distressing state of affairs can be improved, to admit that it *is* a "distressing state of affairs" and therefor (using some of 'Ratty's' beloved logic!) something has gone wrong in recent years to have brought it about.

I detect a slight reluctance on the part of some of my readers to face that unpleasant difficulty. I wonder why?

"Have you considered, in that case, that you might have to spend some time looking into the backgrounds and possible criminal pasts of the 250-odd people that David lists here? After all, a good many of those victims may well have done time for murder themselves, or looked at paedophile porn, or fiddled with kids, and are therefore clearly not worthy of your sympathies."

Oh, I'm fairly certain that a significant proportion of the murders listed are 'underclass killings' (motivated by gang rivalries, drug dealers falling out - possibly not the 4 year old boy, mind you, unless he was 'collateral damage'), but so what...?

Are you suggesting that an answer to these crimes is to let the feckless, criminal and addled cull their own numbers a little?

Because I'd prefer to see the rule of law, myself....

In other words nothing of the sort: skepticism, not dismissal, Julia.

Jesus. If you really must cherry-pick half a sentence and ignore everything else, you could at least understand what you're reading.

Julia, see if you can follow this:

1. You are claiming to be terribly concerned about the plights of the 250 listed murder victims, above. You call them "real victims".

2. You contrast these "real victims" with the type of victim that the "Left-leaning side" prefers. These include "poor banged up murderers having to slop out, poor little terrorists shot by the SAS, poor misunderstood paedophiles who were only looking at pictures, sob sob, boo hoo". Let's call these "Category B" victims.

3. Category B victims are ones that, according to you, "none of the vast majority of law abiding people gives a damn for".

4. You now admit that some of the "real victims" you profess to care about may include Category B victims (murderers, paedophiles, even drug dealers etc).

This leaves us with only 3 possible conclusions:

A. You are not a law-abiding citizen.
B. You actually only care about some of the so-called "real victims", but don't want to admit it.
C. You are unbelievably stupid.

Of course, these are not mutually exclusive.

Fans of option C, might get a chuckle from this: "Are you suggesting that an answer to these crimes is to let the feckless, criminal and addled cull their own numbers a little?"

I'll make this as simple as possible: no, Julia, not in any way, shape or form, you total basket-case.

David, you might just have the authority to talk about "reluctance" if you would just have the stones to answer the very first question put to you at the start of this thread. We're now some 40 comments in and you are still dodging the issue - it's moving swiftly from "reluctance" to pure cowardice.

C'mon, David. 'Fess up!

"You are claiming to be terribly concerned about the plights of the 250 listed murder victims, above. You call them "real victims"."

Wow, you are spectacularly dense, aren't you...?

A victim of murder is a victim of murder. No-one has the right (outside of self defence, law and order situations to preserve life, naturally) to take a life illegally, even IF the victim is a lowlife scumbag who may have committed crimes themselves. That should remain the province of the state.

By no stretch of the imagination are terrorists, paedophiles & murderers incarcerated by the state for their crimes 'victims'.

So, no discrepancy at all. Must try harder, 'Hosehorse'...

Julia: "That should remain the province of the state."

Hey, David! Guess what? I think you finally got that cue you were waiting for! Now you can pretend it was just a coincidence!

Another thing David, just a point of English usage really: you need to learn to distinguish between "touching a nerve" and "getting on peoples' nerves". Your talent consists solely of the latter.

So can I take it, then, that Julia apart, everyone else is either happy with the current state of affairs, or unhappy but unable to think of anything useful to do about it?

I mean, it has to be one or the other, it surely cannot be shyness holding you back!

I mean, it has to be one or the other, it surely cannot be shyness holding you back!

What's holding us back is you, and what's holding you back is your complete and utter cowardice. If you're going to ransack graves you could at least have the balls to admit it, and I'll take your several dozen refusals to even address this issue as evidence of your guilt.

The comments to this entry are closed.