I’m a couple of months behind on this one, but various councils in Essex have embraced a litter campaign which features these two posters.
The feminists have gone ballistic over it. I became aware of it when I updated that Ched Evans story and had a look at the Jean Hatchet blog to see if she’d wet herself over the news yet, and discovered she was wetting herself over this instead.
Apparently – and you need the frontal lobotomy that goes along with feminism get even close to seeing any wrong in it – the posters imply that men are “smart” and women are “pretty”. And as we know, that proves all men are swine to the average feminist.
Actually, if you aren’t unfortunate enough to be afflicted by the mental gymnastics required to be a feminist, what the posters actually say is that the bloke on the left is “smart” in the sartorial sense (which he is), and the woman on the right is “pretty” (which she is). The ads then play on these two words to get the anti-littering campaign across.
The people kicking up a stink only seem interested in these two posters, but there are others in the campaign, and these are shown below.
I think the one on the right is just a prototype, and it appears unfinished. However, when you look at this collection it’s not quite so easy to winkle out a sexist agenda from it. It seems that you have to be able to convince yourself that it is being suggested men are mentally smart compared with women. The use of the word “pretty” can only realistically stand any chance of getting you your 15 minutes of fame if a man says or implies it, and puts it in writing. These posters don’t really do that.
Mind you, the first two don’t, either. I guess that’s why the story is confined to a local rag and not the international media agencies.
I’m surprised this ad campaign from Suffolk didn’t attract the looney feminists.
After all, that person in the ad is a female, and that automatically means that every aspect of it must therefore be sexist. I mean, if you have the required short circuits in your brain, the ad clearly implies that women are ”tossers” (a gender-reversal in the usual meaning of that colloquial term), and that most litterers are women. The woman is also wearing nail varnish, and everyone know that this is just pandering to bestial male traits.
Now, you may recall that Lee Rigby’s murderers – Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale – were Muslim converts. They requested to be named as Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah at their trial. One of them at least had links to radical Muslim groups, and they cited the killing of Muslims by British Armed Forces as the reason for their attack on Rigby.
The thing is, as soon as I saw the name “Sarandev Bhambra” in this current incident, I thought: but that’s not a Muslim name. Then I saw a photo of Dr Bhambra outside the court, with a Sikh guy behind him. From what I can work out, that chap was his brother – Dr Tarlochan Singh Bhambra. Clearly, Zack Davies was so retarded that he couldn’t tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, and was prepared to use skin colour as his guiding light.
Although I’ve included a photo of Davies, I think it’s fair to say that he’s never going to see the light of day again. And assuming he hasn’t already bred, there is also no chance whatsoever of him now doing so. And that is a great victory for mankind, even if it nearly cost Dr Bhambra his life.
A few months ago, all hell broke loose in the Primark store, Leicester. You see, it turns out that a security guard – who was also a man (see feminist representation below) – had approached a woman who was breastfeeding and asked her to leave.
She refused, and the guard allegedly ripped the baby from her breast and effectively dangled it like a metaphorical carrot before the metaphorical donkey, telling her that if she wanted her daughter she’d have to go and get her.
At the time of the alleged incident, the woman – Caroline Starmer, 28, of Leicester – hurried on over to the Free to Feed breastfeeding campaign page and told her tale. She further wrote that she was in “complete shock” as a result of this “horrific experience” and in “a right mess” as a result of her treatment. Indeed, she was “shot” – which anyone would be after plundering the thesaurus so completely.
As you might imagine, there were plenty of people out there who believed the story immediately. They actually WANTED to believe it – starting with the kind of people who would join a website or campaign like Free to Feed*, and followed rapidly by those who host daytime TV shows.
Even in the first article, reporting the incident just after it had happened, Primark had pointed out that there was no CCTV evidence that she’d even been approached, let alone had her child torn from her breast. It concluded:
…that the customer’s allegation is not supported by the available evidence to date.
Quite. And the reason that the allegation wasn’t supported was that it never happened. None of it. You see, Starmer, whose Facebook page contains the “profile picture” below, along with loads of photos of children (of which she apparently has four) and little else, made it up.
In actual fact, they knew as long ago as five minutes after she made the claim that she’d made it up. CCTV doesn’t lie. It took just 14 days from the initial story to the 2nd one, announcing she was being taken to court.
Leicestershire Police investigated her claims but she was charged with intent to pervert the course of justice.
Primark initially said it would investigate the allegation but after viewing in-store CCTV footage denied the incident had taken place.
Her Facebook page is curiously empty since May this year, though it appears to have been regularly used up until that time. That isn’t surprising, though I’d have liked to have seen what had been written before it was taken down.
Starmer has been warned that she could be jailed when she is sentenced in December. Hopefully, she will be (God only knows the damage she could have done if anyone of the male persuasion had been named in all this). But don’t hold your breath – she holds the aces, being a woman and a mother.
All in all, someone who really should be up for a Darwin Award if it wasn’t for the fact her DNA is already out there.
Laughably, Free to Feed has responded. In the updated BBC story, they apparently:
…apologised to Primark and said there were “no winners here”.
Actually, there are. Primark won. The police won. Justice won. Starmer lost. And Free to Feed ended up looking foolish for joining the bandwagon so readily. They added:
Our good nature and intent was completely abused by someone that we believed in good faith, and wanted to help.
Perhaps if they hadn’t been so eager to believe without having the facts, the risky matter of faith wouldn’t have been an issue. And their other comment:
What possesses people to fabricate lies on this level and drag everyone else down with them, will always be a mystery to us
Isn’t such a mystery when you consider the amount of money a woman is likely to receive if there is even the slightest degree of implied discrimination against her.
* My opinion on breastfeeding in public is as valid as anyone else’s. Perhaps more so, since it isn’t warped by the flood of hormones that seem to follow the birth of some people’s children (and I include the fathers in that), forcing them to believe that everyone else should be glad to experience every noise and bodily function their child is capable of.
I don’t care how “natural” it is: breastfeeding should be done privately in cordoned off areas intended for the purpose – not in full view of everyone. And that’s just as true when the person doing it is part of the Militant Front. A baby is quite likely to puke (“spit up” is the Earth Mommy phrase) after feeding, and if I’m eating in a restaurant I definitely do not want that forced on me any more than I want to savour the smell of a soiled nappy while I’m in the middle of a steak. (and I experienced that once when I was in France).
I shouldn’t have to. Period.
Police are going to prosecute dozens of drivers who drove the wrong way on the M60 slip road near Sale in Greater Manchester.
On the other hand, ITV reports that they AREN’T being prosecuted.
It’s sufficient to point out that they are all twats, and the fact that it happened in Manchester totally fits in with a police spokesman’s comment:
The laws of the road are there for a reason, which is to protect motorists and people need to realise that they cannot do what they want, when they want.
That last line sums up the problem with our roads today.
I was shopping in Asda tonight. I paid for my items at the self-checkout by debit card, and also requested £30 cash back. I loaded my bags into my trolley, but I forgot to pick up my cash from the tray.
Let’s just say that there was a bloke behind me who didn’t call me back, and who hasn’t handed the money to anyone at the store.
Let’s also just say that I’d recognise him if I saw him again, and he’d better have a really good excuse if I do – though thieving scum like him don’t usually have to worry about excuses.
Maybe I’m missing something, and the title of this article is therefore wrong, but I saw this article on the BBC website just now. It would appear that Leicestershire Police have been “trialling” a scheme whereby they have not fully investigated burglaries involving properties with odd-numbered addresses.
Just think about that. Now that the burglars know, they can target all the odd-numbers – or in other words, they can burgle one side of the street with little fear of being caught (most burglars get away with it anyway, so this pretty much guarantees them a free hand as long as they stick to the odd-numbered houses).
Leicestershire Police think it’s a great idea:
…[they] said the pilot scheme had had no adverse effect on public satisfaction or crime rates.
Can you believe that Leicestershire Police could really be so absolutely and pathetically stupid as to come out with a comment like this?
Trust me: now that the public knows, “public satisfaction” will (and should) nosedive into the ground – particularly among those burglary victims living in odd-numbered houses. As for crime rates not increasing, well it just shows what a pathetically low solution rates they must be working to if they can afford to ignore half of the cases.
The Police seem to have lost the plot completely. The article adds:
Results of the three-month trial are being evaluated and could see it rolled out throughout the East Midlands.
So. If someone can please explain to me what it is I’m missing here I’d be most grateful.I mean, are they really telling burglars that they won’t properly investigate odd-numbered house raids?
This one appeared on the newsfeeds today. Up in Scotland, an example of the crassest parents imaginable filmed their 7-year old daughter driving the family BMW.
You can view an original YouTube clip here, although I don’t think this is THE original. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the parents who posted it in the first place haven’t pulled it down now, having realised what a deep pile of shit they’ve gotten themselves into.
The girl is clearly not wearing a seatbelt. She appears to be controlling the pedals herself, though the news article says she’s on her mother’s lap. Either way, several laws are being broken. A seven year old girl driving a car is not something decent parents should be encouraging. The father has defended it, saying his father did it with him and he “passed his test first time”.
Yeah. But look what a crap parent it’s turned him into. He hasn’t worked that one out for himself yet, has he?
In the article, the stunt is condemned by IAM, but they need to be careful about sending out mixed messages to people with the IQs of frogs, as they also support the young driver initiative I have criticised on several previous occasions. Because when it comes down to it, the parents of this Scottish girl are not that much different to those who gleefully send their 11-year olds for driving lessons.
The parents of that girl are going to be in serious trouble. And it serves them right.
Take a look at this story in the Daily Mail. Someone has posted a link on YouTube to a CCTV video of a man and woman putting their child in a laundromat washing machine, then panicking when they couldn’t get it out as the wash cycle began.
Here’s the video:
This is only a recent YouTube posting, so I would expect the identities of the two people to become known in due course. One can only hope that the authorities in whatever country is involved (it looks like the USA) conclude rightly that the pair are unfit to be parents, and the child is taken into care for its own safety.
The two people involved are clearly front-runners for this year’s Darwin Award.
Another one from the Daily Mail today – has to be seen to be believed. Take a look at this video:
Adeel Ayub filmed himself – or rather, had himself filmed (who was the accomplice?) – causing significant damage to the Asda store where he worked. He is shown causing damage to food, urinating in a bin (and the suggestion he also urinated in the fridge), slashing furniture, and damaging other stock and equipment.
He was given the maximum term possible by magistrates (its only 2 months, but he was shocked because he wasn’t expecting anything like that).
His lawyer, Manny Anwar-Qureshi said:
I don’t think the sentence is proportionate to the crime.
He was very remorseful and has grown up a lot since the incidents.
He was stitched up by other people. I am very surprised at the sentence given the crimes were four years ago.
You can see him making High Court Judge in a year or two, can’t you?
But back to Ayub… he can’t really be all there, can he? It makes you wonder how you can possibly share the same DNA with someone like this. I mean, you just can’t get your head around the fact that this kind of vermin even exists! He has grown up a lot? He’s 30, for God’s sake – which means he was 26 when he did this. Grown up? What was he before – a vegetable?
It serves him right he has gone to jail. The only possible downside is that he is already overburdened with an attitude problem and that is bound to develop further, because this kind of person never accepts blame for things like this.