London riots: Cameron has learned nothing, will do nothing

Can it really have been that this time last week that our streets were being torn apart by some of the worst civil unrest in recent British memory? Obviously not. In my head I had these terrible visions of men trying to defend their property being mown down and killed by drivers, of innocents being burned out of their homes, of passers-by being beaten up by gangs, of diners in restaurants being robbed en masse, of millions upon millions of pounds worth of property being destroyed even in the midst of Britain’s gravest financial crisis since the 30s, of kids as young as 11 exulting in the impunity of the watching police and looting to their heart’s content, of rioters being dignified as “protestors” by our state broadcaster and then given every…

(to read more, click here)

9 thoughts on “London riots: Cameron has learned nothing, will do nothing”

  1. Hi James,

    Long time no blog here, I know (I’ve been busy). However, I hope you have been getting on OK without me.

    Purely for technical (dysfunctionality) reasons, I have now set up a new blog on the WordPress website. However, with regard to this issue of civil disorder on our streets, I believe you may find this post on my old blog enlightening!

    I look forward to reading your new book and to reviewing it on Amazon (that is a promise not a threat); and I hope to be able to reciprocate one day by sending you my MA dissertation on climate change scepticism in the UK. However, for now, you will have to satisfy yourself with reading the Abstract for it on my new blog (i.e. scroll down to find it).

    If you have any time spare to do some reading of your own (not of peer-reviewed scientific literature of course), I would recommend David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History: Absolutely fascinating stuff I think but, to fully understand why I enjoyed it so much, you may need to review the appropriately-tagged posts on my old blog (if your cognitive dissonance will allow you).

    Regards,

    Martin.

    P.S. This has been simultaneously published on both my old and new blogs.

  2. “3. The BBC has outstayed its welcome. We need a greater plurality of opinion in our broadcast media which, thanks to bien-pensant regulation, we are currently denied. Scrap the licence fee, now!”

    100% agreed

  3. More than 1300 comments on this over on your Telegraph Blog. If it wasn’t for the fact that I am now (post-Aaronovitch) very wary of invoking conspiracy theories (other than when they are clearly based on facts and not just theory), I would say it was you that had ensured that my laptop will not allow me to comment on anything on the Telegraph/My Telegraph website; but that would be worthy of inclusion in the next edition of Voodoo Histories itself.

    What was that? Oh, you want to know what I mean when I refer to a factual conspiracy (to deny AGW) rather than an imagined one to denounce it as a myth? If so, you’d be wanting then to read Jacques, P. et al (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’ in Environmental Politics, Volume 17 (3), pp.349-85.
    However, if that sounds too much like peer-reviewed scientific literature for you, please see my “Wake up and smell the coffee” instead.

  4. James I am surprised you have not made the connection between social welfare and the riots. While we could all find many contributing factors to the ‘rioting’, I am sure most can see that predominantly we were all look at straight forward vandalism and theft taking place. Another name for this is socialism, commonly seen in the UK as welfare.

    Why Do I say that? Well think about it, what is ‘welfare’? Its money taken from some and given to other, by the government, through the use of force. Yes taxation is the use of force, don’t pay and see if armed police do not get sent for you!

    So, if its ok for the government to use force to take from some to give to others, why is it not ok for these people to just help themselves by force?

    Its not a question of rights, we have established and accepted ages ago to if you have no job you HAVE a right to the property of others. That right was given to any un-working person in any welfare state years ago.

    So here is my view of what happened last week: popular socialism, the welfare state in action by the people themselves!

    What we need is an understanding that life does NOT owe anyone a living, and that the ONLY grounds upon which civilisation can stand is the right to self and the right to property. These two inalienable rights ALONE make for a society in which we can live in peace with one another, take these two rights away and what happened in London and elsewhere is guaranteed to take place.

    Mark my words, the people involved do not intellectually claim they had a right to do what they did, they KNOW they had that right, its part of the fabric of their beings and their culture, passed down through 3 or 4 generations within their families and local societies, they WILL be doing the same thing again!

  5. To Martin Lack:
    I repost my reply on your new blogg, just in case it is does not appear there;

    Martin, you talk of a scientific consensus, I assume by this you mean a consensus of scientists that are A) not part of the UN political organisation known as the IPCC B) not using any IPCC data, information or in any way influenced by it, and C) the not funded by any government that is in any way benefiting from taxation connected to CO2 at all.

    When you say ‘… no attempt is made to prove…etc’ you obviously mean outside or the act of reading the ‘climategate’ emails, in which it is made quite clear that the data used in the computer climate models was manipulated before it was used to create the ‘we are doomed’ future that they have literally sold for over 1 trillion dollars, so far, through carbon trading alone! (Who knows how much money has been collected in CO2 tax!)

    So if you could kindly supply the EVIDENCE of truly independent scientists who have come to this ‘consensus’ and answer how despite ‘CO2 warming’ even NASSA now says that due to sun activity the world is entering into an extended cold spell, (note the cold winters) then perhaps you can shout about how blind us ‘deniers’ are!

  6. Martin, is there any point debating with someone like Delingpole who admits he doesn’t do science. When logic gets in the way, all he does is resort to calling his opponents libtards and watermelons.

  7. Don’t forget Nazis, Gordon. There’s always the “deliciously un-PC” argument that “Putting up wind farms is just like gassing Jews”.

  8. Aha, So now I know where Peter Freeman came from! For the reocrd (and those not brave enough to visit my blog), I did post Peter’s comment and many more after it but, since he seemed unable to understand the points I was making, he may now have given up(?) No doubt, he will claim I did not answer his critique of the IPCC (or carbon taxes or…). However, as per Gordon’s comment above (and Ben Goldacre in Bad Science), there probably is little point arguing… It really is like trying to reason with someone whith someone in the 9/11 Truth movement… Even so, it will be interesting to see just how long (and how many million climate refugees) it takes you denialists to admit you are wrong. As for Nazis, it took Peter less than 12 hours on my blog to mention them. That must be some kind of record, surely…

  9. Putting up wind farms is like Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel’s 1935 book Man the Unknown which promote eugenics as a “scientific” solution to the “problem of overpopulation”. Carrel did not go about directly promoting pseudoscience as a means of gassing Jews, but any lying pseudoscience is liable to have bad effects. Spending billions on inefficient high-maintenance and unreliable windfarms (air-conditioning is switched on during periods of hot weather, with stagnant high-pressure and no wind), will mean that money is unavailable for saving lives in the event of famine, war, drought, and, yes, “ethnic cleansing”.

    With Gordon Brown having nearly bankrupt the country with debt interest payments that we’re struggling to get under control even now, we don’t have the resources to prevent disasters. If Iranians or others with modern weapons decided to massacre Jews, we wouldn’t have the military resources to put a stop to it. Wasting money on windfarms just to massage the egos of cynical “green” eco-propagandarists who would be envy of Goebbels, is potentially just as disastrous a course of lying today as pro-eugenics “science” propaganda was in 1935. If you don’t have the money to stop a holocaust because you’ve wasted it on an uneconomic windfarm, the end result is still a holocaust. Excuses, laughing, anger, fury, rants that “nobody could have predicted this”-lies (after Churchill’s ignored warnings were proved right), and so on just don’t wash.

    You know you’re lying when you support these immoral-groupthink eco-pseudoscientists, who value one CO2 “endangered” bacterium as worth more than millions of human lives.

Comments are closed.