Friday, 22 January 2010


The sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Slag in the Doncaster Court, yesterday.I am awful sorry, lads, that you're here, today, in a grown-ups' place, with angry strangers and people hating you. I'm sorry because you're only children and it's not your fault that your Mam and Dad, well, how can I put it, didn't act like Mams and Dads should and as a result you don't act like children should. It is not your fault, how could it be?

And, you know, we have made arrangements, so that when Mams and Dads aren't doing what they should then little guys like you are sent to live with nice people who act like real Mams and Dads do, it's just that it didn't happen that way for you. Maybe the man in charge of the people who should have made it happen was too busy with his boat, or his house in France, and he didn't, as he should have, made sure that you were being looked after. He gets paid an awful lot of money to make sure you are looked after and as often as not, he doesn't. We grown-ups should really sort that out but we never do. What happens is, and I'll let you into a secret, that none of the really important people are much good at making sure children are looked after and since none of them are any good we can't just pick on one of them, we have to pick on all of them, all the MPs, all the Directors and Chief Executives of this and that, all the Head Teachers and the Chief Constables and yes, all the Judges, everybody, really, who knows about the sort of lives that you two blokes have had and allows them to continue and that, lads, is never gonna happen, is it, even you know that?

So, here's what's gonna happen. If you were nine years and three hundred and sixty four days old you wouldn't be here but when you are one day older, just one day, a minute really, then the police can do what they say is their core role, and that is prosecute you, so here you are, one minute you're a child whom the state must protect the next minute you're criminally responsible, and the state must prosecute you; I know, seems stupid, that's because it is stupid.

Anyway, because all these proper grown-ups failed to protect you from your Mam and Dad, doesn't mean that I can protect you and what I have to do is say things that the newspapers will like to hear, because if I don't that's what we call, in my game, failing in my duty to the public and what that means too, is that instead of going to some nice people who are going to act like a real Mam and Dad, which is what should have happened long ago you'll be going into custody, just to satisfy the angry stupid people, and when you can come out, well, that depends. But don't worry, because in our nice country, in which I am so proud to be a judge we lock up more young people and for longer and at a younger age than almost anywhere else, something for everyone to be proud of there, I feel. And let this be a warning, if you don't want to go inside at eleven make sure you are born to parents who will send you to a good school and give you every advantage, like I did. Take them down.

Here is what the shitbag really said:

Mr Justice Keith described the brothers’ crimes as “truly exceptional” during a lengthy sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court.

Here is the full text of his comments, with the two defendants referred to as A and B and their three victims referred to as C, D and E:

“The two of you know that you are going away for a very long time for boys of your age.

“I’ve got a lot to say to you and I’ll try to put it as simply as I can. It may be that you won’t understand everything I say but it will be explained to you later by your lawyers or social workers.

“Neither of you need me to tell you how shocking your attack on C was and how appalling and terrible your treatment of D and E was.

“You, B, were responsible for most of the violence on C. You stamped on his face when he was on the ground and you punched him in the face a number of times.

“But you, A, punched him in the stomach and you were holding him so that B could punch him, though you were eventually to tell B that it had to stop.

“I haven’t been told why C had his pants round his ankles, because C can’t bring himself to talk about it, but it is obvious that you were intending to humiliate him in some way. Your attack on him has left him emotionally scarred.

“But what you did to C doesn’t begin to compare with what you did to D and E.

As with C, you lured them to an isolated spot.

“You, A, took what was left of D’s pocket money, and you, B, took E’s mobile.

I’m not going to spell out everything you did then — that would take too long — but what it amounted to was torture. They were cut with broken glass.

“Their genitals — that’s their private parts — were kicked. Really heavy stones were thrown at their heads or dropped on them. They were whipped with sticks and branches.

“And they were gagged to stop them screaming. You, A, tried to strangle D with a metal hoop, putting your foot on his back for leverage, and E was then burned with a cigarette.

“They were forced to undress and covered with a plastic sheet, which was then set alight. At one stage, D had to ‘bum’ E. Fortunately, E doesn’t think D succeeded but they had to ‘snog’, and when E said he needed to pee he was told to do it into D’s mouth.

“E managed to avoid doing that, though his wee went down the side of D’s face.

“I don’t think you got a sexual thrill out of any of that, in the same way that robbing them of D’s pocket money and E’s mobile wasn’t about gain.

“It was all part of the torture and humiliation which you wanted to subject them to.

“Indeed, by recording parts of what you did on a mobile, you made at least some of this an example of ‘happy slapping’.

“Then, having frogmarched them to another isolated spot, you tried to strangle E this time. You forced both of them into a stream and, although E got to the other side and pretended he had killed himself by shoving a twig into his mouth, D crawled back to your side of the stream where you, A, threw part of a discarded sink at his head.

“Although there is some evidence that you were intending to kill them, the prosecution has accepted your pleas of not guilty to attempted murder and I therefore must assume that you didn’t intend to kill them.

“But you told the police that you thought that you had come close to killing D, and the fact is that this was prolonged, sadistic violence for no reason other than that you got a real kick out of hurting and humiliating them.

“Their physical and emotional scars will live with them for a very long time to come.

“Their relationship with each other has been seriously affected, and their parents have been left with a strong sense of guilt — which they don’t begin to deserve — about whether they could have done anything more to protect their boys.

“The first thing I have to decide is whether there is a significant risk of you committing what we lawyers call specified offences in the future, and a significant risk of those offences causing serious harm to people.

“In one sense, what you did speaks for itself. The fact that you couldn’t care less what happened to D and E is itself a strong indicator that you harm people simply because you want to.

“Everything I know about the two of you suggests that there is at the very least a significant risk — and in my opinion a very high risk — of the two of you committing really violent offences, causing your victims serious harm, unless your problems are properly addressed with the help of professionals.

“You had already shown, despite your age, a worrying pattern of offending and bad behaviour. Your convictions, A, as well as the reprimand and warning you received, were for your violent behaviour towards children and grown-ups alike.

“The reprimand you got, B, when you punched one of your teachers — a 50-year-old woman — and head-butted another was itself a serious incident.

“But most important of all is what the reports prepared on the two of you tell me about why you say you behaved as you did, and what the reports tell me about you. I’m going to be using longer words now because I’ll be quoting from those reports.

“You chose your victims because of their vulnerability and you wanted to assert your dominance over them by what the author of the pre-sentence report on you, A, called ‘the use of aggression, extreme violence and sexual degradation targeted to inflict maximum pain ... in order to gain a sense of power and control’ over their lives, and by what the author of the pre-sentence report on you, B, called a wish to control your victims ‘by domination, degradation and inflicting pain for the purpose of own emotional pleasure’.

“You, A, came across to the author of the pre-sentence report as someone who was ‘emotionally detached, desensitised and lacking in empathy towards your victims’ and you, B, were said to justify your actions ‘with a degree of righteous indignation’, which showed that you had no empathy for your victims at all.

“You have expressed views towards your victims which, in the opinion of the author of the pre-sentence report on you, prepared on you as recently as December 11, reflected ‘an intense rage’ on your part.

“It is this chilling detachment from what the two of you did coupled with, in your case, B, your anger and your attempts to justify your behaviour, which enable me to understand perfectly why the two of you have been assessed in the pre-sentence reports as posing a risk of serious harm to members of the public — a very high risk in your case, A, and a serious risk in yours, B.

“The conclusions in the very full pre-sentence reports are mirrored by the psychiatric assessments on you which I have also been provided with.

“They make grim reading. I know that positive things are said about you, A, by the manager of the secure unit in which you are being held, and that suggests that the time may eventually come when you are safe enough to be released.

“But Professor Bailey says that, when it comes to assessing the risks which you currently pose, you scored high when she looked at the things you’d done, and at the moment there is little which can be seen in your profile which might inhibit you.”

The judge added: “Dr Vizard, from whom I heard oral evidence as well, thinks that you, B, pose a very high risk of serious harm to others and will continue to do so until specialist help has been shown to be effective in changing your attitudes and behaviour.

“I know that it is said on your behalf that Dr Vizard’s views about you were unfairly coloured by your offending and your bad behaviour when she last interviewed you, and that many of the things she has said about you don’t sit comfortably with how well you are said to be doing in the secure unit where you are currently being held.

“But that, I think, can be explained by the fact that you can behave when you want to and when you think it may be in your interests to do so.

“The bottom line is that I am sure that both of you pose a very high risk of serious harm to others.

“In the light of all that, I turn to whether it really is necessary to pass indeterminate sentences on the two of you, rather than sentences for a fixed period of time, whether with an extended period of supervision after you have been released or with the normal period of supervision.

“I have decided that it is necessary to pass indeterminate sentences on you.

“As Professor Bailey says in her report on you, A, risk can only be predicted in the short term.

“I realise, of course, that young offenders can change and develop in a much shorter time than adults, but the risks which the two of you pose are so high that I do not think that it is possible for me to say that, in a particular number of years, the risks which the two of you pose will be such that you can safely be released.

“I have to leave that to the professionals who will be monitoring you over the years to see how much your behaviour and attitudes change.

“Finally, I have to decide how long you should remain in detention before your release can be considered.

“Here the focus is on what would have been the sentence if the court was not having to pass an indeterminate one.

“I have been referred to a number of previous cases in which boys of about your age and, in one case, a girl, have had to be sentenced for offences which share some of the features of your crimes.

“But none of those cases share all the features which make your offences so serious: the deliberate targeting of your victims, the prolonged attacks on them amounting to torture, the fact that there were two of you and there was more than one victim, the fact that your attack on D and E took place so soon after your attack on C, the humiliating sexual acts you forced D and E to perform, the appalling injuries they sustained, the life-threatening condition in which you left D and the emotional scarring with which they will have to live for so long.

“Your crimes are truly exceptional and how other children of your age have been dealt with affords little guidance about what would be appropriate for you.

“Against all that has to be put the fact that you are still very young. You can’t be expected to have developed the sort of mechanisms which grown-ups have and which make it easier for them to stop behaving badly.

“In particular, you never had guidance at home about the way you should behave. You come from a dysfunctional family, where the environment has been described as ‘toxic’ and the adults were hardly role models.

“There was an atmosphere of violence at home. You were never taught what the proper boundaries were, and your bad behaviour was never confronted within the family.

“It is not for me to apportion blame, though I do know that criticism has been levelled against social services and various child protection agencies for not intervening earlier.

“In addition, the law requires me to give you credit for the fact that you pleaded guilty and when it was that your lawyers told the prosecution which of the offences you would admit. I have factored all of that into the period which I have decided you must be detained for before your release can even be considered.

“You, B, are the younger, but I don’t think that I should distinguish between the two of you.

“You appear to be brighter than A and it looks as if, in some respects, you may have made some of the running.

“The total sentence which the court would have passed if it had been passing a fixed sentence on you would have been 10 years’ detention.

“The law would have required you to have been released after you had served half that sentence.

“That means that the law requires the period for which you will now both be detained before your release can be considered is five years from when you were first remanded into the custody of the local authority.

“But you will not be released then. You will only be released when the authorities are satisfied that the risks which you pose are such that you can safely be released.

“I acknowledge that the effect of a minimum term of five years is that it will not have been completed by the time you get to the age of 14 and have to be transferred to a young offender institution from the secure local authority accommodation where you are currently held, and that the effect of that is that the possibility of you remaining in secure local authority accommodation after that age as boys who are in the care of the local authority will no longer be an option.

“I must now express the sentences which I pass on you more formally. On counts 10 and 11, which are the counts which charged you with causing D and E grievous bodily harm with intent, the concurrent sentences which I pass on each of you are ones of detention for public protection, and the minimum term which I set before your release can be considered is five years from when you were first remanded into the care of the local authority.

“I leave it to the lawyers to agree that date but, if they cannot, the case will be referred to the resident judge for him to determine that issue.

“Since the offences of robbery and causing or inciting a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity are an integral part of the incident which gave rise to the offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and since the minimum term which I have set for the offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent is based on the sentence which I would have passed for all your offences had I passed determinate sentences on counts 10 and 11, I propose to impose concurrent determinate sentences on all the other counts in the indictment.

“On count 3, for assaulting C occasioning him actual bodily harm, the sentence will be one of 30 months’ detention.

“On counts 4 and 5, for robbing D of his pocket money and E of his mobile, the sentences will be 18 months’ detention on each count.

“On counts 6 and 7, for causing or inciting D to attempt the anal penetration of E, and for causing or inciting E to attempt to be penetrated anally by D, the sentences will be 24 months’ detention on each count.

“As I have said, all those sentences will be served concurrently with each other, and concurrently with the period of detention for public protection to be served on counts 10 and 11.

“All of that means that you will be detained for at least five years from last April before your release can even be considered.

“Since the sexual offences were all about degrading and humiliating D and E, rather than for the two of you to get a sexual thrill, I have concluded that this is not an appropriate case to make sexual offences prevention orders in your cases.

“Finally, since you have pleaded guilty to sexual offences of the kind listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, you will remain on what is colloquially called the sex offenders register for the period prescribed by law, which, in view of the length of the sentence of detention passed for those offences and your age, will be for the period of three-and-a-half years.

“If you were to have been released from detention in that time, the practical result would have been for those responsible for caring for you to notify the police of your address when you were released, and when you changed your address later on within those three-and-a-half years.

“However, all this is academic because you will not be released within the next three-and-a-half years. That concludes what I have to say and you should now leave the court.

The judge continued: “I now want to say something to C’s family, but principally to the families of D and E.

“I want them to know that I have taken into account the devastating effect that all of this has had on their lives and on the lives of the three boys.

“I have no doubt that they would have preferred to see A and B locked up for very much longer and I know that nothing can compare with the trauma which the boys went through.

“But I hope that they will appreciate that five years is the very least which A and B will serve.

“They may well be in detention for much longer than that and it will ultimately depend on when the authorities conclude that they no longer represent a risk to the public.

“I should also like to thank the court staff for ensuring that the special arrangements which have been put in place for this trial in view of A and B’s age worked so smoothly.


Mothers Ruin said...

That speech should look good next to his dummy in the Law Society's Hall of Fame,or whatever it's called.
What's that saying about history being kind to me? Perhaps when those boys grow up they may even understand what he was droning on about.

Anonymous said...

Look on the bright side, lessons wii have been learned. The question is how many more children will be harmed before these clowns who are in charge acually do something to stop children being harmed? Day after day week after week the papers are full of this sort of stuff last week in Manchester a young couple were charged with the nurder of the slags child and you will never guese the child was " known" to the social services. If ever an organisation was found to be a bigger waste of space, money and time I would like to know about it.
Social workers not allowed into the homes of where these children are at risk by the mother and her latest scumbag boyfriend, what the fuck? Not allowed in, why are they too busy skinning up or cooking up some skag?
It would seem to me that society as a whole is dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause and that cause is allowing these women to breed unchecked. Karen Matthews the failed kidnapper 7 children 5 different fathers and what have these men have in common besides no taste in women? The fact not one of them paid a penny in upkeep of the chidren they sired. You have heard of wash and go these believe in fuck and go as after they have doen the business wiped theit dick on the curtains and say " Right love I will leave you with it." and they do. 9 months later another prospective feral child pops out another one on the "caseload" for the totally inadequate social worker and drain on the taxpayer. This has got to stop and stop now and I don't give a fuck about tough love ar any of that shit the only way it will stop if the slags benefits are stopped and I do know the first one is usually a mistake the rest are career moves.
It should in my opion start at school where they are told that birth control is available and free and it should be made perfectly clear that the girl if she had a child there will be no way that accomodation will made available for her and if she has a second child no money as well for it.
Soem slag from Wythenshawe in Manchester was on the front page of the paper a while ago, she was not yet 40 years of age but had 3 daughters who all had at least 1 child each she said she was very proud of the but not that proud to go out to fucking work to keep them.
I now live abroad away from this scum but I wish you good luck as I think you will need it.

Anonymous said...

Mr Nomad's caring brother popped in to say Hello.

Anonymous said...

Good news and bad news. The good news is that a bus carrying lawyers went over a cliff killing all the passengers the bad news? There were a couple of empty seats on the bus.

Rasmus said...

The state has gradually usurped the responsibility for the rearing and educating children and has used this to further its own political agenda.
It has also, through it's system of benefits sought to generate more children that it could create into it's Model Citizens and has, in so doing, brought about such a monstrous mess as the "Model Family" in this case.
In reality the members of this family are using the denizens of Westminster as role models.
Porn films, bullying,torture,theft, obtaining money through threats and coercion, mind control,total lack of any form of self control etc. It all sound particularly like New Labour, the part of the people.

mongoose said...

It is a terrible indictment, Mr Ishmael, that these two posts come one after the other. What is the point of putting in jail a mother who kills her brain-dead son? What is the point of banging up two - thoroughly horrible BTW - little children? (Apart that is from getting them away from their fucking useless parents.)

Even if what the lady did was wrong, there is nothing to be gained. She will not be going around killing any more sons. The disaster is the disaster. "Go home, madam, and find what peace you can."

The two lads, of course, are likely lost already.

PT Barnum said...

Based on what can be gleaned from all the coverage, it appears that a conspiracy of the mother, her procession of violent and thuggish partners, and all the "caring" professionals have succeeded in creating two sociopaths who will always be a potential threat to others. They may be capable of being taught ways to restrain their impulses, but that will not erase their impulses. All the usual suspects with their knee-jerk drivel about "are some people born evil?" should have sinks dropped on their heads. These boys are the extreme version of what happens when you let subnormal and selfish scum "raise" children: you get sociopaths.

TDG said...

In the past, psychopaths would be expelled from society, perhaps to perish in the streets, and certainly with little hope of reproducing. Now we incentivize them to perpetuate their abject misery down ever multiplying generations. Maybe Mr Smith is right lots of love in the right place from the right people will work. Sadly chances are he is not.

Agatha said...

Mr. TDG,
Babies are bundles of potential. There they are, with their instincts in place, latent virtues, vices, illnesses, etc, awaiting the environmental inputs to create the database, to trigger the potentialities. They are little learning machines and will process what they see, hear, touch, taste, feel, experience: whether that is good, bad,neutral,value-laden, value-free, dangerous, risky - whatever.Of course Mr. Smith is right. Input leads to output as the night follows the day. Problem is, where is the love to come from, when their own parents deny it, pervert it, have never experienced it, abandon their young to fend for themselves against a serial tide of uncles, drug and alcohol abuse. And, of course, poverty. Unfortunately, the State makes a rotten parent, you know. Paedophiles, pimps and dealers hang around children's homes, looking for the vulnerable. Foster placements and adoptions break down, compounding the original damage. I don't know the answer. Maybe there isn't one,
Best Regards,

Mothers Ruin said...

From the limited news that is released,we are told that Venables and Thompson are now leading useful and fulfilling lives,as is Mary Bell. We can but hope that this is true and that these two boys may discover humanity in the future.
Sorry Mr Mongoose and Mr Barnum,but they are as much victims as the kids they tortured. Ruination was on trial,not two little boys.

call me ishmael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
call me ishmael said...

Call it whatever you will,Mr TDG, we all know and respond to it, love, kindness, a positive rather than a negative. I merely suggest a change of emphasis; it was the late Auberon Waugh who damned Britons - but the New Britons especially - as the most punishment-happy people in the developed world. It is so fucking Old Testament and it doesn't work, evidently. Quod erat demonstrandum. The idea that harsh punishment redeems or reforms or deters others is demonstrably fallacious.

As for the singling-out of those at the bottom of the heap - those most vulnerable to the depradations of almost twenty-four hour Cruelty TV, of the Lustaround sexualisation of infants, the peddling of unsustainable and ultimately worthless greed as a lifelong catechism and on and on and on down Ruin's shitty thoroughfares, well, wiser heads than those you castigate find it tough, with all the advantages of education and income and familial stability of sorts, to stay on an even keel. Generations, now, have been paying whatever stipend of uselessness it is which enabled the mad, rotten bastard Thatcher and her amoral spivs, Parkinson and Tebbit and that fucking gobby social climbing nasrcissist gabshite clown Heseltine to bray or simper or growl that Unemployment Is a Price Worth (You) paying, only not Tebbit, as he slid to directorships of those utilities he privatised, sucking, also, on Mohamed al Fayed's munificent cock, until he was found out and then, oh Fuck Me, I never knew, I never did anything wrong, same old shit. And not Thatcher, the whole family hoovering-up donations from coked-up Arab playboys in gold-plated helicopters, grinning her Death's Head lunatic grin at the butcher Pinochet. The price worth paying is always paid by the poor; this time, in a torrent of filth from an uncountable number of unregulated media the price is freakishly high as what we call sink estates metamorphose into Hogarth's Gin Lane, only ten times worse.

I sometimes slump, a mixture of fatigue and curiosity, in front of the box and surf an evening's output. From early evening there is that foul old plasticene baggage, former Robert Maxwell slapper Ann Robinson, ludicrous faux dominatrix, lamely mouthing the cruel insults her producer speaks into her ears, as hapless fuckwit competitors in this vile charade of a general knowledge quiz squirm and blush. Come now, Mr Smith, the putrid old shitbag would probably counter, just a bit of fun, winking, like a thousand year old courtesan.

And it goes on all night, Cruelty TV, that prick Simon Cowell and his gang, the viciousness of EastEnders, the Dragons Den bozos insulting their client group, the screaming fairy, Gordon Ramsay, effing and blinding at would-be restaurateurs. This is mainstream TV, much of it on the BBC. And then there is the world, alien to me, of video and DVD nasties, of cheap drink and of No Expectations, a celebrity culture of the walking dead like Amy Winehouse or Pete Doherty or Junky chic stalwarts diving in and out of Rehab, when poor junkies would go to jail, of the gang-raping Premiershits paid so many millions for so very little, of bankers shitting in our faces and if these denizens whom we slander see anything at all of society it is thieving bastards like the Blairs or the six hundred-odd poncing slags in Westminster, or his idle Grace the Duke of Cornwall, I say, old chap, all right if I roger your Mrs, there's a good chap, going to be King y'know. Which bit of all this shit is going to inspire boot-strapping or law-abidingness or Decency, down there where we throw people for whom the system temporarily has no use?

Psychopaths? Who wouldn't be? One look at that insolent cocksucker Tony McNutter or the washed-out bit of rough, Caroline Flint, is enough to drain me entirely of empathy, and I, as you very well know, am largely normal.

call me ishmael said...

That's good to know, mr mothers Ruin, thanks.

PT Barnum said...

Mother's Ruin, you and I do not disagree. My post made it insufficiently clear that, in my eyes, that they are victims who victimise in turn. The two boys they tortured will likely become reasonably stable and positive human beings because they have a family context from which to build and mend. The two who did the torturing? I hope they are given a chance to do the same. The former are damaged. The latter are damaged and dangerous. May both pairs enjoy a hopeful future.

call me ishmael said...


Attorney General urged to increase sentence in Edlington torture case
Child welfare campaigners have called for a longer sentence to be given to the two brothers who tortured and sexually humiliated two young boys.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Published: 10:00PM GMT 23 Jan 2010

The boys were given an indefinite custodial sentence by a judge who said they must spend five years in detention before they are even considered for release.

However, campaigners criticised this for being "too lenient" and have urged Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, to increase the minimum term the two brothers will have to serve for the sadistic crimes.

Michelle Elliott, the founder of the charity Kidscape, joined other children's groups in voicing concerns over the sentence, saying the young victims deserved the security of knowing their tormentors could not be released for at least a decade.

I am minded said...

Hang 'em and be done with it i say, lest they grow up to become Secretary of State for Justice.

Anonymous said...

They mean selective child welfare campaigners, don't they, nobody interested in child welfare would call for longer periods of child imprisonment.

Anonymous said...

It all depends of how far away you live from these little soon to to big scumbags. The last time I was in the UK I visited a friend who lives on shall we say a less desireable council estates. 8 Year old kids calling me mate and could I give them a fag I hope they meant a cigarette. He is stuck there not a chance of him moving now but the tales he was telling me certainly changed my mind on compulsory euthanasia. Its a bit like "low level crime" ask the old lady who has been on the recieving end of this low level crime see what she thinks of it. These children are afraid of nothing and no one certainly not the police one little bastard was arrested 3 times in 1 day. Wouldn't it be great if Jack Straw, Harman, fat bastard Prescot were phoning the old bill about them but they are not and won't be bothered ever from these terrors and thats what they do they terrorise people with impunity. Give one of the little bastards a slap you end up doing time you never know you might end up sharing a cell with his daddy.
Which brings us back to what is the solution and its obvious that the women who are breeding these children have to be stopped I know families in the UK who are 4th generation scum never worked, multiple fathers of their offspring. OK for the first few months as in ooh isn't it a lovely baby, then shut the fuck up as I'm watching daytime TV. Of course people have sympathy with these unloved and unwanted children but my sympathies lie with their victims

call me ishmael said...

It's just that they are all victims, mr anonymous, victims of fifty odd years of incompetent and venal career politicans who have shat in all our faces and are, of course deloghted, that we focus on the crimes of the lowliest, poorest shittiest most fucked-up people in society rather than, as we should, those of Prescott, the others you mention and countless others, all of whom are loving all this shit as it takes our attention away from them. Four generatins ago people didn't make themselves unemployed, the state and the market did that; four generations ago people didn't make themselves promiscuous and feckless, the pill and the media and the antics of our betters, the writings of phoney sociologists like Germaine Greer insisted that free love was where its at.

Your feelings are perfectly genuine and sincere and I don't rebuke you for them but, you know, a fish rots from the top. Look at the filth who run, inform, educate, entertain and organise our nation, look at the example set by, just for instance, the career politicians in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast - thieves, knaves, ponces, slags, pimps, liars, warmongers, shit-eaters, hypocrites, drunks, blackmailers and lunatics. Single mothers are a tiny part of what ails our nation. Lift up your eyes, unto the real Ruin.

Anonymous said...

Lift up your eyes, unto the real Ruin> I have and I agree with you 100% as to what has happened ober the last 40 years or so when the fat bastard Prescott was one of the "politically motivated" men when he was a shop stupid on a boat, now look at him if you can. Not just him all of the fuckers who have let a once great nation turn into the cess pit it is now. I could see this happening from the bottom of the heap so to speak and I left school when I was 15. The question is if I could see this shit coming why couldn't they?Or perhaps they could.

mongoose said...

Indeed, Mr PTB, and others. All are victims and let us hope that all are not yet lost. There is though, even in the most gentle of upbringings, these days the ever-there trumpeting of the snide, the shite, the piss-take.

A friend took me out the other week and we met a further friend of hers. "He's very funny", she had said. After an hour I was up for slitting his throat. I am sorry but this is just an unkind arsehole. There was no humour, no wit. There was just cruelty, spite and poking fun at strangers. And children pick all this up. When young, they may not pick up all the meaning but they get the intent and the drive. They get the message. So if you cannot be kind, be silent.

call me ishmael said...

We did this, didn't we, in a Climate of Insult, a while back, prompted, I believe, by a similar comment of yours and a sustained barrage on the same theme from mr the dyers garden but it bears repeating. You shoulda punched him, responded to your own mental hygiene needs.

Anonymous said...

nice post. thanks.