Check This, Assholes

Here’s something to brighten your day:

Miller was contacted following a complaint by an offended party about a poem he shared on social media which was deemed transphobic. The officer explained that, although not illegal, this nevertheless qualified as a ‘non-crime hate incident’.
Why, Miller asked, was the unnamed complainant described as a ‘victim’ if no crime had been committed? More to the point, why was he being investigated at all?
To which came that ominous response: ‘We need to check your thinking.’

So we’re all clear, this happened in Britishland, where the fuzz (I prefer the British term “filth”, myself) have been playing reindeer games like this:

Now I’m not one to advocate violence against the pigs (such as these);  I don’t believe in firebombing cop cars, or ambushing police officers, or anything like that.

But I would be hard-pressed to condemn an action where some free-speech-advocating malcontent might put a couple rounds of birdshot through this sign — as long as there weren’t any cops standing around, and nobody was hurt, or anything.

Note to the fascist Wokistas on this side of The Pond:  don’t even think about it [sic].  And if any of the local fuzz ever accuse me of an “offense” like this, they’d better have the relevant statute ready to quote, along with a large number of other cops.

I need to cut down my morning intake of gin, but bullshit like this doesn’t help.


  1. Well, Kim… maybe it is time to consider violence. I don’t mean to “fed-poast” on your site…but… in your parlance: the soap box has failed. The ballots boxes got stuffed with fake votes.

    There’s only one box left.

      1. Even if you manage to not give the judge suspicion that you are an independent thinker, there’s a civil motion “Non Obstante Verdicto, which Lawyers and Judges think is Latin, and means, “Your honor, there’s no way this is a reasonable verdict, please put your thumb on the scale and find for us, we shouldn’t have lost.” In Criminal law procedure I think they have to decide to retry the case, which I thought was a Constitutional violation called Double Jeopardy, but somehow there’s a work-around for the State.

        “We just want to check your thinking. ”
        No shit, Sherlock. While we’re at it, are we going to check which side you would have been on in WW2?

  2. Kim,
    rather than considering decreasing your morning ration, please consider the opposite.
    as I read/listen to the news every day, I may just join you.

  3. During the last Administration (which, considering what’s going on, has a double meaning), there was a push by the left for people to read “1984”. They wanted people to join in their delusion that they were living in a dystopia. They’ve imagined themselves as Winston Smiths, ready to topple the “totalitarian regime”, and I would usually point out that they were Parsons, the feeble-minded neighbor who was ever so enthusiastic to be under Big Brother’s thumb. I was half right; most of them are Parsons but there are plenty of them who are O’Brien in Room 101, ready to strap the head-cage full of rats onto anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

    1. They’ve imagined themselves as Winston Smiths, ready to topple the “totalitarian regime”

      In other words they either hadn’t read the book or did not understand what they read.

  4. As it turns out, the sign was incorrect: being offensive is NOT an offence in their jurisdiction.

    Very red-faced, they were forced to take down the sign.

Comments are closed.