The heroes who let you bend the rules

This follows on from PCar’s comment under the OoL version of the previous post, a comment quoting Conservative Woman:

[H]er speech with its several allusions to the need for compromise, her repeated imputation that the problem still lies with her party and Parliament (not with her) for not falling in line with her phoney BRINO paradigm, the bottom common denominator of which necessarily had to go ever lower. There was no humility at all.

Nail. Head. Oh how far-reaching was that comment within a comment, as noted further down.

First though, where your humble blogger is coming from. If you go to my profile page, there is a political compass, placing me centre-right.


I’ve taken the test several times and each time, the averaged score has put me there. Reason for introducing this personal note is that one needs to know where a writer is coming from, again in the light of further down in this post.  Is he a closet far-left or a closet far-right, is his ‘centrality’ an averaged score?

And what about you, dear reader? Many of us are currently outraged by the way the rules are applied, as Ian Anderson, in Thick as a Brick [Tull], mentions:

And the sandcastle virtues are all swept away
In the tidal destruction the moral melee

And the youngest of the family is moving with authority
Building castles by the sea, he dares the tardy tide to wash them all aside

I’ve come down from the upper class to mend your rotten ways
My father was a man of power whom everyone obeyed

Playing at the hard case
You follow the example of the comic-paper idol
Who lets you bend the rules

That last bit chimes in with Conservative Woman and the cases mentioned above and below.

Against that, which you’ll observe is more in line with hard and fast rules, statutory punishments without flexibility for judges who must follow the code of penalties prescribed, irrespective of the personage being vilified or protected – against that view is the counterview that if the laws say one thing, they are not necessarily to be obeyed if they are wrong in our view, the view of the majority or that of the Bible.

Mr. Brownlow, in Oliver Twist, says that:

If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass.

Supported in the modern day by Ian Hislop, of Private Eye and HIGNFY, when he said, after a finding against him:

If that’s justice, then I’m a banana.

In that case, at that time, many would have agreed with him. Wiki:

Another libel case in May 1989 threatened the magazine’s continued existence when it was ordered to pay £600,000 in damages following an action for libel by Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.

Hislop told reporters waiting outside the High Court: “If that’s justice, then I’m a banana.” The award was dropped to £60,000 on appeal.[13]

Tommy Robinson was also held by quite a few to have been unfairly treated over the 13 month sentence.  Telegraph:

Robinson’s contempt of court conviction was quashed by Court of Appeal judges in August last year and he was released after serving two months of his sentence.

They ruled that the decision to commit him to prison “so promptly” and without “due regard” to rules governing procedures surrounding someone alleged to have acted in contempt of court “gave rise to unfairness”.

But the PTB did not like that – try, try and try again, eh?

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC announced earlier this month that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings against Robinson.

Now where have we seen that motif before? Perhaps in Ireland where they needed to run the referendum again until they got the correct result?

Ditto the Remoaners at this very moment, egged on by WMD Blair to get the result right once they can rig it to ensure the correct result.

Ditto in the States, where States are seceding, it it were possible, which it’s not, from the Electoral College system.  At least it’s not possible, short of civil war.

And the young man of the family is the Cortez of the Dem family, the Owen Jones here, the other Millennial know-nowts trotted out by the owned MSM.

And now, cue all the articulate anti-democrats who tout that much hijacked and abused term ‘liberals’ – now ranging from classical liberals, through those who support a traditional liberal arts education, to those who are nothing short of totalitarian [the left, CINOs, RINOs and Them themselves].

Which reminds me of that confrontation in A Man for all Seasons [Bolt, text not available online except through various pdfs] who has this exchange between More and Will Roper:

Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down, d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Roper: Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

That’s precisely the dilemma in this post now:

Take a clear case of Muslims acting to support Shariah Law which results in the current clip on social media of the woman being dragged by her hair by a man along the floor and abused, while other men look on approvingly.

The system they are wishing to be in place is well known by us and yet it results in the Army issuing guidelines on how to recognize any miscreants [us] opposing these things, just as we opposed IRA bombings and FGM – it recognises us as ‘far-right’.

Please see my Political Compass [above] again on that.

To finally get to the point of this post – we all hold contradictory views on things when test cases are brought up to challenge our breaking of the rules in the interest of the safety of the land, of our people, to prevent population replacement, hence the movements across Europe.

Are we wrong to point out that the PTB wish for this conflagration and mass bloodshed to take place, let alone the rapes and mutilations, and that our opposing all this, far from being hate speech, is love speech – love for the common people of all lands, their underpinning faiths and cultures?

Yet if we ride roughshod over the rules, bad as they are, where does that leave us? If you think your humble blogger has the answer to this, then you’d be disappointed.

Yet I do know the PTB must be stopped, the ones misusing the laws they themselves have put into place to exonerate themselves [see Blair and the death penalty for treason]:

And I do know the Muslims must be stopped coming in in these invasive numbers by the PTB – yet how to legally and legitimately stop this if the whole apparatus of state is hellbent on our destruction, the destruction of the common people, the destruction of Europe and other western nations, the destruction of the Christian basis of our culture and our legal systems?

[Late note – the little birds have just started the cacophony of tweeting in the branches outside our window at 04:20, Sunday – what are their rights?  What are mine, sorely in need of sleep?]

9 comments for “The heroes who let you bend the rules

  1. May 26, 2019 at 9:05 am

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the only thing that makes sense regarding the rampant immigration, the relentless push on climate change and others is unfettered capitalism/corporatism.

    Let’s import immigrants so there are more people to sell to, rather than a declining population. Declining profits are a bad thing for the corporations and they don’t care who they sell to as long as they keep selling. Indigenous populations don’t matter. TR and the rest are suppressed by the establishment. Nothing can be allowed to prevent profits.

    The climate change agenda permits or excuses the pollution caused my the extraction of all those elements that make up electric vehicles (true environmentalists would be up in arms, but are suppressed by the mantra “it’s good for the climate”) and climate change also allows the monetisation of land that wasn’t making any previously. Previously “unproductive” Moors, mountains and seafloor get wind farms and rainforest is slashed to grow crops for “sustainable” fuels.
    Every inch of the globe has to make money.

    The more you look, the more you see it’s simply all about making money.

    • Luther Burgsvik
      May 27, 2019 at 12:26 am

      From what I can discern it’s not as complicated as that. It’s simply a case that the people in charge (be they lefties, capitalists, or the church) are in favour of immigration, each for their own professed reason. Which means that it’s not about contexts (politics, economics, religion) and which group is in charge, it’s about the system (hierarchical institutions) itself which manifests the problems we are confronted with (eg immigration, feminisation, totalitarianism).

  2. Penseivat
    May 26, 2019 at 9:38 am

    The rampant immigration is just part of the plan by those in power who follow the tenets of the Frankfurt School of Marxism. Unlimited immigration leads to loss of national identity. The sexualisation of children, breakdown of the family unit, making victims the aggressors and vice versa (as in Bolton recently), fake news in media controlled by ‘Them’, are just some of those tenets which have either been enshrined in law or accepted by authority seeking a one world order. I fear there will be more dark days ahead.

    • Pcar
      May 27, 2019 at 2:21 am

      “Frankfurt School of Marxism”

      May fully signed up to it.

      It’s destroying UK

  3. Errol
    May 26, 2019 at 10:46 am

    Important to note that under the EAW the police could just have arrested him – without informing him of his crime, without representation and for an indefinite period.

    This is just black bag fascism – as it was intended to be. It is the start of the sort of demented communist fascism the Left are famous for.

    However, that the police haven’t implies they’re still abusing the British ‘justice’ system.

  4. Itellyounothing
    May 26, 2019 at 3:11 pm

    Parliament needs more oversight. The chartists of old suggested universal suffrage and annual parliaments.

    We don’t need a General Election every year.

    The Swiss style direct democracy sitting over their government seems like the way to go.

    Never again shall parliament doubt who they serve.

    Citizen initiated binding referenda for the UK…..

  5. May 26, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    La Chakrabati whimpering on on the Marr show about, what else, the horridness of it all: and how everything would be solved by a ‘Confirmatory / Residual / Existential / Derisory / People’s Vote (delete unnecessary adverbs) after the Stitch-up where we Remain within the Castle Keep; preferred by those who ‘know’.

    Surely, the word must have leaked out by now that the Elite much prefer the ‘Status Quo’, and are trying to find the right set of buzzwords which will explain to a dull and resentful nation of rebellious plebs that ‘No Way’ doesn’t actually mean what everyone thinks it means. After all, it worked in France, and Ireland; so why not here?

  6. May 26, 2019 at 6:36 pm


  7. Pcar
    May 27, 2019 at 2:29 am



    Ditto in the States, where States are seceding, it it were possible, which it’s not, from the Electoral College system. At least it’s not possible, short of civil war.

    Where to go?

    And the young man of the family is the Cortez of the Dem family, the Owen Jones here, the other Millennial know-nowts trotted out by the owned MSM.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joins the war on cauliflower
    Wow, who knew – Racist Vegetable! Is it because USA cauliflower looks very different to UK cauliflower? Why?

    AOC = Loony Tunes; how much did her parents donate to Boston Uni for her Economics & International Relations degree? She’s clueless on both.

    Quote of the week

    The ‘Mogg’ inveighed to the ERG group about the PM’s abject failure to get Brexit done and avoid the disastrous (for the Tories) European elections.

    ‘She promised us we wouldn’t be having any more MEPs,’ JRM said.

    Up popped burly Midlands Brexit sage Andrew Bridgen to quip: ‘As far as the Tories are concerned, she’s pretty much delivering on that.’

    [Edited to remove “New DM Ed’s Pro EU” anti-brexit bias]

    Letts & Hasting gone; Blackdog, Glover, Brummer, Sandbrook etc converted. Littlejohn & Hitchens on “to fire” list?

    Birds: sparrows? Those little things make way too much noise. I evicted them with hose & water.

    Cheers, Pcar 🙂

Comments are closed.