There, there, children, the Trigger Nanny will take care of you.


Now it appears this insidious nannying culture of trigger warnings has already arrived — not so much at British universities (though that will be inevitable) but in the hallowed and righteous halls of the broadcast media. There used to be a thing called the watershed at nine o’clock, after which time more adult material could be shown. We didn’t need to be given explicit warnings about filth and violence.

Read more at The Fortnightly Review.

You won’t find any nannying in my book.


UK Supreme Court rules against Scotland’s Name Person scheme.

Scotland’s Named Person scheme has been ruled unlawful by the UK’s Supreme Court.

The Court referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its decision:

Individual differences are the product of the interplay between the individual person and his upbringing and environment. Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.

Source: United Kingdom Supreme Court

EU Border Guard – perfect example of the Monnet method. #Brexit #Remain

A timely example of the Monnet method, ie, engrenage, as mentioned in previous post:

Improving the management of the EU’s external border is no longer just an aim, it is an emergency, according to an EESC opinion adopted today. But this should not be done at the detriment of fundamental human rights, notably the right to asylum and the right to free movement in the EU….

The Border Guard must be akin to a civilian police force, not a military force, adds the EESC in its opinion. The European Border Guard should be well trained and organised in order to fulfil its key missions: to rescue people and provide adequate care in respect of fundamental human rights and of the principle of “non-refoulement”.

Source: European Economic and Social Committee

If you want more on the EU and other stuff read my book. It also talks about the unintended horses of consequence.

The EU’s “Monnet method” of deception. #Brexit

Thus emerged[…]that strategy which came to be known as engrenage or ‘the Monnet method’.

There would never be any single, clear definition of these terms. But every ‘project’ insider would know what was meant be engrenage, or ‘gearing’. It provided a blanket word to describe all those various techniques whereby the ‘project’ could advance what was really its only underlying agenda: a steady, relentless pressure to extend the Commission’s supranational powers. Each new advance it made would merely be regarded as a means of gearing up for the next action. Each new addition to its competencies might begin with a small , innocuous-seeming proposal to which nobody could object: until the principle was conceded and those powers could then be steadily enlarged. Each new problem or setback could be used as a ‘beneficial crisis’ to justify further extending the Commission’s powers to provide the remedy.

Thus, brick by brick, would the great supranational structure be assembled. Above all it would be vital never to define too clearly what was the ‘project’s’ ultimate goal, for fear this would arouse the countervailing forces which might seek to sabotage it before it was complete.

In this sense, an intention to obscure and to deceive was implicit in the nature of the ‘project’ from the moment it was launched. This habit of concealment was to remain such a defining characteristic of the ‘project’ that it would come increasingly to affect all those caught in its spell.

Source: The Great Deception, by Christopher Booker and Richard North, p.583.


Europhile eaten by shark. Or Clegg monstered by Farage.

I’M NOT A fan of bloodsports but I did enjoy watching the battering that Nick Clegg took from Nigel Farage on British television this week in their debate on the merits and demerits of staying in the EU. Clegg was not just outclassed in performance but was also reduced to a lump of bloody meat in the process. It was like watching a shark going for a naked swimmer in a glass tank.

Read more about the bloodshed at The Fortnightly Review.


Oh dear, EU commissioner boasts 70% of our laws are “co-decided” in Brussels.


Viviane Reding, EU Justice Commissioner (unelected) is in Britain to lecture us on how stupid we are to want to govern ourselves rather than have people like herself do it for us.

Here’s a tasty quote from the EU-compliant BBC:

She said Brussels had even been blamed for Britain’s floods. “I didn’t know I’m so powerful that I can make the rain fall,” she quipped. (Indeed, you can’t make the rain fall, but you are responsible for the regulations under which member states have to deal with the problems of flooding, as people in Somerset and the Thames Valley are having to do. Nothing to do with the EU’s Water Framework Directive, of course, that environmental and ecological policies are taking priority over human ones.)

She said there was little awareness that “the most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament – because it is co-decider with the member states on EU laws. (The European Parliament is a toy parliament that rubber stamps the policies of the EU Commission. The Commission is the real power driving the project. Ms Reding is a member of that Commission, which, as if turns out, is elected by itself and not the peoples of Europe.)

“Seventy per cent of the laws in this country are co-decided with the European Parliament.” (Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear, that’s torn it. I don’t think anyone will be deceived by the “co-decided” bit. Now she’s admitted what a lot of people have been saying for years, what are all those Europhiles who’ve been denying the 70% is true going to say?)

How to not quite tell the truth about press complaints.


Professor Brian Cathcart of the Hacked Off group presents us with some interesting figures in his blog in the Huffington Post.

Top of the most complained about newspapers is The Daily Mail. Ah yes, that horrible, populist, right-wing, racist [fill in the the word] rag run by Lord Dacre.

I don’t need to explain the intention of Cathcart’s piece. What’s interesting, of course, is what is not said. Namely that although The Daily Mail tops the table with the most complaints, if you work out the number of complaints in relation to the number of readers, it scores less than the Guardian, that paragon of objective, liberal left-wing, political correctness.

For the Mail, one complaint is generated for every 1534 readers. For the Guardian, it’s one for every 1439 readers. And so, in real terms, the Guardian is slightly more offensive than the Mail.

And that’s because the Mail’s circulation (1,863,151) is bigger than the Guardian’s (204,440).

How to pull a fast one with figures.