#MeToo – Poisoning the Well

Nearly two month ago I wrote a piece about the random hysteria and fall-out from the Harvey Weinstein case, in which I made a passing comment about the Orwellian nature of politicians wanting to “raise the conviction rate” for sex crimes.

This week there was this story about Metropolitan Police review of rape cases evidence in which at least 30 rape cases will be reviewed, it is implied because of the way evidence was handled in each of these cases.

Commentators have been putting forward their reasonings for these failings and the above BBC link sums it up perfectly:

Undoubtedly the squeeze on resources, with cuts in the Crown Prosecution Service and policing and a national shortage of detectives, together with the increased caseload for sexual offences units, have played their part.

An inspection report this year also pinpointed inadequacies in training and supervision.

Some see the problems as a direct result of a misplaced culture of “believing” the victim, where police don’t look for or withhold contradictory evidence – but that’s an assertion for the attorney general’s inquiry to examine.

It other words, its the governments fault for a lack of funding, training, etc. but it is dubious whether we’ve now put too much emphasis on securing convictions whatever the cost.

It is very sad that it has come to this.  It strikes right at the very heart of a legal system that is built on innocence until proven guilty and in all these scenarios both the accuser and the accused will end up have a diminished amount of faith in the legal system and the pursuit of having a fair trial.

In other Orwellian fall-0ut from the #MeToo histrionics, if it wasn’t enough to send Kevin Spacey down the memory hole for simply being accused of improper conduct, it is now Matt Damon’s turn, for merely speaking, quite clearly and precisely about his views on conflation of behaviour with actual rapes and sexual assaults, to have his roles in current and future films considered ripe for exorcising from history.

This is a troubling path we are travelling down and precedents are being set at a knee-jerking rate because you can’t be seen to hold even a slight difference of opinion from the new orthodoxy.

Matthew Hopkins would be proud, confused but proud.


Thanks for reading.




“I think the end point for us is a media that does the job we want it to do…”


If you are Richard Cameron Wilson.

If you donate to crowd funding for Stop Funding Hate.

If you think Stop Funding Hate is a tool for good.

You are the fascists.

You can stop your search, you needn’t look any further.


Thanks for reading.

The Tyranny of Opt-Out Organ Donation

Will change to organ donor rules mean more transplants?

This isn’t a religious issue, I know it can be but for me it transcends all of that and it one about what can and can’t be done to an individual’s body.

There is the inescapable squeamish aspect to all of this, you need to be “kept alive” in order to have your organs harvested, even the word harvested isn’t probably the nicest description and then there is the fear that somehow signing up will almost tempt fate; “today I signed up to donate my organs, I feel good about myself, what are those people shouting, oh it appears that in my day-dreaming about my saintliness I’ve wandered into oncoming traffic.”

Also, the organs needing to be transplanted need to be in some form of good nick to start with, no point in transplanting a heart that’s had 50 years of use and abuse already put on it.

Simply put, my body, my rules, whether I’m dead and my organs are “of no further use to me” is neither here nor there, I’ll make the choice what happens, just like I make funeral plans and a will and wanting to simply be put out with the rest of the garden waste in the green bin.

People get a bit to precious about altruism, as if somehow this will simple nudge people into signing up (which is probably the intention) and that somehow if you don’t sign up (or indeed opt-out) you are hereby not eligible to receive anything in return should you need, its like kids only sending Xmas cards to those they got them off initially.

Then there is the whine about who ends up receiving the organs in the first place.  I remember legendary footballer George Best, he had done so much running around in his youth he’d developed a thirst* and as such had knackered his liver, developed jaundice and got a new one.

This is when you realise that as much as people apparently love the NHS like it’s a religion, there should always be some “buts” to the treatment some can receive and as much as I may preach about personal responsibility, while this is the structure of the UK health service, that is the way things will be.

The thing I find most galling about all of this and the holier-than-thou attitude of some is when it comes to blood donations.

You can’t transplant organs without blood.  You can’t really do much without blood and yet only about 6% of the eligible population of the UK actually donate.

The logic to some people’s argument is that they should never receive blood transfusions and basically every 3 months, wherever they are, whatever they are doing, a needle should be stuck into them and a pint of the red stuff withdrawn regardless.

Altruism when dead is one thing, people just seem to have a problem with it when their organs are still functioning.


The flip side to all of this is that I also think, if a person has signed up then no one should have a veto over the removal of their organs, it really is all about an individual’s own choice.


Thanks for reading.


*credit to Mrs Merton/Caroline Aherne, sadly missed.

Portman Group Prohibitionists

Newport brewery Tiny Rebel must change beer can design

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Tiny Rebel brewery at all, in fact apart from the brewery the only other thing that previously made me aware of Newport, Wales with the TV show Dirty Sanchez

Portman Group Report

The first thing that sprang to mind is that does the supermarket in question, Budgens, not separate out it alcoholic beverages from it’s non-alcoholic ones?

If it does, which I’m pretty sure it has to by way of legal requirements, then this would quite obviously suggest that the person, ONE person, who made this complaint is…to use a beer analogy, from the sadly departed Bill Paxton…


Secondly, Sunkist is orange, not yellow.

Thirdly, if you are going to buy alcohol from any outlet, you must be over the age of 18. A kid would not be able to buy this product thinking it was “fizzy pop.”


Full marks to Tiny Rebel for responding in a cordial and professional manner, certainly more mature than those twats from Ellon, Scotland.

Finally, far be it from me to suspect or imply that an “independent group” made up of large multinational (alcoholic) drinks manufacturers might have something to gain from throwing it’s weight around against a far smaller, though rapidly expanding brewery and would actually go to the length to manufacture ONE COMPLAINT in order to appear that it was being conscientious when it comes to alcohol consumption.


Thanks for reading.


The Continuing Curious Case of Wilfrid Laurier University and Lindsay Shepherd

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece of the rather heinous treatment of a student teacher by a Canadian University for daring to have an open discussion about gender pro-nouns, worst of all playing a video by academic Jordan Peterson.

She was hauled before a private tribunal and if it wasn’t for the fact that she recorded the inquisition she was subjected to then she could have quite easily lost or job or have been vilified for this act when needing references for future employment.

The short of this whole tribunal against her was the there was a complaint(s) made against her, of which she was not allowed to know who or indeed the content of the complaint.

It is now being reported that no evidence of any formal complaint was actually made against Ms Shepherd.

At this present moment in time it would seem that those with a vested interest in diversity and equity, at least of specific thought, would be the ones doing the bullying.

In related UK news an Oxford teacher investigated for ‘misgendering’ to sue school – the teacher in question is pushing his “religious beliefs” as a mode of defence, which in some cases it would be.  Personally speaking, he just misspoke and it is a school dithering about being named and shamed and losing funding, that is causing this needless shit storm.

It seems we expect schools to teach everything to kids these days, except common sense.


Thanks for reading.


Schadenfreude vs Principles

Following the continued fall out from the accusations against Harvey Weinstein and the subsequent #MeToo fire-storm that followed I wrote a piece which was basically looking at all these accusations and stories (stories in the generic sense, not in the “fiction” way) in a cold, detached and rational way that would put the rule of law and the adage of innocent until proven guilty above believe wholesale any claims made by anyone against anyone else.

I held of making this specific piece all 2 of you are reading now after serial Trump-baiter and one trick pony actor George Takei had allegations of groping levelled against him.

I held off again when the most snobby of all famous man-hating virtue-signallers Lena Dunham defended one of her shows writers after allegations were made against him.

Then I wrote a piece about something called “hipster racism” a wonderful bit of made up phrasing I’d only become aware of after this was what Dunham was also accused of being.

But I could no longer hold back when, earlier this week, Harry Potter author Joanne Rowling, defended the casting of alleged wife beater Johnny Depp in another of her insipid brain fluff movies, this after “months of silence” on the issue following the release of the original Fantastic Beasts movie.

The fact of the matter is that I am ideologically at odds with the roles that Takei, to a lesser extent, but mainly Dunham and Rowling have both ascended to but also had placed on them thanks to the power of social media and the giant echo-chamber witch-hunting that can arise mainly on twitter

These 3 have constantly stirred up discontent on twitter, be it on purpose or just lending weight to certain hysteria, for numerous amount of right-on and horrible illiberal liberal causes that always attack at the cores of free speech.

But this should not detract from the fact that, in Takei’s case he is indeed innocent until proven guilty and in the other two cases, they themselves are holding this principle to the letter when it comes to things close to them.

Granted their stances are massively hypocritical given some of the previous things they have said but this doesn’t change the fact that they are well within their rights to defend people because they are directly linked to them.

It is amusing watching this whole sorry mess of liberal pie eat itself and the backlash, especially against Rowling has been amusing and caused warm feelings of Schadenfreude to coarse through my veins but it isn’t really personally, it is just it it a magnificent way of holding a mirror up to the fetid, festering, moral Gordian knots that a certain type of persons love to tie themselves up in.


Thanks for reading.


Hipster Racism! This Explains Craft Beer Racism

Wandering through the internet last week I was pointed to an article about “how to know if you are a hipster racist”

I didn’t give it a read at the time but came back to it today and reading it made me realise how this totally connected to the piece in Thrillist that pointed out that there are few black people in craft beer, that got a hell of a lot of beer people in a tizz back in 2015.

Couple this with a further story from 2015 about how barbecue food is racist and it now all becomes clear.

When you go to any craft beer bar, food hall, or street food gathering you seldom see any faces that are any colour other than white.

Its full of young hipsters, old hipsters, hipster parents; all strongly in the IC1 category, loving the diversity of their food but not of their company.

Sure, there might be some BAMEies cooking and serving the food but luckily they wear gloves because who wants to eat something that has come into contact with non-Caucasian hands, which they probably haven’t washed anyway.

No, so long as the Chinks, the Wogs and the Negros know that their place is hemmed in behind a counter, shackled to a hot grill and waiting on their fair-skinned masters then every one can enjoy some jolly good grub.

In fact, better yet, just get some whites to set up their own food stalls and culturally appropriate the food of the lower castes and then we never need to feel even slight pangs of guilty as we tuck into to our food in our monochromatic atmosphere.


This is of course all complete bollocks.

There is something rotten at the core of this craft movement but it isn’t racism.

This is a nod to the collectivists, the neo-segregationists, the social justice warriors and the painfully illiberal liberals.

These fuckers will eventually eat themselves.

And probably set up a street food stall and charge £10 a plate for the experience.


Thanks for reading.