Muammar Al Khadafi

After heaven alone knows how much taxpayer money spent investigating and persecuting a woman for having a golliwog displayed in her window, charges of racial harassment have been dropped.

Jena Mason on Worlingham, Suffolk, hit the headlines when she was accused of displaying an item likely to cause racially aggravated harassment - namely a golliwog in a window.

Said golliwog offended her black neighbour, Rosemarie O'Donnell, who complained to the police, and thus began the racially motivated witch hunt.

Mrs Mason had been due to stand trial, but in a hearing lasting less than 5 minutes at Lowestoft Magistrates Court the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.

The CPS reasoning was apparently that it was not possible to identify who placed the doll there, and there was insufficient evidence to prove it had been Jena Mason, so there was no hope of a successful conviction.

So much for hoping they'd come to their senses then, and had decided not to pursue the politically correct witch hunt which continues to be inflicted upon the people of Britain because they'd woke up to how absurd and unjust it is.

"We appreciate that this case has caused the O'Donnell family a great deal of upset and we have met with them to explain our reasons for not pursuing a prosecution" said Chris McCann of the East of England Crown Prosecution Service.

More time and money wasted then, and it looks as if the humble golliwog will continue to be burned at the stake in the name of racial sensitivity. Welcome to the modern witch hunt.

Mother and Father? No, we can't ask you that, it might upset gay parents, it has to go from our passports, heaven forbid that any reference to the traditional mother, father, child family structure should remain anywhere in officialdom.

It's only recently the crazy Lib Dems wanted to remove details of a holders sex from passports in case it caused embarrassment to transgenders etc, and now the Home Office is to replace "mother" and "father" on passports with "parent 1" and "parent 2".

Of course, who'd have guessed it, it has been decided that asking someone to fill out details of their mother and father is discriminatory, it fails to be inclusive to same sex parents.

Apparently it comes as a result of lobbying by gay rights group Stonewall - who really would be better off devoting their time to doing something about rabid Islam and the threat it poses to gay rights rather than worrying about inclusivity on a piece of paper.

Good luck to Stonewall, brandishing their gender neutral, parent 1 and parent 2 passports and screaming about a victory for gay rights when more and more 'gay free zones, Allah will punish' spring up around the UK.

Shouldn't we add parents 3 and 4 and 5 as well just to take account of tacitly endorsed polygamy, children whose parents have remarried - or embarked on a same sex relationship - since the child was born, thus potentially leaving someone with more than 2 parents! Parent 1 and 2 certainly refers to more than biological parents after all, Adam and Steve can't manage a baby between them no matter how hard they try.

We see the same across the board, all references to anything traditional or majority removed in the aims of appeasing minority.

If minority says they are offended or discriminated against then majority must change, if majority is offended then nobody cares, that's equality.

Most of us have a mother and father, but nobody worries that we might feel offended, or consider that our parents and the traditional family structure are demeaned, by having to refer to them as parent 1 and parent 2.

Everything is minority, everything must be inclusive, minority must write the rules by which majority must live, this is our new Britain. It won't be long until everything is re-written to appease minority, there will be nothing of majority left.

PC Peter Vince-Lindsay, of British Transport Police, has been rebuked by a judge for making repeated and unjustified claims of racism.

The PC PC has made no less than 14 complaints of racism against British Transport Police, including incidents where he claimed he was racially discriminated against because he had to wait a few minutes whilst a dining tent was full, and another incident where colleagues were slow to respond to youths throwing snowballs at passengers because Vince-Lindsay claimed they were racist.

During that incident PC Vince-Lindsay apparently threatened to break the suspects legs, but it seems that no disciplinary action was taken against him over this threat.

A judge at a tribunal ruled that there was no racism, and that colleagues "extended a considerable degree of latitude" to Vince-Bryant.

Is that doublespeak for "he got away with things others wouldn't have because he is an 'ethnic minority'"?

Vince-Lindsay was ordered to pay £2,500 in costs by an employment tribunal.

Full Story - Daily Mail

"It is important to test the school’s response to individual needs by observing how well it helps all pupils to make progress and fulfil their potential, especially those whose needs, dispositions, aptitudes or circumstances require particularly perceptive and expert teaching and/or additional support."

"In any particular school, such pupils may include disabled pupils; boys; girls; groups of pupils whose prior attainment may be different from that of other groups; those who are academically more able; pupils for whom English is an additional language; minority ethnic pupils; gipsy, Roma and traveller children; pupils known to be eligible for free school meals; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual pupils; young carers, pupils from low income backgrounds and other vulnerable groups."

Ofsted guidance, taken from an excellent Daily Mail article on plans for schools to be rated based on how they improve the progress of vulnerable groups like gypsies and gay children.

One would say what about the majority, but since boys and girls are mentioned it seems they covered that base one way or another - although, what about trisexuals and isn't there officially a 3rd gender now?

The first and most obvious point is why the hell must we try and pigeonhole as many into some kind of minority category as possible. Is the goal to create a society where everyone is defined by their minority status in one respect or another?

Not to mention, how to decide which children are gay and lesbian - are they such because they have a bit of curiosity, are they going to be asked to come up in front the class and tell the teacher who they snogged at the weekend or interrogated as to whether they have a crush on a famous figure of the same sex?

Will we then categorise them forever, you are gay, you are bi, get used to it?

When I was at school, I had free school dinners, I was from what would be called a low income background, does that now make me a minority?

Why does a society which supposedly preaches that we're all identical, we're all equal, insist upon putting as many divides between everyone as they can and at as early an age as possible?

It gives voice to the lie that is the sham clothing of equality.

Who will suffer? With finite resources, special focus on the aptitudes or circumstances of one group will mean less resources spent on another group. We really don't need to ask which group/s that will be, it'll be groups who don't tick those special characteristics checkboxes.

Everything has become about slotting people into minority boxes, creating new minorities on demand, and about focusing attention there, it's political correctness gone mad.

How about a radical thought here - this is from the heart and after speaking to someone I know who was in the care system for most of their childhood - and treating kids like kids, encouraging them to learn, and not only giving a damn because they happen to be in the right category of 'needs'.

They don't want, or need, excuses made for them, or lower expectations because of their background, they want to be valued as more than a checklist exercise who will receive special attentions just because they can tick some boxes on the minority or slated for special treatment register, or receive no attention because the don't tick the right boxes.

In tandem with that, certain groups of kids don't want to be forced to the realisation that they are valued less because they do not happen to tick those boxes, they are not of the same importance.

All children are betrayed by being made into pawns in the diversity game, be it those who don't tick enough boxes and who are left to their own devices, or those who tick enough boxes to be made subject to special attentions and endless excuses.

Political correctness turns all children into paper exercises, it is quite possibly perhaps the most insulting and discriminatory system ever created.

Pier Gifts on Bournemouth Pier has become the latest victim of the great golliwog inquisition after council officers banned the shop from selling them.

Council officers arrived at the store, which had only just begun selling the stuffed toys, and ordered their removal.

"The guy came in and said we had to get rid of them as they didn’t want to be associated with selling golliwogs" said manager Rob Graham.

The shop is leased from the council, and a statement from Tony Williams, executive director of environment and economic services for Bournemouth Council, said that "The council is not prepared to be associated with anything that may be perceived as racist".

As an interesting aside, Bournemouth Council website tells us that "October is Black History month and there are activities throughout the month in Bournemouth in support of this. We work closely with the Dorset African & Caribbean Association (DACA) and subscribe to their quarterly ethnic news and culture magazine called 'Pulse'"

Unless there is also a White History month, eagerly supported by the council, then many may perceive that as racist. Perhaps the council would care to address this.

The ban on Pier Gifts selling golliwogs follows on from the recent news that Bournemouth had also banned local trader Viv Endecott from selling golliwogs at Boscombe Vintage Market.

The message is clear. Don't be a golliwog in Bournemouth, the PC inquisition is coming for you.

Ban witches from wearing black!

Hysteria continues as an early learning consultant, Anne O'Connor, who advises authorities on equality and diversity, decides witches wearing black could lead to racism.

It sends a hidden message, giving children a negative attitude about dark colours, which may well lead to racism apparently.

Instead of black, witches should now wear pink. She didn't think that one through, may well cause negative perceptions of the gay community perhaps?

Cutesy fairies, traditionally clad in whites and paler colours, should now wear darker clothes.

Get this as well, when a teacher is asked their favourite colour, in the interests of good race relations they should be prepared to be economical with the truth - aka lie - and answer black or brown. Best not tell the truth if their favourite colour is white, the PC Gestapo will be there in a shot.

Also gone should be white paper, children need a range of paper and crayons that reflect the diversity of the human race.

What next? Shall we start adding colouring to their milk so that it is black, or give them brown apples in case they feel unable to identify with green? Come on, this is so crazy it would be laughable if it wasn't our kids being forced to endure it.

Seemingly it is all part of some "anti-bias" approach to young children, involving staff 'helping' them to avoid racial bias which can manifest from the age of 2, and which staff have then have to 'help' them unlearn.

Sounds exactly like brainwashing to me.

It's bad enough there is such hysteria and insane dogma to begin with, but attempting to inflict the madness upon our children is a step too far, made even worse by the fact that authorities seemingly listen to such twaddle.

Our kids should not be pawns in some maniac crusade of political correctness and social engineering, they shouldn't be brainwashed into being the neurotic, equality obsessed standard bearers of a crazed ideology.

It's these so called experts, obsessed with seeing race in everything, who need re-educating, not the children.

We're turning into some sterile and barren mass in the quest to become equal, a smothering insanity which aims to stifle all free thought and all difference.

It's not equality anyway, it cannot be true racial equality in the way its proponents would have us believe if it insists on promoting one colour over another.

Equality carried to its logical conclusion would leave nothing but shades of grey, but the so called equality being forced upon Britain is simply an inequality where all other colours than white must be shown in a positive light.

Society truly has gone insane.

*Hat tip to "Runic" for the info which got us started on this story, many thanks.

The persecution of the humble golliwog, much hated and discriminated against by politically correct officialdom, continues as council equalities staff ban them from sale at a Bournemouth market.

Viv Endecott, who sells merchandise inspired by childrens author Enid Blyton, has removed her stall from Boscombe Vintage Market rather than comply with the order from the councils equality and diversity officer.

As an added twist, Miss Endecott herself is of mixed race, lucky for her else it is likely the allegations of racism would fly.

According to Miss Endecott the councils equalities and diversity officer accepted that she was not racist, but said that the toys could cause offence to overseas students and spark public order problems.

No mention of a complaint received, sounds very much a case of a jobsworth taking it upon themselves to decide what will and will not offend others, the normal modus operandi for the gestapo of race and equalities.

After all, we must remove everything that may offend minority, and accept everything that minority does to offend majority.

"It is widely accepted in modern society that golliwogs are acknowledged as having racist connotations" said Carol Maund, art development officer for Bournemouth Council, "We have spoken to Ms Endecott on a number of occasions, and, whilst we are not suggesting she is in any way prejudiced, we have asked her not to sell golliwogs at the Light Night event"

In a very telling comment, Miss Endecott commented that "It seems to be part of the English psyche to avoid dialogue about race rather than to explain the cultural background of something, and nigh on impossible to challenge those who set themselves up as anti-racists".

It's not part of our psyche, it's part of the political correctness and racially motivated witch hunt which has been forced upon us.

And, it is nigh on impossible to challenge those who set themselves up as anti-racists - racism is the ultimate crime, to challenge the anti-racists is to be racist, their word decides your guilt, your disagreement with them proclaims your guilt.

If you weren't racist you'd agree with every word they said. It's the ideology of the oppressive dictator, all actions other than total agreement and acceptance are an admission of guilt.

Political correctness is the new witch hunt, it is as simple as that.

We'll rewrite literature from our history to comply, as is being done with Enid Blytons books, we'll rewrite Mark Twain, we'll even change the Dambusters in case it offends some.

The guardians of racial equality - which in fact amounts to inequality with a positive slogan - will allow us no other alternative.

There is no truth but theirs, there is no history but theirs, you are not allowed to think anything save for what they tell you to think.

Get used to it. If you are reading this, if you find yourself nodding in agreement, you're racist.

Await the day when the thought police come for you, they're working through the list, and everyone British is on it. You will conform to their insanity, or you will be punished.

Anything can be racist so long as someone decides that it is so - and there are a whole lot of people out there busily deciding that anything and everything is racist.

This is the new witch hunt, with our self appointed witch finders, and a state with eagerly subscribes to the whole insanity.

Equality and prevention of racism has become the most oppressive and discriminatory tool of the 21st century, a modern refinement on something which would have been best left as a note in the history of the middle ages.

Witch hunts and witchfinder generals? They're still with us, it's just the form which the unprovable witchcraft they are burning people at the stake for has changed, it's still the same old superstition, hysteria, and self serving agendas.

Golliwogs are the thin end of the wedge, it's far bigger, it's the destruction of every freedom we know, it's the creation of a society where offense or perceived offense is the sole deciding factor.

It's the society of hysteria, a society where law and common sense are on the back foot to personal interpretation.

They call it equality, those who can see name it inequality, it is the creation of a state based on hysteria, it is the witch hunts of the past given a modern spin and cloaked in the rhetoric of equality and diversity.

You've got to love the Lib Dems, going from craziness to craziness. It looks like the crowning achievement of their time in the coalition will be to get details of a holders sex removed from passports.

Apparently it might upset a few transgender people, and those who happen to have the genitalia of both sexes, and removing it will avoid potentially embarassing situations at border controls.

Why stop there though? There's so much else wrong with the passport that might upset people, let's overhaul it totally.

The photograph obviously has to go. Women who wear burkas, people from obscure tribes who believe being photographed steals their soul, those with a phobia, the list of problems is endless. Not to mention that a photograph will lead to discrimination by revealing race, gender, and so on.

Age. Definitely not. Ageism can be the only result. Gone.

Nationality. It's discriminatory against those not British citizens, and may hurt their feelings, to have British Citizen plastered over our passports. Gone.

That leaves issue date and expiry date, no problems there, although expiry could be considered a social stigma and will have to be further investigated in future.

And, Name. After careful consideration that will remain, although we did commission a rights committee to study the equality impacts of name as a means whereby gender and ethnicity could be identified.

A further study has been commissioned to examine the possibility of replacing name with a number or a colour coded sequence like a rainbow so that the last vestiges of information which may lead to discrimination or upset can be consigned to history.

The removal of these details has left us with some space.

To replace Nationality there will be an informative, edifying, and uplifting slogan. As a security measure this will vary according to the issue date of the passport.

The first print run of the new style passport will feature "A hate incident is : Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate."

Photographs will now depict edifying and uplifting scenes from modern Britain and its culturally rich diversity. Passport holders will be able to choose from a selection of stock images.

So far photographs included are : a Mosque, a doner kebab (halal), Trevor Philips, a gay pride rainbow, a selection of art from ethnic artists.

Further images will be available to choose from soon.

Crazy, isn't it?

Sadly, it does seem a logical end to all this madness, the removal of everything in case it offends or upsets someone.

Shame we can't remove politicians like Lynne Featherstone, and the rest of the Liberal Democrats, from public view and influence because of the offense and upset they cause to common sense and to the majority of the British people.

Deputy London Mayor Richard Barnes is wishing that he'd stuck to hand washing after a comment about Persil landed him in hot water with the race Gestapo.

"Why did police put Persil in the water cannons? To stop the colours running?" he is alleged to have been overheard to say.

Before proceeding, it's worth noting that all reports are referring to the fact that Barnes is openly gay.

Seemingly that might have little relevance, other than the tabloids desire to mention such things at every opportunity, but think about it for a moment.

It's a mitigating factor, one minority, in this case sexual orientation, saying something about another minority. Very much we're often treated to the idea that minority cannot be prejudiced, at least not in the way the rest of us are deemed to be.

Barnes is also Equality Advisor to Mayor Boris Johnson, another interesting snippet.

For those who despise political correctness it's rather a fun moment though, seeing an openly gay equalities advisor in hot water over an allegedly racist remark.

It had to happen, the whole system of political correctness has taken on a life of its own, a Gestapo like bureaucracy of the absurd.

Created as a tool to oppress the majority, many proponents are now finding that the monster they had a hand in birthing and nurturing is more than happy to feed upon them as well.

One point worth mentioning is that Barnes claims he repeated the joke with disapproval, one might almost say in the same way news outlets have done.

If his claims are true, are all who reprinted it racist, will all suffer the attentions of the thought Gestapo, where does repeating and reporting become racism?

Who knows, it all depends who complains, the whole industry of isms and obias - and what an expensive and insane industry it is! - relies upon uncertainty.

Someones ability to be offended and to complain is the sole arbiter of guilt, truth and circumstance play little part.

One is no great fan of Barnes, and certainly one feels little sympathy that he is now discovering a painful truth, namely that all of this legislation which is an enemy of free thought and free speech has created a climate where almost anyone can find themselves on the receiving end of the thought polices metaphorical fingernail pullings.

Should he resign as many have called for him to do? Probably. He is, after all, a part of this system and a part of the problem. You can't be an equalities advisor without being a part of the problem. He should uphold the standards of the system of which he has chosen to be a part.

There is certainly a bitter irony there for Barnes though, and further evidence that the thought police are ever present.

Welcome to modern Britain, a land where even the likes of Stalin would be forced to offer an admiring smile to the ever vigilant thought police, citizens keen to denounce, and a system where anything could be an offence - legally or otherwise - if only someone decides to complain that it is.

An astonishing 20,400 children have been branded as racist or homophobic by their teachers in just the last year according to information obtained under a Freedom of Information request.



The request, made by The Manifesto Club, shows that the youngest child thus branded was a mere four years old, and that incidents included two eight year olds in Burnet who were reprimanded for arguing over an eraser and calling eachother gay or lesbian.



Birmingham and Leeds featured highly, with more than 1 in 100 children reported for so called hate speech.



Where in Gods name has childhood gone when we can brand young children thus for not tugging their forelock and bowing to a diversity which they have no way of understanding?



It's more like something out of a Communist or Nazi state when we're seeing children told what they are allowed to think and say, where an innocent childhood remark can result in reprimand.



Kids are kids, kids sometimes make remarks that are perhaps inappropriate - it isn't a hate crime, it's not rottenness, it's kids being kids.



They don't for the most part understand it, the words and insults possess far less connotations for them than they would for adults - they're learning, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing and being children!



We rob them of innocence by turning them into pawns in a society which insists that respect for diversity, that not offending anyone, that anything goes, is the ultimate virtue.



Our children should not be brainwashed into being the future standard bearers of any ideological madness - they should be allowed to be children, to retain their innocence for as long as possible.



Childhood should be about being a child, not about being terrified into watching every word and remark lest the equalities Gestapo are alerted and punishment is the result.



If we teach children wholesome values, and allow them to be a child, then the rest of it will all take care of itself naturally.



If instead we rule them by fear, force an ideology on them, and deny them of an innocent childhood, we rob them of what was rightfully theirs - the chance to be young and to be innocent.



They will only ever get that chance once. Once stolen it is gone forever.



Our children should not be pawns in the insane quest to impose absolute political correctness on all, they deserve to retain their naivety and their innocence.



We betray them daily by allowing this indoctrination and thought control to continue.

Football pundit Tony Cascarino is in trouble. He said the h word - yes, holocaust. To quote him exactly :



"Poor Traore at right-back is having a holocaust because he's finding himself against Nani, who's literally running him from everywhere and Arshavin's just not tracking his runners"



The resulting storm is predictable. Newspaper headlines scream their outrage. Fans call for him to be sacked on the spot. Sky Sports instantly apologises.



Even the - quite often fairly sensible - Daily Mail gets in on the act with "'He's having a holocaust': Shock as Sky Sports pundit compares Arsenal's defending to Nazi genocide"



What is it with our society today that we seemingly seek to make elements of language taboo, to allow pre-existing words to be monopolised to express only a single thing. Gay would be another example.



Holocaust is a word. It may have been adopted to refer to those events, but it existed long before those events took place and did not originally refer to them.



It may have acquired additional meaning because of its usage relating to those events, but it did not originate from those events, it was simply applied to them.



Even the dictionary tells us that, among other things, holocaust refers to a large scale devastation or destruction - which would, surely, be an apt description of the football match Tony Cascarino was commentating on.



There would have been no objections had he said Arsenal player/s had been completely destroyed and devastated by Manchester United - which, in fact, is what he did say, using a word which expresses those meanings.



He didn't refer to anything else, didn't imply it, he just used a word that is a legitimate part of our language. Had he added to it with other references then the furore might have legitimacy, but he didn't, he simply used a single word which is in the dictionary, and was in the dictionary and in common usage, long before the events of World War 2.



Yet he is pilloried, the headlines scream of outrage, fury, outcry - all for using a word, admittedly awkwardly and clumsily phrased, in roughly one of the contexts for which that word was created and became a part of our language to express.



The baying lynch mob of those keen to take offence at every opportunity is upon him, common sense or the actual meaning - both literal and intended - of his words doesn't matter to them one iota, they want blood.



We see the same often, a remark made in all innocence suddenly twisted to become a hateful outrage and fodder for the PC moral guardians of thought and speech to work themselves into hysteria over. Actual meaning and intent are no barrier to their frenzied attentions.



We walk a dangerous road when words can become enchained like this, can suddenly become utterly off limits, and can have their meaning completely reduced from the original intent to become a monotone expression only allowable to refer to one thing.



By enslaving words like this we enslave thought and expression, it is as simple as that.