web analytics

not so funny now

By ATWadmin On July 10th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

‘Laughing at the court’: a picture of Ruhela Khanom , thrown off a murder trial when she was caught listening to an MP3 music player under her headscarf (not burqa as suggested on some blogs) and now awaiting trial for contempt of court.  Hat-tip the Philosopher ….who also points out that the July 21 terrorists, successfully rounded up, found guilty and awaiting sentence are another Tory legacy.


By ATWadmin On July 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 am

Things MUST be bad for faux Conservative Leader David Cameron when the Daily Telegraph aka the Daily Cameron speculates that Labour success at the opinion polls may necessitate him removing his close friend and fellow uberliberal young George Osbourne – a shadow of a Shadow Chancellor. The betting is that William Hague would replace Osbourne. But then again, Hague is making a mint in after-dinner speaking and other outside interests so we can’t even take this as a given. Other candidates being talked about for the axe are David "No Brains" Willetts, and Francis "I’m thoroughly modern because I don’t wear a tie" Maude. Quite honestly, the BEST decision Cameron could take would be to apply the  axe to himself. He is a disaster for British Conservatism and his pathetic attempt to move Conservatism to the left of Labour puts his Party in the strategic dumpster. Whilst I have many conservative values, I feel the Conservative Party is no longer worth a damn. I think it will implode after it loses the next election – at that point I wonder why people will even bother with it. The vision is gone, the principle is vanished – all we have is shallow spiv opportunism. Why vote for such a wreck?

A superficial, unprincipled, moral weakling

By ATWadmin On June 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

cameron756.jpgA quote from Conservative Home, regarding public attitudes to David Cameron:

"A Populus poll for today’s Daily Politics programme on BBC1…found that 48% agreed that Mr Cameron was "superficial and lacks any clear convictions".  40% disagreed.  36% said Mr Cameron had the "strength and judgment to be a good prime minister".  49% said he did not.  54% agreed that it was "no longer clear what the Conservative Party stands for".  36% disagreed."

Looks like the public has the measure of the man.



By ATWadmin On June 26th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

davies_203.jpgI see that Conservative MP Quentin Davies has defected to Labour, "delighting" new leader and prime minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown. The MP for Grantham and Stamford made his decision public in a letter to Conservative leader David Cameron, with whom he has long been at odds. He wrote that the party seemed "to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything".

Two points.

1. Davies is right in what he says – Cameron is killing Conservatism in a pathetic attempt to outflank Labour on the left!

2. Davies is an oleaginous creep. I disliked him when he was Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, back then  he appeared worse than useless and so it has been proven!

Mr Gorbachev ….

By ATWadmin On June 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg… tear-down-this-Wall!

It was twenty years ago today that the Gipper gave an object lesson in how to talk to a commie, as Stephen Pollard reminds us. He also links to an account of how it came about, and of the efforts of the State Department and National Security Council to block President Ronald Reagan’s wonderful speech.

A great day.

The Brady Bunch

By ATWadmin On June 4th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Whilst the MSM can’t get enough, seemingly, of ‘Call Me Dave’, increasing numbers of his own party and wider support base are getting rather tired of the direction in which Cameron is taking the Conservative Party.  When you live in a political system reflective of a wider society where principle takes a ever decreasing role in the moral stratum, it is always gratifying to see those who are not prepared to receive the Queen’s shilling when to do so means contravening deeply held moral beliefs.

Take the Tories’ Graham Brady as a good example.  He is entirely right to point out the deficiencies in the new ‘one size fits all’ education policy of what once could be described as a ‘conservative’ movement.  Areas of the United Kingdom where grammar schools are still very much part of the scholastic fabric produce consistently better results than regions almost wholly reliant the the comprehensive system.  Why shouldn’t kids who manage to shine at an earlier age than others not have the chance to prove themselves in the grammar system? What does the average comprehensive have to offer these students?  Fine minds thrown in the same class as children who think ‘education is for poofs’, and whose ambitions in life stretch to having their first shag, their first intake of illegal substances and passing their driving test?

I didn’t go to a grammar school, simply because my family had moved to the borough of Bromley from another London borough where the 11+ had long since disappeared.  However, why did my mother choose to send me (a non-Catholic) to the borough’s only mainstream Catholic school?  Because it had a reputation of offering a better education than the state institutions.  In other words, she made a choice based on what she thought would give me the best chance in life.  As someone who always enjoyed school and learning I didn’t disappoint.  I came away with seven good GCSE passes (including a number of ‘A’s) and three A levels.  Even with my keen eye for learning, I know there is no way I would have achieved those grades in a more unsuitable establishment.

That, my dear people, is the essence of the grammar system – choice.  However, in a country where the exercise of choice is becoming progressively strangled by the sort of political correctness Cameron is all too keen to embrace, the new policy is hardly surprising.  It it nice to see there are still principled and traditional Conservatives left in an increasingly vacuous party.

No more hugs for hoodies

By ATWadmin On May 17th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Can you guess who said this?

Aggressive hoodies who threaten the rest of us must be punished. They need to know the difference between right and wrong, and it’s our job to tell them.

I’m a Conservative. I believe in punishment, I believe in deterrence, I believe in the difference between right and wrong.

Astonishingly enough, it was David Cameron, speaking at the Police Federation conference on Thursday morning. Perhaps the most (or, indeed, the only) sensible words he has ever said.

This brief flash of common sense came as Cameron defended himself from criticism over his previous "hug a hoodie" speech, which was, apparently, "the most misrepresented thing he had ever said". Indeed, he is quite correct, in that he did not actually use the words "hug a hoodie". Rather he said:

If the police and criminal justice system guard the boundaries of acceptable behaviour – patrolling the territory beyond the pale – then community groups populate the interior.

If the police stand for sanctions and penalties, you stand for love.

And not a soppy love! I don’t see anyone soppy here.

But it is about relationships.

It is about emotional security.

It is about love.


What is the quality of the care and support we give young people?

We sometimes see young people described as "feral", as if they have turned wild.

But no child is ever really feral.

No child is beyond recovery, beyond civilisation.

That girl who stole smiles, who suffered so much, and who made others suffer so much, is getting better now.

It is an achievement that the police, or prison, or government itself rarely manages.

"That girl who stole smiles" was a criminal thug who made it her mission to physically assault people who she saw smiling. According to Cameron, "all she needs is love". Which presumably entails plenty of hugs.

He also appears to disagree with Michael Howard’s well-publicised view that "prison works".

So, while Cameron is quite correct to say that there has to be a social aspect to tackling crime, I think that "hug a hoodie" was a fair representation of his previous speech. These thugs do not need love, they need chastisement. That they also need to be taught morals and decency does not detract from that. Although Cameron might have slightly toughened up the rhetoric for yesterday’s speech, he still shouldn’t get the vote of anyone even remotely concerned about crime.


By ATWadmin On May 12th, 2007 at 8:02 am

FamilyMealL_468x372.jpgDavid Cameron – he’s the new Tony Blair, isn’t it? Full of wonderfully hollow sound bites, all things to all men (unless they are right of liberal!). He’s got the common touch, some say, and he proves this by by leaving his £1 million home in Notting Hill to spend two days living with a British Asian family in Birmingham! Seems that "Call Me Dave" needed to understand what life was like for "an inner city Muslim family" and so…… he’s moved in with the owners of a £500,000 six-bedroom detached home overlooking Warwickshire County Cricket Ground and on the edges of one of Birmingham’s most desirable suburbs. Unbelievable. Contrived, vacuous, cynical, patronising and pointless. Just like the modern Conservative Party.

What I Like Best about Being a Conservative

By ATWadmin On April 25th, 2007 at 4:00 am

Andrew Klavan speaks for me:

        "The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. … I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace….

 …….leftism’s great strength (is that)  it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN…. "                                                       Read the whole thing.

Kick The Dogs

By ATWadmin On April 6th, 2007 at 8:41 am

Via the wonderful House of Dumb, we have another piece of Tory PC lunacy to either laugh or cry at, depending on your political allegiances. This time its that luverly photogenic ‘Muslim female in a suit’ that the Tories love to trot out from time to time, such as afer 7/7 when she called for dialogue with the bombers’ colleagues in a statement that had a marked lack of exhortations to, you know, bring them to justice.

Yes folks, the latest piece of cuddly Tory nuttiness is this: rejected asylum-seekers should be given a ‘revokable’ licence to work. That’s right. People who have come to Europe’s most liberal asylum regime and whose claims have finally filtered through the labyrinthine system of bloodsucking advocacy lawyers and Home Office encouragement and still have had their claims found to be so laughably false that they are rejected should be…allowed to stay here anyway.

I liked this bit best:

"They are unable to work or contribute to society, unable to leave and sleeping rough."

Uh-huh. So now rejected asylum-seekers are ‘unable to leave’. Lady, that’s the Government’s job. I appreciate that its going to leave a wee carbon footprint to put the small percentage of failed asylum seekers in Britain on a plane back to their point of origin, but then again hopefully this would be our poor impoverished asylum-seeker’s only flight that year anyway, fulfilling another of Blu-Labour’s nutty policies.

Quite apart from the general lunacy of the Tory hierarchy in abandoning any pretence whatsoever that they are going to control mass immigration into Britain, what should we make of the loyal diehards at Conservative Home? Those ‘true-blues’, spinning frantically along as they try to make sense of their leadership’s latest kick in the teeth to everything they believe in, usually by, as can be seen, blaming the messenger as if any such message in the 2007 Tory Party is issued without the approval of Central Office.

The Tory hierarchy figured out some time ago that it is possible to come up with any Policy, make any statement, perform any action no matter how antithetic to the beliefs of the Conservative membership, and still have that membership deliver the leaflets, send the money, put in the effort and generally roll onto its back to have its collective tummy scratched come election time.

These true-blue doggies have been kicked so many times that it seems they’ve actually started to like it.