When I read about the petition to try Willie Pickton with another 20 murders (on gopetition.com) I checked it out, and found a left brain/right brain quiz; which I completed; and scored absolute 0 zip 0 zero for belief in symbols.
People believe in Women's Equality as a symbol in a manner of which I am incapable. To me, reality is everything. Meaning and value attach to reality NOT the symbol. We are faced with a choice between two realities. Do we want working couples? or single-income marriages? Promoting the one involves marginalising the other (see below). That's how my brain is hard-wired. A fireman's wife is the equal of a fireman. A lady firefighter is a wannabee. She is not some glorious realisation of symbolic Equality; as the media would have us believe.
Do I believe in Women's Equality! As a symbol, No! In reality, Yes! I am convinced a woman homemaker is the equal of a man breadwinner. I am effectively sure any woman can take the place of any man in almost any group activity. A team of ten men and one woman is as cohesive as a team of eleven men. A pregnant woman is as beautiful as a prime male athlete. That's how I relate to women's equality. A woman who makes a false accusation against a man is as repulsive as a man who resorts to violence against a woman. We are equal. We don't have to turn the world upside down.
Whereas Feminists would destroy men and women in order to make us equal. They are infatuated with the symbol and have no regard for actual people. Female eunuchs would desex everyone to make us equal.
I am trying to be nice. I am trying not to say that people who believe in symbols are anal freaks. (You could try harder than that!) Being nice to women is the first rule of life. But you draw the line at giving away the farm. With Feminism, we gave away the farm. We went from independent farmers to peonage.
I sometimes think I am the only person who actually thinks women are the equals of men in reality. We must get our act together. If women pull blindly against men as equals, we'll get nowhere. Breadwinner and homemaker marriages are the answer.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Corporate Colonialism
I'll tell you what troubles me. There is a similarity between the western world today with the collapse of Protestantism, and the Indian world in the 1700's with the collapse of Moghul rule. The unifying force has gone. The centre cannot hold, leaving a void into which all manner of illicit elements are drawn. India came under the sneaky control of the British East India Company; and the West today is coming under a similar kind of illicit corporate control. There is a troubling similarity between corporate rule today and Company rule in India.
The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!
That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.
* * * * *
A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.
The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.
I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.
Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?
The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!
That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.
* * * * *
A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.
The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.
I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.
Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Who was worse? Hitler or Woodrow Wilson?
After 800 years of expansion, starting with the Crusades around 1100, the European world imploded in a vast War To End All Wars, 1914-1945: The War of the British Succession, as AJPTaylor called it. Who was to succeed Britain as ruler and prime beneficiary of the world economy? And America succeeded Britain. That was her destiny all along. Like Fortinbras, America need only show up for the kill.
Feel free please to submit this entry to the Guiness Book of Records as the weirdest blog ever. Our warrior males are defeated in my view: They cannot defend society from the anti-social. They lack a coherent world view. A good appreciation of the Thirty-One Years War may put some backbone into them.
An avalanche is caused NOT by the dislodged pebble but by the instability of the slope. Murder in Sarajevo just triggered the avalanche: The collapse of sloppy old Europe was caused by the overgrowth of the Russian and British empires. They were unsustainable. They had to go. And they have gone. Now we can breathe.
Russia gratuitously launched a major European war in 1914. Britain gratuitously turned it into a world war. Austria, France and Germany fought in self-defence: because they were attacked essentially. Britain and Russia were not attacked: They fought to protect their place in the pecking order. Italy intervened again in her interest: sacre egoismo. And most problematic was the American entry.
When you consider the Second World War and the Holocaust were the direct result of the American intervention in the First World War, which reversed its outcome, the issue starts to focus.
THE JEWISH FACTOR
The British Empire was always an alliance between the English, Scots, Irish and Jews. The Scots were the professionals: the doctors and engineers. The Irish were the military: the protestant landowners were a born officer class~our Junkers~while the catholic tenantry provided the empire's stout-skulled soldiery. Little effort was wasted motivating the Irish to fight! The English provided the navy, the administrators, and the political and legal framework. And the Jews took care of business: the financial side of the British Empire was disproportionately Jewish-run.
To digress for one paragraph: The British empire got underway with Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. England was totally militarised during the civil war in the 1640's: every able-bodied man was under arms. So when Cromwell came to power, he found himself in charge of an enormous military capability, which he lost no time in putting to use. First, he beat up the usual suspects, the Scots and the Irish. Then he turned on the Dutch and the Spanish. Europe had just come through the Thirty Years War. Spain was exhausted, so Cromwell could easily rip off Jamaica. Holland meanwhile had grown rich during the Thirty Years War: She had stayed neutral and attracted the money crowd, largely Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Amsterdam was now the financial capital of Europe; and Cromwell lusted in his heart. He re-admitted the Jews into England, and whumped the Dutch in the First Dutch War. The money crowd spotted England as a potential winner, and covered their bets. And the British Empire was off to a flying start.
But it was their stewardship of the financial side of the British Empire that gave the Jews their role and power in the world: that created world Jewry as we have known it this last 300 years. The Jews rode the British Empire to fame and fortune, and when we foundered in World War One, they switched horses, and clambered on board America.
to be continued
Feel free please to submit this entry to the Guiness Book of Records as the weirdest blog ever. Our warrior males are defeated in my view: They cannot defend society from the anti-social. They lack a coherent world view. A good appreciation of the Thirty-One Years War may put some backbone into them.
An avalanche is caused NOT by the dislodged pebble but by the instability of the slope. Murder in Sarajevo just triggered the avalanche: The collapse of sloppy old Europe was caused by the overgrowth of the Russian and British empires. They were unsustainable. They had to go. And they have gone. Now we can breathe.
Russia gratuitously launched a major European war in 1914. Britain gratuitously turned it into a world war. Austria, France and Germany fought in self-defence: because they were attacked essentially. Britain and Russia were not attacked: They fought to protect their place in the pecking order. Italy intervened again in her interest: sacre egoismo. And most problematic was the American entry.
When you consider the Second World War and the Holocaust were the direct result of the American intervention in the First World War, which reversed its outcome, the issue starts to focus.
THE JEWISH FACTOR
The British Empire was always an alliance between the English, Scots, Irish and Jews. The Scots were the professionals: the doctors and engineers. The Irish were the military: the protestant landowners were a born officer class~our Junkers~while the catholic tenantry provided the empire's stout-skulled soldiery. Little effort was wasted motivating the Irish to fight! The English provided the navy, the administrators, and the political and legal framework. And the Jews took care of business: the financial side of the British Empire was disproportionately Jewish-run.
To digress for one paragraph: The British empire got underway with Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. England was totally militarised during the civil war in the 1640's: every able-bodied man was under arms. So when Cromwell came to power, he found himself in charge of an enormous military capability, which he lost no time in putting to use. First, he beat up the usual suspects, the Scots and the Irish. Then he turned on the Dutch and the Spanish. Europe had just come through the Thirty Years War. Spain was exhausted, so Cromwell could easily rip off Jamaica. Holland meanwhile had grown rich during the Thirty Years War: She had stayed neutral and attracted the money crowd, largely Jews fleeing the Inquisition. Amsterdam was now the financial capital of Europe; and Cromwell lusted in his heart. He re-admitted the Jews into England, and whumped the Dutch in the First Dutch War. The money crowd spotted England as a potential winner, and covered their bets. And the British Empire was off to a flying start.
But it was their stewardship of the financial side of the British Empire that gave the Jews their role and power in the world: that created world Jewry as we have known it this last 300 years. The Jews rode the British Empire to fame and fortune, and when we foundered in World War One, they switched horses, and clambered on board America.
to be continued
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Welcome to my blog!
Mehdi
I have two main problems with the Pickton verdict. With two of the victims, other men's DNA was found in the remains of their teeth NOT Willie Pickton's. The obvious interpretation is those girls were snuffed in a forced oral sex act, and the killer was not Willie Pickton. It is plain unfair to convict Pickton on those two counts.
With the woman whom the witness Ellingsen testified she saw being butchered by Willie Pickton, none of her remains have been found. How can anyone be charged with murder when there is no corpse to prove the missing person is dead? With no corpse, it needs dozens of impeccable witnesses totally united on every point of time, place and manner of death to convict for murder, not the tainted and unreliable testimony of one witness.
It's the classic philosophic conundrum: 'Alcibiades the Cretan says all Cretans are liars!' Where does that leave you? It's a curiosity! And the Ellingsen testimony was similar. What credence can you attach to a witness who says she saw an acquaintance being butchered, and just took drug money from the butcher: She did not go to the police. Her word is worthless. If she saw a girl being butchered, she should be jailed 10 years for failing to report it. If she was lying, she gets 3 years for perjury. Maybe that'll shake the truth out of her.
Al Capone was jailed for life on a charge of income tax evasion. He could not be convicted of murder. We just have to be satisfied with that. We can't play fast and loose with the law for the sake of closure. If Pickton were found guilty on 2 or 3 counts of manslaughter, he would still go to jail.
Killers, and very nasty people, are still out there.
* * * *
Happy New Year Everyone!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Bangs for the Buck!
You may have noticed I have a rather exalted notion of the place of a homemaker allowance in the scheme of things. We no longer believe in religion as a society, so to a considerable degree, we religiously believe in our entitlements. Health care and education, disability and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, holidays and job safety: These define us as people. And a homemaker allowance screams what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world.
We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.
Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.
* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.
So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.
The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.
Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!
P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?
We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.
Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.
* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.
So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.
The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.
Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!
P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Feminist Revolution
Any attempt at separating the sheep from the goats is resisted by the goats. I want a homemaker allowance to validate middle class society. The media disallow any mention of the concept. I want an honest, smooth-running society: The goats want a free ride. And the sheep want to bleat.
The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers
a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children
The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY
Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.
The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.
black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children
It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.
Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)
A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.
The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.
Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.
The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers
a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children
The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY
Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.
The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.
black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children
It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.
Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)
A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.
The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.
Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Pickton Trial
In the case of Willie Pickton, accused of killing 6 of the 50 women who have disappeared from Vancouver's east side, the remains of 30 turning up on his farm, the trial having concluded, while the jury is retired, let me state for the record. My verdict:
4 acquittals
2 manslaughter
I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.
The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.
Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.
With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.
Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.
Anyway, that's my prognosis.
The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.
The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.
4 acquittals
2 manslaughter
I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.
The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.
Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.
With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.
Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.
Anyway, that's my prognosis.
The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.
The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)