Babies Having Babies

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

billy wrote:

> In a prominent Sunday newspaper, our illustrious Prime Minister "Call Me
> Tony" preaches the need for a "Moral Crusade" in face of the fact that
> girls of an age when - in the innocence of Childhood - they should be
> playing with dolls are having babies.
>
> regards, billy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we can see the bitter fruits of the mindless politically correct
intellectual
fleas and their Blairite puppet masters who have been given control of Britain.

Especially in the media and popular music industries.

Children do not play anymore. They just watch television - through
which they are fed a constant diet of "poisoned candy". Even the
cartoons carry a sales message - and are laced with sexual innuendo.

Rupert Bear is a *very* rare exception to that rule. (I wonder how
that slipped through ?)

Kiddie propaganda was also tried by the EU, attempting to exploit
the same technique. But they got beaten to death for it (in these news
groups, amongst other places).

At the age of 9 children no longer want toys for their birthdays. They
want fashion accessories and cloths, which they have been brain washed
into wanting to buy by television.

And (Jewish controlled) popular music (and its associated peer
pressure) pushes them ever younger into sexual adventures.

( But we mustn't say that, of course ! Oh, dear me no ! That would
be racialism ! Just because it happens to be a hard reality is no excuse
for mentioning it. That would upset the "grand plan". Tut, tut ! Can't
do that just because the lives of the nation's children are being ruined
by their vile exploitation !

It never ceases to astound me that people huff and puff about injustice,
corrupion and evil - but when anybody actually does something
positive about attacking the perpetrators - regardless of race - they
leap to their defence with outraged cried of "foul" ! Is the human
race terminally brainwashed - or terminally thick ? The greasy,
smiling creep who claims to be your friend, is dripping poison in your
children's lemonade !

And that includes the Yank film industry !

"The Spy Who Shagged Me", for Christ's sake !? What sort of
message is that sending to children who see the posters ? And
who the bloody hell is running the British Board of Film Censors
these days ? ! )

Even the presenters of children's television carry a subversive, titillating
sexual message in their dress and style. The little casting couch tarts
involved, of course, are far too thick to know how they are being
exploited as "soft porn" icons by the Stalinist manipulators who now
infest television production.

The Stalinist scum who run the BBC know EXACTLY what they are
doing - and why ! And ITV is hardly any better.

Undermine the nation by poisoning the children. "The end justifies
the means".

Regards, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------

White Shite

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
To a scientist, an adult organism is one capable of reproduction. Did the 12
year olds get pregnant? Yes. Are they capable of reproduction? Yes. Science
talks and bullshit walks.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


White Shite

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
I'm sure we've all been missing you, Bob Sims; could you suscribe to
uk.media.tv.misc instead of simply cross-posting?

--
Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Robin

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
In article <37D25FCE...@bscserv.com>, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes

>Children do not play anymore. They just watch television - through
>which they are fed a constant diet of "poisoned candy". Even the
>cartoons carry a sales message - and are laced with sexual innuendo.

And *you* believe this has only been happening since 1997?

>
>Rupert Bear is a *very* rare exception to that rule. (I wonder how
>that slipped through ?)

Obviously never seen Oz Schoolkidz Issue, the subject of the famous
obscenity trial of, IIRC, 1968?

Blair has now taken this dreadful state of affairs to heart and looks
like embarking on a 'back to basics' style oratory. Now just *where*
have we heard that before?

Of course, like Major this could be just one nanny too many!

--
Robin Muskett
'When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind' (Lennon)

David

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

White Shite <A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7qtp1f$5n8$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...

DAVID: agreed, ma petite blanche merde!!

We are now reaping the benefits of generations of underclass inter-breeding,
as thickos beget thickos, hordes of randy low i.q. dickheads shagging their
way round the sink estates, and these poor bimbos obtaining the benefit and
privacy of their own flat/benefits etc - an ideal breeding (literally)
ground for the next succession of tattooed, body-pierced thugs, lining up at
the bedroom door. Still these days, they can always obtain their 15 mins of
fame, on any of the numerous daytime TV chat shows, as they inflict their
inarticulate shit and drivel, on any sad viewer that has nothing better to
do with their lives.

Tags

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
>Even the presenters of children's television carry a subversive,
>titillating sexual message in their dress and style.
>The little casting couch tarts involved, of course, are far too thick to
>know how they are being exploited as "soft porn" icons

I wouldn't call Kirsten from CBBC or even that other one from CITV "soft
porn" icons. Here, have your blankie back.

--
Tags
web design - http://www.limitwebdesign.co.uk
html help - http://www.limitwebdesign.co.uk/htmlhelp/
search - http://www.limitwebdesign.co.uk/search/
--
"I watched the stars crash in the sea"

White Shite

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
>DAVID: agreed, ma petite blanche merde!!

>We are now reaping the benefits of generations of underclass
inter-breeding,
>as thickos beget thickos, hordes of randy low i.q. dickheads shagging their
>way round the sink estates, and these poor bimbos obtaining the benefit and
>privacy of their own flat/benefits etc - an ideal breeding (literally)
>ground for the next succession of tattooed,
body-pierced thugs, lining up at
>the bedroom door.
Still these days, they can always obtain their 15 mins of
>fame, on any of the numerous daytime TV chat shows, as they inflict their
>inarticulate shit and drivel, on any sad viewer that has nothing better to
>do with their lives.


Those twelve year olds have had a good idea; having a child at 12 is a sure
fire way to earn money for years to come. They should tell the audiences
that they have been raped by their fathers because on chat shows, anything
claimed by a "victim" is treated as fact regardless of wether it is proven
or not. The media has been quick to bestow sympathy on these girls but they
neither want nor deserve it.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Nine Of Eight

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:19:26 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.
They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
about Re: Babies Having Babies:

<snipped - all of Bob's deluded warblings>

Far be it from me, a mere irrelevancy in the greater scheme of things,
to point out the wanton contradiction in your position but i'm going
to do it anyway.

You complain about a totalitarian system that attempted to control
what its citizenry could see, hear and say thru the tool of censorship
i.e. Stalinism.

Then you complain because we aren't engaging in censorship.

Spot the problem?

E-mail: flat...@freeuk.com
Web URL: http://go.to/nine-of-eight
ICQ: #40608571

"This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers."
- Randal, 'Clerks'

PGP Key info - ID: 0x610F1921
3B3B DBF7 1E2D 508B A781 4347 4878 48CF 610F 1921

Gordon Joly

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
In article <e0cIACAS...@droom.demon.co.uk>,
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:

>
>Obviously never seen Oz Schoolkidz Issue, the subject of the famous
>obscenity trial of, IIRC, 1968?
>


August 1971.

Gordo


Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

White Shite wrote:

> I'm sure we've all been missing you, Bob Sims; could you suscribe to
> uk.media.tv.misc instead of simply cross-posting?
>
> --
> Allan Edward Munro

> ------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------

Cross posts allow all interested parties in the debates to see the
repliesof everybody else. Single postings prevent this.

I have blamed TV for most of the problem - which is why I extended
billy's post to that newsgroup. If I had not, you would not have seen
it
and we should have been denied the pleasure of your erudite
contribution. (unless you also read alt.politics.british under the
name of
"white shite" - which I cannot remember just at present).

Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

Robin wrote:

> In article <37D25FCE...@bscserv.com>, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> writes
> >Children do not play anymore. They just watch television - through
> >which they are fed a constant diet of "poisoned candy". Even the
> >cartoons carry a sales message - and are laced with sexual innuendo.
>
> And *you* believe this has only been happening since 1997?
>
> >
> >Rupert Bear is a *very* rare exception to that rule. (I wonder how
> >that slipped through ?)
>

> Obviously never seen Oz Schoolkidz Issue, the subject of the famous
> obscenity trial of, IIRC, 1968?
>

> (snip)

> --
> Robin Muskett

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Robin,

I am glad to say that I have never seen "Oz Schoolkidz Issue" - but you
may have noticed that the former editor of that obscene publication is
now a mega millionair - and one of the £1,000,000 contributors to
Blair's party.

Appropriate, I thought. " Child Corrupter Sponsors Traitor. "

At the end of the day, their objectives are the same. The destruction
of our country, culture and people.

You are quite right about Blair and Major. They are a pair of
Stalinist traitors who have nothing to do with either the Conservative
or Labour parties. "Back to Basics" ? I think they have got quite
"basic" enough !

Regards, Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

sam@greenaumARSE!ARSE!ARSE!.demon.co.uk wrote:

> ARGH! HE'S BACK!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, nothing good can last forever, now can it ? :-)

But I am going to have a damn good try at it ! ;-)

Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


>


Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

Nine Of Eight wrote:

> As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
> Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:19:26 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.
> They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
> about Re: Babies Having Babies:
>
> <snipped - all of Bob's deluded warblings>
>
> Far be it from me, a mere irrelevancy in the greater scheme of things,
> to point out the wanton contradiction in your position but i'm going
> to do it anyway.
>
> You complain about a totalitarian system that attempted to control
> what its citizenry could see, hear and say thru the tool of censorship
> i.e. Stalinism.
>
> Then you complain because we aren't engaging in censorship.
>
> Spot the problem?
>

> "This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers."
> - Randal, 'Clerks'

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The pornographer's age old argument ! But well done for a very
nice little repost. And a damn tricky one to argue against, too !

Well, it's a fair cop - and I will try to answer you.

If you have ever read any of my posting in the past (which you clearly
have) you will be well aware that I believe in freedom of speech and
availability of all of the information all of the time for all of the
people.

That is because so much is willfully and mischeviously with held from
the public which directly effects them over a long term.

Peddling porn to children, however, is *not* the provision of information
- nor does protecting them from it (or with holding it, if you like)
constitute any infringement of their freedom of speech or expression.

Generally speaking, most children of 9 would not be capable of
handling, say, digitalis, to help a heart condition. Thus sane parents
tell them that foxgloves are poisonous and not to touch them. Later
that child may become a doctor - when digitalis might be a powerful
weapon in his fight against heart disease. But he will still tell his
own
children not to touch foxgloves !

As one poster in this group has already pointed out, girls of 12 are
capable of reproduction - and boys of that age are driven mad by
their testosterone. And I think I read somewhere recently that in
not very distant history it was legal for girls of 12 to marry in England.

But would *you* deny children the care-free pleasure of their
childhood and burden them with parenthood - just for the sake of
a principle exploited and distorted for the ends of evil ?

I suspect that when you leave the world of debate - and re-enter
the real world - where for all I know you have your own children
- you would do no such thing !

I grew up in an age (1940-50) when we were told bugger all. And
before we got married, we and the others in the office shared a
small green book which gave you the basics - with rough pencil
drawings ! I was 24 at the time !

Perhaps that was a little too sparse an amount of information -
but looking back now - perhaps it was not. We were fairly
frustated young people then - but we had a great childhood for
which I will always be grateful and have never forgotten.

It makes me cry to think what modern children today have had
robbed from them. And you know what ? They actually
*know* they have been robbed !

How do I know ? Because my own children tell me so.

Regards, Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>


Bob

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

sam@greenaumARSE!ARSE!ARSE!.demon.co.uk wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 18:49:51 GMT, s...@sig.of.post (Nine Of Eight)
> sprachen:
>
> >
> >Spot the problem?
>
> No, he's mad.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, well ! That seems to be the end of that debate then.

>
>
> Why pamper life's complexity,
> when the leather runs smooth on the passenger seee-eee-aaat?
>
> http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/


White Shite

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
>Allan you really are an astoundingly stupid cunt. But what really
>makes your posts, is your complete unawareness of that fact. You're so
>authoritative in your drivel, it's as if you're the Socrates of your
>back garden or something,


Unlike you I don't have three ARSE!s to talk through so that explains it.
Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that I am an astoundingly
stupid cunt; I was unaware of this, and shall immediately forget the fact.
My "drivel" is authoritative because it's all true, and nobody else is
intelligent enough to understand it. It's the world that's mad, not me.
Also, are you a Samuel or a Samantha, as from your picture on your website I
can't tell; alternatively you seem be a hermaphrodite and gain pleasure from
fucking yourself. Still, you've made a proper effort at flaming me which is
more than most people do when they disagree with me when I say something
controversial, I hope that this piece of Socratic philosophy is up to your
high standards of what isn't drivel and that my complete unawareness of your
invented fact makes my posting enjoyable rather than makes it (white) shite.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


White Shite

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
>But would *you* deny children the care-free pleasure of their
>childhood and burden them with parenthood - just for the sake of
>a principle exploited and distorted for the ends of evil ?


But childhood is the period before adulthood and if you can have children
then you can't be a child. The idealised view of childhood has never really
had a basis in reality; innocence now as always creates vulnerability, and
each new generation needs to be aware of the ways of the world as soon as
possible or it is not fair.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Message has been deleted

Kit Spanos

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

Nine Of Eight wrote in message <37e0ba04...@news.freeuk.net>...

>As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
>Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:19:26 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.
>They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
>about Re: Babies Having Babies:
>
><snipped - all of Bob's deluded warblings>
>
>Far be it from me, a mere irrelevancy in the greater scheme of things,
>to point out the wanton contradiction in your position but i'm going
>to do it anyway.
>
>You complain about a totalitarian system that attempted to control
>what its citizenry could see, hear and say thru the tool of censorship
>i.e. Stalinism.
>
>Then you complain because we aren't engaging in censorship.
>
>Spot the problem?

This has never been a problem to the loony Right. They see mental confusion
and blatant inconsistency as something to be treasured, rather than
despised.


>
>
>
>E-mail: flat...@freeuk.com
>Web URL: http://go.to/nine-of-eight
>ICQ: #40608571
>

>"This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers."
> - Randal, 'Clerks'
>

Message has been deleted

Sam Butler

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to
Robin wrote in message ...

>In article <37D25FCE...@bscserv.com>, Bob
<b...@bscserv.com> writes


<snip>


>Obviously never seen Oz Schoolkidz Issue, the subject of the
famous
>obscenity trial of, IIRC, 1968?

Are there any scans of that available on the 'Net? (Or any other
Oz issues for that matter.)

--
Sam Butler

BiG_UGGie

unread,
Sep 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/5/99
to

Allan you darling boy!..... You have a way with words that set my
Funny Girl's hair on end. Vive la Truth......... Vive la difference
....... Vive BiG UGGie's immaculate perception.

A smidgeon from the pen of ...........

BiG UGGie

The Lone Woof of Truth.

Nine Of Eight

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
Sun, 05 Sep 1999 22:03:25 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.

They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
about Re: Babies Having Babies:

>The pornographer's age old argument !

And you will be equally aware that the pornographer's argument has not
been that they should be able to supply material to anyone, rather
that adults should be allowed to decide for themselves what they do
and do not view as opposed to the Government deciding for them.

>Peddling porn to children, however, is *not* the provision of information
>- nor does protecting them from it (or with holding it, if you like)
>constitute any infringement of their freedom of speech or expression.

No one is peddling porn to children - in your post you mentioned
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me as an example of how low we have
stooped. The reason it was always referred to by its full title in the
US was because shag does not have the sexual connotations it has here.
Here in the UK, adverts on the telly for it only referred to it by its
full title after 9pm and the BBFC certified it a 12.

Next you'll be complaining about South Park... despite the fact it's
aimed at adults, not children. It's just that post-Walt Disney we have
this twisted notion that cartoons are only for children and thereby
ignoring there long use as a means of political commentary, satire and
propaganda dating back to the days when most of the adult population
was illiterate.

>Generally speaking, most children of 9 would not be capable of
>handling, say, digitalis, to help a heart condition. Thus sane parents
>tell them that foxgloves are poisonous and not to touch them. Later
>that child may become a doctor - when digitalis might be a powerful
>weapon in his fight against heart disease. But he will still tell his
>own
>children not to touch foxgloves !

The problem is one of reasonable access to information and the
capacity to understand it, as well as at what point does a desire to
protect our children go so far as to actually cause the harm we seek
to avoid.

Even in your above example you would at least tell children about
Digitalis - but the attitude of far too many towards sex education is
that children should be told nothing. And i would wager that such a
position will cause more problems than it solves.

It should be noted that in some areas people will not receive any form
of sex education until sixteen and that only comes in the form of a
reproductive biology class. That cannot be adequate where we have
situations such as the recent tale of a ?13 year old who did not even
know that she was pregnant!!!

Given situations like that, and the fact that people are entering
puberty at an earlier age (with some beginning as early as eight in
extreme cases) with twelve being the average age, a single sex
education lesson at sixteen cannot be adequate.

>As one poster in this group has already pointed out, girls of 12 are
>capable of reproduction - and boys of that age are driven mad by
>their testosterone. And I think I read somewhere recently that in
>not very distant history it was legal for girls of 12 to marry in England.

Yes it was the case. As i understand it, currently the law in Scotland
is that you can marry at sixteen without parental consent and sixteen
in England but requiring parental consent until the age of eighteen.
It is illegal to have intercourse earlier than sixteen although it is
not an offense if you are older than fourteen and have good cause to
believe that you are married.

However, a thirteen year-old is deemed capable of consenting to
intercourse. Earlier than that and the charge is one of rape as
opposed to underage sex.

>But would *you* deny children the care-free pleasure of their
>childhood and burden them with parenthood - just for the sake of
>a principle exploited and distorted for the ends of evil ?

I have always been highly dubious of this nostalgic throwback to a
golden-age. People were having underage intercourse. But, as opposed
to today, they either had a backstreet abortion, gave the child up for
adoption or the child's grandmothers name would end up on the birth
certificate in place of the mother's.

What we have to consider is does educating and informing people cause
them to have intercourse at an earlier age than they would have
otherwise? The point of the age of marriage having once been twelve
evidently shows that up for the lie it is. The truth is that we are
animals and like all animals don't need to be told about sex to be
driven to wanting it - organisms that reproduce sexually wouldn't have
got very far if that were the case!!!

>I grew up in an age (1940-50) when we were told bugger all. And
>before we got married, we and the others in the office shared a
>small green book which gave you the basics - with rough pencil
>drawings ! I was 24 at the time !
>
>Perhaps that was a little too sparse an amount of information -
>but looking back now - perhaps it was not. We were fairly
>frustated young people then - but we had a great childhood for
>which I will always be grateful and have never forgotten.

I would require more knowledge of your background before i comment on
your experience, but my father (now in his early fifties) grew up in
the Lochee area of Dundee and left school at fourteen to go straight
into full-time work. He hadn't regularly attended school from the age
of twelve as was the case with most of his contemporaries. They spent
there time engaging in the very activities it is claimed children
never used to do - they were smoking, drinking and trying to get laid.

This myth of a great childhood most definitely did not apply to them.

>It makes me cry to think what modern children today have had
>robbed from them. And you know what ? They actually
>*know* they have been robbed !

Well i'd disagree with them - i'm not in the position where i had no
option but to go to work at fourteen and work for shit each week
trying to make enough money to be able to eat. And i can't say i'd
want to be.

Oh, and why are you so hung up about my .sig file? Only you and Bodie
seem to see deep significance in it...

Sam Butler

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
Bob wrote in message <37D2D323...@bscserv.com>...
<snip>

>I am glad to say that I have never seen "Oz Schoolkidz Issue" -
but you
>may have noticed that the former editor of that obscene
publication is
>now a mega millionair - and one of the £1,000,000 contributors
to
>Blair's party.
>
>Appropriate, I thought. " Child Corrupter Sponsors Traitor. "

I haven't read the 'Schoolkids Oz' either, but I do know that it
is was *by* not *for* schoolkids, i.e. under their editorial
control, so 'Child Corruptee' would be more appropriate.

>At the end of the day, their objectives are the same. The
destruction
>of our country, culture and people.

Vive la Revolution!

--
Sam Butler

BiG_UGGie

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 23:53:41 GMT,
sam@greenaumARSE!ARSE!ARSE!.demon.co.uk wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:07:30 +0100, "White Shite"

><A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk> sprachen:


>
>>Also, are you a Samuel or a Samantha, as from your picture on your website I
>>can't tell
>

>I look much girlier than that now. I shall have to find a proper
>camera somewhere. There's blue stripes in me hair and everything, fab.
>
>

As Mr Richter awaits, with locked buttocks, the crashing thunder from
Allan Edward's "Boom! Boom! Boom!" Machine....... Let us
serpent-lickers tarry awhile and observe the action as we bask briefly
in the relative safety of our balmy sycophantic Isle.


BiG UGGie

dug

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

> <SNIP>

>mmmmmmmm, how liberal. And for your information, 'thickos' (like to see
your
>definition of *that*) do NOT necessarily 'breed thickos'- children with
>exceptionally high IQs have been known, in fact quite frequently, do be
>conceived by parents with proportionately low IQs; whereas for a family of
>successive high IQs, the average IQ for their future offspring actually
>*recedes*.
>>

Whilst it is entirely probable that "thickos" will breed children with a
high I.Q. sadly they will not have the intelligence to realise this and in
likelihood will live in an area that will not stimulate this intelligence in
the right way. So you then have someone with intelligence frustrated at
every turn. I would imagine that alot of children given the chance and
shown the right direction could achieve so much more, but while parents have
low standards then so will the children.

dug

Message has been deleted

Bob

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
Dear "Nine of Eight",

Thank you for a very well considered and written response.

I admit that it *is* difficult - and perhaps you are right to challenge
me on my background as not being typical of those children who do
end up in trouble as the result of sexual adventures.

My own childhood was certainly not one which was awash with
money - but we did live in a pleasant rural area amongst what were,
I suppose, fairly middle-class people. And my mother was a very
firm Methodist with very clear views of what was and was not the
proper way to carry on.

I do not doubt, that left to my own devices with no parental
control, I could very easily have ended up in exactly the sort of
trouble under discussion here. The labour mafia (now called the
"Tafia") in main town nearest to where I lived, built a vast Council
estate over the four farms which were my playground. (In one of
the most blatant acts of gerrymandering in the history of Britain)

This transformed my life and opened up opportunities which had
previously been unthought of !

My mother, who was nobody's fool, decided the time had come to
move back to England.

My point is - that parental control and concern is what determins
what happens to children. With the advent of television - and
its exploitation by those of ill intent - parental control has been
subverted.

Clean up television - which means changing those who control it
- and it could stand (to some degree) in place of parental control
- as it did at one time not so very long ago.

I cannot understand your argument about the film "The Spy Who
Shagged Me". My own 8 year old daughter saw, and commented
on, this poster when we took her to the Odean in Southend. It
was a very tricky moment, I can tell you !

The point about cartoons is that children always want to watch
them - whether they are intended for them or not. And not all
children can always be persauded to go to bed before 9 O'clock,
mine included !

The whole point is that Blairite "pc" dogma has subverted common
sense - and children are paying the price.

I have nothing against your Sig. As a matter of fact, I though of
congratulating you on it. It is exactly what we tell our
customers !

Regards, Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

Kit Spanos wrote:

> Nine Of Eight wrote in message <37e0ba04...@news.freeuk.net>...

> >As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on

> >Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:19:26 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.


> >They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
> >about Re: Babies Having Babies:
> >

> ><snipped - all of Bob's deluded warblings>
> >
> >Far be it from me, a mere irrelevancy in the greater scheme of things,
> >to point out the wanton contradiction in your position but i'm going
> >to do it anyway.
> >
> >You complain about a totalitarian system that attempted to control
> >what its citizenry could see, hear and say thru the tool of censorship
> >i.e. Stalinism.
> >
> >Then you complain because we aren't engaging in censorship.
> >
> >Spot the problem?
>
> This has never been a problem to the loony Right. They see mental confusion
> and blatant inconsistency as something to be treasured, rather than
> despised.
> >

> > flat...@freeuk.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah ! I see your problem, Eric. you are confusing "confusion" with
common sense. The problem with the loony left (to borrow from
Boedicia) is that they allow reality to be over-ridden by dogma.

We of the "loony right" always try to apply the "reality test". "What
happens when you put this theory into practice in the real world ?"

If it *should* work - but it doesn't - then modify it until it does - or
scrap it ! This can lead to confusion in the minds of those who are
not familiar with this simple exercise.

The EU messianic nerd group of loony lefties are completely
confounded by the process. Which is why they have lost every
argument they ever put - and have simply given up and resumed
covert Stalinist subversion & dictatorship instead. Always a
symptom of the intellectually compromised.

Blair and his gang are a classic case in point.

Bob
------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: the only reason I have deleted your "sig" is because it is a bit
long and "clags up" the text in a reply. - Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------------


>
>


The Silver-Flag Boy

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In article <e0cIACAS...@droom.demon.co.uk>, Robin <Alp...@droom.dem
on.co.uk.spam> writes

>
>Blair has now taken this dreadful state of affairs to heart and looks
>like embarking on a 'back to basics' style oratory. Now just *where*
>have we heard that before?
>
>Of course, like Major this could be just one nanny too many!
>

Don't be so unfair on Johnny Major. To him "Back to Basics" meant
cricket and warm beer on Sunday afternoons, and old ladies cycling to
Church on Sunday mornings. I don't think the morality thing was *his*
idea, tho' the opportunity to do a bit of moral pontificating was seized
with glee by the blue-rinse tendency within the Tory party --- with the
disastrous results which make the phrase such a joke today.

Alex
--
Alex Macfie, The Silver-Flag Boy from the ntL, ntR
fla...@flagboy.demon.co.uk http://www.flagboy.demon.co.uk/walkout/
Neither the Left, Nor the Right
Left is the opposite of Right, but a Liberal is the opposite of Both

White Shite

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
> and perhaps you are right to challenge
>me on my background as not being typical of those children who do
>end up in trouble as the result of sexual adventures.


But they come from all backgrounds. It's like violence. If violent behaviour
is caused by people with low income, why aren't the subsistence farmers in
the third world all thugs, and why does violence break out in middle class
wine bars frequented by people who went to boarding school?

>I cannot understand your argument about the film "The Spy Who
>Shagged Me". My own 8 year old daughter saw, and commented
>on, this poster when we took her to the Odean in Southend. It
>was a very tricky moment, I can tell you !


Tell her what it means; it's just a swear word. She'll learn that anyway.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Bob

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

Kit Spanos wrote:

> Bob wrote in message <37D25FCE...@bscserv.com>...
> >
> >
> >billy wrote:
> >
> >> In a prominent Sunday newspaper, our illustrious Prime Minister "Call Me
> >> Tony" preaches the need for a "Moral Crusade" in face of the fact that
> >> girls of an age when - in the innocence of Childhood - they should be
> >> playing with dolls are having babies.
> >>
> >> regards, billy
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> >Now we can see the bitter fruits of the mindless politically correct
> >intellectual
> >fleas and their Blairite puppet masters who have been given control of
> Britain.
>
> 'Been given control of Britain'-- by, er, the electorate, democratically. No
> need for such hysterical language, my good man.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impudent puppy ! The electorate were gulled into voting for a man who
declared "I am a patriot". They most certainly did not vote for the string
of cronies he has appointed since. And certainly not for the peers he
created after they had handed over several large suite cases of money to the
(I was going to type "Labour Party" - but that lost the last election - just as
the Conservative Party lost the one before) ..Blair Self-Promotion Fund.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
>
> >
> >Especially in the media and popular music industries.


> >
> >Children do not play anymore. They just watch television - through
> >which they are fed a constant diet of "poisoned candy".
>

> ?!?!?!?!?! Meaning what, exactly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try watching Children's Television some time. Even you should be
able to work it out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> > Even the
> >cartoons carry a sales message - and are laced with sexual innuendo.
> >

> >Rupert Bear is a *very* rare exception to that rule. (I wonder how
> >that slipped through ?)
>

> I'm looking for a phrase.......ah. Here it is. "Clutching at straws". Sound
> familiar?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What colour is the sky where you live ? The sentence is plain enough !
The example clear enough for anybody to understand. What the hell
are you talking about - or are you just trying "smoke" in the absence of
anything better ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> >
> >Kiddie propaganda was also tried by the EU, attempting to exploit
> >the same technique. But they got beaten to death for it (in these news
> >groups, amongst other places).
> >
> >At the age of 9 children no longer want toys for their birthdays. They
> >want fashion accessories and cloths, which they have been brain washed
> >into wanting to buy by television.
> >
> >And (Jewish controlled)
>
> here we go. The Klan returns.......
>
> >popular music (and its associated peer
> >pressure) pushes them ever younger into sexual adventures.
> >
> >( But we mustn't say that, of course ! Oh, dear me no ! That would
> >be racialism !
>
> Quite. And wrong. And bloody minded. And embarrassing. And stupid. And
> thick-headed. And a bastardised use of the English language for purely
> personal profit in hostile newgroups.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just love it when you rattle their chain and they respond exactly as
expected by making complete and utter bloody fools of themselves !

Now put down the text book and see if you can find your own brain
somewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> >Just because it happens to be a hard reality is no excuse
> >for mentioning it.
>
> So far you have stated this interpretation of popular culture- "the mass
> media encourages infant materialism. infant materialism is wrong. it is
> pedalled by the Jews. the Jews are bad. i believe this to be the case.
> therefore, i am right." Unfortunately, *evidence* for your distorted
> degeneracy is sadly lacking...... perhaps you could fill Paul Johnson's
> column in the Mail?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have, of course, cut and misquoted me. "Distortion rules, Ok !"
When you encase text in quotes - you are supposed to *quote* what
somebody else said inside the quotes. Not make it up !
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> > That would upset the "grand plan". Tut, tut !
> >Can't
> >do that just because the lives of the nation's children are being ruined
> >by their vile exploitation !
>
> ??????
>
> >
> >It never ceases to astound me that people huff and puff about injustice,
> >corrupion and evil - but when anybody actually does something
> >positive about attacking the perpetrators - regardless of race -
>
> You'd say the statement "Jewish controlled popular music pushes them ever
> younger into sexual adventures" is 'regardless of race' would you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a determined distorter here, chaps ! "...- regardless of race - "
alludes to others who manipulate the world and the people in it (other than
Jews). And yes, there are plenty of those. Clinton ? Blair ?
In the interests of accuracy I have frequently and repeatedly stated that
"not all Jews are bad". With examples ! But what the hell would you
do with "accuracy" ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> >leap to their defence with outraged cried of "foul" ! Is the human
> >race terminally brainwashed - or terminally thick ? The greasy,
> >smiling creep who claims to be your friend, is dripping poison in your
> >children's lemonade !
>
> What a *miserable* metaphor. I've never heard such garbage for a long time,
> ie since your last posting.
>
> >*
> >And that includes the Yank film industry !
> >
> >"The Spy Who Shagged Me", for Christ's sake !? What sort of
> >message is that sending to children who see the posters ?
>
> That the spy in question had sexual intercourse with the female lead-role of
> the film? Or do you have a more convincing explanation?
>
> >And
> >who the bloody hell is running the British Board of Film Censors
> >these days ? ! )
>
> Andreas Whittam, last I heard.


>
> >
> >Even the presenters of children's television carry a subversive,
> >titillating
> >sexual message in their dress and style. The little casting couch tarts
> >involved, of course, are far too thick to know how they are being

> >exploited as "soft porn" icons by the Stalinist manipulators who now
> >infest television production.
> >
> >The Stalinist scum who run the BBC know EXACTLY what they are
> >doing - and why ! And ITV is hardly any better.
>
> Stalinist? Can this be the same fool who claimed that "the
> >cartoons carry a sales message", and that the BBC were encrypted
> capitalists? Since when has Stalinism been about pushing the profit margin
> and making a quick buck?
>
> >
> >Undermine the nation by poisoning the children. "The end justifies
> >the means".
>
> In your case, of course, this is reversed to make "the means justifies the
> end", with the means being your transparently flimsy racial rabble-rousing,
> and the end being your apparent desire to establish a Mary Whitehouse Moral
> Dictatorship over the nation. I know your game, sonny. Anti-social behaviour
> wil not be tolerated in this community. You have 48 hours to leave the
> province.
>
> >
> >Regards, Bob
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >


Les Dennis

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 01:40:58 GMT, s...@sig.of.post (Nine Of
Eight) wrote:


>No one is peddling porn to children - in your post you mentioned
>Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me as an example of how low we have
>stooped. The reason it was always referred to by its full title in the
>US was because shag does not have the sexual connotations it has here.

IIRC, the word 'shag', as used by Merkins, has to do with
retrieving lost balls - of the sports type :-)

Are we to assume, then, that the American public are rushing
to see this movie on the assumption that it's the story of a
golf ball that was fished out of a lake by a CIA agent.

Doesn't sound likely to me...

--
Les Dennis
(No. Not that one)
Nobody learns how to use the possessive apostrophe any more. Its a disgrace.

Les Dennis

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:16:44 +0100, "Kit Spanos"
<som...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>So far you have stated this interpretation of popular culture- "the mass
>media encourages infant materialism. infant materialism is wrong. it is
>pedalled by the Jews. the Jews are bad. i believe this to be the case.
>therefore, i am right." Unfortunately, *evidence* for your distorted
>degeneracy is sadly lacking...... perhaps you could fill Paul Johnson's
>column in the Mail?
>

Not my thread, I know, but try this interpretation of
popular culture - ignoring what you appear to have taken to
be the man's sideswipe at Jewish cyclists [1]:

"The mass media encourage casual sex as a fashionable
pastime. Children in general are powerfully attracted to
whatever is currently fashionable. Children need to be
taught that certain sorts of recreational activity are
inappropriate at certain ages. One of these activities is
casual sex, and one of these ages is twelve. Children cannot
be taught this lesson effectively unless someone, at some
stage, becomes judgmental. Being judgmental is currently
held to be A Very Bad Thing. I am being judgmental.
Therefore I am A Very Bad Man and am to be castigated.

Perhaps you could write the editorials for the Social
Workers' Gazette?

Perhaps you do?

[1] I imagine that your teacher-training-college spelling,
taken together with what appears to be an academic email
address, will have reinforced a few prejudices in addition
to my own

Regards

billy

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

Kit Spanos <som...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:936566298.29277.1...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> Nine Of Eight wrote in message <37e0ba04...@news.freeuk.net>...
> >As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
> >Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:19:26 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.
> >They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
> >about Re: Babies Having Babies:
> >
> This has never been a problem to the loony Right. They see mental
confusion
> and blatant inconsistency as something to be treasured, rather than
> despised.

There is no loony Right. The "Loony" has been well earned and stays with the
Left - for the reasons given in my original posting.
regards, bill


Bob Cousins

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In uk.media.tv.misc, BiG_UGGie wrote:

>As Mr Richter awaits, with locked buttocks, the crashing thunder from
>Allan Edward's "Boom! Boom! Boom!" Machine....... Let us
>serpent-lickers tarry awhile and observe the action as we bask briefly
>in the relative safety of our balmy sycophantic Isle.

The standard of flamewars is definitely improving.
--
Bob Cousins, Software Engineer.
http://www.lintilla.demon.co.uk/
"We demand that we may, or may not, be philosophers!"


Bob Cousins

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In uk.media.tv.misc, Bob wrote:

>As one poster in this group has already pointed out, girls of 12 are
>capable of reproduction - and boys of that age are driven mad by
>their testosterone. And I think I read somewhere recently that in
>not very distant history it was legal for girls of 12 to marry in England.

TV trivia quiz: in which country was:

"if a girl reaches puberty at 13, then she is old enough to be married"

stated as an official ruling? From a recent TV program.

Nine Of Eight

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:02:14 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.

They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
about Re: Babies Having Babies:

>Ah ! I see your problem, Eric.

Pay attention, Bob. If you do then you will have noticed that the
above was a part of my sig file, and not the poster to whom you were
replying.

Nine Of Eight

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
As i was idly strolling thru the chaos that is uk.politics.misc on
Mon, 06 Sep 1999 20:51:12 +0100, i came across a post from Bob.

They felt we would all be much better off if we knew the following
about Re: Babies Having Babies:

>I admit that it *is* difficult - and perhaps you are right to challenge


>me on my background as not being typical of those children who do
>end up in trouble as the result of sexual adventures.

Bob, you missed the point. I was illustrating that this harkback to a
previous age of innocence is nothing more than self-delusion. For most
people it never did exist.

>My point is - that parental control and concern is what determins
>what happens to children. With the advent of television - and
>its exploitation by those of ill intent - parental control has been
>subverted.

This still sounds suspiciously like the abdication of parental
responsibility. If parents aren't going to take some control over
their children's viewing habits and choose to use the television as a
babysitter that's there problem. I don't see why my choice should be
restricted because of their refusal to accept responsibility.

>Clean up television - which means changing those who control it
>- and it could stand (to some degree) in place of parental control
> - as it did at one time not so very long ago.

But it is the job of the parents to control what their children watch
- not the television companies...

>The point about cartoons is that children always want to watch
>them - whether they are intended for them or not.

And it is the job of the parents to say no. Not the television
companies.

>And not all
>children can always be persauded to go to bed before 9 O'clock,
>mine included !

So what do we do? Push the watershed back to ten? eleven? midnight? Or
do we not allow programming aimed squarely at adults because 'children
might see it'? That sounds like an argument straight out of Tony
Blair's mouth.

I can see no way in which individuals cannot be aware of the 9pm
watershed, so parents cannot abdicate responsibility with the lie of
'how was i to know that it might be inappropriate for children?'.

>The whole point is that Blairite "pc" dogma has subverted common
>sense - and children are paying the price.

This would be the same Blairite PC dogma that insists on blaming all
of societies ills on the unemployed, single mothers and drug users as
if by their elimination all the 'bad' things (like poverty, free
thought, distrust of the police, being in disagreement with his
holiness the One, True Blair etc) would vanish?

The same PC dogma that insists on pandering to the lowest common
denominator that is the average Sun reader?

The same PC dogma that believes it should be allowed free reign to
monitor what i use my computer for?

The same PC dogma that thinks the concept of innocent til proven
guilty is an inconvenience to be avoided where possible?

The same PC dogma that believes if you are opposed to the restriction
of your liberties by the state then you obviously have something to
hide?

The same PC dogma that seeks to make a point of the Dearly Beloved
Leaders christian credentials and that wishes to dictate the moral
code to which i should adhere?

Blair is many things - dictatorial and repressive as well as being a
smug, smarmy git amongst them. But he most definitely is not PC.

Bob, with your position on television and media censorship, you are a
sometime bedfellow of Blair - there is not one thing you have said on
this topic that could not have come from the mouth of the One, True
Messiah of the Church of New Labour.

White Shite

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
So Hitler wasn't a loony? He was right wing.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Richard Meredith

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
In article <7r2f3g$ahh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk (White Shite) wrote:

> So Hitler wasn't a loony? He was right wing.

So that's why the full name of the Nazi party was the National *Socialist*
Party.

Describing politicians as left- or right- wing is too often a meaningless
political shorthand used as a cheap shot against people with utterly
different views.

As ever on Usenet, any post that mentions Hitler indicates the end of useful
content in the thread.

BiG_UGGie

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 22:42:45 GMT, b...@lintilla.demon.co.uk (Bob
Cousins) wrote:

>In uk.media.tv.misc, BiG_UGGie wrote:
>
>>As Mr Richter awaits, with locked buttocks, the crashing thunder from
>>Allan Edward's "Boom! Boom! Boom!" Machine....... Let us
>>serpent-lickers tarry awhile and observe the action as we bask briefly
>>in the relative safety of our balmy sycophantic Isle.
>
>The standard of flamewars is definitely improving.

>--
>Bob Cousins, Software Engineer.


That's all very well Bob but the result appears to be that the
Gladiators have clammed up!

It's as if someone walked in just as they were about to really start
pissing on each other. Perhaps if they hummed a tune or whistled the
first few bars of "Who's afraid of the big bad Wolf" all would start
to flow again.

Allan is for me the most interesting mind in this group and Sam,
whilst occasionally a bit nippy is certainly a tripleSpunky sort of
guy.

My interjection in all this was really to prepare the ring and check
the gloves etc for what, in artistic alliteration terms at least,
appeared on paper to be a Deadly David and Goliath Gobshite contest.

As I bask on this Isle of Dreams, alongside Dennis my pet terrapin, I
can only hope that these Clashing Titans, spurred on by the teasing
zephyr winds, will again see fit to take up arms and settle this
contest once and for all.


If, on the other hand, I have buggered things up and you boys aren't
hard any more...... then I do apologise.

Big UGGie

Tom Whipple

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
Kit,
Let me tell you a story. About a year ago, in a different newsgroup
to this one, there was a guy called Craig Schoonmaker. He said he was
chairman of the 'US Expansionist Party', and held the view that the USA
should expand and merge with other (subordinate) countries, until it ruled
the world. Needless to say, we had a wonderful time shooting this guy down,
until he disappeared - leaving us with the warm glow of a job well done.
A few months later he reappeared. This time he was chairman of
'Homosexuals Intransigant', and had similarly absurd views, and incredibly I
was the only one who smelt a rat. My point? People like Bob exist only on
the internet. I refuse to believe that he can conceivably be a real person,
holding as he does these insubstantiable and absurd views. Therefore I can
only conclude he must be putting them forward simply because he enjoys a
good argument.

Cheers,

Tom.


Kit Spanos <som...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:936566289.29277.2...@news.demon.co.uk...


>
> Bob wrote in message <37D25FCE...@bscserv.com>...
> >
> >
> >billy wrote:
> >
> >> In a prominent Sunday newspaper, our illustrious Prime Minister "Call
Me
> >> Tony" preaches the need for a "Moral Crusade" in face of the fact that
> >> girls of an age when - in the innocence of Childhood - they should be
> >> playing with dolls are having babies.
> >>
> >> regards, billy
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> >Now we can see the bitter fruits of the mindless politically correct
> >intellectual
> >fleas and their Blairite puppet masters who have been given control of
> Britain.
>
>
>
> 'Been given control of Britain'-- by, er, the electorate, democratically.
No
> need for such hysterical language, my good man.
>
>
>
> >

> >Especially in the media and popular music industries.
> >
> >Children do not play anymore. They just watch television - through
> >which they are fed a constant diet of "poisoned candy".
>
>
>
> ?!?!?!?!?! Meaning what, exactly?
>
>
>

> > Even the
> >cartoons carry a sales message - and are laced with sexual innuendo.
> >
> >Rupert Bear is a *very* rare exception to that rule. (I wonder how
> >that slipped through ?)
>
>
>
> I'm looking for a phrase.......ah. Here it is. "Clutching at straws".
Sound
> familiar?
>
>
> >

> >Kiddie propaganda was also tried by the EU, attempting to exploit
> >the same technique. But they got beaten to death for it (in these news
> >groups, amongst other places).
> >
> >At the age of 9 children no longer want toys for their birthdays. They
> >want fashion accessories and cloths, which they have been brain washed
> >into wanting to buy by television.
> >
> >And (Jewish controlled)
>
>
>
> here we go. The Klan returns.......
>
>
>
> >popular music (and its associated peer
> >pressure) pushes them ever younger into sexual adventures.
> >
> >( But we mustn't say that, of course ! Oh, dear me no ! That would
> >be racialism !
>
>
> Quite. And wrong. And bloody minded. And embarrassing. And stupid. And
> thick-headed. And a bastardised use of the English language for purely
> personal profit in hostile newgroups.
>
>
>

> >Just because it happens to be a hard reality is no excuse
> >for mentioning it.
>
>

> So far you have stated this interpretation of popular culture- "the mass
> media encourages infant materialism. infant materialism is wrong. it is
> pedalled by the Jews. the Jews are bad. i believe this to be the case.
> therefore, i am right." Unfortunately, *evidence* for your distorted
> degeneracy is sadly lacking...... perhaps you could fill Paul Johnson's
> column in the Mail?
>
>
>
>
>

> > That would upset the "grand plan". Tut, tut !
> >Can't
> >do that just because the lives of the nation's children are being ruined
> >by their vile exploitation !
>
>
> ??????
>
> >
> >It never ceases to astound me that people huff and puff about injustice,
> >corrupion and evil - but when anybody actually does something
> >positive about attacking the perpetrators - regardless of race -
>
>
>
> You'd say the statement "Jewish controlled popular music pushes them ever
> younger into sexual adventures" is 'regardless of race' would you?
>
>
>

Phil Stovell

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:42:44 +0100 in alt.politics.british, "Tom Whipple"
<T...@whipple.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> A few months later he reappeared. This time he was chairman of
>'Homosexuals Intransigant', and had similarly absurd views, and incredibly I
>was the only one who smelt a rat. My point? People like Bob exist only on
>the internet. I refuse to believe that he can conceivably be a real person,
>holding as he does these insubstantiable and absurd views. Therefore I can
>only conclude he must be putting them forward simply because he enjoys a
>good argument.

He's the epitome of Daily Mail readers. We'd be lost without him!
--
Phil Stovell | "There's a myth that if we legalise a substance
Petersfield, Hants, UK | it would somehow take the illegality out of it."
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk |
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/ | - Keith Hellawell

White Shite

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
>It's as if someone walked in just as they were about to really start
>pissing on each other.

Kinky.

Sam,
>whilst occasionally a bit nippy is certainly a tripleSpunky sort of
>guy.


Has the triple spunk been ejaculated inside his triple arses?

>If, on the other hand, I have buggered things up and you boys aren't
>hard any more...... then I do apologise.


If he pisses on me, I'll be so hard I'll ejaculate up all three arses.

Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


White Shite

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
>So that's why the full name of the Nazi party was the National *Socialist*
>Party.


It's a vacuous term.

>Describing politicians as left- or right- wing is too often a meaningless
>political shorthand used as a cheap shot against people with utterly
>different views.


That's right. Like "communist liberals", the phrase doesn't make sense. But
Hitler is usually described as both right-wing and a loony.


Allan Edward Munro
white...@hotmail.com


Kira Brown

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:27:55 +0100, White Shite
<A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> So Hitler wasn't a loony? He was right wing.

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

kira.


Les Dennis

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
Sorry about the cross-posting (should have looked before I
sent - twice!)

If there's to be any more I'll confine my gems of wisdom to
uk.media.tv.misc.

There's a similar thread on uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 BTW


--
Les Dennis
"Three year ago I cud'nt spell gradduate. An' now I are one."

Les Dennis

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 18:55:22 +0100, "David"
<da...@comedytime.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>We are now reaping the benefits of generations of underclass inter-breeding,
>as thickos beget thickos, hordes of randy low i.q. dickheads shagging their
>way round the sink estates, and these poor bimbos obtaining the benefit and
>privacy of their own flat/benefits etc - an ideal breeding (literally)
>ground for the next succession of tattooed, body-pierced thugs, lining up at
>the bedroom door. Still these days, they can always obtain their 15 mins of
>fame, on any of the numerous daytime TV chat shows, as they inflict their
>inarticulate shit and drivel, on any sad viewer that has nothing better to
>do with their lives.
>
Come on, David. Stop beating about the bush :-)

(I agree with every word, BTW)

Les Dennis

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
Now that I've read it over without a glass in my hand,, as
it were, I see that my crude swipe at a mildly amusing
spelling error (made by "Kit Spanos") was a bit of a cheap
shot.

Usually I share the general distaste for those who presume
to correct other peoples' spelling or grammar. In this case,
however, the fact that the posting apparently came from an
academic email address sent me rushing to saddle up a
favourite hobbyhorse...

--
Les Dennis
"Three year ago I cud'nt spel gradduate. An' now I are one."

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.
Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -

>
>
>Now we can see the bitter fruits of the mindless politically correct
>intellectual
>fleas and their Blairite puppet masters who have been given control of Britain.
>
Hang on Bob, this is hardly something you can single out Labour for -
they've only been in power 2 years.

ISTM the more casual attitude to sex started in the 1960's with the
invention of the pill.


>
>"The Spy Who Shagged Me", for Christ's sake !? What sort of
>message is that sending to children who see the posters ?

Is it even intended for kids? What rating is it?

> And
>who the bloody hell is running the British Board of Film Censors
>these days ? ! )

Mary Whitehouse clones I think! :)


>
>The Stalinist scum who run the BBC know EXACTLY what they are
>doing - and why ! And ITV is hardly any better.
>

>Undermine the nation by poisoning the children. "The end justifies
>the means".
>

You've been reading 'The Road To Serfdom' too long, Bob!
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett - The Wild Frame Grabber of the Net!

Website at http://www.activist.demon.co.uk/USsitcoms/

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, David <da...@comedytime.freeserve.co.uk> stated this

considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>We are now reaping the benefits of generations of underclass inter-breeding,
>as thickos beget thickos, hordes of randy low i.q. dickheads shagging their
>way round the sink estates, and these poor bimbos obtaining the benefit and
>privacy of their own flat/benefits etc - an ideal breeding (literally)
>ground for the next succession of tattooed, body-pierced thugs, lining up at
>the bedroom door. Still these days, they can always obtain their 15 mins of
>fame, on any of the numerous daytime TV chat shows, as they inflict their
>inarticulate shit and drivel, on any sad viewer that has nothing better to
>do with their lives.
>
As I read this, I assumed the author must be one of these people
themselves! :)

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.

Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>
>White Shite wrote:
>
>> I'm sure we've all been missing you, Bob Sims; could you suscribe to
>> uk.media.tv.misc instead of simply cross-posting?
>>
>> --
>> Allan Edward Munro
>> ------------------
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>Cross posts allow all interested parties in the debates to see the
>repliesof everybody else. Single postings prevent this.
>
>I have blamed TV for most of the problem - which is why I extended
>billy's post to that newsgroup.

99% of us watch TV, that's not a good enough reason to include it, IMO.

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Nine Of Eight <s...@sig.of.post> stated this

considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>Bob, with your position on television and media censorship, you are a
>sometime bedfellow of Blair - there is not one thing you have said on
>this topic that could not have come from the mouth of the One, True
>Messiah of the Church of New Labour.

Nice one - I think that must be one of the strongest insults you could
use on Bob. :)

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Tom Whipple <T...@whipple.freeserve.co.uk> stated

this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>Kit,
> Let me tell you a story. About a year ago, in a different newsgroup
>to this one, there was a guy called Craig Schoonmaker. He said he was
>chairman of the 'US Expansionist Party', and held the view that the USA
>should expand and merge with other (subordinate) countries, until it ruled
>the world. Needless to say, we had a wonderful time shooting this guy down,
>until he disappeared - leaving us with the warm glow of a job well done.
> A few months later he reappeared. This time he was chairman of
>'Homosexuals Intransigant', and had similarly absurd views, and incredibly I
>was the only one who smelt a rat. My point? People like Bob exist only on
>the internet. I refuse to believe that he can conceivably be a real person,
>holding as he does these insubstantiable and absurd views. Therefore I can
>only conclude he must be putting them forward simply because he enjoys a
>good argument.
>
Bob Sims is far too persistent to be this sort of troll.

Though our views are diametrically opposed on most things, I believe him
to be sincere (if somewhat extreme).

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> stated this

considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>There is no loony Right. The "Loony" has been well earned and stays with the
>Left - for the reasons given in my original posting.

The correct epithet for the far-right is 'raving'. :)

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.

Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>I am glad to say that I have never seen "Oz Schoolkidz Issue" - but you
>may have noticed that the former editor of that obscene publication is
>now a mega millionair - and one of the £1,000,000 contributors to
>Blair's party.
>
>Appropriate, I thought. " Child Corrupter Sponsors Traitor. "
>
>At the end of the day, their objectives are the same. The destruction
>of our country, culture and people.

Instead of merely asserting that, perhaps you could explain why they'd
WANT to do that?

Paul Hyett

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> stated this considered view.

Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>I do not doubt, that left to my own devices with no parental
>control, I could very easily have ended up in exactly the sort of
>trouble under discussion here. The labour mafia (now called the
>"Tafia") in main town nearest to where I lived, built a vast Council
>estate over the four farms which were my playground. (In one of
>the most blatant acts of gerrymandering in the history of Britain)

Was this soon after WW2 when housing was in desperate need?

Just curious, as vast swathes of farmland around Cheltenham were also
compulsorily purchased, but we've never been remotely near having a
Labour council.


>
>The whole point is that Blairite "pc" dogma has subverted common
>sense - and children are paying the price.

Not in just TWO years though, Bob. The insanity of PC has been around
since the 70's!

algoss

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:00:43 +0100, Paul Hyett
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, David <da...@comedytime.freeserve.co.uk> stated this


>considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>>

>>We are now reaping the benefits of generations of underclass inter-breeding,
>>as thickos beget thickos, hordes of randy low i.q. dickheads shagging their
>>way round the sink estates, and these poor bimbos obtaining the benefit and
>>privacy of their own flat/benefits etc - an ideal breeding (literally)
>>ground for the next succession of tattooed, body-pierced thugs, lining up at
>>the bedroom door. Still these days, they can always obtain their 15 mins of
>>fame, on any of the numerous daytime TV chat shows, as they inflict their
>>inarticulate shit and drivel, on any sad viewer that has nothing better to
>>do with their lives.
>>
>As I read this, I assumed the author must be one of these people
>themselves! :)
>--

Nah he's a Sun reader (or should that be sun looker at the pics)
>
>

--

Alan Goss

Paranoia is natures way of telling you to 'be careful out there'


Alan Hardie

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:12:58 -0700, "billy"
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>White Shite <A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7r2f3g$ahh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...


>> So Hitler wasn't a loony? He was right wing.
>>

>> Allan Edward Munro
>> white...@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>Hitler was a National Socialist who followed the eugenic principle generally
>supported by many "intellects" at that time and even practised, for
>instance, in the USA. and Sweden.
>Soon we will be aiming after what Hitler wanted to achieve - but by
>manipulating genes. Hitler never had that science otherwise, he might have
>used it.

According to the documentary I saw tonight, he was something of an
oddball. Who would have thought?


Alan Hardie

billy

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to

White Shite <A.E....@sea-serpent.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7r2f3g$ahh$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> So Hitler wasn't a loony? He was right wing.
>
> Allan Edward Munro
> white...@hotmail.com
>
>
Hitler was a National Socialist who followed the eugenic principle generally
supported by many "intellects" at that time and even practised, for
instance, in the USA. and Sweden.
Soon we will be aiming after what Hitler wanted to achieve - but by
manipulating genes. Hitler never had that science otherwise, he might have
used it.
regards, billy

Sam Butler

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
Alan Hardie wrote in message ...

>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:12:58 -0700, "billy"
><jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>


>>Hitler was a National Socialist who followed the eugenic
principle generally
>>supported by many "intellects" at that time and even practised,
for
>>instance, in the USA. and Sweden.
>>Soon we will be aiming after what Hitler wanted to achieve -
but by
>>manipulating genes. Hitler never had that science otherwise, he
might have
>>used it.
>

>According to the documentary I saw tonight, he was something of
an
>oddball. Who would have thought?

All together now. "Hitler, he only had one..."

--
Sam Butler

abelard

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:54:04 +0100, "Kit Spanos"
<som...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote:


>
>mmmmmmmm, how liberal. And for your information, 'thickos' (like to see your
>definition of *that*) do NOT necessarily 'breed thickos'- children with
>exceptionally high IQs have been known, in fact quite frequently, do be
>conceived by parents with proportionately low IQs; whereas for a family of
>successive high IQs, the average IQ for their future offspring actually
>*recedes*.

your statements are likely not accurate....in as far as
genetic 'intelligence' can be measured or separated from
education....
the children of each 'group' will prob. show statistical variation
from their *respective* means....
thus the slow will tend to average slow children..with a bell(normal*)
variation around that average...likewise a bright group....

re lowering intelligence of the high 'iq's'
i think you may be confusing regression to 'the' *population* mean....
which is a statistical construct, with the breeding reality.....
similar regression (upwards) affects groups selected below the pop.
mean.

for follow up references see 'franchise by examination'
document at my site....
your posts appear of interest....
we seem to have an invasion of the underclass at present....
i trust you will not be disturbed by them....they try it on
approx every 4 months...fortunately they tend soon retire
back to the ghetto from which they crawl....
i think the retirement age is getting too low....or the medics
too assiduous...

*applying a normal distribution is a construct...not a statement
about reality...one of several reasons that it needs treating
with 'considerable' caution.

regards.

web site at www.abelard.org - new document on the errors of aristotelian logic now on
site...also various logic and education docs. over 600 site doc. requests weekly.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:11:28 +0100, "Kit Spanos"
<som...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote:


>This has never been a problem to the loony Right. They see mental confusion
>and blatant inconsistency as something to be treasured, rather than
>despised.

neatly encapsulated...
but the left are just the 'same'....
all that changes is the prayer books.....
they both believe the same....
they both want the same....
all they quarrel about is which lot are to be in charge...
and oppress the rest....

abelard

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 22:03:25 +0100, Bob <b...@bscserv.com> wrote:

>As one poster in this group has already pointed out, girls of 12 are
>capable of reproduction - and boys of that age are driven mad by
>their testosterone. And I think I read somewhere recently that in
>not very distant history it was legal for girls of 12 to marry in England.

probably in most societies at most times....
things only recently got so damn complicated....
even king john married a 12yo and was exceedingly enamoured
according to reports....

>But would *you* deny children the care-free pleasure of their
>childhood

what an old romantic you are....

> and burden them with parenthood

strangely, some do not see it that way....

> - just for the sake of
>a principle exploited and distorted for the ends of evil ?

oh, is that why they do it...please post your survey results....

>I suspect that when you leave the world of debate - and re-enter
>the real world - where for all I know you have your own children
>- you would do no such thing !

ah, but i believe in franchise by examination.....
and i believe in repeatedly asking you....
'who owns the child'?

>I grew up in an age (1940-50) when we were told bugger all.

i am sorely tempted...but you are a good sort, so i will
invoke my iron will.....

> And
>before we got married, we and the others in the office shared a
>small green book which gave you the basics - with rough pencil
>drawings ! I was 24 at the time !

i know 18yo virgins of both sexes....all this corruption must
be damned inefficient....

> but we had a great childhood for
>which I will always be grateful and have never forgotten.

lucky you...and on balance it is my view that the average
level of emotional and physical comfort for the average
child is now *far* better....
glory be....it is even becoming unfashionable to beat the
little bastards....unfair to sadists say i.....
you keep 'the good old days' warm beer and all...

>It makes me cry to think what modern children today have had
>robbed from them.

dry your tears bob....or i'll get my violin out....

> And you know what ? They actually
>*know* they have been robbed !
>
>How do I know ? Because my own children tell me so.

how do they know?
this is not at all what i hear from *most* that i meet....

regards....and keep kicking the emu!

BiG_UGGie

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to

An excellent opening salvo from the coiled wizard. His overtly sexual
technique has certainly got Sam with his back up against the wall. As
the bell sounded for the end of the first round it was very noticeable
that this man of many bottom parts had yet to throw a punch.

As King Cobra arises for round 2 we feel sure that the doughty
challenger will now start to attend to business and force his
attentions on the pumped up pile of spit he sees before him.


BiG UGGie

David

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99