Muslim "culture"...............

Girl is murdered by her own father and uncle

Mahmod Mahmod and Ari Mahmod

Take a look at the two individuals pictured above. These people are resident in the UK because Liberals, in their seemingly infinite wisdom, reckon that mass immigration from Pakistan and Kurdistan (where these men originate from) - religiously fundamental hovels - will "culturally enrich" (to use classic Liberal phraseology) the United Kingdom.

When Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 50, came to Britain, they didn't just bring suitcases and hope with them. They brought with them a backward and uncivilised ideology, some aspects of which England had not seen for 200 years. Whilst indigenous Britons fret over the unsavoury behaviour of some of their binge-drinking, semi-literate, welfare-dependent, urbanites, let us reflect on what is considered right in muslim society.

Mahmod Mahmod decided that his daughter Banaz Mahmod (pictured below), should not not court Rahmat Sulemani - her boyfriend - any longer. When she (an independent women by English law) defied him, Mahmod Mahmod and his brother Ari acted in accordance with the medieval diktats of the muslim faith - and killed her. Don't be fooled by the vacuous and tactical utterances of so-called "moderate" muslims. To the Pakistanis and Kurds of Britain's muslim ghettos, this young girl got what was coming to her.

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was quite legally killed, in the eyes of many Muslims.

The two men are due to be sentenced after having been found gulity today, Monday 11th June 2007. Ironically, the country that is so alien to them in its culture, also has an alien legal system. One that spares the lives of murderers.

Let it be clear; this murder is the tip of the iceberg. Muslim communities are so close-knit, that the majority of these killings are never detected. The communities are so close-knit because they were never meant to be anything else.

"Multiculturalism" - that great, naive, Liberal project, envisaged a grateful new community of ex-savages seeing the benefit of an enlightened English culture and living in peace and harmony amongst us. Of course, when it didn't happen, the Left - being constricted by their own ideological rules - couldn't possibly blame the newcomers. No, it was we - the indigenous Britons - who were to blame. Our enlightened culture became the culture that needed "correcting". "Ism" is the cure-all rejoinder for that rude stranger - the truth - when it presents itself to the Guardian reader. And this is what sickens the Toad. For when the muslim machine conducts itself as it is designed to do - and kills a twenty year old girl for an infraction of her father's house-rules, Liberals are quick to manoeuvre, for they are only too aware that the whole mess has their dabs on it.

Twice today has the Toad heard Liberals posturing over the murder, and condemning it in frigid terms - "how awful that a father could blah blah etc..." - completely race neutral, of course, because after all, they (the murderers) are just ordinary "British men". Just like newspapers paraded their "tolerance" credentials after the 7th July muslim attacks on London: "...how could ordinary British boys do such a thing?" came the dishonest bile from our conditioned press.

To listen to the wooden, constrained reporting and comment on this murder, is to realise just how frightened of moral censure our people have become. That moral censure comes from those on the hard-left who have, over many years worked themselves into government, the BBC and our institutions.

The facts are that muslims generally don't like us. They deplore our customs and ancient rights. The reason why they are here is because roads, clean water, sewerage, a national health system, reliable electricity, social security, safe food, public transport, law and order (ironically) and a free press are something which they don't have in Pakistan or other radical muslim nations. Even so, many third generation UK Pakistanis send their wages or benefits "home" to Pakistan, thus lancing the boil of the fatuous Liberal argument that Pakistanis have "financially enriched" Britain.

Tatchell - a "man" of our times........

Take this Sodomski!!!

Does anyone else find Peter Tatchell a nauseating, self-serving, professional Victim? I currently don't have video hosting on this blog, but here's a link to him getting punched in Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fybP0uwZvEs

He gets a decent straight right to the eye and then starts a pitiful wailing; "help me, help me......someone protect me...." in a cringing, pathetic way.

Here is Tatchell’s self pitying and woeful account (from The Guardian – who else?);


"On Sunday Peter Tatchell was assaulted and then arrested at a gay-rights protest in Moscow. Here he tells Luke Harding exactly what happened............"

"I was invited to Moscow by the organisers of Gay Pride. The plan was to mark the 14th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Russia, and call for the right to hold a gay pride parade. (why would anyone be "proud" to have a genetic disorder?) The activists had been attacked at a similar protest last year, and they felt it was very important to have international observers to witness how the Moscow authorities treated them. Their hope was that our presence would encourage the Moscow police to be less aggressive. (methinks you overstate your own importance, Mr. Tatchell)

We arrived at the city hall at 12 o'clock on Sunday. Our intention was to hand a letter to the Moscow mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, but the police allowed gangs of neo-Nazis to infiltrate our group. They started attacking people in an absolutely shocking way. The police stood and watched while people punched me, knocked me to the ground and then kicked me. Eventually the police arrested me and let my neo-Nazi assailants walk free. I was taken into a police van with others, including the German MP Volker Beck, and the Italian MEP Marco Cappato (well, at least they were "equal opportunity" incarerators!! heh, heh..) . When we sat in the bus the police taunted us. They said: "Are you members of the sexual minority?" We said yes. They said: "We are going to have some fun with you at the police station."

I spent 45 minutes at the station trying unsuccessfully to register a complaint. When we left, (hold on, what about the "fun"?) neo-Nazis attacked us again and pelted us with eggs. A Russian orthodox priest ran across the road and attacked us too. (so, not a "neo-Nazi" on this occasion?) There were hundreds of riot police who could have easily prevented the neo-Nazis from assaulting us. I was taken in an ambulance to the Moscow eye hospital for treatment to my right eye. I took a real beating around the head and even a day later I'm pretty woozy. It's still difficult to see clearly. It was the second worst beating after the one I received at the hands of Mugabe's thugs in Brussels in 2001. This time I wasn't knocked unconscious and left in the gutter but I ended up with a much bloodier face and severe bruising and swelling on my head. (translation: "I'm no ordinary Victim, you know. Oh no, I've form I have, I'm truly virtuous in this regard...")

What this shows is the flawed and failed nature of Russia's transition to democracy. It was a shameful abdication by the Moscow police of their responsibility to uphold the law. I think the British Embassy in Moscow should write a strong letter to the Russian authorities for failing to protect a lawful protest." (what this shows, Mr Tatchell, is the fact that not the whole of the world has been politically corrected by your ghastly Liberal conditioning)

Ends.


Notice how Tatchell constantly - and rather awkwardly - refers to his assailants as "neo-Nazis". It's as if he wants to force this label onto his assailants, to establish their group identity as a given, established fact. "Ordinary Muscovites" won't do at all will it, Peter? No, that wouldn't serve any purpose at all would it?

Let's be right about this, if Tatchell could turn the clock back and make things different so he didn't get cuffed, do you think he would? No, of course he wouldn't. Why? Because he regards the assault and his subsequent treatment by the police, to be a great asset in terms his status as a Victim. And that, my friends is all that counts in Peter’s world. The assault will be worn on his sleeve, like a Normandy veteran wears his medals on his chest. If he wasn't a homosexual, he'd be protesting about some such other terrible wrong in this awful, unfair world. He is truly a 21st century, Southern English, urban man.

Valhalla.......

Look upon the picture above, mortals!! Then throw yourselves down as unworthy insects, to have presumed to look upon the image of the late Mrs. Longden's fish and chip emporium, in the village of Upton.

Yes, the Toad has again sampled God's chosen haddock and chips and confirms that all other comestibles of this style are but a poor imitation of His choice.

Go you to this place, as ancient pilgrims to a far-away shrine. Only then, will ye be complete.

The Diana phenomenon - a national embarrassment.

Later this year it's going to be ten years since the Sloane Slapper bought the farm with her dago playboy in France.

I remember when Diana died. I was tying my shoe laces prior to going to work and flicked the TV on and switched to teletext to get the news. "Diana dies in crash etc etc". "Oh fine" I thought, "I wish she'd told us beforehand that she was going to croak" - then I could have booked a holiday. In the event I stopped at the newsagent on the way to work and cancelled The Telegraph for three weeks. As it turns out, I should have cancelled for six weeks as the newspapers were still wailing on about it even then.

Diana's funeral was such an undignified national embarrassment, because many of the people who made it such, were obviously "show grieving". Diana = saint, therefore the more I grieve and the more publicly I do so, the more virtuous I am. Perhaps worse than the show grievers, were the genuine grievers. These pitiful wretches had not the mental fortitude to withstand the media conditioning that created the mind-candy we now know as "Diana". To them she was really a saint - because they wanted to believe it was so. Look at the Show Grievers in the picture above. These idiots are stroking themselves in an effort to feel good about something. I'll wager that many of them drove to Soham for a spot of grieving there too. What's the betting that they all wear those coloured wristbands - the sign of conspicuous compassion? And what's the betting some Victim brings out a Diana wristband closer to the anniversary?

There are ways of expressing deep emotion without making a fool of yourself over a woman who was, at the end of the day, just a house of cards.

Good architecture......

.......OK, so it's not brilliant, but this photo shows what can be achieved with a little effort. All of this building (presently "HBS" - a council quango thingy, in Lincoln) had windows like you see on the left. The building was a typical, sterile sixties-school, architectural abberation. Then someone with a limited budget and a bit of imagination, put these blue windows in and, although it's not going to set your pulse racing, it has softened considerably a building which was - frankly - an eyesore.

Modern-day impressment

When I were a lad, I was told when leaving the Army on 1st Jan 1991, that my mobilisation would never happen, as the cold war was ending and the only reason you would ever be mobilised would be in the case of the Russians streaming over the Iron Curtain, or some such other situation which threatened Blighty herself.

How things have changed;

Reservists: The Rules On Being MobilisedMonday,

May 14, 2007

Source: MoD

"Mobilisation is the process of calling Reservists into full-time service with the Regular Forces on military operations.....



"Mobilisation of the unwilling

When there are very short operational deadlines, the scale of operation is particularly large or there is a shortage in a so called 'pinchpoint' trade, the MOD may have to resort to mobilising personnel who are unwilling and/or whose employers do not wish to release. Such mobilisation has taken place in support of operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider Gulf region, however, the Armed Forces seek to keep the numbers of such mobilisations to an absolute minimum."



"From the moment the reservist receives a Call-Out Notice, he needs to consider what actions to take to put his affairs in order before he is obliged to report for mobilisation. A reservist may need to make financial provisions for his family or ensure that regular payments, rent or mortgage for example, will continue to be made while he is away."



"The legal basis for mobilisationThe Reserve Forces Act 1996 provides the legal basis under which mobilisation can take place.Under the Act, Call-Out can be authorised:by Her Majesty making an order 'if it appears to Her that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has arisen; or in the event of an actual or apprehended attack on the UK' (Section 52) by the Secretary of State for Defence making an order 'if it appears to him that warlike operations are in preparation or progress' (Section 54) by the Secretary of State for Defence making an order 'if it appears to him that it is necessary or desirable to use armed forces on operations outside the UK for the protection of life or property; or on operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster' (Section 56) High Readiness Reserves (HRR) and Sponsored Reserves (SR) mobilisation is undertaken under different sections of the Act, as is Recall which is authorised under Sect 68. *Additionally, Transitionals come under RFA 80.

"The full article here;http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=13262&category=all&refresh=5912A8C1-8801-405B-AA69DBD7E8969F2B

Not sure if you need to log in for this url - I linked from an email circular.

Now, I may be mistaken, but it is my guess that the Reserve forces act which preceded this one is different only in regard to Section 56 - "...use armed forces on operations outside the UK for the protection....etc.."

Excerpt from a UK Employment Law website;

BASIC POSITION

"The Reserve Force Act 1966 updates the law regarding call up of reservists generally and in the light of the end of the cold war in particular. It includes a new power of call-out for non-fighting purposes such as peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief operations...." http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f114001.htm

Just why would a government feel they had to take the extreme measure of calling a reservist up - soft conscription, if you will - for "peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief operations"??

The act was brought into being by the Tories as the date betrays, in 1996. Why did they think it necessary to amend this crucial legislation, with its severe shift in emphasis?

North Kesteven fields ONE Labour candidate..

....out of 23 wards.


Polling is expected to be low in all but the Sleaford Castle Ward, where the solitary, dismal Labour candidate will ensure voters will turn out to kick him. The Toad knows three people who are not voting simply because there is no Labour candidate to vote against.

What dreadful dross Labour are. The only people who vote for them are the hopelessly naive and the selfish Client Voters who rely on Labour to keep them in other people's money.