When I first saw the ‘slow crash’ story about a man who drove his car into the security gates at Downing Street, I immediately discounted the idea that this was a person who had gorged himself to satiation at ‘Allan’s Snackbar’. The lack of lethality and low puissance of the attack along with the absence of any reports of the driver shouting ‘Allah hu Akbar’ led me to believe, correctly it seems to be, that this was not an Islamic attack.
I did wonder as the left probably also did, whether this was a frustrated far rightist. But that wasn’t the case either. The revelation that following his arrest, child sexual abuse materials were allegedly discovered led me to take the view that this is a nutter doing nutbag things and I believe that we will hear more about this aspect when the case comes to court.
But Guido Fawkes seems to have discovered something else about the suspect and that is he’s allegedly a dyed in the wool Labour Party supporter who promotes trans ideology, republicanism and worships the NHS.
I cannot comment further because of sub judice rules but this is going to be embarrassing for those who, seeing that the guy arrested was white, probably assumed that this was something to do with the far right.
Ah, NOW I understand why all has gone silent about this.
I’m sure we wouldn’t be being regaled with Schofield 24/7/7 if this twerp had been a genuine Neo-Nazi the press would have been all over this story instead, interviewing every family member, acquaintance, work associate etc. to big up the “far right” threat.
The Schofield story is exciting the media because it is all about the media and some in the media are blatant narcissists. I agree however that there would have been wall to wall coverage had he been a rightist.
Well no, whilst I realise we cannot discuss this case for legal reasons you seem to be implying there is a hostile and irrational ‘Left’ who cannot appreciate a difference between Centre Right and Far Right. And also when a criminal act is committed would be not able to look at it objectively beyond affiliations?
There does exist a Left that is hostile to Western values and one that is increasingly hostile to the working classes. There also exists those who are on the Left, especially in what could be described as the Middle Class Activist Left who seem to believe that anyone to the right of Mao is a rightist or far rightist. I’ve marched against genuine neo-Nazis and I know what these buggers look like and sound like and it’s not the sort of groups that too many on the left describe as far right.
One main issue here is with the left dominated media and how they’ve covered it. Too many journos and outlets went silent when it turned out that this might not have been the far right attack they were hoping for. Guido did the country a favour by publicising the aspects of this case that too many reporters and outlets might have been willing to ignore.
I would think the case of Kathleen Stock vs. Trans-activists would be proof irrefutable that “there is a hostile and irrational ‘Left’ ” (i.e. so-called progressives).
A second point is that of the Overton Window. As the left moves ever leftwards (in the modern sense of embracing ever more repressive “progressive” policies, ideologies etc. such as not being able to define a woman – adult human female, XX chromosomes) then ever more view fall outside an increasingly narrow Overton window (if something is declared “not up for debate” then any disagreement is outside said window).
Thus as more extreme views are held, so the ability to distinguish between (e.g.) centre and far right is lost , let me add that those on the far-right tend to regard all who disagree with them as communists so we have the at once hilarious and tragic situation of all disagreements being between “Commies” and “Fascists” in more polarised circles.
T
With regards to crime, we have seen various climate activists who are obviously guilty of criminal damage by defacing paintings, buildings etc. acquitted of said crime. So again, there are those who cannot look at crime “objectively beyond affiliations”. I will be generous enough to allow that such persons may think that those objectors were acting in the “greater good” (but who gets to decide what that IS, is another matter), but by definition such a stance is not objective.