March 19th, 2012

The Guardian – The Whole Picture

The Guardian are reporting the horrendous details emerging from Toulouse, where a gunman has opened fire outside a Jewish school:

“At least three people, including two children, have died after a man on a motorcycle opened fire outside a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse on Monday morning. One witness indicated that a gunman opened fire outside the Ozar Hatorah school in the southern French city before fleeing on the back of a black scooter.”

Guido is never normally one to score cheap points, but let him remind you of what the Guardian said back in January. With tasteful timing on Holocaust Memorial Day, the paper gave Michael Gove a savaging for giving public money to a group that they did not like – the Community Security Trust.

The CST provide security guards for Jewish schools…


208 Comments

  1. 1
    Oh dear says:

    ont worry am sure Ken Livingstone will be sad.

    Like

    • 8
      even fatter belly says:

      And how would a security guard stop an armed man on a motorbike? Are you morons for real using kids to pathetically score points? You should be ashamed.

      Also why do you moan about Ken’s tax situation when you do a column for a tax evader like Richard Desmond? Hello Pot, Hello Kettle.

      Like

      • 20
        Anonymous says:

        At least Desmond admits that he’s a opportunistic capitalist, unlike that other one Livingtwat.

        Like

        • 26
          Anonymous says:

          ‘Livingtwat’ – brilliant! such Wildean wordplay! when i have stopped laughing i shall doubtless fully accept your point, because you are so hilarious you must be right.

          Like

          • Rage Against the Political Elite. says:

            Seemingly the same GUN man has shot a number of earlier Victims outside a Barrack in Toulouse. We didn’t get that on the news over the weekend. Wonder WHY??

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            I think you’re in denial the Ken is actually a ‘rich bastard’ mate. Go and take your meds you muppet, and do us all a favour.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Anf the four soldiers shot were three Arabs and a Black.

            Like

          • Rage Against the Political Elite. says:

            Might be one of those Racists that the French Government have been incubating for the last couple of decades. Our lot are doing the same, social science experiment immigration policy looks like its going to work really well and create a load of intolerant right wing extremists.

            Like

        • 39
          even fatter belly says:

          His columnists support his tax avoidance but moan at other’s alleged tax avoidance.

          No hypocritical at all you say…

          Like

          • Anonymous says:

            I couldn’t give a fcuk if you avoid your taxes, it is legal and therefore fair game. If you kick off about me doing it, while doing it yourself on the qt, then your an hypocrite and a fcuking muppet.

            Like

        • 46
          Rage Against the Political Elite. says:

          Can some one tell me did BLIAR, State that by invading IRAQ, We would be safer in our BEDS??
          Or has his Warmongering made things all a bit more tense??

          Just a thought. And now we are selling the roads to fund the Afghanistan WAR.

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            Blair was the Best Conservative PM…following Tory policies to a tee.

            Like

          • AC1 says:

            Because it would drain the world of jihadis, which we could fight with military abroad, rather than fighting them here with police.

            Iraq = Genius.

            Like

          • sockpuppet #4 says:

            AC1, I congratulate you on your invention of a new fallacy.
            “Lump of Terrorism Fallacy”

            Although I suspect you just copied it from some daft american blog.

            Like

          • misterned says:

            Anyone who stupidly claims that Blair was a conservative, does not understand conservatism.

            Blair, like Cameron, is an opportunist corporatist, not a conservative. Blair did not reduce the size or scope or cost of the state. Neither is Cameron.

            Blair increased taxes, as is Cameron.

            Blair believed that the state was best placed to set rules and implement change and impose “acceptable” behaviour. Just like Cameron.

            Blair believed in private/state corporatism. Where state functions are sold off to cronies, but keep charging the end-users via taxes. No competition, no choice for the consumer and the crony makes a fortune from a captive state-mandated market being ripped off for tax. Cameron is following that agenda.

            None of those things are conservative.

            Like

          • Bernard Ingham says:

            misterned says:
            March 19, 2012 at 11:20 am

            Anyone who stupidly claims that Blair was a conservative, does not understand conservatism.

            Blair, like Cameron, is an opportunist corporatist, not a conservative. Blair did not reduce the size or scope or cost of the state. Neither is Cameron.

            Blair increased taxes, as is Cameron.

            Blair believed that the state was best placed to set rules and implement change and impose “acceptable” behaviour. Just like Cameron.

            Blair believed in private/state corporatism. Where state functions are sold off to cronies, but keep charging the end-users via taxes. No competition, no choice for the consumer and the crony makes a fortune from a captive state-mandated market being ripped off for tax. Cameron is following that agenda.

            None of those things are conservative.

            That policy started in the 1980s though, didn’t it?

            Like

          • Adam Smith says:

            Looks like Misterned is blanking that response.

            Like

          • Blair was a fantastic broker for Capital/MP says:

            ‘Blair believed in private/state corporatism. Where state functions are sold off to cronies, but keep charging the end-users via taxes. No competition, no choice for the consumer and the crony makes a fortune from a captive state-mandated market being ripped off for tax. Cameron is following that agenda.’

            All states act in this way, as do all capitalists (there is no such thing as ‘crony capitalism’, just capitalism).

            Even the so-called ‘libertarians’ of the Austrian School advocate forms of coercion, which would create a de facto state UNHINDERED by any pretence of citizen ‘rights’.

            Like

          • Gideon says:

            Blair was only following Thatcher and Major policies. Like the true tory he was…

            Like

        • 158
          Anonymous says:

          Typical idiot lefty. It’s Livingslime’s hypocrisy. Not his tax position. Leftwing politicians are cynical, grasping opportunists who feather their own nest while pretending they are the salt of the earth and saviours of humanity.

          Like

      • 23
        Doh! says:

        Ken says everyone should pay thier fair share, Ken says tax avoidance is wrong.

        He says one thing and does another, in other words he is a hypocrite like most politicans.

        Like

        • 33
          even fatter belly says:

          So the Loony right moan about it from a tax avoiders’ newspaper.

          Got to love hypocritical twats haven’t you?

          Like

          • Doh! says:

            Guido is not standing to be mayor of London, Ken is.

            Like

          • mardall says:

            Ah, I get it, hypocrisy from the Loonie Left is OK, as is corruption. Just so I know.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            The point still stands. They are being hypocritical. Otherwise they would attack all tax avoiders not just the ones they don’t like. Trouble is if they started attacking The Telegraph, Mail, Express, FT and Grauniad who would listen??????

            Like

          • Doh! says:

            @EFB

            No, tax avoidance is legal an should be practiced by everyone, but if you are going to camapign against tax avoidance then make sure you dont take advantage of tax avoidance.

            Its the hypocrsy.

            Like

          • An impartial observer says:

            The Guardian Media Group’s tax arrangements in the Cayman Islands aren’t a problem to you then?

            Like

          • cutio says:

            like u

            Like

          • Fake Blood says:

            Listen you thick the attacks on Ken are not for tax avoidance (which in my opinion he isn’t even doing) but for hypocrisy. Jeez.

            Like

        • 107
          even fatter belly says:

          Trouble is if they started attacking The Telegraph, Mail, Express, FT and Grauniad who would listen??????

          Repeated for those who are hard of reading

          Like

      • 106
        Anonymous says:

        Well, when I went to a Jewish primary school in North London about 30 years ago, we had security guards both on the door and on “lookout”. They didn’t speak much, they were apparently sourced from recommendations from the Embassy, and looked much the way you’d expect diplomatic bodyguards or military policemen to look.

        I strongly suspect they had various options available to stop armed men, of varying levels of legality & lethality. But at a basic point, the school had an armoured door & you had to be buzzed in.

        (On a side-note, the best way to stop anyone on a motorbike is to have a street full of Israelis trying to park their cars outside the school, usually in any orientation or direction they choose. There would be a strong chance of any motorcyclist quite literally being blocked in)

        Like

    • 37
      Anonymous says:

      any normal person would be sad about the murder of children. an abnormal person would use it as an excuse to attack the Guardian, or Ken Livingstone.

      Like

      • 65
        AC1 says:

        Any sensible person would look at those who make problem more likely to
        a) happen
        b) be worse
        and point out their idiocy.

        Like

    • 51
      AC1 says:

      “Asians?”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17319136

      AlJaBeebya, we cover up the truth.

      Like

  2. 2
    Liver says:

    Cheap. But high-brow for you and your reptilian brain.

    Like

    • 108
      Weygand says:

      Cheap and nasty – using the death of children to make a non point (which UK constituency is Toulouse in?)

      Like

  3. 3
    To Clarify says:

    Like

    • 87
      henry winter says:

      If you knew anything about the CST. you would know that they are a deeply unpleasant organization, that should not receive a penny of public money.

      Like

      • 140
        Phil says:

        I’m hoping that you made a typo error because “Guardian” appears to be far more apposite than “CST” in your comment?

        Like

      • 145
        The first stages of CiF says:

        Security for Jewish schoolkids in a Europe enriched with fundies and Islamists is ‘an unpleasant organisation’

        Back to your Mengele jazz mags you unfortunate clod.

        Like

      • 155
        Adam Smith says:

        How are they an unpleasant organisation?

        Like

      • 174
        David Cameron Is A Cunt says:

        Oh do fuck off back to your Column 88 meeting you wanker.

        Like

  4. 4
    Anonymous says:

    Guido is never normally one to score cheap points,

    Yeah right!

    Like

    • 24
      aslan says:

      That’s why we wuv him so much, he’s not afraid to punch below the belt, just like hypocritical lefties do on a regular basis.

      Like

      • 28
        even fatter belly says:

        When? Cite some examples.

        Oh wait…

        Like

        • 43
          I havn't got all fucking day says:

          You cannot be serious ffs?

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            Aslan is apparently and yet he cannot cite some examples… same old

            Like

          • the stench of hypocrisy says:

            Livingstone stated on the Andrew Marr show last Sunday that Boris used the same tax avoidance arrangements as he did.
            It was a lie and I don’t remember hearing an apology from Livingstone.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            It was a lie? Who says? Andrew Gilligan????? Now when did he last tell the truth?

            Answers on a postcard.

            Like

          • Last time I heard, it’s innocent until proven guilty, you dumb, limp wristed left wing wa*ker! Livingstone HAS avoided taxes – legal-ishly, but campaigned to stop people avoiding taxes. Boris is a bumbling fuckwit, who has a fair bit of political survival nowse and not much else.

            PROOF that Boris has avoided taxes while campaigning against avoiding taxes is what you do NOT have (F*ck me, these capitals are getting tedious).

            Members of the jury, have you reached a … oh sorry, no proof, no charge!

            Cite some examples, as you so pithily put it.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            so reducing funding to London Rape Centres is politically expedient?

            So Boris doen’t have his Telegraph (tax dodging scum) salary paid into his Jersey registered company? When did that stop?

            Interesting. I’ll call Jersey Companies House

            Like

  5. 5
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    There are nutters all over the place, luckily they are rare.
    Rather a “something must be done” sort of reaction.

    Perhaps we should ban all guns, motorcycles, and frenchmen.

    Like

  6. 6
    Anonymous says:

    “Guido is never normally one to score cheap points”

    ho ho ho

    Like

  7. 7
    Brian says:

    Wow. Low even by your standards.

    Like

    • 11
      even fatter belly says:

      It shows the loony Right must be getting more and more desperate

      Like

      • 16
        bob says:

        ‘Loony left’ is much more alliterative, and btw more accurate.

        Like

        • 27
          even fatter belly says:

          Guido Fawkes is a leftie now?

          How do you work that one out?

          He supports an idiot who is cutting half a mill for London Rape Centres. Loony right stands

          QED.

          Like

          • bob says:

            I never said anything about Guido, and everybody knows that ‘loony’ is a pejorative term exclusively for the left, who live up to the term so consistently.

            Now do one saddo.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            Loony was coined by tax avoiding right papers bereft of any concept of reality. As for doing on, ladies first.

            Like

          • CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

            How much tax do you pay, Even Fatter Belly? Or are you one of those lefties who think paying tax is for the benefit of benefit scroungers and Socialist politicians bank balances?

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            I pay more tax than Phillip Green. How much do you pay?

            Like

      • 43
        Anonymous says:

        Especially when this turns out to be a French domestic nutter like Breivik – the killing of the soldiers being ignored for the purposes of Guido’s ‘story’.

        Like

        • 59
          even fatter belly says:

          Ahh but the killing of soldiers doesn’t count…

          scoring pathetic points does for the fat twat who did that epic fail at Waterloo Station the other day

          Like

        • 63
          AC1 says:

          French soldiers are in Afghanistan, and france has a large supply of jihad supporters in the banlieues (living off jizya).

          Like

          • sockpuppet #4 says:

            France has been in afganistan for ages, and the vast majority of north african or turkish yoof around paris aren’t particularly religious.

            Like

    • 12
      wanker watch says:

      Just about on a par with the fuckwits at the Guardian I’d say.

      Like

      • 14
        even fatter belly says:

        You read Flat Earth News as well. Bravo.

        Like

        • 18
          copperknickers says:

          Is that what they’re calling the Guardian these days? Not surprised, reactionary, dopey twats. the lot of ‘em.

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            No Flat Earth News is a book. Do you know anything? So how would security guards protect a school from a French gunman on a motorbike, dopey twat?

            Answers on a postcard

            Like

          • copperknickers says:

            On that basis the whole security business may as well be made redundant. What a knob.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            So remind us how can security stop a drive by/ride by shooting? Full risk assessment please. I noticed how you blanked it…

            Like

          • misterned says:

            Fatter Belly, A visible armed security presence would:

            (A) Most likely deter such an attack from happening and
            (B) In the very unlikely event that such an attack did happen, the professional armed security team would be able to shoot the gunman!

            Or do you actually enjoy seeing reports of children being killed? Because I do not!

            Personally, the religion and race of the children involved is irrelevant to me, but given that those children clearly ARE a target, then The Guardian complaining a while ago that Gove wanted to pay to protect OUR children, then this shooting taking place, certainly backs up Gove’s argument that security is required and weakens the Guardian’s argument that security is not required.

            Bringing attention to a failing by the Guardian, therefore, is NOT a bad thing.

            Like

          • Adam Smith says:

            Just to clarify what you are saying, are you saying there are threats in the public domain about children in UK schools being attacked like this?

            Like

  8. 9
    Anonymous says:

    I would just ban Harry & Fawkes

    Like

  9. 10
    Anonymous says:

    Ummm.

    what’s the Guardian’s reporting of a notable news story in France got to do with their position on additional funding for religious schools in general?

    Bizarre post.

    I am really mystified as to your point, personally.

    Like

    • 13
      even fatter belly says:

      I refer you to post #10

      Like

      • 31

        I thing m’learned friend Guido is referring to the hypocrisy of the Gruniad in holding two separate and incompatible opinions and trotting them out as and when the situation merits it – are they dictating Labour policy as well now? – I think we should be told.

        Like

        • 48
          Show Biz for ugly people says:

          Where’s the incompatability?

          Pulling |Gove up for conflict of interest over the CST means they can’t then report on school massacres?

          The Grauniad are as partisan as anyone else but your logic fails here.

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            The Loony Right don’t do logic or intelligence. They think pretend journalists can be hypocritical and it is fine and dandy.

            Like

          • sandy says:

            The loony left are loony because they actually believe that by punishing the rich and as good as telling investors, job and wealth creators to feck off elsewhere, the country will somehow become richer, a fairy godmother will provide jobs for the masses and welfare will be paid with money from magic money trees.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            There is no need for anyone.

            Like

          • sandy says:

            Then there is no need for more police for exactly the same reasons. Less hypocrisy would be nice but that is impossible with the loony left.

            Like

          • The first stages of CiF says:

            Whatever problems the French might have with their be ardy fundie freaks and jihadists, it re ally is a piss in the oce an compared to the se a of crap our security services are having to contemplate.

            Like

        • 53
          even fatter belly says:

          Errr don’t be stupid. Where does it say in the Tory manifesto that Jewish schools will be allowed security, security that cannot stop a murderer on a bike? Which page was it?

          Like

        • 61
          sockpuppet #4 says:

          wow. that would be wierd logic. What are there views supposed to be? A) That Certain schools shouldnt get state funding for security?
          B) what? That the incident actually happened? Or have they actually said that all schools throughout the world should be protected because of this incident?

          What are the related incidents in the UK and France that suggest there even is some sort of planned threat to schools of this religion?

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            There is no need for security.
            There are no threats against any school.
            There are no need for certan advisors who are directors of security firms to say that schools need additional security.

            Like

          • sockpuppet #4 says:

            Mr Belly, theres no need for you.

            Like

          • The advanced stages of CiF says:

            Grauniad hard-nosed, truth-seeking, reportage:

            Hug a jihadist -they are fluffy and wonderfully ethnic. Tell him how sorry we are that everything is our fault. Now host an article by him giving ‘context’ for terrorism. Job done!

            Like

  10. 15
    Terrible But True says:

    Blimey, how many grieving reporters can the media deploy around?

    They are going to have to triage.

    I wonder which topic will garner most ‘support’ today.

    Like

  11. 17
    Harriet Harperson says:

    I was surprised and gratified to learn that Jeremy Clarkson has been converted to the cause of wimmins lib at long last!

    He told me that he was astonished that wimmin were not equally represented in Formula 1, particularly as F1 does not involve reversing (although I confess I didn’t quite follow that bit!).

    Result!

    Like

  12. 21
    I don't need no doctor says:

    The Guardian is cheap so scoring cheap points is perfectly accetable.

    Like

  13. 25
    Anonymous says:

    this is a cheap shot.

    Like

    • 30
      even fatter belly says:

      Guido still wont answer the question, How will security guards stop a Frenchman doing a ride by shooting on a motorbike?

      The silence is deafening.

      Like

      • 75
        Costcutter1 says:

        Extra security for any school is assuming it is needed, is a police duty. The freeing up of police time through simplifying arrest procedures could easily provide the resources for this and many other school security issues. Arresting drug dealers near school gates springs to mind. This grant is not a proper charge to public funds and should be a saving to help reduce the deficit.

        Like

        • 81
          even fatter belly says:

          Unfortunaltely the Conservatives are cutting police numbers by at least 16,000.

          Wouldn’t closing ALL tax loopholes reduce the debt further?

          Like

          • sandy says:

            According To Labour crime halved while they were in power. So why do we need more policemen to cope with half the crime? Oh hang on its a nationalised industry, isn’t it?

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            Crime did fall by half 1994-2008 but it is rising again as more and more become unemployed. So why are we making some 16,000 redundant when crime is rising and moral is so incredibly low?

            Like

          • misterned says:

            Even Fatter belly. Your remedial mathematics and ignorance of recent economic history could be aided by doing a little reading and learning of facts.

            1. HM Treasury have an annual deficit now of some 120 billion per year. (Down from the labour government’s insane 152 billion 2009-2010. Which is the equivalent of a “Black Wednesday” event happening every single WEEK!)

            2. Closing ALL the tax loopholes will piss off the “1%”, which will cheer you up, but would also mean that they relocate outside the UK, which will also cheer you up, but would also mean that they move their companies outside the UK too as operating in such a harsh tax environment would seem like punishment, for creating jobs and wealth throughout the economy. This would mean vast amounts of private sector jobs being lost and YOU and ME and all the remaining tax-payers picking up the tab for the QUARTER of all tax revenue, that these supposed “tax dodgers” generate overall though the totality of their business activity. All the corporation tax of the businesses GONE. All the fees and licences and the rest of the taxable revenue from red tape, GONE and All the tax and NI that several million employees pay would be gone, and the rest of us would be having to pay their benefits through our taxes.

            Do not be so naive and short-sighted and ignorant and dominated by infantile “class envy” and hypocrisy. In other words, don’t be a loony lefty.

            Like

          • Adam Smith says:

            Where is the hard evidence for this? Any linky poos?

            Like

      • 163
        The advanced stages of CiF says:

        Is the word ‘discouragement’ not in your lexicon fu ckwit?

        Like

        • 166
          The advanced stages of CiF says:

          Post 154 was for Even Fatter Belly.

          Like

        • 170
          even fatter belly says:

          So there is no hard evidence to back up your bollocks.

          Glad we sorted that one out.

          Like

          • I bet your partner, if indeed you still have one, loves having free, frank and open discussions with you:

            “When did I say that? – I want day, month, year, time, the exact words I used in the tone I used, what I was wearing, my facial expressions in sequence,where I was standing and what my true internal monologue was or it didn’t happen and you are wrong AGAIN”

            Your like a fu*king remedial Ironside.

            You ARE Ed Balls – where’s my Socialist prize?

            Like

        • 194
          Adam Smith says:

          Ed Balls isn’t a socialist.

          Like

  14. 32
    Displaced Brummie says:

    Perhaps the Guardian thought it should have been more killed and injured?

    Like

  15. 34
    Show Biz for ugly people says:

    pathetic point scoring over school children being murd.ered?

    i presume you’re deliberately not mentioning the fact the Grauniad’s original article was about Gove’s conflict of interest?

    And the fact that there’s no proof of the motivation for this attack as yet.

    Pretty low even for you.

    Like

  16. 35
    Doh! says:

    If this had been a Muslim school instead of J-ewiash then the left would have said nothing about what Gove was doing. Its just another case of anti-semitisin from the Guardian and the left.

    Like

    • 62
      even fatter belly says:

      No it isn’t. Do you the concept of conflict of interest? When you do let us know.

      Like

      • 138
        Anonymous says:

        Given the Guardian had to clarify the story and note that, effectively, there was no conflict of interest, I’d say you need to educate yourself first before criticising others.

        Like

  17. 36

    It is not yet certain that this is an anti-Semitic hate crime: there have been similar murders of *military personnel* in the same area recently. But of course, go ahead: jump the gun, and assume you know more than the police.

    Like

  18. 45
    Left out of it says:

    But why are you reasing the Guardian? Only the loony left at the BBC, social services and universities do that.

    Like

  19. 57
    MandyPickleSniffer says:

    You sure seem to have touched a nerve with this “even fatter belly” troll.

    When you accuse the Loony Left of being hypocritical twats, which is undeniable, nothing quite a trumps a brilliant comeback like EvenFatterBelly’s “I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?”

    Like

    • 68
      even fatter belly says:

      So why is someone who is so staunchly against tax avoiders working for one? If that is not hypocritical then pray tell what is.

      Like

      • 79
        Left, Left, Left, Right Left says:

        Why do the left want to destroy Israel? The Greatest socialist ever, Adolf Hitler, tried to exterminate the Jewish race and failed but you lefties still persist in persecuting them.

        Like

      • 124
        fat belly says:

        So fucking what you works ofr someone who is lucky enough to not pay any tax on their £7million a year job?

        Your just jealous. You think us tories are stupid. Well fuck off you socialist nonce

        Like

    • 71

      +1 – still when the gut gets in the way, you just have to wait for him to stop fumbling in the dark – sad really, but that’s state education for you, making dumb people believe that every one can have a prize.

      Like

      • 77
        even fatter belly says:

        Is my question too hard for you? So what if I am fat? what has my weight got to do with anything?

        Like

        • 85
          gutbucket says:

          Why name yourself after your expanding gut if you don’t want it mentioned?

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            My question remains, which you blanked again. Even fatter belly is a character from Not The Nine O Clock News, the darts sketch.

            Like

          • Actually it was an analogy based on your sobriquet, assuming that you would swiftly assimilate the rather sideways flattery for your intellectual prowess to determine said fact – but as I said – that’s fucking state education for you.

            Pick up your cup and certificate on the way out.

            Like

          • Supersize you says:

            Never watched it-preferred Gerry Sadowitz myself.

            Like

          • sandy says:

            You are John Prescott and I claim £5.

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            Oh dear still blanking my question. A career in politics beckons for you. Apologies it is so hard. I would have though you would have the intelligence to answer it accurately. I was wrong.

            Like

      • 98
        even fatter belly says:

        No I am not John Prescott or even a Labour voter.

        Try again. Press harder this time.

        Like

  20. 70
    Racism of the left says:

    Looks like you have attracted a few anti Jewish lefties. Keep up the good work. Never did understand why Lefties hate Jews though.

    Like

  21. 80
    Kevin T says:

    Lefty wing media no doubt got their fingers crossed it was some white nutter behind this.

    Like

    • 208
      james says:

      On Monday Channel 4 news openly speculated that the perpetrator of the Toulouse killings was a ‘psychopathic racist’. I think we were being invited to infer that a white right-winger was responsible. They weren’t using that phrase this evening, as it became evident that the most likely culprit is a muslim. Funny, that.

      Like

  22. 84
    Kevin T says:

    “Conflict of interest”! What the fu ck! So if Cameron was on the board of Oxfam and his government sent a few extra million to Africa, that would be a political scandal?

    P1ss off.

    Like

    • 90
      even fatter belly says:

      Is Oxfam a profit making organisation, which pays huge didvidends to shareholders?
      P1ss off.

      Like

    • 110
      Show Biz for ugly people says:

      Right, so him giving £2 million pounds of public money to an organisation he was advisor to for several years is not even worth mentioning.

      This is taxpayers money FFS.

      Did Gove not give any thought to the fact that this amount would have got him 1/30th of the way to a yacht to hand over to the queen?

      Like

      • 116
        even fatter belly says:

        Look this site is absolutely against tax payers money being wasted. Unless it is by Conservatives. If the Neo-Conservatives or Blue Labour did this they would be going mental but it is their team so they are fine. Like Man U fans happy with Roy Keane crippling a Man City player because he was a Man City player.

        Like

      • 121
        fat belly says:

        FFS You lefty twat leave the tories alone. Labour put us in the shit by causing the French and US banking crises so STFU.

        Like

      • 132
        even fatter belly says:

        I’m sure the Loony right trolls on here can answer that one as they are soooooooooo concerned with wasted taxes. Oh wait…

        Like

      • 139
        Anonymous says:

        The organisation didn’t receive the money. It distributed it to schools on behalf of the government. It had no say in its spending, nor did anyone working for the organisation end up with any of it.

        And most right wing government theory sees spending money to protect citizens as one of the legitimate roles for government.

        The level of ignorance here is shocking.

        Like

        • 168
          Show Biz for ugly people says:

          So as long as you have Michael Gove on your advisory board the govt will pay millions to provide your kids at with security guards at school.

          and who could possibly argue with that

          Like

  23. 92
    MandyPickleSniffer says:

    So, FatBelly, what exactly is your prblem here…

    is it that you think the Tories shouldn’t be able to describe Labour as hypocrites because the Tories themselves are alos hypocrites…

    or are you having a rant because you think Guido’s hit a low point by trying to score political points against the Guardian over a horrific incident involving dead chirldren….

    or are you trying to make a comment about how its pointless to complain about how the Guardian campaigned against Gove’s funding for security for Jewish schools because you think that there’s nothing that the security guards would’ve been able to do against motorcylce attackers? You ask “How will French securtiy guards stop a frenchman doing a ride-by shooting on a motorcycle….well, there are a number of ways: A trained guard might be able to detect trouble by simply knowing the difference between a normal scooter rider and one who’s up to no good, just like how they could potentially detect the different body language, excessive sweating, bulky protrusions under shirts, or other suspicious clues that tip you off about a suicide bomber compared to a regular shopper etc. I won’t pretend to know the details but I do know that there are techniques for evading attacks by motorcyle gunmen, and to suggest that the funding for such security is pointless because there’s no defense against a motorcycle attack is, frankly, retarded. Besides, even if the security guard is merely capable of shooting the motorcycle gunman dead AFTER he’s already accomplished his evil mission, that in itself is still better than nothing, as it might at the very least prove to be somewhat of a deterrent. No matter how much of a jihadist you are, there’s definitely a difference between thinking you’re goona get away scot-free, or the possibility that you might get killed or worse end up crippled in a wheelchair (with no vestial virgins to help you out).

    So, what’s your beef?

    Or are you just angry and lashing out because you hate the fact that your Labour party has degenerated into such a socialist, incompetent, hypocritical, bunch of buffoons who have zero leadership skills & zero credibility?

    Maybe you should just switch to de-caf…

    Like

  24. 95
    twat watch says:

    Very low, even by your standards.

    Like

  25. 100
    MandyPickleSniffer says:

    Fat Belly: There are techniques for evading motorcycle gunmen. I won’t claim to know what exactly they are, but I don know that there are special training methods, and that security guards do receive training in being able to detect suspicious behaviour etc. To suggest that the funding for security guards is pointless because there’s nothing that can possibly be done to evade attack is quite retarded. Even if the security guard was unable to prevent the attack, the fact that he may be able to shoot & kill the assailant after the fact is, in and of itself, a possible deterrent. No matter how much of a jihadist you are, there’s a difference between knowing you’ll get away scot-free versus the possibility that you may get maimed & crippled, with no vestial virgins to help you in your wheelchair.

    Like

    • 102
      even fatter belly says:

      There are techniques for avoiding a motorcyclist riding up to the front gate and spraying children with bullets, oh really?

      I’d like to know how much insurance this security company pays.

      Do they teleport down in front of the moving gumnan and smother the gun?

      Like

      • 105
        sandy says:

        Makes you wonder why we need more policemen when they are powerless to stop crime being committed. More hypocrisy from the loony left.

        Like

        • 112
          even fatter belly says:

          The police are more likely to be able to stop, kill or apprehend a gunman than security. More hypocrisy from the Loony right.

          Like

          • sandy says:

            The police are more likely to have a cup of tea in their cosy canteens and pushing paper rather than stepping out into the real world, unless they get a bribe from a journalist to make it worth their while. Where have you been? We need more policemen to police the police these days. And when they do kill someone they usually cock it all up. Again, where have you been?

            Like

          • You really are a very lonely and sad individual aren’t you E.F.B.?

            Message to other bloggers….. if you don’t respond to this git, he’ll soon get fed up and waddle off back to the a.s.y.l.u.m.

            He’s more to be pitied than scolded.

            Like

          • CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

            Complete waste of time trying to reason with a leftie window licker like Even Fatter Belly. You’ll never be able to have a reasoned debate with such a bigoted Labour loving Marxist. He’ll either ignore your remarks and continue with his rants, or he’ll deliberately misrepresent what you say and continue with said rants. Probably best to ignore him ‘cos h’s not listening.

            Like

          • Paxo says:

            He sounds like Michael Howard. How many times did he lie when refusing to answer that question?

            Like

          • Paxo says:

            Where did EFB say he was a Labour voter or even a lefty Cynical Old Man?

            Like

      • 111
        MandyPickleSniffer says:

        now you’re just being childish…
        According to your logic, there would be no point in having any security because unless the good guys could teleport themselves in front of the baddies, then the crime will take place. You know nothing about security or deterrence or about any of the anti-terrorist techniques that may exist out there. PLs, go back to Comment is Free where you can hang out with people who somehow actually think you’re smart and probably appreciate & applaud your little witticisms.

        Like

        • 113
          even fatter belly says:

          The ability of a security guard to carry out their functions has everying to do with risk assessment. Does your insurance liability allow you to leap in front of flying bullets? Let me know. There’s a good chap.

          Like

          • MandyPickleSniffer says:

            Oh I see…so now we’re moving away from the concept of the security guards being pointless becasue they couldbn’t possibly stop the baddies, to more of a question of the security guards being un-insurable because their job might require them to jump in front of bullets?

            You really are spinning yourself into a knot arent you?

            Whatever happened to your original complaint….didn’t you first get on here to yap about how the Tories shouldn’t call Labour a bunch of hypcorites because the Tories are no better themselves?
            Oh wait…no…you got on here originally to take the moral high ground and criticise Guido for trying to score cheap political points off a tragic schoolchildren story…

            Stay focused…I know it’s hard…try

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            I am focused. I was highlighting your stupidity.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            The presence of security guards and measures drastically reduces the likelihood of an attack on a site.

            They don’t have to be superhumans – people doing these activities seek out easy opportunities.

            Anyone with any experience of security policy and training would know this.

            Like

          • Show Biz for ugly people says:

            yes

            lets pay millions of pounds of tax payer’s money on security guards outside jewish schools (and just jewish schools mind) on the off chance that they might be able to stop a mad man on a motorbike.

            Looks like this guy also killed some muslims a few days back, shall we install security guards outside muslim schools too?

            They were off duty soldiers outside a cash point, shall we have publicly funded security guards outside cash points frequented by black and muslim soldiers too?

            Would it help if Michael Gove was on the board of advisors of the organisation providing these security services?

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            I suspect there are more than a few ex-Israeli army soldiers who would be quite prepared to guard Jewish schools, despite the potential risks. I’d also imagine that they can be suitably equipped to deal with a variety of threats.

            There’s also quite a range of physical security options such as doors, rather than gates, as well as alarms & training for the children & teachers.

            Like

      • 122
        fat belly says:

        Just do one you socialist nonce

        Like

  26. 104
    Kevin T says:

    The British hard left and the Islamist hard right. They should do a cover of that old Paula Abdul song Opposites Attract. Abu Qatada could sing it and George Galloway could do the rap part.

    Like

  27. 109
    MandyPickleSniffer says:

    “Unfortunately the Conservatives are cutting police numbers by at least 16,000″

    FatBelly: A perfect example of the Lying Labour propaganda machine. The Tories take layers & layers of bureacracy and red tape, put into place by Labour, and slash it in the name of efficiency, and they actually commit MORE resources to the front-line troops, but Labour takes the gross number of layoffs and tries to spin it as if the Tories have actually cut 16,000 street police.
    How stupid do you think the British public are? Do you not think we can see for ourselves that there’s a difference between cutting a pencil-pusher vs someone who actually is out there enforcing the law?

    Like

    • 118
      even fatter belly says:

      Well the British public vote in either Blue Tory or Red Tory so I would suggest they are very stupid…

      If they truly wanted a change then they need to change the system and not the captain who is on a pre determined course and has been for over 30 odd years now.

      Like

  28. 126
    MandyPickleSniffer says:

    At least Tories know the difference between the ECONOMY and the GOVERNMENT, whereas Labour twits assume the two are the same. When DC talks about cutting red tape & bureaucracy and the need to decrease the size of the State, the idiots on the left moan about how “you can’t cut the ECONOMY when we’re in a recession”. Clueless. Just like Harriet Harman can’t see the difference between state jobs being cut and private sector jobs being created. She looks at the net LOSS in jobs and whines, without realising that at least we’re headed in the right direction (albeit slowly). A state sector job is paid for by all of us, through our taxes. A private sector job pays for itself, through the revenue generation and profits of the company itself. One adds to the deficit, the other doesn’t. Big difference.

    FatBelly, how does it feel to know that you’ve spent the whole morning advertising your low intellect to the whole world?

    Like

    • 129
      even fatter belly says:

      It is true that when people lose their jobs they become economically inactive. Therefore increasing the numbers of economically inactive people is a cut for the economy as the percentage of economically active people has been cut.

      You think this is incorrect. So who is clueless?

      I am not fat belly and thanks for saying that at least one Tory voter is of low intelligence. Good spot. Well done. Do you want a gold star?

      Like

      • 149

        There you are – I told you this twat thinks that everybody can have a prize.

        Sadly he IS a prize – a prize c*nt – are you Ed Balls by any chance, it looks suspiciously like him?

        Like

      • 154
        MandyPickleSniffer says:

        Firstly, you know bloody well who I’m refering to when I say FatBelly….it is “even fatter belly” but I don’t want to keep having to keep writing it out in full. I didn’t notice that some other poster has chosen to take on the monicker “Fatbelly”. Clearly, he is not the one who has been advertising his low intellect as YOU have been.

        Second, my point about state jobs vs Private sector jobs is a valid one and your counter point involves a completely different point about economically inactive people. The state sector job is paid for by taxes whereas the private sector job pays for itself. You can’t further your argument by pointing out how an unemployed person is a cut for the economy. By that logic you could argue that a private sector worker having lost his job also means that there is a cut in the percentage of economically active people. No-one’s talking about whether it’s better to have an unemployed state sector worker or better to have an unemployed private sector worker. Nice try though. Classic Labour move. My point was about the mix of employment, andhow the process of getting rid of unproductive and deficit-busting State jobs and having the private sector pick up the slack is a step in the right direction. We have too big a State sector. Thanks to 13 years of near-criminal incompetent Labour policies, we now have a ridiculous layer of civil servants who add very little value. Cutting the fat, and trying to get the private sector to take on those very same workers is what it’s all about.

        Like

        • 162
          even fatter belly says:

          Actually fat belly advertised his lack of intelligence by saying he/she voted Tory.

          QED.

          Like

        • 164
          even fatter belly says:

          So why were there less civil servants in April 2010 than April 1997?

          Oh didn’t you know that. Didn’t you know that many policies by blue labour were continuation policies by Thatcher and Major? Like PFI…

          Like

          • Well, that’s self evident – the only way the socialist wankers can get elected is by donning someone else’s clothing.

            Vicious tribal lot, the Trots.

            Anyone got an ice pick?

            Like

          • Paxo says:

            So why are these ‘trots’ carrying on Tory corporatism policies like PFI etc?

            Like

          • DER…. they are off balance sheet, not their problem to account for in the deficit calculations. They like a fiddle that works.

            Just because Tories came up with it:

            A) Doesn’t automatically make it good policy for the voters.

            B) Just because Labour kept it going, doesn’t make it a socialist utopian policy and good for the voters.

            It’s just a way of hiding the true long term cost for as long as possible from as many voters as possible, while still snuffling in the trough.

            Like

          • Paxo says:

            What about the other corporatist policies followed by Labour like the EU? why do you never blame the Tories for starting the ball rolling down the hill but blame the impact of the ball on Labour?

            Like

          • I think that was covered in, and I quote,

            “Just because Tories came up with it:

            A) Doesn’t automatically make it good policy for the voters.

            It was right there in front of you.

            Anyone for Specsavers?

            Like

          • Paxo says:

            And where is your initial criticism of Tory policies?

            Like

          • F*ck me – SOOO sharp to point out the flaw in my argument! Well, as my starter for 10, I’ll just say that in my opinion there are many Tory policies that are abject shite (like removing Legal Aid for children who have been victims of medical negligence – about 1% of the Legal Aid budget) and must be fought tooth and nail to resist -BUT having been fu*ked over by 4 seperate Labour governments, I know who tends to leave the country with a pot to piss in, and the clue is – IT”S NEVER NEVER NEVER LABOUR!!!!!

            Some labour politicians are decent, intelligent people who live up to their convictions, right up until they get a cabinet posting, and then some animals are more equal than others.

            Anyone for the semi finals?

            Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            So why were there less civil servants in April 2010 than April 1997?

            Like

          • Mars Attacks says:

            Who gives a flying Prescott – the Hune in the room is that no one cares much – this is a non argument, a typical debating soc. ploy that suggests “If you can’t answer this your wrong”

            Sorry – falls at the first hurdle – could be a left wing/ right wing, 6 foot alien lizard,Scientology, neo-n*zi military industrial consparicy to steal our thoughts – I repeat for EFB, who also appears to be hard of reading, I don’t care enough!!

            I want fair taxes for all – wealth creators as well as resource consumers, a safe and fair society for all, tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to sh*t.

            Over and out.

            Like

    • 133
      Show Biz for ugly people says:

      How does this relate to the fat blogger trying to score cheap points over the bodies of dead children?

      Like

      • 176
        The advanced stages of CiF says:

        Perhaps when you have a brief remission from your syphilitic chancres you might be conscious that like most right-thinking people, he might be outraged by the death of these children, and outraged at the high potential of a similar event occurring here. Also and not least, the Grauniad militating against measures to diminish the possibility.

        Like

    • 136
      Adam Smith says:

      You state that a job pays for itself. So someone with a child who works on the minimum wage and gets about £73 a week in Tax Credits, £16 a week in WFTC and £45 pw in Housing benefit is paid for by whom?

      Like

      • 159
        MandyPickleSniffer says:

        Adam Smith “You state that a job pays for itself”

        A private sector job does, yes.
        A state sector job is paid for by all of us, thru our taxes.
        A private sector job is paid for by the company, and it’s revenues. profits etc. It’s not a completely black and white situation obviously, as the private sector worker still gets various state benefits, as you point out….but the point is that one job adds to the burden of the deficit whilst the other doesn’t.

        Like

        • 165
          Adam Smith says:

          So who pays the £134 a week in benefits?

          Like

          • even fatter belly says:

            The taxpayer. Who else?

            Like

          • Haribo Halfwit says:

            Apologies for entering such a bitter argument at a late stage. Isn’t part of the answer (assuming that the government needs to borrow in the market a part of the money that it spends), potentially any holder of fiat money? Of course, actual liability would only be settled once all litigation had ended – which it would be in very few people’s interests ever to see.

            Like

  29. 135
    the beast of uganda says:

    this chap didnt do a very good job
    probably the mossad as per usual

    Like

  30. 143
    Anonymous says:

    The original article Guido refers to was clearly about conflict of interest, where Gove sent public funds to a company he previously worked with/for.

    Whilst it may have been misguided in timing, and a poor article, does not mean The Guardian is not allowed to report on newsworthy events.

    Strange.

    Like

  31. 157
    Anonnymouse says:

    Talking about the Guardian – how many people loathe that three pigs advert on TV?

    Like

  32. 169
    Jimmy says:

    “Guido is never normally one to score cheap points,”

    This is entrapment.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Apple’s Tim Cook: iGay | Techno Guido
Insurgent Parties Plunge Labour Into Crisis | Alex Wickham
Mind-Bending Politics of Drugs | Mark Wallace
PC Worries Prevent Police Protecting Young Girls | Jill Kirby
Miliband Should Win Rochester | Martin Kettle
Thatcher Minister Sir John Nott ‘Voted for UKIP’ | Times
Time to Listen to Drugs Experts | Guardian
Drug Laws Don’t Work | Times
Our Moral Duty to Cut Taxes | David Cameron
Greens Ahead of LibDems | Guardian
Channel 4 to Spoof UKIP Election Win | Guardian


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


David Cameron drug policy reformer and leadership contender in 2005…

“Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”



“Digger” Murdoch says:

Is it just me, or is Nigel Farage just a top hat and a monocle away from being a Batman villain?


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,550 other followers