Monday, 12 October 2015

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner


Subtle appreciation of White middle-class bigotry

Sly looks from a White cab driver, when the central couple kiss, begins this journey into white racial paranoia and self-repressive blackness. It gleefully exposes the self-serving hypocrisy of allegedly well-meaning White liberals and their Negrophobic obsession with skin color.

Essentially a romantic manifesto about the never-ending and endemic struggles of White liberals to come-to-terms with and whitewash the White supremacism of their own culture - from which they, too, benefit. The script also struggles with the issue of institutional White racism and wisely decides to leave that to the audience's imagination since, if you do not know what the characters are referring to, then this movie is clearly not for you since you obviously do not come from around here.

The basic theme is Social Acceptance versus Happiness: Race politics being precisely the same today, despite the optimism shown here, as it was then. The film humorously confronts White supremacy as an institutionalized condition of White culture, yet there is an unacknowledged problem the White-written screenplay tellingly creates for itself.

Sidney POITIER’s character is so perfect, that any objection to him marrying a White woman must be racist. But why would such an accomplished Black man marry a White nobody?

It is because Whites believe the only equality possible between the two is that a Black person must work hard to overcome the limitations of being a Negro, in order to match the innate and already-achieved perfection of any White - no matter the White’s actual lack of personal achievements? And, moreover, that such a relationship is of political benefit to the Black, but of little utility to the White.

That the Black character here is actually superior - in many ways - to all of the Whites shown is ignored since it would mean a) that a Black can best a White; &, b) that the Black man here is actually slumming in a culture that is beneath him.

Yet, despite this hypocritical White-liberal whining, this is a well-cast movie all-round, with Katherine HEPBURN and Spencer TRACY convincing as the real couple they actually were - and funnily-written by William Rose.

Thursday, 27 August 2015

Political Correctness


White Whine for Beginners

Hypocritically disregarding their own political correctness (PC) in telling others what to think without supporting rights or logical justification, this is the usual White whine about alleged inferiors getting rights Whites exclusively covet for themselves.

‘Our country’ is, of course, a Whites-only political formation: Whites will never use the word ‘our’ to include People Of Color (POC).

If PC is an attack on White free speech, why are so many Whites free to condemn it? The White fear is that they will be penalized for speaking freely, as if this kind of punishment were somehow new for this kind of speech and as if Whites had a right to consequenceless actions when all acts imply the risk of censure.

Whites resent being penalized for the free speech they have traditionally punished others for invoking - and are really only taking here about free speech for Whites. (When, for example, Whites are attacked for being racist, one quickly sees how much commitment Whites have to the free speech of others in their attempts to shut down the attack.)

Whites blaming Marxism for their own penchant for PC is a typical White intellectual dodge in trying to hide the inherently-PC nature of all White cultures - the PC belief that Whites are genetically-superior to everyone else - and that this is to be believed by all, come what may and evidence to the contrary.

The author does not say what the ‘cohesive elements of our [White] society’ actually are. They do not exist, of course - except for the shared PC belief that Whites are superior to everyone else. This helps Whites evade the issue that White culture will always be repressive and illiberal. He denies the existence of activities like racism, sexism & classism by suggesting that civil rights for POC has done ‘untold damage to ‘our [White] society’ by giving freedoms to unnamed ethnic groups (eg, POC) whom he obviously believes should not have them.

The author makes further unsubstantiated claims about British education being liberal, when Blacks have been systematically-encouraged not to take it up. His claim the UK police are not institutionally-racist proves he has never been abused or harassed by White police officers simply for being Black. And is a claim made despite the wealth of evidence that Whites, as such, are just as institutionally racist.

The usual resentful White supremacist claptrap about Travelers and undocumented migrants is well to the fore in the form of statements not supported by evidence. He is resentful that White humor, typically racist, has been neutered; clearly indicating his approval of such racism and his belief that free speech includes the ability to deliberately offend, hurt & abuse others, for no particular reason, when this is something few Whites would countenance for an instant. Whites will not tolerate jokes about terrorists as Whites board planes since it is White lives that are threatened, but they will tolerate plenty of jokes about POC receiving state welfare benefits. He does not clearly define what (the fiction) ‘not real abuse’ is especially when compared to ‘real abuse’ - which he thinks does not exist in his Nazi fantasy land. He even claims there is such a thing as ‘true racism’ - what would untrue racism be like, one wonders? He implies that he is a racist, just not a ‘true’ one - and that feminists attack ‘men as rapists’. As white males imagine they are emasculated by feminism, Whites imagine they are no longer able to engage in Manifest Destiny because of anti-racism. LIke all racists, pedophiles & rapists, he simply wishes to peddle his nonsense without being punished for it.

The ultimate resentment here is that if those whom Whites consider non-people, with no rights Whites need to respect, get everything Whites get, then Whites will have lost something they can never get back, rather than the full rights and responsibilities of being fully human which Whites, for 500 years, have run away from. Whites will have lost the pseudo-Edenic childhood world where they could do as they please - without consequences - and are now forced to face the real world of adult responsibilities and pleasures. Whites accept the extra rights given them by White supremacy without complaint, yet refuse to accept the necessary responsibility for the victims of that White supremacy, nor the inevitable White guilt the very existence of such victims cause - except by whinging to their hearts’ content about not being able to bully people they do not like, legally.

Whites refuse to see that economics is the basis of everything - not their needy emotions - and that focusing on wealth-creation is the only way to create, protect and progress any culture wishing to remain viable.

Thursday, 13 August 2015

Bardwell’s Justification


Bardwell’s Justification

Summary: Critique of “Bardwell’s Justification”.

Interesting case of White wishful-thinking and mental retardation in which the proprietorial claim of a non-existent White duty-of-care toward Black people is used as an excuse to racially abuse them! In his world, impairing the life-chances of Black people is not racism, it is both normal and sane. He never has any concern for the children of White couples, after all, since he is perfectly well-aware if the White supremacy he supports that they will benefit from.

His jsutification is the usual circular and self-serving argument that because Whites are racist - and intend alwats to be so - that Black people need to learn their place or be discrininated aginast: Nothing for Blacks to do but do what Whites tell them - or else suffer the consequnces of not accepting an alleged White largesse based upon the philosophy of White superiority as the ridiculous attempt of a numerical minority (Caucasians) to bolster their own short-comings at the expense of everyone else.

As if White supremacy were as economically-good for Blacks as it is for Whites. As if Whites creating the problem of their refusal to accept anyone else gave Whites the right to pretend to solve this self-created problem by actively perpetuating it; appearing to care for Black people when Whites are really negatoively-discriminating against them.

Mr Bardwell makes claims about Black people he does not substantiate, in a clear attempt to make such beliefs true thorugh their sheer repeition - a mantra-like political act that only works well within the frigid limitations of his own coldly-calculating mind. As one has come to expect from Whites, they only obey the laws they make when it is in their interersts to do so - like White police officers warning White teenagers for carrying drugs, but arresting Black ones for doing exactly the same thing.

He hates ethnically-mixed marriages and so damns their offspring as looking forward to a life of suffering (he hopes) despite:

  1. Not knowing any of them, personally;
  2. implying he actually believes they should not be born in the first place;
  3. evading his own psychological suffering in living in mortal dread of one day becoming part of an ethnic minority (& then being treated as badly by Blacks as Whites have treated Blacks); &,
  4. completely ignoring the successful existence of Barack Obama.

With this issue, it becomes self-evident that Whites are deeply-concerned to place their own beliefs above any laws they (or anyone else might make) make, out of a reality-resenting belief that their feelings are the law - much as Hitler did with his so-called Will.

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

BBC faces ridicule


White monkey see; White monkey do.

Anything Blacks can do, Whites can do better!

Caucasoids are even good at things they know nothing about!

Whites make these kinds of choices, so that one can never expect anything else other than White supremacy from them. If Whites cannot be better than Black people, on their own merit, Whites will attempt to tear down individual Blacks or Black people, as a whole, to maintain their allegedly-superior position.

Whites lack both the imagination and the cultural values to produce music people want to listen to, so must take from others; while pretending to be better than those others with whom they cannot compete. Like all forms of affective plagiarism, it is difficult to hide the fons et origo of any creation without having to demonstrate a clear understanding of the creation that gives ones claims to have created it their necessary credibility: Like a White Blues’ singer, it is peculiar because it does not and cannot originate in White culture.

To claim that this decision has nothing to do with skin color makes no sense since labeling an award with an explicit reference to the skin pigmentation being denied is patently-absurd: Like claiming the Oscar for best actress has nothing to do with gender.

In reality, of course, Black music has nothing to do with skin color - it is about Black culture - a culture Whites wish to jealously-emulate while disparaging it. Whites do this based upon the philosophy of White superiority as the ridiculous attempt of a numerical minority (Caucasians) to bolster their own short-comings at the expense of everyone else.

Such short-comings reflect the usual White combination of indignant resentment, malignant defensiveness & intellectual irrelevancy; while Whites also manage to be both self-pitying and self-aggrandizing, at the same time. This white fragility triggers such defensive moves as outward displays of emotions (unusual for usually-repressed Whites) such as anger, fear & guilt and behaviors such as peevish argumentation, sullen silence & reality-evasion - as witness the White emotional regression of the BBC.

Whites black-up and then saying that such minstrel mimicry has nothing to do with Whites’ inbred fear of Black people. It allows Whites (they would like to think) to claim the ability to define Blackness so that they can control both it and their fear of it, by claiming to both be Black and to know what Blacks think - something Whites can never know. In this, Whites are like those primitive tribes who wear the skins of fearsome predators to help overcome their fear of being predated; while hoping, in so doing, to become feared themselves. Yet such White ignorance of other cultures helps explain White racial fears in the first place - as the primitive tribespeople still remain fearful after donning the skins of hunted animals.

Whites evade their own cultural emptiness by mimicking others to provide themselves with a pseudo-culture that their self-chosen, emotionally-repressive ways deny them. Rejecting the people of other cultures, while embracing the forms of other cultures, allows Whites to appear anti-racist while actually being wholly racist in pretending that other cultures somehow belong to them - to do with as they wish. Moreover, Whites secretly believe Black bodies are still their property despite slavery being outlawed in the West.

Whites also, thereby, claim that adopting other cultures while avoiding physical contact with members of those other cultures (except through slumming), allows them to become insiders to those cultures so that Whites never have to listen to anything anyone else says about their own culture because Whites somehow, magically, already know the answers to any questions they might think to ask about anyone and anything else: They do not trust others enough to believe their answers, anyway, since Whites are ruled by a terrible fear that People of Color are engaged in a conspiracy to arrange the downfall of Whites because this is what Whites would do in their place, if the racial power-dynamic were reversed.

Whites always fear to admit they are ignorant of anything - despite their being the most ignorant ethnic group in the world - since this would be tacit proof that they are not the Master Race they claim to be. So, Whites project their own emptiness onto others in the hope of turning those others into mirrors reflecting the imagined greatness of White genes. It is the standard White claim to a full humanity, which understands, knows & experiences all - a wisdom Whites deny others could ever possess.

Because Whites are raised to fear anything not like them, they fear practically everyone else: The vast majority of the world’s population is not like them, after all. Pretending knowledge of others is the result of the White dread of admitting they cannot achieve what White supremacy promises them - control of everything as a substitute for the self-control they lack.

Whites think they can understand Black experience - without the necessity of actual experience - so that they can understand the music it produces - without experience. But it is merely a case of White monkey see; White monkey do - it is empty pastiche.

Whites can only mimic Black music (never understand it nor improve on it): A realization that inevitably leads to ridiculing the forms they appropriate (precisely because such forms have no deep cultural significance for them) to reveal the truth that White cultural homage is just another form of White supremacy. Such behavior is not frightening to Whites because it does not confront them with White guilt; while allowing them to let off steam through overt racism. As with all cultural appropriation, only the form is copied not the meaning or the intent, especially since the latter, here, are never flattering about White culture and its need of racial scapegoats.

Either only people who know what it is like to be Black are the only ones allowed on the list or the list becomes about Urban Music without any reference to a Blackness Whites never experience, can never understand & can never adequately copy. But the Instituitional Racism of the BBC could never cope with this, as it would remove a necessary means for them to mock the Black people Whites fear.

White supremacy is always confused about its desire to hide its expression, but never confused about its goal: White supremacy. The next thing you know, Whites will be claiming to be the best at Jewish music.

Saturday, 11 July 2015

Race row in mental health service


White psychiatrists still Trying to Rule the World - for Whites

white agenda is always a racist agenda

Psychiatry, like police work, is popular with Whites because it allows them to racially-abuse People of Color - legally:

  1. Whites hope that sending Blacks to Coventry, via White supremacy, has the same negative affects on Blacks as it did on Richard Attenborough in The Angry Silence;
  2. White cultural problems (alcoholism, pedophilia, White supremacy, etc) do not equal White psychosis, but Black cultural problems do equal Black psychosis;
  3. Whites claim White feelings must always be taken into account before calling them racists, despite the inherent racism of such a claim and of their feelings;
  4. typical BBC racism;
  5. No Black psychiatrist quoted as agreeing; while the research is conducted by Whites who benefit from White supremacy - a clear conflict of interest:
    1. using People Of Color (POC) to claim POC are more crazy than Whites attempts to hide the White supremacy of those doing the using - Whites know that a White psychiatrist would be accused of racism and believe that a non-White one would not and, thus, make the case against Black people seem convincing - at least to Whites;
    2. no scientific citations quoted here because all of the psychiatrists polled are White;
    3. Whites allow themselves to define the problem-situation, despite the conflict-of-interest embedded in the fact that they benefit, financially, from such definitions:
      1. Would a Nazi scientist in Nazi Germany be believed if he said Jews were genetically deceitful?
      2. rapists are not allowed to define rape, but racists allowed, here, to define racism and its affects - on the intended victim, but never on the perpetrator;
  6. Whites flatter themselves that their racism actually works - as such - and only for their benefit:
    1. Whites imply they are not affected by White supremacy - only Blacks - despite the widespread White guilt and emotional repression necessary for racism to work at all for Whites;
    2. no acknowledgment that racism negatively affects Whites (White guilt, anger, etc) - particularly in the desire to pathologize Blacks - since Whites wish to consider racism normal;
    3. Whites are resentful that Blacks do not suffer the Delusions of Grandeur of White supremacy nor from White guilt, so want Blacks to suffer by inventing Black psychosis - all in a desperately-racist attempt to stop Blacks reminding Whites they are racist;
  7. no denial of the existence of racism, here, only the practical purpose of pointing it out; thereby trying to soothe White fears of Black rebellion:
    1. If it is not helpful to accuse White psychiatrists of racism, why is it helpful to accuse the Nazi party of racism in order to help Jews?
    2. why is it not helpful to call a spade a spade since that is the only way to solve any problem?
  8. fails to admit White psychology has spent much time trying to prove White supremacy natural; eg, via IQ tests:
    1. Whites conflate the Personal with the Political to create a dictatorship of psychiatrists in order to control the Blacks they fear;
    2. attempts to justify the White fear of Blacks inherent in White supremacy by claiming Blacks more dangerous to Whites than anyone else;
    3. Whites claiming the right to fear Blacks because they are more crazy - according to Whites;
    4. psychiatry a soft-science like psychology used to pathologize Blacks as victims of their own inferiority - a new form of drapetomania in which politics is used to compensate for the lack of scientific rigor of psychiatry;
    5. White supremacy seen as normal, Black rage against racism seen as pathological:
      1. Rape victims are not accused of being more crazy than rapists, by rational people - despite the trauma they experience;
  9. Whites automatically receive CSTs because Whites are the standard upon which sanity is judged (conflating White norms with being well-adjusted). Blacks receive ESTs and the belief that Blacks are automatically not as sane as Whites because their culture is different:
    1. implies Blacks will never receive adequate health services - without Whites - despite such services being inherently racist because they are provided by Whites;
    2. Blacks need White help or will never solve their problems - as Jews need Nazis, apparently;
    3. Blacks need Whites - and should not create & use their own psychiatric services;

It is White propaganda to claim that science is practiced in a politically-acontextual manner - as if Whites always and only made objective statements about the world. To believe such a thing is to appease Whites and appeasement never works. Blacks can never be comfortable with White psychiatrists and open-up emotionally to facilitate useful psychiatric intervention  - so Blacks must look to their own social institutions for help.

Friday, 10 July 2015

White Guilt


How Whites whitewash their own history...

To where were the Jewish population deported - and by whom?

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Black Psychosis


Black Psychosis

Summary: Critique of “Black Psychosis”.

Despite containing a good deal of truth about psychosis, in general, this article is a perfect example of the self-hating Black psychosis it reveals: It offers no solutions to the problems raised - not even the obvious solution of self-employment.

The article revels in trying to get Whites to actually like its author as he wallows in the knowledge that Blacks will condemn him for describing what could just-as-easily (by analogy) apply to Whites: I don’t expect much appreciation for writing this. He has allowed himself to be brainwashed by Whites to:

  1. Ignore the implications of historical reality;
  2. tell Whites what they want to hear about Blacks (that the latter are inferior); &,
  3. assume Black people are a special case - even though such claims only ever come from White supremacists.

This article means Whites are entitled to feel their usual range of emotions (shame, fear, anger, paranoia, victim mentality, jealousy, envy, entitlement, exaggerated success, scapegoating, empathy, hopelessness & helplessness), but that Black people are not allowed to exhibit similar or, indeed, a fuller range of human emotions - lest their resultant ill-treatment at the hands of racist Whites thus, somehow, become justified.

Ultimately, this is all part of the White attempt to turn all Black behavior into a form of psychosis to justify the predations of White supremacy - as a form of White self-defense - as well as to try and confound any negative criticism of any behavior exhibited by any White.

Sunday, 21 June 2015

Holier-Than-Thou Social Parasites


Holier-Than-Thou Social Parasites

On Saturday, 30 May 2015, in Tunbridge Wells Public Library at about 16:00 I was seated at PC1 when I was asked by a member of staff to respond to a claim that I had verbally-abused another customer.

I did so but, just in case there is any misunderstanding about the verb Abuse, I offer the following synopsis of what happened:

  1. On entering the library, I went to the ground-floor Booking PC, located near to the public toilets, to check my library account and to book a PC;
  2. the complainant was sitting at this PC, not using it & staring into a mobile phone;
  3. I asked him to move so that I could use this PC; he moved, but was clearly annoyed to do so. This PC did not work;
  4. I then returned a copy of a DVD called Annie (at 15:30 - see attached Returned Items’ receipt below) and went upstairs to use the Booking PC there. This PC was also obstructed by a woman not using it and I asked her to move - she did. I then booked the next-available PC: PC1;
  5. I went downstairs to find the complainant now siting at PC1 - again, not using it; while staring at a mobile phone. I asked him to move and he took the view that I was persecuting him. Nevertheless, he moved away;
  6. PC1 was also not working and it then became suddenly obvious that the complainant was recharging his phone by unplugging library PCs. I could then see that the downstairs Booking PC was not plugged-in: I had been mistaken about it being out-of-order. (It would have been quite a coincidence if the complainant had not also unplugged the Booking PC, since he was clearly looking for free electricity there, as well.);
  7. I reinstated the power supply to PC1 and began to log-in; while the complainant continued talking to me for no valid reason; distracting me in the process. At no point did he replug the PCs he had disconnected from their power supply, nor did he point-out that he had unplugged them in the first place; denying the public use of public facilities - without lawful excuse; yet, whining when challenged;
  8. I rolled my eyes at the complainant’s contumely and he was upset by my understandable annoyance. I asked, in a highly-mocking tone, if his mother had not loved him (this is a lack most-often bedeviling those who believe the world owes them a living). He was upset about this and decided to call the Police - while standing by the photocopier next to PC1 - to claim I had verbally-abused him. After he wandered off, the Police did not appear; hardly surprising since a crime was not in progress and nobody’s life was in danger.

Threatening, abusive or insulting

The member of staff who questioned me claimed that one man’s Abuse is something else to others. This is wholly-subjective and provides no basis for rational action. His apparent lack of any definition of the word Abuse means anyone can be accused of anything by anyone at any time, without the accuser having to prove anything - simply on the basis of their personal prejudice.

However, without such a clear definition, anyone so accused can also just-as-easily claim that they are being accused of nothing and that any complaint against them is frivolous and, in itself, abusive.

The abusive behaviour of the complainant was merely designed to waste everyone’s time since he had been caught doing something he knows he shouldn’t - not because he actually had been abused. Such people possess the erroneous belief that they can be abused, but never abusive.

Under the Public Order Act 1986, there are three offences that someone who uses threatening, abusive or insulting language in a public place may have committed. In order of least-to-most serious:

  1. Section 5 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by them - regardless of whether such harassment, alarm or distress was actually caused;
  2. Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress - so long as it actually has that effect; or,
  3. Section 4 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response.

I understand the relevant terms to mean:

  1. Threatening the likelihood of physical assault;
  2. Abusive words to belittle, humiliate or upset someone; &,
  3. Insulting as synonymous with Abusive.

Aggravated forms of these offences come under Section 28 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998; including such items as racial & religious abuse. But I was merely critiquing the behaviour - not the appearance or faith - of someone who believes that public space is for his sole, personal use.

Mockery, satire & sarcasm vents annoyance, irritation & frustration

With me, mockery, satire & sarcasm tends to be an automatic response when the physically-mature start behaving like the emotionally-immature. These are not likely to be offences of Abuse, so long as they are a reasonable and a proportionate response to behaviour initiated by others (otherwise, staff would render themselves legally-liable because of their often-patronizing attitudes to library customers).

It is also not a criminal offence to express annoyance, irritation & frustration, as such, especially regarding someone else causing an obstruction, breaking the law and adopting an anti-social attitude - all without lawful excuse. Otherwise, public censure would be a crime.

My approach

My intention was simply to get the complainant away from the PC so that I could use it - not to listen to his whining or to harass him. His clear intention was to prevent others using Library PCs so that he could charge his mobile phone for free. He has probably done this sort of thing before, as he would appear to be aware that verbal abuse can be a crime and that he can use such a claim to distract attention from his demonstrated belief that library equipment is his own personal property by acting as though his rights supersede everyone else’s.

I do not initiate contact or problems with others unless I have no other option. If I am physically attacked, I must physically respond. If someone is in my way, without lawful excuse, I ask them to move and only become insistent if they refuse. If I am verbally-abused, I become verbally-abusive. I was not threatened, so I did not threaten; I was not being directly-abused, so I did not abuse. I was, however, having my time wasted, so I gave the time-waster the suggestion that he strive harder to achieve the emotional-maturity he obviously never learned from his parents, in order to lead a more fulfilling life; ie, Grow up!. This is mockery, satire & sarcasm, not abuse - unless, of course, humour is now to be made illegal?

I prefer to respond-in-kind by giving malcontents a dose of their own medicine. Although not sanctioned by law, I do not have the time to pursue legal relief since that would place me in the same position as a Negro in segregated Alabama desperately-awaiting a Supreme Court ruling to use a Whites-Only toilet - before he wets himself. Instead, time-saving common sense is applied. (I also do not ask staff for help because I have found them unwilling, in the past, to be as confrontational as is often necessary.)

Responding-in-kind is a defence to charges under sections 4A & 5, but not 4; allowing wilful attention-seekers the opportunity to provoke a response & then call the Police. This is a risk I am happy to take since, in the circumstances, I could not just walk away as I am perfectly-entitled to use library facilities. If I did back off, I might just as well stay at home - when not at work. As a Black man, I would then have to accept permanent second-class citizenship status which, obviously, would only occur over my dead body. In any case, the law can always be challenged in court, if push comes to shove - it is a common law country, after all.

Conflating the Public with the Private

An attitude of mind has developed where many customers have come to the erroneous conclusion that the library is their personal fiefdom and space allocated for the use of PC users can be commandeered for their own, exclusive, non-computing purposes. And electrical sockets can be used to illegally-extract electrical units, in contravention of the Electricity Act 1989. For their part, library staff seem to find this PC-blocking behaviour largely acceptable.

Big Brother is Not Watching You

The member of staff who questioned me claimed that CCtv would confirm or deny my account of events. But the library video cameras are not marked as such, nor is there any written declaration - anywhere in the building - that such recording is actually taking place: The cameras are as unobtrusive as possible to make their being damaged less likely. So why make such a claim if it is true? If these cameras work, the veracity of anyone’s statements can easily be confirmed or denied - without drawing attention to the means. If not, the implied threat is an empty one. The fact that I am not going to receive a letter from you in the mail about this issue (since you have already raised it with me verbally) nor a visit from the police (since no evidence against me was adduced), proves that no such recording exists - nor ever could (since you cannot record what never happened).

(This is the usual casual racism and social ineptitude of implying Black people are natural-born liars - without evidence and before waiting to hear any response to the alleged crime of which they are ostensibly being accused; suggesting I will not be believed - no matter what I say, no matter how I act, no matter my moral character. Under English Common Law, I am not required to prove my innocence [you are required to prove my guilt], so I shall - in future - a) say nothing to any member of staff regarding any alleged wrongdoing on my part; b) consult a solicitor; &, c) then send a written Defence Statement to the Library Service by e-mail.)

For Your Listening Pleasure

30-05-2015 is a sound recording (takes about a minute to upload & about 13 minutes to play) of the entire incident to prove that events transpired as itemised above - despite the Library Service’s suggestion to the contrary. If your security cameras work, they will also corroborate my story (by proving the audio is unedited) and hopefully lead to the complainant being barred future library use since he lacks the necessary respect, self-respect and courtesy toward other users that makes civilised life possible - or even imaginable. Barred because it is inevitable that once it becomes known - on the local social-parasites’ grapevine - that the local library provides free electricity, more PCs will be disabled by those who refuse to work for what they get.

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller