Saturday, 7 February 2015

Not only feral gangs abuse children ...

A reminder that not only feral gangs of exploitative men abuse our kids; OFSTED inspectors do so as well. These products of Labour's multi-kulti PC moral vacuum policy need to be sure that 10-year-olds know all about bum-sex and vibrators ...
Story HERE and HERE.


Mike Spilligan said...

But Ofsted's process is well-supported by our non-conservative, Conservative Secretary of State for (or against) Education.

Not quite Cascadian said...

There is only one way to solve this problem, you lily-livered effete namby-pamby euro poofs. You need General Patton and his mighty 3rd Army to come and kick some euro-weenie ass, pronto. Yay!!

mikebravo said...

One of the things that gets my goat is the reaction of the parents. The feeble bowing down to the dogmas and grovelling.
"..there is no way she (the young daughter) is homophobic..", ".. one of our best friends is gay".
Vomit inducing.

mikebravo said...


Anonymous said...

Any Ofsted inspector who feels comfortable questioning a child about sexual matters must surely have paedeophilic tendencies him or herself.

G. Tingey said...

Something has gorn 'orribly worng at Ofsted, that is clear ...
I am fully in favour of as full & complete a sex education programme for children as possible, but that education must be 100% factual & not "political" or dogma-driven or "fashionable".

I suspect that Ofsted have got a dose of the "Court of Protection" disease & believe themselevs above the law & equity.
That is not the case.

Anonymous said...

Two words:
Common Purpose.

Dave_G said...

No child, under any circumstance whatsoever, should be subject to 'interrogation' without consent and/or attendance of the parents.

If MY child had been questioned in this manner there would be merry hell to pay.

Cheeky tw@ts.

Cascadian said...

Not quite Cascadian, not a bad first try:

euro poofs-check
euro-weenie ass-check
pronto-nope yUK does not "do" pronto. Thats what Patton was teaching Monty.

With practice you will get better. Now hustle back to sucking the Ofsted inspectors dick, there's a good boy.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Cascadian, Patton was an arrogant arsehole who took his army off to a part of Germany where there wasn't much opposition and thus could cover distances, instead of following Monty's battleplan, which would have shortened the war in Europe. The Yanks knew best about how many anchors to use on 'their' Mulberry so had to use ours after 'theirs' blew away in a storm. And Ike was off shagging when the Battle of the Bulge started, and couldn't be contacted. So not wonderful role models, eh?

Returning to the issue in point, why don't they try this crap on in Muzzo schools?

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Cascadian, Monty was rather too busy crushing 17 German Panzer divisions around Caen (including Das Reich, Panzer Lehr, Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler) while the mighty US Army overcame relatively light opposition of 4 infantry divisions. The casualty rates exceeded the Somme from June-August 1944. In fact the attrition rate was considerably worse than the eastern front. It is of course very easy to do "pronto" when you have no opposition, as the 21st Army Group proved by advancing to Brussels at 80 miles per day. Monty was a difficult so-and-so, as Ike observed, but he was a fine General who tried to conserve his men's lives, in contrast to Patton. His own men used to say "Old Blood and Guts - our blood, his guts"

I see you have absorbed the American lack of a sense of humour. As someone once said, "Americans think irony is where Ironians come from"

Cascadian said...

Anonymous, Patton understood you keep the enemy off balance by rapid advance, you don't achieve that by re-enacting another Battle of the Somme. Monty was a disaster.

I would take Eisenhower as a role model compared to any dozen of todays world "leaders".

"Returning to the issue in point, why don't they try this crap on in Muzzo schools?" ......simple, craven appeasement by the yUK politicians both liebour and conmen.

G. Tingey said...

Dave G
So you'l be again the SNP's scheme for black wardens for all children, then?

Monty / Patton
Sorry - not interested.
If you want a GREAT general - try SLIM.
Monty only succeeded because he had a brilliant subordinate - Horrocks

Cascadian said...

Sebastian, seems to me Monty achieved very little at Caen, the RAF did his work after much delay, and the Canadians later destroyed many of the Germans you reference at the Falaise Gap, which could have been much more effective if it were not for Monty's timidity.

If you wish to boast about D-day the Canadians were by a long mark the most effective army that day, that does not diminish what the Brits did, nor the USA effort. No matter what errors were made, D-day has to stand as a fine achievement by ALL participants.

If I lack a little in the sense of humour department, perhaps you will pardon this poor hick who does not have the benefit of a fine euro sense of superiority, even though they achieve very little.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

The RAF bombing was probably counter-productive, whereas the USAF one definitely was, since they dropped short and bombed both US and British/Canadian troops, killing several hundred. It was probably caused by the fact the target markers were yellow - the same colour as the identification smoke grenades given to the allied troops....

But Monty did achieve something around Caen (or rather Guy Simmonds did) - he crumbled the 17 best divisions in the German army. As to closing the Falaise Gap, both Bradley and Montgomery wanted to envelop the Germans on the Seine, so did not commit to it. I commend Anthony Beevor's book on the topic.

But for once Tingey is spot on. Slim was the best Allied general of the war.