Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The Lionheart case

The wonderfully splenetic PigDogFucker—strapline: Fuck you in the arse and the eye—is not particularly impressed with this particular gentleman. In a post entitled First they came for the despicable bastards, PDF lays out his argument.
Overall, much as it would be gratifying to see the cunt locked up for a good long time, it probably behoves those of us who aren’t mad (irrespective of our political views) to oppose his arrest. After all, next time it could be someone who isn’t a poisonous evil bastard...

Quite so. Go and read the whole thing: apart from anything else, it is an hilarious post.


E said...

but did you see how many comments Lionheart got for his post, 125. They are all obviously as mad as a bucket of frogs and probably have a similar IQ but it makes you think.

thud said...

I just followed link to pdf...hes as big a dick as lionheart...warn us next time

Shades said...

Cheers DK, I haven't even bothered to click through but it is a great strapline to embed into a post of my own.

DocBud said...

Our commitment to defending free speech is only tested when we go into bat for someone whose views we disagree with. Defending the right to free speech of someone with whom we heartily agree is not much of a challenge.

Having said that, while I do suspect Lionheart is a little unhinged and not someone I'd enjoy having a pint with, I equally suspect that is much truth in what he says.

duckman said...

docbud, agreed. Free speech is, at the very least, an outlet for frustrations that might otherwise lead to actual harm to others. This hallucinogenic focus on "incitement" is more a manifestation of neo-lab's instinct to criminalise than anything else (Walter Wolfgang anybody?). A government which is everything that it claims to stand against - illiberal, intolerant and fascistic? How very Blairite!

This Lionheart guy doesn't even seem to be on the scale, let alone a worthwhile target of "proactive policing". The worst I could honestly say about his ramblings is that he is greatly exagerating an aspect of muslim culture that is only supported by a vanishingly small minority (like a couple of hundred people at most, and even that's a wild guess on my part). It's just not worth mentioning, let alone fixating on. If he starts trying to establish his own reich, then there'll be good cause for plod to start knocking on doors but at this stage, what's the government afraid of?

I can't see the Lionheart site inciting visitors to anything except unwaranted fear - fear that will ultimately dissipate as the apocalypse fails to materialise. There have got to be worse sites by whatever criteria the government are using to evaluate these things - it's all a bit strange if you ask me. Even more baffling is the fact that Lionheart seems to place great stock in the book "Londonistan" by Melanie Philips (someone who I hold in extremely low regard for all the obvious reasons). The implication is that this book stands as evidence that somehow supports and validates his own world-view. I haven't read the book and I can guess that Philips would deny any such commonality of interpretation, even if such a link were obviously present, so I'll defer to anyone who has read the book. Supporting your world-view with material supplied by Melanie Philips might be criminally stupid but not actually a criminal offense. Other than being a poor judge of reference material and prone to foolish exageration, I can't see what the problem is.

I don't know why DK introduced the story with a link to PDF. There is an implict promotion of PDF and I certainly can't see what he sees in him. If anything, he just came across as a bit of a blog-tard with no ideas. I like swearing very much indeed but it's no substitute for wit. One can be put on for effect, the other cannot.

Tomrat247 said...


I have read Melanie Phillips Londonistan, and whilst it is indeed inflammatory rhetoric in parts at no point does it buy into the big conspiracy theories and anecdotal tripe Lionheart spouts. It does point out that people underestimate exactly how much power Islamists (for this is a very different concept to Islam, though not entirely separate) have in our country and the west. Mel weighs in heavily, emotively and morally whenever she can on pieces on her blog and newspaper pieces- not a sign of good journalism but at least she consistently writes well evidenced, if directed, copy, and I defy anyone not to feel angry about the Al Durah case which she has championed in this country when everyone else has ignored it.

Two more points about Mr. Lionheart- I get very hazy when I hear other Christians talk so vehemently about loyalty to Britain when they proclaim to serve a higher master; in every case where they start rabbiting on about their homeland you can bet they are about to say something very unchristian after it, i.e. Lionhearts proclamation about taking the land back for Christ (read: by any means necessary) is a perverted form of gospel known as dominionism not far off of the Islamist beliefs that once land has been occupied by a Muslim, it is theirs whether they move, are expelled or die. The other point is in his defense though - he has pointed to very specific cases well known here in the north regarding allegations of child grooming amongst asian gentleman that was going to be broadcasted on a C4 documentary but was pulled at the last minute because of the potential backlash from Muslims (a very real threat considering the riots over the past decade). This I believe shows quite clearly that justice is far from blind; his understanding of it may only pertain to what he has read in a few articles in the Daily Mail and anecdotal evidence on the streets of Luton but we can all be agreed that if there is any stock in this allegation then it is up to the police to investigate without care or consideration of creed or colour.

Little Black Sambo said...

"Melanie Philips (someone who I hold in extremely low regard for all the obvious reasons)" - not very compelling, unless you remind us what some of these obvious reasons are.

Guardian apostate said...

The rather oddly, and worryingly, named little black sambo beat me to it. Please explain the reasons duckman. As a fully fledged Guardian reading lefty I used to view Melanie Phillips in pretty much the same way that DK views Polly T. It was only after doing some research into Islam that I realised that, on this at least, Melanie Phillips was spot on.

I'd also like to suggest that duckman listens to the link below. 500,000 is not a tiny, or indeed a vanishingly small, minority.


John Trenchard said...


The government's policy towards radical Islam - the other cause of concern for Mr Pasquill - had been formulated under Jack Straw, first as home secretary and then as foreign secretary. Straw put the Muslim Council of Britain at the heart of consultation, almost to the exclusion of more moderate groups. The move caused disquiet across Whitehall, as did Britain's policy of covert engagement with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

john b said...

"As a fully fledged Guardian reading lefty I used to view Melanie Phillips in pretty much the same way that DK views Polly T. It was only after doing some research into Islam that I realised that, on this at least, Melanie Phillips was spot on."

Translation: "as someone who mindlessly believed in knee-jerk and simplistic solutions to complex problems based on a poor understanding of the situation, I used to despise Melanie Phillips. After reading her knee-jerk and simplistic solutions to complex problems based on a poor understanding of the situation, I started mindlessly believing them instead. One day, I may have an original thought of my own, although the odds are against it".

U.K. TODAY. said...

This is the paradox when it comes to Miss Phillips and Lionheart.

You wanna hate em!!.

You wanna laugh in their faces when they spout their garb about radical Islam!!.

How-ever, - Somewhere, - in the back of your brain - you think - Oh my God - What if!!! - Some of this, - that they keep saying might just be true.!!!.