Monday, March 23, 2009

The evil of Jonathon Porrit

Missed this one yesterday, somehow, but it seems that that arsehole, Jonathon Porritt, is still too fucking stupid to know when he should shut the fuck up.
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Sure, Jonny-baby. So, when do we get the death camps going? And will you be using a lottery to select the lucky 30 million who are to be exterminated, or what?

Long-time readers of The Kitchen will remember that we have encountered the Optimum Population Trust* before, and they were utterly unspeakable then: they have not improved with time.

As for Porritt... well... That man is not simply a moron, he is a very, very evil person and should be removed from the planet at the soonest opportunity.

That is all.

* This is not a fake charity. The OPT is mostly sustained by legacies (£224,692), donations (£16,135) and subscriptions (£14,878). This means that there are actually a large number of very evil people out there.

49 comments:

Dick Puddlecote said...

Perhaps we could set them against the Department of Health and their advocacy of living forever instead of an enjoyable life.

SweetPeaSurry said...

Un-fooking believable. Why does everyone have to have their fingers and toes and noses and shit in everyone elses biz? Death camps, sheesh ... I wouldn't be the least bit surprised!

I wouldn't be surprised if they made each person in the death camp make a patio heater before they went into the bake!

Thortung The Terrible said...

It'd be a start if he were to lead by example and top himself.

Martin said...

A perfect instance of where an aristocrat should lead by example.

Sue said...

Patricia Hewitt is working on it

the a&e charge nurse said...

At what level of population should we be concerned ?

Some would say things like this don't help.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/22/environment-population-conference-britain

richard allan said...

What kind of nutter would believe in this primitivist, eating-leaves-and-berries rubbish? What a fucking horrible existence that would be.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

This is the problem with the more extreme end of the environmentalist movement. They want to drastically reduce the population, but they become very cagey when asked exactly how. Except those who talk about how a pandemic would be a good thing...

TNL

Letters From A Tory said...

"This means that there are actually a large number of very evil people out there."

Well, I'm not sure you can always eqaute being 'evil' with being 'ignorant' or 'annoying', but I admit that they often go hand in hand when it comes to the green lobby.

Anonymous said...

Its the one thing on the green agenda I agree with. First of all lets start with an immediate embargo on all immigration, then we make it clear this is not a Moslem Country not will it be and those who wish to live under Sharia Law be told to move immediately to a country more amenable to their beliefs.
Then can we shoot all Social Workers

Jimbo said...

Well, at least those who left legacies have already done their bit for the cause!

Anonymous said...

Its true, but who are you going to kill?

Anonymous said...

i phoned into a local radio show to talk to Mr. Porrit, who was holding forth about maximun family sizes, but when i prefixed my statement with "Jonathan Porrit is a liar and i'll explain why" i was instantly cut off! however he IS a liar - he claimed that there were less resources to go around due to overpopulation. this is a lie. i was going to ask him to explain why, today, there is more food available, and less overcrowding. the more people there are, the more resources can be created, including - paradoxically - living space. for example, tribes in remote jungles aren't considered to be in an overcrowded and over-exploited environment BUT they tend to have one communal dwelling or are ten to a hut, and spend all day hunting/gathering. in contrast, most people in "crowded" western cities have plenty of food, live in spacious dwellings, work in large offices, and are healthier re. diseases and diet. generally we are taller than our parents. the more people there are, the more resources in food, medicine and living space are created.
if the UK population was conveniently halved for Porrit, the remaining populace would have to work twice as hard to produce the same wealth and standard of living - obvious really, but Porrit's an arrogant numbskull, and evil with it, as you say.
-Richard

Andrew said...

Perhaps Mr Porritt would like to set us all an example of population reduction by castrating himself, jumping off Beachy Head, or, better still, blowing himself up with a large amount of Semtex in the middle of the Green Slime party' annual conference.

Sue said...

WIKI - In March 2009 Jonathan spoke at the launch of the South West Green Party European Election campaign in Bristol, he stated that he had always remained a member of the Green Party and that now was the correct time to reaffirm his support - perhaps he's going for MEP?

He also advises that other fine eccentric "Prince Charles on ecology"... mmmm nuff said!

manc_ill_kid said...

My reading of the OPT's accounts was that there was just one large legacy left last year cos some mad old fascist patron died, but other than that they usually only have around £30,000 in funding each year.

JS said...

I wonder how Porrit's ideas will sit against the dear leader's strategy of packing us in like rats to farm us for our taxes.

Ian B said...

Just on a minor but significant point- they aren't a "fake charity" because they aren't a "charity" at all. They are a political pressure group- we might call such groups extra-governmental political parties- with tax-free status ("charitable" status). But in terms of the meaning of charity- voluntary assistance of the needy- they're no more a charity than is my pet hamster Boris.

There is more to the fakeness of charities than their funding sources. Virtually every major charity is a fake charity. They are political formations, intended for the promotion of political objectives and always have been. They were born of the social(ist) movement from the mid nineteenth century onwards, with political objectives. If they give soup to a tramp, it's only a kind of loss-leader to justify their existence and deflect criticism.

Fake, fake, fake.

Lexander said...

Why does everybody get SO bloody worked up when the suggestion for a reasonable population figure is raised. Only war and disease has prevented the world from killing itself already. I reckon GB would run fine on about 40m.

no longer anonymous said...

Does anybody actually pay attention to this fool?

moomintroll said...

The Government's right and left hands really do not seem to know what each other are doing (no change there then). On the one hand there is this idiot saying there are too many people and they need to be culled. On the other hand there is Ian Gilmore trying to naany us into living for ever at the expense of a completely joyless existence. Surely if the government was really serious about reducing population they would encourage us all to drink like fishes, smoke like chimneys, drive like lunatics without seat belts etc. on the basis that a short life and a merry one philosophy is a good way of keeping the population down.

pond life said...

world population growth appears to be forming into a classic bell curve and will decrease over time. like bacteria in a Petri dish.

Anonymous said...

Start with immigration.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Start with immigration."

We have negative net immigration, you know that, yes? i.e. there were more British people emigrating than there were others coming in...

DK

WV: mingstor. Could be Tonbridge on a Friday night...

Budgie's green ectoplasm said...

Only the intelligent, Guardian reading, AGW following, BBC believing, section of the population should be allowed to breed. This would be easily accomplished by issuing one baby licence only to those who promise to vote ZaNu Liebore/Green eco-fascist and buy their BBC TV licence. All other pregnancies would be banned or terminated. That'll soon sort out those Thatcherists!

Ian B said...

there were more British people emigrating than there were others coming in.

That's not actually a sign that all is well, DK...

Not a sheep said...

Just remember when you vote your ballot paper has a number, a number that can be checked back to the other half of the ballot paper left in the book. Maybe the plan is to remove from the population all those who voted for the BNP, then Libertas, then UKIP and finally the Conservative party.
I am only half joking, these people who rule us really scare me.

Pogo said...

I'm assuming that the "net emigration" is based upon the "official" figures... On the basis that nobody appears to have a fucking clue what the illegal immigration numbers really are, how can we say what the true state of affairs is?

Chris said...

It seems pretty much impossible to achieve without resorting to a chinese-style police state.
That aside, there are good arguments that there are too many humans walking around and fucking things up. Aside from natural disasters and disease, or a malthusian crunch - human beings alone cannot lower the population enough to make a difference. So there's not much point in talking about it.

Mark Brentano said...

When all the anti-globalisers are out in force - and in their new trainers - to annoy Daddy at the G20 summit, can we all reclaim some other streets by rioting against the Green lobby? Self-righteous, anti-humanist, we-all-live-in-a-Yellow-fucking-submarine, front-of-the-queue wankers like Porritt should be forced to parade around a series of Western cities dressed as a clown.

Anonymous said...

Erm, its now 64 years since the last outing of kill'em-all was knocked on the head so I suppose the idea is due for a dusting off.

What goes round comes round and all that. The last lot of exterminists had total conviction they were right just like this lot. One thing you can't criticise the greenies for is lack of adherence to old traditions.

Anonymous said...

"We have negative net immigration, you know that, yes? i.e. there were more British people emigrating than there were others coming in..."

That is false.

HelpMeRhonda said...

The Greens need to make up their minds about population. Two weeks ago Radio Five Live had an interview with James Lovelock of Gaia theory in which he said the UK would be one of the best places in the world to withstand Global Warming and that our population would soar to 100 million!! and we had better start concreting over the countryside to build massive new cities. Totally barmy of course.
Does being Green destroy the mind? Maybe its all that tree hugging and lentils.

Pa Annoyed said...

If you want to know how, why not look at how they went about it last time? A bit less than 64 years, I'm afraid.

Doesn't anyone remember 'The Population Bomb' and all the rest of that nonsense?

Anonymong the thinker said...

I've got a cracking idea to select those who die for the benefit of the others:

Every welfare cheque has a chance of a 'black spot', you can guess the rest...(hint Bling Pugh(sp))

Unemployment, extra kids etc all sorted in one easy step.

You won't risk wasting the doctor's time if there's a chance of a death sentence

GENIUS

Anonymous said...

Jonathan Porritt is absolutely correct.

We're hugely over crowded at the moment and every year it gets worse.

GB pop 30 million. Hell yes!

Anonymous said...

It seems that the ONS agrees with Anonymous at 3/23/2009 06:44:00 PM.

The ONS says that the population of the United Kingdom was 60,975,000 in mid-2007. This is an increase of 388,000 (0.6 per cent) on mid-2006 and is equivalent to an average increase of approximately 1,000 people a day.

Net inward migration has been between 148,000 and 262,000 each year between 2001-2 and 2006-7, peaking in 2004-5. Natural change, the difference between births and deaths, has been less than migration each year since 1999.

Anonymous said...

Try again. The ONS population and immigration data is at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=950

Budgie said...

Anon 9:01pm said: Jonathan Porritt is absolutely correct. GB pop 30 million. Hell yes!

Hell. Yes.

Are you volunteering?

Ian B said...

Jonathan Porritt is absolutely correct.

Johnathan Porritt is a tit.

Hysteria said...

don't think Porrit was suggesting we actually do this next week. Talk of gas chambers etc. is just bloody silly.

Look at it the other way - if there is no limit and supply grows to meet the demand - do you seriously think there is no limit to this - can the island support 100million - 2? 3? - at some point there is a limit.

We need to manage ourselves to a sustainable number - my view - we could have more population than we currently have and still have an improved standard of living. But there IS a maximum.

David Payne said...

Either we choose to reduce population or it will be reduced for us - plague populations typically fall by 80-90% in the natural world.
Despoiling the habitat is the usual cause.
In a finite environment exponential growth is unsustainable. Dr Albert Bartlett has some words to say about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY (note how many start to watch Pt 1 cf Pts 2-8)
Also Lester R Brown of the Earth Policy Institute.
As a sometime engineering student and systems consultant and passably observant human, I suspect that the sustainable human population of the planet is significantly less than current, and the better fed and supplied with goods and services, the fewer can be sustained.
We are at an interesting time: production of oil, water and food are peaking almost concurrently. Antibiotic resistance is increasing: concentrated populations not only of humans but also food animals under stressful conditions are likely to be potent breeding grounds for new and re-emergent diseases against which natural immunity will be close to zero.
Oddly the indigenous populations of many if not most developed countries (including UK, USA, Japan, Spain, Italy) are breeding below replacement levels. Our 'leaders' find this a 'problem' and want us to breed more and/or import people. Neither is sustainable.
But 'they' also want us to live in a green and sustainable way.
Pardon?
A decline of 0.5% per year would take 140 years to reduce the UK population to about 30 million - perfectly feasible, assuming zero net migration and environmental factors grant our great grandchildren the time.

Kim du Toit said...

Okay, if Britain were to adopt this as policy, then (failing the introduction of Tommy's Auschwitz Holiday Camps) the government would have to install (and enforce) a "one baby per woman" policy, AND end all immigration, AND encourage emigration, until the population reached the required level.

The funniest part of it all is that the section of the population which would be most resistant to the child-limit would be the chavs, for whom additional children represent increased income.

And therefore, involuntary post-partum sterilization would have to be mandated...

Or, we could just execute all eugenics supporters, which, even though an appalling idea, is less appalling than the means whereby they would accomplish THEIR goals.

The Bloke's Cookbook said...

"Devil's Kitchen said...

"Start with immigration."

We have negative net immigration, you know that, yes? i.e. there were more British people emigrating than there were others coming in...

DK"
If we had negative net immigration then the population would have dropped. It has, in fact, risen.

There have been plenty of people leaving - talented, capable young men and women fleeing for the colonies.

However, we've received 3.2 million immigrants since 1997. 60% of these have been economic migrants from sub-saharan Africa, and the majority have those have remained in London and the South-East.

We need an immediate curb on immigration, and tax policies to discourage large families - such as an end to child benefit for more than 2 children.

Whatever other madness Porritt blathers, on this he is entirely correct.

I do find it tiresome that as soon as you say 'population control' the knee-jerk reaction is to start talking about soylent green and death camps. It's nothing of the sort.

The Penguin said...

Surely to complete the twat Porrit's Green Utopia we'd all have to go back to scratching a piss poor agricultural existence? Oh, with some feudal overlords, of course!

The Penguin

Pa Annoyed said...

"Look at it the other way - if there is no limit and supply grows to meet the demand - do you seriously think there is no limit to this - can the island support 100million - 2? 3? - at some point there is a limit."

Obviously. But what makes you think that it is anywhere close to 100 million?

Professor Simon calculated back in 1980 that with technology that already existed and was in commercial use then, the entire world population could be fed using an area approximately 140 miles by 140 miles. On that basis, the maximum population of the UK would be about four times the current world population!

And that was 1980s technology.

Not that it's even vaguely relevant. Improving prosperity is projected to stabilise the world population sometime in the next century anyway. If we have a problem, it is that we don't have enough people.

I thought all this 'Population Bomb' crap had been killed off 30 years ago - after all the forced-sterilisation programmes were shut down. Don't tell me it's making a resurgence now. It's so depressing.

Shug Niggurath said...

Let's get a campaign started for all the greenies, goonies and loonies to top themselves. Maybe an advert on a London bus?

'Save the planet, shoot yourself' to paraphrase cheech n chong

Anonymous said...

At last - morons who can spell! What a relief.

Anonymous said...

Comments only visible after site owner approval. Nice.