On Ann Widdecombe And The Leftist Hate

Ann Widdecombe's killing has opened a debate on the Right about online Lefist hatred.

Guido Fawkes Reported that Hope Not Hate have deleted a web page attacking her.

There are other very hateful pages still available to view in the online leftiverse. And I genuinely mean quite hateful of her opinions. That's the stuff posted before she was murdered. The stuff after is hideous.

It's this sort of article that eggs on the weak of mind to commit hateful acts. The articles are borderline incitement, calling her views monstrous, calling her a bigot, transphobe, homophobe, etc.

She was opinionated, sure. Her religious beliefs guided her opinions and she was quite firm on them. But although she didn't agree with Gay Marriage, she still interacted and worked with Gay people. She didn't exclude them because their opinions differed from hers.

But that's where sane people leave opinions and beliefs. They are just that. It doesn't stop them being friends with people that have differing opinions.

However, it's the insane left that want everyone to have exactly the same opinions and beliefs they have and want to eradicate everyone who doesn't. 

And it's that sort of worldview, where people with different opinions should be silenced, or cancelled, or worse that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

And you have to ask yourself: what motivates a man to get in his car, drive 300 miles to the house of an elderly woman he doesn't know, who's personal circumstances he doesn't know, and batter her to death.  Given that it takes several hours to complete the journey, where he must have had many opportunities to recant, turn back, calm down and understand the lunacy of his anger, what gets that anger stoked up to the level that a 4 hour drive isn't enough to calm you down?

The only answer is the toxic ideology of the online leftiverse. Some might argue the ideas on the right are toxic, but the left major in personal attacks rather than attacks on ideas or ideology. 

The right do not attack people individually. The left do, with such venom that people are now dying because of it.

Finally, because I don't think it's sane to infer that a man can be enraged for a full four hour drive and not go through the various scenarios outlined above, lets add a little conspiracy theory. There must have been a third party supplying intelligence on Ann's circumstances to the murderer. He must have known she would be alone, unprotected. He must have been given that information in advance. As an example, I live a lot closer to Ann's house than the murderer, but I couldn't tell you where she lived even though it's now been widely reported.

In special ops and intelligence, you go into an operation with as much intel as you can as up to date as you can get it. Even to the point of scrubbing if anything changes on the journey to the delivery point. 

Ann's murder is the same. All other concerns must have been taken care of, so the murderer could concentrate on the task at hand. So that rage could be focused over that car journey. 

So along with who stoked up the guy to a point he wanted to murder the target, who exactly was supplying that on-site information to the murderer? 

And as I type this, it's reported that Zak Polanski has been reported by Nigel Farage to the Police for incitement. Good. Leftist hateful incitement needs calling out and stopping.

Burnham...

I've just come back from a week in the Welsh Mountains. A house full of Kids and grandkids.

Enjoyed myself so thoroughly and was distracted enough not to worry about the King of the North becoming PM. 

The first impression I get is he's a phenomenal talker. He can charm the birds out of the trees. How else can you explain the financial drain of the Northern Number 10 being pitched as a positive?

I man, how much is it going to cost to move the Prime Ministerial entourage up there once a week? Is that a justifiable cost in the current economic climate? Is that something a prudent Prime Minister would set up when the country is on it's knees and borrowing hand over fist? 

Of course not.

The financial stability of the country isn't something the Socialist elites worry themselves about. 

Burnham's plans involve more spending, more borrowing and divvying out backhanders to the mates that helped him into Downing Street. Not much different than a Tory to be honest.

I have provisionally named him Burnham the money-burner.

The Big Sugar Tax/Sweetener Scandal.

Did you know that most "regular" soft drinks not only have sugar in them, but that the sugar content is increasingly being reduced in favour of (I assume cheaper to buy) sweeteners. So you may think you are drinking a soft drink sweetened "just" by sugar, but you're actually drinking a drink with some sugar and then sweeteners and in some cases the "sugar" version doesn't even have any sugar in it and instead has a sweetener like Sucralose.

Read on..

I have a big issue with sweeteners. Not a mental issue, but a real, physical issue in that if I have a drink with sweeteners, all sorts of bad things happen with my body's glucose response. Basically I taste a sweet product and my body releases insulin to combat it, but there is no sugar for the insulin to process. 

And that's just on the "good" sweeteners, like sucralose and Stevia. The bad ones like Aspartamine are a big no-no.

Obviously during this long hot spell, I've been turning to my usual summer drink: Lager Shandy. 

I always ask for the full-fat version of lemonade when ordering in a pub, although that option seems to be increasingly impossible to get.

But now at home, I can't avoid the damn sweeteners.

If you look at any full -fat includes sugar soft drink, you'll find that someone has surreptitiously included sweeteners in the mix. 

So why am I paying sugar tax (because I have to) on a product where the sugar is being cut with sweeteners? Either I pay sugar tax (because it contains sugar and by contains sugar, I mean NO SWEETENERS), or if I'm being forced to take sweeteners, I shouldn't be paying sugar tax.

This led me down a huge rabbit hole last night, whilst trying to find a non-sweetener soft drink in Tesco.

Those of us that are sensitive to sweeteners have found out ALL the soft drinks in the supermarket (apart from the organic ones) have been adulterated with sweeteners. And don't think the posh soft drinks in glass bottles are immune. Sucralose and Stevia present in the ingredients.

Call me a cynic, but it seems like a surefire way to make your body insulin resistant, by ramping up the amount in your body with nothing for it to do. Because your body tastes the sweetener and releases insulin to combat it. Do that several times over a lifetime....

Luckily for now, I've found a supplier of sweetener-free lemonade, albeit limited to 1 litre bottles. At least I should get a couple of pints of Shandy out of each bottle. 

I've yet to go back and do a thorough deep-dive. For instance are supermarkets charging more, or including sugar tax on non-diet soft drinks? Because of the sugar tax is required on products that supposedly contain no sugar. 

As an example, last night I found at least one lemonade that was labelled as non-diet or non-sweetener, that just had sucralose in it and no sugar. It was dearer then the diet option. So is this another case of supermarkets charging more for something that is basically the same product?

It bears some further scrutiny. Especially for parents of kids that are susceptible to issues caused by sweeteners. 

I'm not even going to go into the conspiracy that there's a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. 

As I found out, finding a true sweetener-free option is now a huge mission.