I’m off to talk to Plod

You’ve probably seen the story. Following a US air attack in April on ISIS militants, a university student – a white male – wrote on his blog or FaceBook or whatever: ‘I’m glad we could bring these barbarians a step closer to collecting their 72 virgins’. The student had previously written other comments on social media expressing negative views about our friends from Eezlumic State, for example:

Following this expression of negative opinions about ISIS and radical terrorist Eezlum, a second-year history student – a woman of colour – claimed that such comments ‘put minority students at risk and in a state of panic’ and breached the student code of conduct. Now the student who criticised ISIS is being investigated by the university for Eezlumophobia.

The woman of colour who made the complaint identifies herself online as ‘a self-proclaimed feminist and womanist from inner-city London’. I’m not quite sure what a “womanist” is, but I expect it’s something rather noisy and deeply unpleasant.

The lady in question added: ‘I value inclusivity as well as building and preserving safe spaces for us. Creating a truly intersectional campaign is incredibly important to me and my first job will be to work alongside the other liberation groups to ensure EUSA (Edinburgh University Students’ Association) are fully representative of our views. Here at Edinburgh I want BME Students to engage in conversations about the issues that affect us.’ Sounds like total bollox to me. But hey, what do I know?

Admittedly the gentleman criticising radical Eezlumic terror is only being investigated by the university authorities, not the police. At least, not yet. But the story shows how limited free speech has become in progressive, diverse multi-cultural Britain and, in fact, throughout Europe:

 I know I’m finding it increasingly difficult to write anything without the risk of some politically-correct, virtue-signalling, lefty libtard idiot reporting me to the police.

So, I’ve decided to go and talk to Plod to get some written guidelines from Plod about what can be written and what constitutes a supposed “hate crime”. This is especially important ever since the (IMHO) utterly useless, politically-biased, Eezlumophiliac, Eezlumofascist Director of Public Prosecutions decided a few weeks ago that writing anything remotely critical about any person or group constituted a “hate crime” on the same level as attacking them in the street and hospitalising them.

For example, if I wrote something that is statistically-correct like “nowadays you’re more likely to be killed by Eezlumic terror than by right-wing terror or Hindu terror or Buddhist terror”, is that a justifiable statement of fact? Or is it a “hate crime” slandering all Moozerlums everywhere in a totally unforgivable way? Or if I wrote “if you want a toasted bacon sandwich, it’s probably best not to go to a Halal restaurant”. What is that? Is it a statement of the obvious? Or is it a supposed “hate crime”? And what if I wrote “Halal/Kosher slaughter is inhumane and should be banned?” Is this a valid opinion? Or a supposed “hate crime”?

I imagine it will take me a couple of weeks to get some kind of sensible answer from Plod if it is even possible. So I will stop writing my blog now and plan to re-start on Thursday 28 September.

There are apparently people who believe Plod spends much of his/her time trawling the Internet reading blogs like mine looking for supposed “hate crimes”. If this is true, my break will give Plod some time to go and catch some real criminals – burglars, rapists (except those from a certain group who are allowed to do what they want), muggers, car thieves, illegal immigrants, fraudsters etc etc.