June 2022
« May    

“Ruddisms” or just ruddy Rudd lies?

(Tuesday blog)

Hopefully all readers know what a ‘spoonerism’ isspoonerism is an error in speech (often deliberate in order to be ‘humorous’) in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched between two words in a phrase. These are named after the Oxford don and ordained minister William Archibald Spooner, who was famous for doing this.

Some better known spoonerisms are

  • on holidays people flung hags out of windows
  • at a wedding: “It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.”

Well, I’d like to add a new term to the English language – a ‘ruddism‘. ‘Ruddisms’ are named after our esteemed home secretary, Amber Rudd. A ‘ruddism’ is when you blatantly lie when claiming that more/or less of something does not lead to more/less of something that is clearly related when it’s blisteringly and blindingly obvious that the statement is a lie.

Let me explain. Yesterday the fragrant Ms Rudd dismissed claims on Sunday that police cuts were to blame for the rise in violent crime as she prepared to publish a new strategy to supposedly tackle the problem.

The home secretary insisted that, in spite of government cuts to police budgets and numbers, police forces across the country had the resources and the manpower to tackle the increasing violence on Britain’s streets. “While I understand that police are facing emerging threats and new pressures, leading us to increase total investment in policing, the evidence does not bear out claims that resources are to blame for rising violence,” she said.

So here’s Amber Rudd’s ‘ruddism’ – “fewer police does NOT lead to rising crime”.

I’ve tried to think up a few ‘ruddisms’ of my own. Here they are:

  • being stupider than other people does NOT mean you’re less intelligent
  • eating more junk food than other people does NOT mean you might get fatter
  • having less money than other people does NOT mean you might be poorer than them
  • prosecuting people for expressing concerns about uncontrolled Third-World migration does NOT mean you’re restricting free speech
  • more diversity does NOT mean less cohesive communities
  • being an inbred, low-IQ, misogynist, religious maniac obsessed with killing unbelievers and displaying an ISIS flag at your home while growing a long beard and screaming ‘death to all infidels‘ whenever you go out shopping does NOT mean you might be more likely to commit acts of violence or terrorism

Thank you, Amber Rudd for enriching the English language.

As our once great country becomes increasingly multi-culturally enriched, I imagine we can expect many more ‘ruddisms’ from our rulers in the months and years to come.

6 comments to “Ruddisms” or just ruddy Rudd lies?

  • Julia Green


  • Eddie John

    For many years I have considered that, for want of a better word, policing has been done by consensus.
    Because of the population make up, ie Christian, mainly law abiding , that they have got away with reducing police numbers merely because of the our general way of life and beliefs. But now they have deliberately imported hundreds of thousands who quite frankly do not give a sh*t about this country or its people or way of life and now they are reaping the rewards or that which they have sown. It can only get worse because the like of Rudd are either way out of their depth or taking orders from much higher up than dopey May.

  • Stillreading

    Sadly, many of the indigenous, nominally I assume Christian, population are equally culpable. Where I live there isn’t a non-indigenous face to be seen, yet since the reduction in policing generally and the total withdrawal of visible community police “on the ground”, crime has been increasing rapidly. And not only so-called “petty” crime (flagrantly observable petty drug dealing, reported to the police but they decline to intervene, routine plate-glass shop-window smashing as indicative of a good night out for the local youth, overnight vandalism of parked vehicles) but also recently two snatch and grab raids on local shops, one involving slashing the proprietor’s face with a knife, and another on a well-established and appropriately licensed street trader. The chance of apprehending the perpetrators of any of these major crimes, one involving serious bodily harm, are nil.
    No – we all know, because we’ve been told, and we are expected to believe what those in power over us tell us, that it’s nothing at all to do with the reduction in policing or the absence of visible police on the streets. Probably the fragrant Amber when challenged again will trot out the mantra that “correlation is not causation”. True in the strictly scientific sense, but nevertheless a damned good indicator of what’s going where fallible human nature is involved!

  • William Boreham

    I read that a Home Office Minister, a certain Victoria Atkins, appeared in an LBC interview to plug the new violent crime plan, had to admit she had no idea how many police officers there were in England. I thought at the time, not yet another female, does May promote ministers in terms of ‘gender equality’ rather than expertise. That would explain a lot, one looks in vain to find the qualifications that Rudd possessed to become Home Secretary, apart from wearing a skirt.

  • A Thorpe

    I have little confidence in Amber Rudd and it must be obvious that a rise in crime is due to an increase in the number of people breaking the law. The equally useless Diane Abbott thinks bobbies on the beat are needed. Those days are long gone. When I was younger they worked because bobbies could give teenagers a clip round the ear. How on earth is increasing police numbers going to stop crime unless there are police on duty continually in every street? What can one policeman do if confronted with a gang armed with knives? By all mean criticise our completely useless politicians and government, but without a sensible solution to the problem it achieves nothing. There is no discipline in the home or in schools because the do-gooders have stopped it. Most TV, cinema and computer entertainment is based on violence. Social media encourages antisocial behaviour. The law favours the criminals. The problem is well beyond putting bobbies on the beat who have no ability to take action.

  • Stillreading

    “The law favours the criminals. The problem is well beyond putting bobbies on the beat who have no ability to take action.”
    Indisputably true as things are at the moment, but were there bobbies on the beat, with the right to give a well-deserved clip round the ear when they witness antisocial behaviour, then many potential young criminals would be deterred from progressing into the commission of violent crime and outright burglary.
    And what an atrocious indictment of our idiotic society and skewed values it is that associates of the career burglar who was killed by a 78 year old man, doing no more than defending himself and his disabled wife, are now apparently permitted to make a shrine of the occupant’s home and the pavement outside, while the owner himself and his poorly wife dare not return home for fear of repercussions from the burglar’s family. If reports are true of abusive comments on social media directed at both the home owner himself and old people generally, then surely we should be seeing some arrests on charges of “hate crime”!

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>