Deputy head shoots a student with plastic bullets:
The boy was hit at least twice from a distance of up to 15 metres, with the plastic bullets causing injuries to his stomach, arms and legs.
The “momentary lapse of judgment” left Gitlin’s 30-year teaching career in tatters after he was convicted of assault by beating.
As he appeared at Stockport magistrates court on Friday, Gitlin, from Prestbury, near Wilmslow, wept as he admitted the offence, stating that he was going through an acrimonious divorce at the time and was not sleeping well.
He got off pretty lightly:
The teacher, who had otherwise enjoyed an unblemished career, was ordered to complete 200 hours unpaid work and to pay the boy £125 compensation.
Perhaps he should have been sent to jail. It was definitely an extremely stupid thing for a teacher (or anyone) to do. Still… I can’t help but think that the student got what he deserved:
Eileen Rogers, prosecuting, said: “He was operating an air rifle when one of the students asked the teacher what it would be like to be shot by it.
“He replied it would ‘bloody hurt’ to which the young pupil responded ‘shoot me’, running around the hall and repeating the phrase a number of times.
“He was 10 – 15 metres away. He pointed the airsoft gun at him and fired it one or two times and one or more of the plastic bullets hit the young pupil and caused some injuries.
The kid certainly has the wrong attitude:
Miss Rogers added: “There were no lasting injuries but it is something that a young man would go through afterwards, in relation to trauma that was caused.
“He had several red marks on his stomach, his arms, and his legs. You wouldn’t expect it to happen on a school premises and there is a lasting effect on him.”
The correct response would be ‘I wanted to know, now I know. He shouldn’t have done it, but now the pain’s gone I’ll be fine, and it’ll make a brilliant drinking story”.
The Telegraph may have got a bit more conservative again recently, but it’s still full of enemy hostiles — consider, for example, this piece of incredibly biased reporting over the incident where Mark Field prevented a protester from getting past him:
Mark Field, a Foreign Office minister and the local MP, lost his temper, enraged and in a fury.
Lost his temper? Enraged? In a fury? He was, in fact, as can clearly be seen from the video (on the Tele story), cool, calm and determined, and he did the right thing with a minimum of fuss, without any more strength than was needed.
Unfortunately the Conservatives are also full of enemy hostiles, one of whom is… Mark Field MP. Because after doing the right thing in the right fashion, he made a grovelling apology:
“In the confusion many guests understandably felt threatened and when one protester rushed past me towards the top table I instinctively reacted.
“There was no security present and I was for a split-second genuinely worried she might have been armed. As a result I grasped the intruder firmly in order to remove her from the room as swiftly as possible.
“I deeply regret this episode and unreservedly apologise to the lady concerned for grabbing her but in the current climate I felt the need to act decisively to close down the threat to the safety of those present.”
Conservatives have become like men who apologise to their girlfriends for getting a raging hard-on.
There are suddenly a rash of determined and blatant media efforts to portray Boris Johnson as unstable — for example:
And he is said to be so disturbed about his divorce from Marina there have been questions raised about his fitness to run the country.
One pal said: “He is yearning for Marina and wistful and would like what he had before.
Thing is, I don’t give a shit what Boris Johnson is like as long as he gets us out of the EU by Oct 31. Once he’s done that we’re done with the Tories. And if he doesn’t do that we’re also done with the Tories.
This is what the Tories don’t understand. it’s no longer just about Brexit. We’re done with them regardless of what happens with Brexit. So Johnson’s long-term suitability to be PM is of no great interest.
I’ve now got around to responding to a question asked of me by commentator Penseivat in regards to the discussion about getting roads open quicker after accidents. (Penseivat seems to be a generally sound and sensible fellow who has posed me some genuine questions , so I owe him a proper response.)
So, if you were side swiped by another driver and, although no one is injured, your car is extensively damaged, you would be happy with the vehicles simply being pushed to the side of the road and no further action taken?
As blame or cause will not be considered, you would also be quite happy losing any no claims insurance discount and increased premiums in having the vehicle repaired or replaced?
What I would be happy with is the traffic cops taking some photos and noting any evidence that is visible in the area, like skid marks, or something usual on the road, while the injured people are looked after, and then while the cars are moved to the side of the road. That shouldn’t take too long. I wouldn’t expect them to spend hours doing it, though. That would be ridiculous.
In fact, it shouldn’t even take as long to gather such evidence as it would normally take to look after the injured and get the cars off the road. I don’t understand at all the idea that a team of police would spend hours and hours looking at a road, all for the one in a million situation where they find some evidence to indicate that maybe Driver A was at fault rather than Driver B. That seems to me to be an insane allocation of resources.
Any rational cost-benefit analysis involving a major road being closed for hours — leaving tens of thousands of people having their life shoved around, hospital appointments missed, children left unpicked up and panicking, client meetings screwed, local theatre shows cancelled because the cast is stuck on a motorway, planes missed and holidays ruined, grandparents who miss the chance to see their grandchildren for a couple of years, school trips cancelled, football and cricket matches ruined, divorces caused by the stress of being cooped up for hours in a traffic jam, cars that run out of petrol, county cricket trials missed, theatre auditions missed, job interviews missed — would tell you that none of this outweighs the small possibility that a car insurance case could be decided one way or the other.
I also note that this bit of Penseivat’s question is a total non sequitur:
and no further action taken?
As blame or cause will not be considered, you would also be quite happy losing any no claims insurance discount and increased premiums in having the vehicle repaired or replaced?
Why ‘no further action’? That wasn’t the claim. There is no logical connection between getting a road back up and running quickly and having, or not having, an investigation. In other words, it is perfectly possible for insurance companies, and even the police, to investigate a crash even if three extra hours have not been allocated for the police to comb the road for extra possible clues. The vast majority of required evidence will still be there: witness statements, photos of skid marks, photos of the cars, any dash cam footage that was taken, any traffic camera footage that was taken, and so on.
It would be ridiculous for the police to declare that an investigation must not proceed because they didn’t have four hours to find, say, the final resting place of a toupee which would have proved that the toupee wearer was criminally negligent in his driving. It’s not like ten years ago there were no prosecutions for dangerous driving. It’s not like insurance companies were unable to decide who was at fault in 2005. And that was before there so much extra footage available.
In other words, investigations can take place regardless of how long the police crawled up the road with a magnifying glass.
And, as Jim in comments noted:
P*ssing around taking measurements and gathering painstaking evidence would only be of use to wider society if it was to be used in a way that benefited wider society – namely that the courts and justice system prosecuted and punished dangerous drivers draconianly, and thus made the roads safer for everyone else.
But the court system does nothing of the sort – dangerous drivers are allowed to continue on their merry way causing accidents time after time, ignoring driving bans, ignoring the need to be insured, cocking a snook at everyone else.
So society at large loses thrice – it gets to pay for policemen and other civil servants to play at being CSI on the roads, it gets held up when roads are closed for CSI plod to do their pension qualification activity (sorry, work) and it still has to suffer the dangerous drivers that the justice system refuses to remove from circulation in society.
So that same risk-benefit analysis also has to look at what society gains from all this extra investigation. The answer seems to be: very little.
Jim in comments also makes this point about insurance investigations:
Ask anyone who has been in an accident where (objectively) they were not at fault, whether a) the other person was prosecuted or b) their premiums didn’t go up despite it being the other persons fault? My own mother was driven into by a car that drove out of its driveway without looking, so totally not her fault, yet her premium rose the next renewal, because quote ‘You’re in a higher risk bracket now’
Quite often insurance companies will call an accident ‘knock for knock’ even when there’s considerable evidence one party was at fault, the insurance companies don’t care, its swings and roundabouts to them, what they lose on one accident they’ll gain on another. So apportioning blame is hardly bothered with.
Update: Jeremy Clarkson and James Delingpole have continued to tweet about this issue recently:
Dear the M4 Police. The injured have now been taken care of. So here’s an idea. Open the road.
— Jeremy Clarkson (@JeremyClarkson) June 20, 2019
Singapore airport in disarray because London traffic plod insist on closing roads for as long as possible. Wish I was in charge
— Jeremy Clarkson (@JeremyClarkson) June 20, 2019
I don't know why. I think the police spend WAY too long closing down motorways without a thought for the massive, widespread inconvenience caused. Most drivers feel exactly the same way.
— James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole) June 20, 2019
This line from the Oberlin-Gibson case pretty much sums up the modern left:
In an email to co-executives, Ben Jones, the school’s vice president of communications wrote, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions.”
Turns out it was the ultra-liberals who were blind to their own assumptions. Fancy that:
“Fuck-em,” he [Jones] concluded. “They’ve made their own bed now.”
When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, criticizing the school’s treatment of Gibson’s, Jones sent a text message in caps that read, “FUCK ROGER COPELAND.”
“Fuck him,” Raimondo agreed in her reply. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”
Why on Earth does the Conservative Party allow hostile, left-wing TV channels like Channel 4 and the BBC to be in charge of running their leadership debates? It’s their party, they should set up their own debates and tell the TV channels they’re free to broadcast them if they wish.
Or even just bypass the broadcasters altogether, and stream them for free on YouTube, etc. Why let your enemies frame and run your own events?
Months have gone by and Ken and Halberd have still not finished their analysis of Lucius’s work. Ren spent August in bed with Wren and got nothing done, except for converting takeaways and alcohol into disseminate. Then Wren left to move to her new life in Manchester, and Ren thought he’d get something done then, but instead he stayed in bed, depressed, finding that he missed her. He was starting to think that maybe he’d made a big mistake in breaking up with her. But she was off to her exciting future, and wasn’t go to stay in Grayvington, and he didn’t blame her for that. Then the new term hit and the Lucius project got put onto the backburner, although Ken and Halberd sporadically worked on their attempted replications.
Ren has now decided it’s time to move it on and get things wrapped up. He’s worried that someone else will call out Lucius first, even though he’s knows there’s not really much chance of that. So he has gone around to Ken’s flat on a Friday night to talk to the two grad students. He’s bought them a bottle of fancy vodka, ostensibly to reward them for their hard work, although really he’s bought it to loosen their tongues. If necessary he’s going to kick them up their backsides. At the very least he’s going to drink a lot of this vodka. The bottle is already half-gone.
‘Another vodka and lemonade, fellas?’
‘Another one?’ says Halberd with a glazed look.
‘Still going with this one,’ says Ken.
‘If you leave your gorgeous girlfriend all alone at a party then you can expect other men to move in,’ says Ren as he pours some more of the vodka.
‘Isn’t that rather sexist?’ says Ken.
‘Is it feminist to ignore your girlfriend night after night, and then complain when you walk in on her getting licked out by an asshole bongo player with a goatee someone brought to the party?’
‘That is a fucked-up metaphor in so many ways,’ says Ken.
‘I know. I mean, a fucking bongo player? Wouldn’t you just kill yourself there and then? By the way, it wasn’t a metaphor, it was an analogy. I can’t believe they trust you psychologists with matters of import, Jesus, with the actual minds of human beings, when a simple distinction between a metaphor and an analogy is beyond you. By law you should be trusted with nothing more than frogs and gerbils. Now, another vodka for everyone?’
‘Could I have one that hasn’t got quite so much vodka in it?’ says Ken.
‘How about I just go to the kitchen, get out a knife, cut some lemons, and then come in and cut your fucking balls off as well? Or will they be too small to find?’
‘You’re too late,’ says Halberd. ‘His last girlfriend already cut them off.’
‘Thanks mate,’ says Ken.
‘Well, at least I can trust a Dane not to cry when I put a healthy dash of vodka in his glass,’ says Ren.
‘You bet,’ says Halberd. ‘Could I have extra lemonade, though?’
Ren sighs and shakes his head. ‘Do you have a note from Mummy that says you’re allowed to drink, sonny? Is it a school night?’
Ren decides he should get down to brass tacks while things have loosened up, but before the evening starts spiralling out of control.
‘Guys, an important question now. When are you thinking of plunging the knife?’
Ken recoils a little bit. ‘That’s not how I like to think about it.’
‘Pulling the lever?’
‘Your metaphors are all very violent,’ says Ken.
‘Yes, because this is a nasty fucking business.’
‘Well, maybe next summer. If we think we have a good enough case,’ says Ken.
‘I was thinking after we finish our doctorates, and have moved on with permanent jobs,’ says Halberd. ‘Next summer is too soon.’
‘Too soon? Hells fucking bells, you call yourself young people? Young thrusting bucks with urgent big cocks?’
Ken and Halberd look at each other. ‘I’m not sure that’s how I’d fill out a self-description task,’ says Ken.
‘Then get busy and rub yourself a boner. This has to happen soon. Otherwise I’m going to go in flinging so much shit at Lucius, and your department, and Psychology in general that you’ll be smelling it in your nostrils for decades to come. I don’t give a fuck whether it pisses Grayvington off because it will make my life and career so much more fun that I’m itching to do it. I’m being Mr Nice Guy letting you social psychologists make out that you’re policing yourself, even though it’s obvious that someone hooked up the refuse pipe to the output pipe long ago, and you’re all pretending not to notice the smell.’
‘Are you just talking like this because you’ve drunk most of the vodka?’ says Ken.
‘No, I really will blow it open myself. We can’t let this continue on for another year, another two years, that’s just wrong.’
‘Okay, okay, we’ll talk to the Dean in a few months.’
‘Don’t take too long. Let Lucifer enjoy his Christmas, and then when the cold bleakness of January really bites you pull the trigger. Don’t do it in summer when he might think that he can just go on holiday and do the Macarena and the whole thing will blow over. Do it when the frost bites at his soul.’
‘Or his asshole,’ says Halberd.
‘A for effort, foreign-language person,’ says Ren.
‘You try your best, I know,’ says Ren. ‘That’s the problem.’
‘You were saying?’ says Ken.
‘Yes, expose this tertiary Philby in winter, when the weather is miserable, and he lies awake at night listening to the cold wind howling and starts to worry about being caught. And hit him hard. If you don’t hit him good and proper first blow then he’ll turn around and start ripping your limbs off, and then you’ll wish to God you hadn’t pulled your punches.’
‘Aren’t you supposed to be convincing us to go after him?’ says Ken.
‘When you wrestle the alligator onto the shore,’ says Ren, not really listening to anything but his own drunken ramblings now, ‘you fucking finish the cunt off. You don’t let him slip back into the water again. Exenterate him and his figmental body of work. Fucking forget all this replication crap, it won’t convince anybody. Just go for him and let him have to deal with the task of convincing everyone that all these amazing studies that no-one ever saw happen really did happen. Okay?’
‘Er, okay,’ says Ken.
‘But let’s hold back the train station info to start with.’
‘I thought you said to hit him with everything straight up?’
‘Sure, but let’s keep that in reserve. If he manages to sew some confusion about whether he’s faking and looks like getting the benefit of the doubt, then we finish him off with that. And even if he confesses straight away he’ll try to make it seem not so bad. Just a few changed numbers here and there. Faking, but not the worst sort. He’ll play for sympathy. A few bad decisions late at night. He’s not a bad guy really, just a human being with weaknesses. Then the train station faking comes out and the scale of what he’s been doing becomes clear, and then whatever credibility he’s managed to hold onto collapses.’
There is silence for a few seconds.
‘I’m not sure I really want to be a part of something that’s going to be so horrible,’ says Ken. ‘This could destroy Lucius. Maybe he’ll commit suicide.’
‘He’s hardly the type,’ says Ren. ‘Look, he’s going down with or without you. If you pull out then it will still come out at some stage that you knew all about him, and you had the proof, but you chickened out of saying anything. So you can either take the credit you deserve, or you can go into the kitchen and get that knife, cut those lemons, and then cut your own balls off yourself. Or whatever’s left of them. And cut your whole fucking dick off while you’re at it.’
‘I don’t find this sort of drunken macho talk very helpful,’ says Ken. ‘These attitudes are behind a lot of the problems in modern academia. Even Lucius’s behaviour, it all stems from an over-competitive and aggressive ultra-masculine culture. We have to stop talking and thinking like this.’
‘A man who’s thinking of chickening out on exposing a fraud is in no position to give a sermon,’ says Ren. ‘You’re like a pacifist watching a battle criticising both sides for their participation in violence while your friends are being shot dead by Nazis. Take a stand for your fucking bullshit field. Get inspired by Joan of Arc instead. Or the suffragettes. Or whoever you approve of. But don’t pretend that you looking the other way when a faker does his faking is about principle.’
Ken looks downcast. ‘All right,’ he finally says, before looking up with a gimcrack gimlet eye. ‘Give me another vodka. A big one.’
‘Certainly not,’ says Ren. ‘This stuff is terribly bad for your liver.’
Some people wanted a Boris coronation to save the pointlessness of a month run-off between Boris and Hunt, when it’s obvious Boris will win. I can see one advantage of that — getting Theresa May out of office before she does any more damage.
Others want the party hustings to take place in order that party members can really see their candidates in action. Personally I don’t really care about that, being someone who regards the Tories as failed party who need to fold quickly and quietly.
But I do want to see the Boris v Hunt fight go on until the end (July 22).
Although there are advantages to getting rid of May before then, the most important thing is that time is gained for the Brexit Party to get their candidates ready in case there is a no-confidence vote passed in a Boris Johnson government. Which some people, like Andrew Lilico, think will happen pretty much as soon as he takes over. I’m less convinced, because of the high chance that the Tory and CUK Remainers who might support such a vote would lose their seats. And also because of the chance that a pro-Leave Johnson government, especially if they’ve done a deal with the Brexit Party, would win the election. And also because the only alternative to that is a Corbyn government.
But clearly there is a reasonable chance that there may be an early election before the end of the year, so every extra week the Brexit Party has to prepare the better.
The other reason a delay in a new PM taking over is good is that that gives us another month in which the government and the EU will not be negotiating, and the less time to negotiate the less time the EU will have to work over our new team. (So there’ll only be around three months left to negotiate, plus the EU will have a new team being put together themselves, so time is very short.)
So now that Rod Stewart, aka Rory Stewart, has been eliminated from the Conservative Party leadership race, he can go on to the next stage of his career, which is to constantly appear on those political TV shows — namely, all of them — which love to give a platform to disaffected Conservative MPs criticising their own party.
Martin, an empathetic, touchy-feely defender of Rory Stewart reaches out in the comments to heal the divide:
"You won’t like Rory when he’s angry. Actually, you won’t like him when he’s not angry either, as he’s a prancing ninny." What a pathetic caption , fuck off
There’s a certain influential section of the middle class that longs for spiritual authority figures to take control of our messy lives and ‘heal’ us all. But as traditional religion has waned in recent decades, politicians are more than ever filling that space. Barack Obama was the most obvious such figure of recent years, with his wafty-but-vacuous speeches. Rod ‘Rory’ Stewart is fast becoming the latest British one:
Why Rory Stewart is exactly what the nation needs …
But listening to Rory Stewart launch his leadership campaign, I was briefly reminded that not all MPs are venal, self-serving, and incapable of expressing empathy. Here was a man who spoke of positivity and action, and most controversially of all, of love.
When asked by a young transgender person what he planned to do about the politics of negativism that have turned this country from a comforting bell shape, most of us in the middle, to a polarised U shape, Stewart answered with sincerity. He said he would “embrace you, welcome you…” and added how important it was “in our society to cherish each other, how much we should respect each other’s identity. And this is about…” Stewart paused for a moment. “It’s about listening, and I’m afraid it’s about love.” As in, there isn’t much of it around right now.
Bryony Gordon is exactly the sort of person to be taken in by this sort of con-man. Dippy and depressive, and, behind the cynical facade, hungry for something shinier and happier, preferably something all surface so she doesn’t have to worry about things not being so rosy when you dig down deeper. This is exactly the way seemingly sane people talked about St Obama when he twigged that empty platitudes made the middle classes swoon.
And of course Bryony hasn’t noticed that most of the nation is not in need of anything remotely resembling a Rory Stewart figure in their lives. They’ve been screwed over for years by people like Rory Stewart, and what they’re desperate for is an anti-Rory, a plain-speaking rebel who’ll get them out of the corner they’ve been boxed into by the exact Establishment policies that Stewart wants to continue. That’s why Nigel Farage, seemingly yesterday’s figure, has come back to life so dramatically. But she doesn’t appreciate that because she lives in her own bubble.
Listening! Love! Had I just stumbled across some sort of inspirational Ted talk by a peace activist? I mean, the whole thing did take place in a circus tent. But no, this was real, this was happening, this was a leadership candidate who spoke of hope and possibility and wanted to unite through faith not fear.
How exactly is he going to unite us? Take those people who throw milkshakes at politicians. Or those people who want to jail anyone who denies that men can be women. Is Rory Stewart getting them and their enemies all together in a big circus tent and saying he loves them all going to unite them? Is he going to unite the people who want a large increase in the minimum wage with those people who think the minimum wage is pointless? Is he going to unite the Barclay brothers with Sir Philip Green?
Stewart is just the latest hyper-Establishment figure trying to flim-flam middle-class suckers, and that’s why the media is desperately bigging him up. He’s the new Tony Blair. Luckily enough people, I think, have woken up and are no longer in the mood for that BS.
Disappointing rumour from the Telegraph:
As many as one third of Theresa May’s top team could be replaced by a new cadre of rising star politicians being lined up to sit in a Boris Johnson Cabinet.
A third is the number that should be kicked out of the party, not just out of cabinet.
The whole cabinet should be sacked en masse.
Bring back the likes of John Redwood, I say. I’d take him any day over posturing ninnies like Rory Stewart. (I should remind you once again that his real name is Rod Stewart.)
Seriously, name me a single one these useless traitors who should stay:
Minister for the Cabinet Office
David Lidington CBE MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Philip Hammond MP
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Sajid Javid MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Stephen Barclay MP
Secretary of State for Defence
Minister for Women and Equalities
Penny Mordaunt MP
Secretary of State for Justice
David Gauke MP
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Matthew Hancock MP
Secretary of State for Education
Damian Hinds MP
Secretary of State for International Trade
President of the Board of Trade
Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Greg Clark MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Chris Grayling MP
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
James Brokenshire MP
Secretary of State for International Development
Rory Stewart MP
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Jeremy Wright QC MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Amber Rudd MP
Leader of the House of Lords
Lord Privy Seal
Natalie Evans, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park PC
Secretary of State for Scotland
David Mundell MP
Secretary of State for Wales
Alun Cairns MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Karen Bradley MP
Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)
Brandon Lewis MP
Also attending cabinet meetings:
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Elizabeth Truss MP
Leader of the House of Commons
Lord President of the Council
Mel Stride MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury
Julian Smith MP
Geoffrey Cox QC MP
Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth
Claire Perry MP
Minister of State for Immigration
Caroline Nokes MP
Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation
Interim Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth
From a removalist review site:
I am absolutely livid with a removal company we used after receiving a referral from an online site [removed] and i believe it is important to let you know before someone else experiences what we went through in the hope that you may be able to stop these cowboys.
After confirming our removal dates i went online to get some quotes and came across the compare website. Which i thought was great as it saved me the inconvenience of filling out 101 forms. Almost immediately i received numerous phonecalls from companies all offering me a quote. So i choose four and they each came down and assessed our move.
We were visited by one gentleman called ‘Adam’ whose name later turned out to be Hussain, and he was very polite, assessed the job and told my mum that he would be happy that on top of her household belongings he would organise another truck for our garden things to go to a separate address (As we were not moving immediately into our new home and the plants would die in storage). He would include all of this in his fully inclusive quote.
When we received back all the quotes, Adam/ Hussain’s was one of the best and we liked that he has agreed to do a seperate truck for her garden things. So we decided to go with his company.
On the morning of the move, Adam disclosed that his name was Hussain but all of this colleagues refer to each other as Adam. They then stormed into rooms which hadn’t yet been packed and started to throw things into unsealed boxes despite us asking them to start in rooms which were ready to go. It seemed as though they were in such a rush they wanted to be in and out in an hour and they were not up for following our instructions. The did not take any care or attention with our belongings.
At several points my boyfriend had to firmly tell them to stop throwing our stuff and look at the boxes which had fragile tapped on them and be extra careful. It seemed as though they listened to a fellow man slightly, but paid no attention to us women at all!One of Hussains work men then complained throughout the day about how much stuff my mum had, it seemed difficult for him to understand that as a removal company he was being paid to remove things and not complain. He then said that Hussain had under quoted us as we had too much stuff. Again this was not my fault nor had Hussain said anything to me at this point.
Hussain had several arguments with his colleagues throughout the day. None of which were in English and each lasted about 15-20 minutes. Which all set back the day even further. Eventually two trucks were full, after various conversations about them being more careful with our things and after listening to hours of complaints about how much stuff there was.
I spoke with Hussain over the phone and asked him when was he coming back to collect the garden things as promised. After a lot of hesitation he said he would be back within a hour with another truck, but first needed to unload our stuff at the storage. At which point he wanted paying in cash too. An hour passed, two, and Hussain stopped answering his phone, until eventually about 9pm Hussain answered his phone to tell me he was not coming back and that i must pay him in cash, otherwise we would not see our things again. Furthermore he persisted that the cost of storage had now gone up and that he needed to be paid extra. He point blank refused to come back for the rest of the belongings and said that he had never agreed to do the extra truck for the garden things.
As you can imagine we were panicking as we had to be out of the property completely, with it cleaned by the following day. We exchanged some harsh words over the phone as i felt completely conned and ripped off as Hussain continued to call me a liar and that we had brought more stuff to our house than he had first seen and he was not coming back to take any more. He wouldnt allow me to speak and keep shouting over me until he told me that i was a very unpleasant person and that i should not lie. i was fuming at this point as you can imagine!
Unfortunately i had to agree to disagree because i wanted our stuff to be returned on the agreed delivery date. The delivery was then agreed for 12pm on the 13 December. I reluctantly paid Hussain the amount requested via bank transfer. To which he continued to say that he had not received the money. When i asked him if he had checked his bank account he said he hadnt. It was like a game of cat and mouse.
The day before the re delivery Hussain sent an email to myself confirming the delivery and stating that he wanted paying for the rest of the job by 10am the following morning. I sent him back an email from him stating that the rest of the payment was to be made after the job was complete. Again i contacted him and tried to discuss the fact that you pay for a service once it has been completed and the initial agreement was to be paid after, as stated in his original quote and email. Nevertheless Hussain refused to complete the job unless he was paid beforehand. So i transferred the money via bank transfer immediately to ensure he would have it before delivery as we didnt have any legs to stand on.
Hussain and his colleagues then turned up with one truck at 3pm, after saying they would be there just before 12pm. They then began to unload the trucks but not before Hussain said to my mum that he hadnt been paid and he was unwilling to do anything until he was paid. I then called him as i wasnt at the property that day and informed him that the payment had already been paid. He proceeded to ask me how much, so i informed him the amount he stated in his email, so he asked again how much, so i told him the remaining balance of 593.00. To which he responded well i havent checked my account yet so i dont know if it has gone through. I then asked how long until the second truck would be there and he continued to hesitate and said within the next hour or two.
The second van then turned up at 11:20pm! As you can imagine not only were we extremely frustrated and upset by this point, but we were absolutely knackered and emotionally distraught by it all, wishing for it to be over. Until at 11:30pm Hussain stood in front of our house and refused to take anything else off the trucks and started shouting that he hadnt been paid, that my sister was to go to a bank and withdraw the rest of the money for him immediately. Baring in mind we have neighbours and this was extremely late at night. At which point my sister stood on his truck and told my mum to call the police as Hussain became more and more aggressive and threatening towards my mum and sister.
When both trucks did turn up, not only were the removers so careless with our belongings they have come back broken, scratched, chunks missing from all sorts, the washing machine drum was knocked out of place, boxes were dropped in front of our eyes and things were heard smashing, it was absolutely tremendous. My mum is in the process of putting together a list of broken things so we can go to their insurers.
He did eventually unload the rest of our things when he was aware that my mum was on the phone to the police, but refused to take boxes to the rooms they belonged and threw things were ever he felt he could.
We are so relieved that the whole ordeal is now over but i think it is important for you to be aware of these cowboys as they are operating under such false terms and are con men within the Camden area. Furthermore whilst Hussain was on our job he received a phone call from another client, to which he spent a while arguing with on the phone until eventually Hussain said he would give him a refund. I have reported our situation to the online compare website and asked them to remove them from the list of approved agencies.
I hope that you may be able to offer me some more advice about what can be done to stop these cowboys from ripping anyone else off and making their move a miserable and horrendous ordeal. Hussain was our main contact, although they all answer to the name Adam.
The great Natalie Solent at Samizdata says this:
We don’t want to make the enemy live up to their own book of rules, we want them to see the necessity of adopting ours. So we take the high road, but make a point of pointing out that this is ‘hate speech’, and that ‘free speech means tolerating hate speech like this’.
I agree with Natalie’s ultimate aims, but I’ve come to doubt the effectiveness of this sort of method, so I replied:
In theory that’s all fine. But how’s it working in real life? Not so well, huh? Leftists say what they want and lord it over us, while anyone right-wing, or even not sufficiently left-wing (like Danny Baker) get fed to the lions. Every day the ratchet gets tightened, and fine talk gets us nowhere.
There were plenty of principled people in the USSR who made fine speeches, and then they were taken into the forests and shot.
As for Jo Brand, she doesn’t even strike me as someone who would be appalled and repelled when the killing starts. I don’t imagine she’d ever instigate it, but I can see her cackling over it when heads start rolling.
As I’ve said many times, even the supposedly paranoid anti-Communist right doesn’t understand how ruthless, determined and insane the left is. History tells us that even the apparently nice, quiet and bookish intellectuals can’t wait to have you beaten to a pulp within days of them gaining power.