THE HYPOCRISY OF VIRTUE SIGNALLING

He'd plainly taken the wrong drugs. Throwing off his clothing, he ran around in the nude. Shouting and jumping up and down on the roof of a car. The police appeared and had to restrain him, holding him down until assistance arrived.
Before police assistance arrived the owner of the aforementioned car thinking it was a lone policewoman and that she might be in some danger approached the commotion. When he saw that a male officer was also present and that things seemed to be under control he thought he might as well take a photo or two. While he took the photos seruptitiously over the hedge he was spotted by the eagle-eyed male constable who proceeded to roar: 'hoy, who's that taking photos?' The picture taker then peered over the hedge and replied: 'it's OK, it's perfectly legal.' The cop then said: 'have some respect.' As if the guy they were restraining was deserving of it. The policewoman said nothing.
The man was later removed in an ambulance. Yes, an ambulance.
The next evening the owner of the car was in the sports centre sauna and met a local dentist he knew. He told the dentist the story. The response from the dentist was 'poor guy, maybe he had mental problems.'
No mention at all about the car or the possibility that maybe the guy might have been just a wee bit out of order.
This happened in Stornoway over the last couple of days.
I think this situation is rather revealing when it comes to the present malaise which afflicts modern society.
Both the male police officer and the dentist instinctively adopted protection mode. That would be protection of the offender. He needs help. Who cares about the offended party when there's important virtue signalling to be done.
And virtue signalling trumps all.
In Scotland this politically correct approach comes from the very top: namely the SNP administration.
Concerning the dentist, I can't help wondering how he'd have felt had it been his car that had received the attention.
Talk is cheap, and it's very easy to be liberal when it involves other peoples' stuff or money. That's the nature of virtue signalling - it has to be cheap - dirt cheap. That's why I hate it so much. Under its wafer thin skin lies a thick layer of sheer hypocrisy.

SUPREME COURT WINS 11 NIL.

So there you are, Supreme court 11 (playing for remain) win 11 nil.
Brexit 11 (who weren't allowed to turn up) lose by a landslide.
Well, now we know.
It seems the higher you go up the greasy pole the greater the arrogance and therefore the greater the corruption.
Unlawful? That's a eufemism in this context isn't it? If Boris has broken the law, which law has he broken? And if he has broken the law, he therefore must be prosecuted. The law must be clear or it cannot be the law.
He's accused of 'lying to the Queen'. Well, knock me down with a feather - how shocking. I'm not condoning lying to anyone, but even if he did - since when is that illegal? And what exactly WAS the lie?
It reminds me of the start of Hot Fuzz when the Sergeant mutters under his breath, 'I'd like to move to the country sometime Jenine.'
Dishonesty. Smoke and mirrors. You know what I mean.
Do they really think people came down the Clyde in a banana boat?
It's as if these Supreme Court judges have spent so long in their insulated other world that they have completely forgotten what the real world is like. The family guy clip of the old guys reading the papers and clearing their throats comes to mind.
This is more thought policing. But this time it's aimed at the prime minister: 'what was his motive?', they ask. Completely ignoring the fact that simply having a dubious or even dishonest motive is not a crime. Bad thoughts or intentions have never been actionable crimes in a truly just society. The prosecutable part is ONLY the physical action, motive or intent may help to prove a crime has been committed, but they themselves are not crimes. And neither should they be. We move into a dark place when we start prosecuting for wrong think. Ask Orwell.
It's a depressing development, but a clarifying one. At least now we have a clearer picture of the enemy forces and who exactly they are.
In this case they are the 11 judges of the Supreme Court. Now, possibly for the first time in their experience, they will find themselves in the spotlight. This, I am confident, for them, will not be a pleasant one. The reason is because rightfully angry people will now question the right of 11 individuals to sit in final judgment on an ambiguous but important question of national sovereignty.
The last time an individual acted with such hubris - he lost his head - remember that?