Home Page
Home Page

Yvette, Bob and Mildred

by Chauncey Tinker, 14 May 2017

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky

This post is about yet another UK government attempt to further limit the freedom of speech, this time by bullying social media companies into enforcing censorship of their customers’ content. The social media companies in question almost have monopolies in their niche fields, although newcomers are starting to emerge in the market. Whether the government will remain satisfied with merely bullying the big players, or whether it will soon begin to bully the smaller players as well I don’t know (but I think we can guess).

In this post I will examine the important question of whether its really wise for members of the public to allow their political “representatives” to prevent members of the public from questioning their (the politicians’) potentially criminal actions. But first, a short story.


I remember when we were at school they used to tell us impressionable young children that “racism is the white man’s disease”. Not only were we white kids horrified to learn that we had a disease, we were also distressed to learn that we were also nasty racists. My black friend Bob used to tease me about this, he used to call me a racist and we both had a giggle about that. “Go back home” I used to say (in jest of course – he was born in my own neighbourhood)! How we laughed, those were happy days.

I have never considered myself to be a racist, and so I don’t feel any need to say that silly stuff about “some of my best friends are black”, besides actually only one of my friends is black, and that’s Bob. We’ve been friends since we were at school together. Nowadays he lives a few doors down from me with his wife Mildred. I often go round there for dinner, and we like to have a good chat about what’s going on in the world.

It is one of those occasions that I want to tell you about today. Over the soup course we began to discuss the forthcoming general election, and he asked me which candidate I would be voting for. I said that I was thinking of voting for our local Labour party candidate this time, who’s name is Yvette Cooper (I wasn’t really going to vote for her, I only said that to liven the conversation up a bit, which it did).

“Whaaatt – that genocidal RACIST???” Bob spluttered incredulously, and his monocle nearly fell in his soup. (Fortunately he has it tied round his neck with a bit of string). I had to do a double take at this claim, what on earth was Bob driving at?? “Erm, what do you mean Bob?”, I asked.

[I think at this point I had better explain that Bob considers himself to be an English gentleman, although truth be told, like me he is not a very rich one. He was born in England and is a staunch conservative. He has a picture of her majesty the Queen on his wall. Monocles used to be worn quite a bit by English gentlemen and nowadays they are coming back into fashion.]

Bob then began to explain how he had come to the conclusion that Yvette Cooper is a genocidal racist. “First of all” he said, “you must understand how the United Nations defines genocide. It defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

“We are being pushed out of England, our homeland”, Bob said. “There are not enough new houses being built, and they are welcoming in millions of foreigners!” I was starting to think I saw what he meant now, although I have to admit I was very worried by the idea that Yvette might be a genocidal racist – she seems such a nice person!

“Of course its not a violent genocide, but the long term effect will be the same, because there will be no more European people like us in the world – we simply have no place else to go.” said Bob. I suggested we might be able to move to America or Greenland, and he said that might be possible, but that he would rather stay in this green and pleasant land and defend it from the self-inflicted invasion. “This is our HOMELAND” he said, emphatically, repeating his point. Bob was in the army for some time, when he says he is going to defend his country, he means business.

By now we had finished the main course and I complimented Mildred on her cooking. “The lamb and mint sauce was excellent as always!”, I said. “Thank you Chauncey” said Mildred with a smile. Mildred cleared up the dishes and went into the kitchen to do the washing up, while Bob and I moved to the living room for a glass of whiskey by the fireside (they are an old fashioned couple). Bob lit up a cigar and we had a more light-hearted chat about other less important things, soon we were laughing together again just as we used to do back in our old school days.


Yvette “Babyface” Cooper

Afterwards I returned home and began to check Bob’s claims of Cooper’s criminality on the internet. Here I found a definition of genocide:


It says the UN definition of genocide is:

“The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”

Now that does seem to be what Bob was saying indeed. There is not necessarily violence involved it seems, it could be a longer term process, what you might call a gentle genocide I suppose. You need to be a lawyer with a massive amount of time on your hands to really get your head properly round what the UN means by genocide, and apparently its in flux with people arguing at very great length about it. So there were some doubts in my mind about whether Bob’s argument would really stand up in a court of law or not. This statement by the person who apparently invented the word genocide, Raphael Lemkin, does seem to add some more weight to the argument:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

There was just one other point that really caught my eye, and this was about mental health:

Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:

…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Now on the mental health point, remember what I said about being always told that racism is the white man’s disease? Honestly I can’t tell you how much it hurts my mental health to be told that. Diseased I am, no less. My mental health has also been damaged by people in government and the media calling anyone a racist if they dare to say anything bad about immigration. So I can’t even talk about it when my own government seems to be committing genocide against my own people – surely that’s some sort of mental cruelty there, aggravating the severity of the crime? I have been mentally conditioned to accept the genocide of my people!

Furthermore thanks to recent governments, in particular the New Labour one that Yvette Cooper was a prominent member of, British people (careful now, whats “British”) seem to be being disproportionately targeted by the authorities when they “step out of line” and say something that’s “incorrect” about other groups in the UK. This is not good for our mental health and it makes us feel like the underdog even though “we’re” still the majority for now.

There was the case of Stephen Bennett the hapless cleaner who got clobbered with a 12-month community order for example for making some statements most of which we’ve not been allowed to see. I wrote about this a while ago here:

Its NO LONGER a free country

All he said that we are allowed to know is:

“Don’t come over to this country and treat it as your own”

I have come across many far worse comments from people of ethnic minorities, "luvvies" and lefties that have not been prosecuted, including incitements to murder.

Now remember that the gist of Bob’s argument is that the government keeps letting far more immigrants into the country than there are houses for but refuses to allow builders to build enough houses for them, so the house prices keep going up. With ever rising house prices and high taxes its hard for the hard working folks (not all white of course) to afford to start a family. If they are welfare scroungers on the other hand its not a problem. You see welfare scroungers get free houses to have children in and unlimited child benefits to support them, rising house prices are therefore not a problem for them. So the hard working folks are being even more genocided than the welfare scroungers, because they have to foot the tax bill for all the welfare scroungers' costs. You could almost argue that there’s a sort of gentle genocide of hard-working people going on.

One consideration I thought about was the fact that Tony Blair’s government had no electoral mandate to let in huge numbers of migrants, this was not a promise in their electoral manifesto. Yvette was a high ranking member of that government. A woman of principle should have resigned the moment she realized her government was committing genocide against its own people, but no, not Yvette. Yvette was determined to continue slithering up the slippery political poll instead. The British people had not consented to having their noses rubbed in diversity. A consideration for the defence on the other hand was that Yvette hadn’t actually been in charge of immigration during the period.

However, Yvette Cooper was of course Minister of State for Housing and Planning during Tony Blair’s government, and occupied other ministerial positions in the New Labour era as well. Net immigration sky-rocketed under Blair’s government at the same time (they did rub the British people’s noses in diversity, with glee), yet somehow the house prices kept going up and up. Anybody that knows anything about supply and demand knows that if you don’t build more houses when there are more people coming in, then that’s going to happen. At least, I think that’s how it works, we’ll come back to this question in a moment.

In any case, do we really want them to concrete over the green belt with more dystopian council estates rife with drug dealing and knife crime? We don’t really want that do we. No, we don’t. We’ve had enough of government programs to solve the problem of an ever growing population that is caused by government failure to secure the borders.

I next investigated house prices, I knew how much house prices had gone up in England in recent decades, but I had not realized how astonishingly rapid the rise was during the New Labour era. Could there in fact be a correlation with the high immigration numbers I wondered? I found this article in the Daily Telegraph:

“The state of the UK housing market in five charts”

(see section titled “Real wage comparison”)

Perhaps Bob had a point – the ratio of house prices vs real wages had indeed gone up sharply during the New Labour period and remained high – in fact in 2016 it was as high as it has ever been, according to the DT graph.

Fortunately the Guardian is on hand to dispel these irrational fears that this might have had anything to do with immigration:

Is immigration causing the UK housing crisis?

“Migrants aren’t jumping queues for social housing, and in some places immigration actually lowers housing demand

That’s quite surprising, I didn’t know that. I always thought that if you brought more people into a country there would be more demand for houses for them to live in, but apparently it doesn’t work like that. I’m grateful to the Guardian for explaining things to me. Immigrants don’t need houses, the case is closed. Yvette Cooper is NOT GUILTY OF WHITE GENOCIDE then. Just to repeat – immigrants don’t need houses, we will be saying this over and over again until you GET IT! Remember we share a common purpose, we must be kind to those in need. There is no reason not to welcome lots of immigrants because they don’t have any effect on house prices.

Its strange though because house prices have been going up and up and yet the overall birth rate of the whole country even including immigrants with a high birth rate is sub-replacement level. So what’s going on then? If the immigrants don’t need houses, then why are the house prices going up? I get lost with economics, its all too complicated. Of course there may be other factors as well, such as people living longer – so they stay in their houses longer.

One reason of course why immigrants don’t need houses of their own is because great people like Yvette Cooper have promised to house them all in their own house (well all the refugees that is, well a few of them anyway). Yvette herself hasn’t managed to welcome any into her own home yet unfortunately because she is still buying the bedding and getting the extension built and so forth and so on, but she will because she has promised and she is a woman of her word.

[Trigger warning – there is a picture of Yvette pretending to look sympathetic in this article]

“Yvette Cooper Hasn’t Taken In Refugees Yet – Why?”

Incidentally, Yvette has also atoned for her role in Tony Blair’s allegedly genocidal “New Labour” government by promising to swing to the opposite extreme. She is the front runner to succeed Jeremy Corbyn apparently, and she is promising to adopt a “right-wing” position on immigration if she is elected leader. From the New Statesman:

Another day, another Labour MP saying something vacuous about immigration. Today’s offender is Yvette Cooper, who in an interview with The House says that Labour must make the “progressive case” for ending free movement.

So our investigation is closed, Yvette has no case to answer for the crime of genocide. At least Labour are not going to do any more of it if she gets elected as leader (assuming they really were committing genocide of course, its still a moot point thanks to the Guardian’s logic). She has said this and she is a woman of her word, as I just pointed out. She will be a little to the right of Theresa May (who is right-wing) on this, so I suppose we could almost possibly say that she is far right now. She won’t be very far right though because she has promised we will take our “fair share” of refugees (as she is going to herself personally as well):

“Yvette Cooper is the only politician with the courage to stand up for refugees”

I am not sure if Yvette has yet revealed how these refugees are going to get here, because there are no nearby warzones. Presumably they will have to trample through Italy, Greece, France to get here? I trust that none of them will throw rocks at lorry drivers’ cabs on the way here and menace the locals en route? Or rape any women en route? Can you guarantee all this Yvette? I’ll bet she can, she’s a very clever lady. She has managed to stay in politics for ages, people keep voting for her, so she must be clever.


While researching the first case against Yvette I uncovered something rather sinister that Yvette has been doing recently. This warranted a second investigation to see if a crime had been committed. The issue in question is the publication of this home affairs committee report:


I was truly shocked by this grossly offensive publication. You may not know this Yvette, but it is illegal to publish a grossly offensive publication on the internet! YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED THE LAW – THE 2003 COMMUNICATIONS ACT!! Now you’ve got yourself into a bit of bother haven’t you. A police officer will soon be feeling your collar after all. I am very, very offended by this report.

You can see a quick summary of the report produced by the broadcasting division of New Labour (the BBC). The BBC will be supporting Yvette in her coming leadership bid against Jeremy Corbyn and naturally they make no criticism of her actions here:

“Social media giants ‘shamefully far’ from tackling illegal content”

A couple of quotes:

Ms Cooper said the committee’s inquiry into hate crime more broadly was curtailed when the general election was called and their recommendations had to be limited to dealing with social media companies and online hate.

On Facebook there were openly anti-Semitic and Islamophobic community pages such as “Ban Islam”. Facebook removed some posts but not the community pages themselves because its policy allows criticism of religion, but not hate against people because of their religion

Yvette I just want to point out here that the UK law ALSO allows criticism of religion.

Note that well comrades – “had to be curtailed”. They had planned to go a lot further, they were curtailed.

Since when has someone saying they want the government to ban Islam qualified as illegal content?

Now, Yvette, our ancestors fought and died to create and preserve the degree of freedom we have enjoyed until your lot got into power. You have shown a very serious lapse of judgement here. I’m very afraid to tell you that I am beginning to think you may have had something of an absence of judgement in the first place. People can say they want to ban Islam all they want, why not, its a free country! What’s your problem?

Also, you are lumping together two completely different things – anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Let me explain the difference to you. Anti-semitism is racism, and Islamophobia is fear of a religion, an ideology. Two completely different things. Not that I’m suggesting that the one thing should be made illegal and the other not, they are both feelings that people harbour, you cannot legislate against that. What you can do is argue against those things that are irrational, and for those thing that are not.

Have you even listened to the arguments they are making before you launched your campaign against the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for? Have you seen the hateful stuff in the book they want to ban? It says in the book that the disbelievers are the vilest of animals. Since when did you get to decide that some nasty hateful stuff in a book is OK and complaining about that hateful stuff is illegal and/or must be censored by private companies?

We can debate all we want about whether that book SHOULD be banned, but saying you are going to make it illegal to just SUGGEST that the book should be banned is just plain bonkers. You seem to be biased in FAVOUR of people who BELIEVE in hate, AGAINST people who are just CRITICIZING the hate. You’re living in a crazy topsy turvy mad group-think bubble, and that bubble needs to be burst before we all go mad ourselves listening to you lot.

Also mentioned in your grossly offensive report:

YouTube was awash with videos that promoted far-right racist tropes, such as antisemitic conspiracy theories. We found titles that included “White Genocide Europe—Britain is waking up”, “Diversity is a code word for white genocide” and “Jews admit organizing White Genocide”.

OK now only one of the 3 titles mentioned here was anti-semitic, and even that was surely not illegal (the title you understand, I’m not talking about whatever contents these videos had yet). Its not very nice of people to focus on the fact that certain people are Jewish as if its a problem, but have we got to have a law forbidding people even mentioning race now? That would be a good way to tie everyone up in knots trying to think of how to speak. How are you going to describe a suspect in a crime for example? Looking at one of the other titles:

“White Genocide Europe — Britain is waking up”

I began to wonder if maybe the video was really anti-semitic at all, or could be considered illegal, so I watched it. There you go, you’ve helped to publicize this group now by publishing your lazily worded and offensive report. But we have to look at this video now because you may be unjustly accusing someone of something and that’s really not OK. In your powerful position you really should know better Yvette.

Looking up the group behind the video on Wikipedia it claims they had been proscribed as a terrorist organization. Maybe the govt.’s reasons for doing that were sound enough, I don’t know. There are some very serious allegations about members of the group made on this wikipedia page at least. If you had simply said in your report that the organization was a proscribed one, I think it might have been clearly enough a reason to request that the video was removed from social media.

The above quoted statement in your report is unjustified because it makes sweeping statements about mere sentences which are not themselves in any way illegal. The “far-right racist tropes” you mention are similar to the comments that my friend Bob made, and quite a plausible case can be made for the statement “diversity is a code word for white genocide” in particular, as I discussed above (that’s not to say I agree with it, actually I’m in two minds about it). We don’t have to agree with the statement to agree that it is a plausible one by the way.


Now obviously Yvette is not going to be charged with genocidal crimes against humanity or anything like that, she’s a nice lady and a politician as well. Also there just aren’t enough women in politics so its good that she is there in the house of commons, even if she is daft. We don’t mind having daft people running the country, do we people? What could go wrong?

We had a nice country, before Tony Blair came along and rubbed our noses in diversity. Now we have a deteriorating law and order situation because the government of the day has abandoned the fundamental principles of justice (equality before the law, innocent before proven guilty in a court of law etc). Instead it is now anxious to appease the most scary-looking of all the gangs that are threatening their critics with violence. If you belong to the “identity” that shouts loudest for a perversion of justice, then the government will bow to your demands, and pervert justice for you.

It may also be that Yvette is worried that she may one day be dragged before the Hague for crimes against humanity. It therefore makes sense from her point of view I suppose doesn’t it, to shut up people before they start talking about the crimes in question. Were New Labour guilty of white genocide? I’m not sure, that’s why I am putting the question out to you the readers to weigh up all the information I have put before you.

I am now going to pop around to Bob’s house and warn him to run for it – the police are coming for him!

What do you think?

Is Yvette Cooper a genocidal racist?
Should Yvette Cooper be prosecuted under her own government’s communications Act?
Are Yvette Cooper’s plans to clamp down on freedom of expression in breach of her own government’s human rights act?

Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr