Friday, March 16, 2007

Underclass News

From Scallyland.

A woman was treated for multiple stab wounds today after she was attacked by a seven-year-old boy. Sara Corran was in a female neighbour's home in Norris Green, Liverpool, when they began to argue. The neighbour's son is understood to have grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed Ms Corran in the buttock, leg and arm. She was taken to hospital by ambulance, where she remained today. Her injuries were described by police as "serious but not life-threatening".

The two women, both single mothers, live in opposite terrace houses in Norris Green.

Neighbour Maureen McGee said she believed the boy acted to protect his mother. She said: "[He] is a mischievous little boy, like all young lads ..." Another neighbour, who asked not to be named, said: "[The women] are good friends but they argue and fight a fair bit when they have a drink together."


Benefit culture - you get what you pay for. Norris Green is of course the home of the late lamented Smigger.

10 comments:

james higham said...

Simply wonderful life they lead. Wonder if the two were wearing pepperpot hats.

verity said...

They should have been out working.

It's a statement of the obvious, but the socialists are buying votes by paying people to live on the taxpayers' backs.

The only thing is, these people are too stupid to understand how to register to vote, and too lazy to vote - unless the polling booth were in a pub, so perhaps they can't really do much damage, except to one another.

Umbongo said...

I'd forgotten the police line when they funked removing the 50-feet high memorial to Smigger

"Police were happy for the shrine to remain and said it could be positive for the grieving process."

In other words "f*ck the law and supporting the law-abiding we want a quiet life". Is it any wonder that 7-year olds stab their mother's drinking friends.

Umbongo said...

verity

"these people are too stupid to understand how to register to vote" etc. But there are others out there who are happy to vote on their behalf.

verity said...

Umbongo - Yes, and oddly enough- talk about coincidence! - most of them are called Mohammad!

Don't they send people to prison for voting fraud? Or just the indigenes, perhaps.

Umbongo said...

verity

The first election I voted in was 1964 (to my eternal shame I voted Labour). The idea then that any election in Great Britain could be fraudulent was literally unthinkable although from time to time there were spats over election expenses.

Northern Ireland was different, of course. "Vote early, vote often" was the rule. It seems the new British are willing to adopt some indigenous customs.

verity said...

umbongo - I'm sorry, but your post doesn't make any sense.

You wrote that to the indigenes, voter fraud was unthinkable when you cast your ballot for the first time. Then you go on to say that the "new British", aka the foot soldiers behind the enemy lines, the islamics, are adopting indigenous customs. Clearly, they are not. They are continuing their own customs of vote rigging.

Umbongo said...

verity

I specifically wrote that it was unthinkable that elections in Great Britain would be fraudulent. Northern Ireland which, the last time I looked was not constitutionally in Great Britain (hence the official title of my country - the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), had different voting habits. Nevertheless, I (but, maybe, not you) include the Northern Irish as "indigenous" to the UK and certainly to the (geographically defined) British Isles. Accordingly, the "New British" have indeed adopted some indigenous habits ie the voting customs of Northern Ireland.

My point - which I'm labouring to explain as clearly as I can - is that this particular "indigenous custom" is the one the New British have apparently chosen to follow as against the myriad of other "indigenous customs" which they conspicuously have chosen not to follow. Whether or not vote fraud is common in their countries of origin is beside my particular point although, if it is, the indigenous custom of non-fraudulent elections in Great Britain is not one that has been adopted.

verity said...

umbongo - Forgive me, but I'm still struggling to understand your point. I have read your last post twice.

Umbongo said...

verity

Frankly, why I started down that route I'll never know - it was an over-clever and convoluted point which made sense to me at the time! What I meant was that, if you're choosing the behaviour of a part of the UK to adopt, why pick N Ireland (whose history of electoral fraud is notorious) rather than the rest of the UK (which had a history free from that kind of corruption - or did when I started to vote)?

Whatever! My observation at 11.56 AM still stands.