A holiday firm's been chided for promoting chav-free holidays. Apparently, this is a 'class' issue and 'inappropriate'. How is it inappropriate? Why on earth would one want to defend the feelings of a group which really doesn't give a damn about yours? As they cavort around town centres everywhere, pissed, cross-eyed, feral and obnoxious, their entire vocabulary consisting of glottal stops and 'know what I mean?', puking, reeking, offensive and mannerless, they drive others away from them in droves.
Too damn' right that this is a class issue. A 'chav' in the context of a social definition shouldn't exist in the first place. This is where justified elitism comes into play. Would you rather aspire to being like Princess Di or Chantelle? To a sink estate or South Ken? A comprehensive or Eton? Similarly, would you want to travel abroad in the company of strident oiks who cover the streets in sick, have stand-up fights and block the traffic, clog the lavatories because they're shagging some random bloke they met earlier, bust your bleeding eardrums by screaming at a 100 decibel pitch and make offensive (and ungrammatical) personal comments about you or enjoy your holiday? This bloody country has become a nightmare of political correctness and utilitarianism: you can't say anything against those who whole-heartedly and often deliberately attempt to disgust you, and there are more of them so their happiness is of greater importance. So, basically, if you've gone to private school you can go shaft yourself; if you've married a footballer and are dripping in Burberry, Well Done You. If there have to be chavs, please let me know where they are so I can avoid them. I have feelings too.
More on the House of Lords cash scandal today: everyone's 'appalled', apparently, and the question is now being asked: 'can the Lords be left to its own devices?' Of course it can; just boot out Tony's Cronies. No-one's yet made the point (in the mainstream media, that is) that all those accused were bunged into the Lords to ensure the Labour vote got passed through, no matter what. Bring back hereditary peers who at least have a sense of duty and honour, say I; fire Mandelson. Simple.
Heartening news today: the Coroner and Justice Bill is not faring at all well in the Commons. Dominic Grieve's reported response to it is, however, lamentably weak, and seems not to disagree with the idea of extended 'data sharing' (yes, let's all use statisticians' language about our private affairs so that it is disassociated from humanity and, therefore, diminishes in importance) in principle. But then, the Tories do seem to be obsessed with money at the cost (excuse the pun) of everything else, including freedom. Bugger that. David Howarth was much more powerful; seems committed to the fight for civil liberties. The Weakest Speaker award goes to Jack Straw: to paraphrase, 'well, Part 8 will be good because, er, we can help identify deceased people and tell their relatives if we can share data more freely.' Please.