Should the Party Examine All Criticism or Sweep Certain Things Under the Carpet?

FreedomAndTruth Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:16:08 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

My posts here and on labour.org.uk routinely get removed because I tackle difficult issues for Labour.




Firstly, I think it only fair that Labour people know the extent to which censorship takes place within the Party.

Even their MPs do not reply to me when I ask them to question their conscience, yet they respond when I make some banal request.

Why is Labour so afraid of the information I post?

Why are so many topics "out of bounds" for discussion?

I would appreciate your vote in my poll.

Thank you.

SC

tags: , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Should the Party Examine All Criticism or Sweep Certain Things Under the Carpet? | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Should the Party E (#1)

by LabourOutlook on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM GMT

I've never seen Alex delete a comment just because it was critical of Labour.

I don't think that basis on which posts are deleted is the degree to which they're critical, but rather whether they're just trolling or ranting.

I've seen non-Labour supporters come here and post very critical yet calm and rational arguements about Labour tax policies that are never deleted - 'Mark Wadsworth' springs to mind.

However, I wouldn't expect Alex to stand for non-party supporters turning up to use the board simply as a place to vent their hatred of the Labour party.


Re: Should the Party E (#2)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:20:06 PM GMT

My first blog entry here was deleted very quickly. I realise the title, "Crewe and Nantwich Bin Labour" was not the kindest for a sentimental Labour supporter who remembers the good old days and somehow thinks they can return.

My main complaint is against whoever censors the comments on the news stories on labour.org.uk.

I submitted perhaps a dozen comments and all bar one were removed.

On some I put down my website, but this message was also removed:

Stewart Message left at 05:00 pm, Fri 25th Apr 2008
My previous two comments were quickly removed. All I did was tell the truth - no profanity... While Ken feels great out on the street, millions are afraid to go out after dark... Society is in meltdown but Labour doesn't want any negative comments... They are trying to treat us just like the 'authorities' did in East Germany...(Stewart Cowan)

I used to be a Labour voter, by the way, but have been studying what the game is really about for a few years now - and it's not about what's best for us.

That goes for all the mainstream parties. They are all following the globalist, corporate agenda of a complete takeover of all aspects of our lives. That's what I'm exposing - for the benefit of us all except the control freaks who seek to wreck us financially, spiritually, mentally and as a sovereign nation.

Labour has been taken over and I wish it wasn't so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#3)

by LabourOutlook on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:15:03 PM GMT

You posted a comment on the Labour party website comparing Labour to an East German totalitarian government with a ruthless secret police force and you're surprised that you're comment gets deleted?

I think the Labour party has an obligation to listen to critical debate, but it doesn't have an obligation to host grossly offensive and irrational comments about itself on its own website.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#4)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:14:57 AM GMT

It's a fair comparison though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#5)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:07:33 AM GMT

No, it isn't. If you want to write crap, get a blog. Don't get shirty when the Labour party moderators decide to censor your lies.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#6)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:18:13 AM GMT

I have a website and it's a cr*p-free zone:

http://www.thelabourparty.org/

The British people are becoming repressed to a high degree, whether they are anti-state interference, smokers, Christians, drivers, the unborn, etc., etc.

I am not for any of the mainstream parties, which is also why I have:

theconservativeparty.org.uk and theliberaldemocrats.org.uk for future projects.

I just want truth to be known and justice to be done.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#7)

by LabourOutlook on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:41:12 AM GMT

You don't see the irony that your site doesn't allow comments at all?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#10)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:29:26 PM GMT

I thought this might be raised.

Unfortunately, I don't have a comments section on my website. More to do with time than anything else. It's very time-consuming getting my facts right and writing articles.

The articles I write are usually on Digg and Reddit, so can be commented on there - and my email address is on my site, although every single person who has contacted me thus far agrees with me and cheers me on.


 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM GMT

Christians haven't been repressed one bit - if anything it's the Church which does the oppressing.

And what about the rights of non-smokers who should have the right to visit or work in a restaurant / bar without breathing in cancer-inducing smoke? Or do they not count in your fantasy world?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#13)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:11:17 PM GMT

The Christian Institute has set up a Legal Defence Fund as there is so much discrimination of Christians in "modern" Britain.

I don't smoke and I don't want to breathe in anyone else's, but that doesn't give me the right to prevent others from smoking in their own pubs where everyone, including the staff, are happy about the arrangement.

What gives you or I the right to ban 1/4 of the population from meeting up and doing something legal?

See how much that sounds like it was introduced by a totalitarian regime?

See where this is all going?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#14)

by doctordunc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:45:06 PM GMT

Give me one example of discrimination against Christians.

I'm sorry but this is just rubbish.  I'm very critical of this government, and that includes some measures that I consider too authoritarian.  But suggesting it is akin to a totalitarian regime is silly.  It undermines any serious point you might want to make.

I have no problem with banning smoking in public, personally.  You mentioned 'everyone, including the staff, are happy aobut the arrangement' - how do you know?  I assume a lot of bar staff (vulnerable, insecure employment as it is) would be prepared to breathe in smoke to keep their job, but they should not be forced into making such 'choices'.  People can smoke outside and at home.  It is reasonable that there should be some restrictions on practices that are dangerous - particularly those that are dangerous to those who are not engaging in the practise themselves.  Even on basic liberal grounds, someone's freedom to poison themselves with cigarettes should not usurp my freedom not to be poisoned.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party E (#17)

by FreedomAndTruth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:16:23 PM GMT

Christians are being discriminated against in the workplace, universities and by local councils re. adoption.

Ridiculous examples include Christian Unions, where some Uni people brain damaged by political correctness, insist that non-Christians be able to become leaders of these Unions for equality-sake.

And of course there are many examples of people who refuse to condone sodomy to children in their care and thus their services are no longer required if they fail to fill in the forms to agree to all PC propaganda.

It proves how little the government cares about vulnerable children when their rules discriminate against good foster parents.

Look at the clear warning signs of an impending police state.

Police ignoring real criminals to harass the public; petty bureaucracy to make sure the public 'complies' with whatever spews forth from those who think they have 'authority.'

I mean, read the articles on my website - they're not made up!!

Look at how the EU wants to control us - and the Gov't keeps giving them more power over us.

What do you think the end result will be? Freedom?

---------------

Re. smoking ban, I said if the staff and patrons are happy with the arrangements then what business is it of anyone's that they meet up and have a cigarette/cigar/pipeful of baccy with their drink?



[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#9)

by doctordunc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:58:17 PM GMT

I see no reason whatsoever why anyone should feel compelled to host rude, inaccurate, slanderous and idiotic 'comment'.

I see we can't comment on your blog?  You don't feel any compulsion to answer criticism yourself?

This is a blog for labour activists (and there's plenty of debate and criticism on it).  As it happens, lots of non-Labour people do comment and blog on here and the vast majority of it stays up, including harsh criticism.

But there is a clear 'no trolling' message at every point on the site.

Personally I'd keep a few of your posts up, in order to advertise just how out-of-touch and ill-informed some anti-Labour critics really are!


Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#11)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:31:43 PM GMT

Thank you for your comments, but I notice how people never give examples of my alleged "rude, inaccurate, slanderous and idiotic" comments.

Just one example would be a start!

Has the Government lied about the EU referendum?

Are they relying on Balkanising the UK for a complete sell-out to the EU (with Blair as president)?

Do the facts and figures show their psychology re. sex and drugs education are making things worse, not better?

Is the agenda of breaking down the traditional family, and therefore society, for more control over us just a myth?

Did we go to war on a pack of lies?

Is fingerprinting children so they can get their lunch and borrow books not to train them to live in a police state?

Is training adults likewise by being afraid of the "authorities" for leaving their bin open or dropping a piece of food just a figment of my imagination?

Is the DNA database and ID cards to fight crime or keep tabs on ALL of us.

Just look at all the things Prescott has come out with in his book.

If I'd have said that, would you have believed it?
 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#12)

by doctordunc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:45:49 PM GMT

Has the Government lied about the EU referendum?

Some ministers may have been economical with the actualite...

Are they relying on Balkanising the UK for a complete sell-out to the EU (with Blair as president)?

No.  I think lots of people in the labour movement believe in devolution as a democratic principle, whatever its impact on the EU.  (Me included).  I think very few people want to see Blair as EU President (I'm not actually convinced Blair is one of them!)

Do the facts and figures show their psychology re. sex and drugs education are making things worse, not better?

No they don't. 

Is the agenda of breaking down the traditional family, and therefore society, for more control over us just a myth?

Yes, the agenda is just a myth.  One you've invented.  Family diversity is a positive thing; rigidity on family values controls people.

Did we go to war on a pack of lies?

Yes.  I've commented about it on here without being censored.

Is fingerprinting children so they can get their lunch and borrow books not to train them to live in a police state?

Does that happen?  I would disagree with it if it did, but I've not come across it (and I work in education)

Is training adults likewise by being afraid of the "authorities" for leaving their bin open or dropping a piece of food just a figment of my imagination?

Yes, I should imagine so.

Is the DNA database and ID cards to fight crime or keep tabs on ALL of us.

I don't think that's what it's for, but it potentially could be used in that way.  I oppose ID cards and think a lot of care needs to be taken over DNA.  I'm sure sensible comments opposing those policies would not be censored.

Just look at all the things Prescott has come out with in his book.

If I'd have said that, would you have believed it?

What, that he's bolemic?  No, I probably wouldn't have believed you about that.


 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#15)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:04:30 PM GMT

They weren't lying, they were being economical with the truth.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Think about it, why would Labour want Scottish and Welsh devolution and risk further moves towards independence, thus ensuring they would probably never again form a Westminster government?

Either a) they hope to appease the natives with a half-way-house, or b) the agenda is as I said previously: Balkanisation for easier EU control.

The more government interferes in sex 'education,' the worse the problems become. Isn't that the reality?

Instead of taking the righteous approach of promoting fidelity and marriage first and foremost, they make contraception available to 12-year-olds.

That's just sick.

Then the child's worldview is that he/she can have a debauched existence and the state will provide by way of condoms and abortions and that it is normal.

Thus these highly dysfunctional adults being manufactured go on to have highly dysfunctional families of their own with other highly dysfunctional people and the whole family/community structures in some areas totally disintegrate and become drug and crime-infested where children are taken into 'care'...

...although not by excellent Christian foster parents who refuse to teach that homosexual acts are anything but sweet and good.

Which brings me to your next point - Family diversity is a positive thing; rigidity on family values controls people.

No, you have this the wrong way around.

A family is a man and woman firstly, as body parts prove, then they are usually blessed with children.

"Alternative" families are contrary to God and to nature.

The result is weaker societies which can be more easily manipulated and thus a lot LESS free for us all.

Messing with the natural order of things, and that must include sexual relationships, leads to destruction.

We agree we went to war on lies. Good, but what has been done to bring those responsible to justice? This is surely treason.

Fingerprinting children happens a lot - http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/

It's all part of the training to get us used to an EU police state.

It is so far out, people have trouble comprehending the danger we are in.

Yes, I should imagine so.

So you agree it is perfectly OK to waste police and court time on people who leave their bin open 4 inches http://www.thelabourparty.org/bin_fine_cumbria.htm or drop a piece of sausage roll by mistake http://www.thelabourparty.org/sausage_roll_mum.htm?

There are thousands of similar examples of training the public to be afraid of authority.

Why is the government still looking for contractors for the ID cards when the majority is opposed? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/23/id_card_supplier_list/

I wasn't meaning Prescott's bulimia. I never tried making a joke or a story out of it on my website because, much as I despise what he has done to my country, I don't wish to laugh at anyone's illness.

I was meaning all the things listed here - http://www.thelabourparty.org/prescott_book.htm


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#16)

by doctordunc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:22:40 PM GMT

Okay, I'm not going to take this point by point.

I don't agree with wasting police and court time on things to do with bins or sausage rolls, just don't agree with your analysis of it.  I already said that I opposed ID cards and extending the period of detention without trial (indeed I opposed the extension that brought us the current figure).  I couldn't disagree with you more about families.  Okay, you obviously have strong religious views on it, to which you're entitled - but as you profess to be a believer in freedom, you have no right to tell other people how to live their lives (something you accuse the government of, after all).  I can understand (though disagree in many cases) why you do don't want the priorities of governments restricting people's freedoms and telling them how to the live their lives.  But I don't see why your prejudices should be allowed to do so.  Nobody voted for them.  I won't tell you who you're allowed to fall in love with or marry, and I won't tell you whether you're allowed to have children or not.  I would thank you to extend the same courtesy to others.

As for devolution.  I supported devolution.  I would like to see further devolution to the English regions.  I would usually be considered to be rather on the sceptical side vis-a-vis Europe (though it isn't currently one of my priorities).  The two views are perfectly compatible.  Why?  (Especially when, as you say, such changes could ultimately be problematic for us electorally)?  Because I'm a democrat.  It's the same reason I support effective, powerful local government.  Some decisions are better taken closer to the people.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#18)

by FreedomAndTruth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM GMT

Thank you for not going thro' it point-by-point this time.

What analysis would you put on the petty bins and sausage roll-type 'crimes?'

If it's not designed to get the general public fearful of 'authority' and onto databases, etc., what is the point?

The PC agenda is one of destroying society, not offering freedom. There is much to learn about it. Because families, real ones, are the basis of a strong society, they have to be weakened for evil people to fully control us.

This is being done by promoting sex to children http://www.thelabourparty.org/article_01.htm

By making divorce easier; by encouraging unnatural sexual practices; all with the media involved.

When a society becomes sick with immorality and excess then it is finished - taken over by others - that's the globalist plan.

My 'prejudices' as you call them are an adverse reaction to people who are deliberately dumbing down and destroying us.

I don't hate homosexuals. I feel sorry that they are trapped in an immoral, fruitless lifestyle when they could have so much more.

I'll end by agreeing with you about the importance of effective, powerful local government.

Sadly, all the signs are for centralised control. If you read my article on Blair's speech at Yale, you'll see links to articles about plans for EU embassies and an EU-wide police force.

We are heading for massive centralisation by proven corrupt, controlling and unelected EUrocrats.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#19)

by doctordunc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:22:47 PM GMT

Do you realise how deeply offensive much of what you are saying is?

I can't really begin to engage with you because I find your basic premises so abhorrent and divorced from reality.  What you label as immoral and unnatural I deem quite the opposite.  I don't see what other word than prejudice can be employed?  The state doesn't make people gay.  It doesn't cause single parent families.  Your imagined golden age never existed (and if it were to have done, I would have found it far from golden).  There are no more gay people now than there ever have been.  Wonderfully, there are far fewer people trapped in immoral, fruitless lifestyles, pretending to be something they're not, making themselves and others miserable.  I hope we can go further in that direction, and eradicate all discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality - there is still far too much pressure on people to 'conform' to the heterosexual 'norm'.  There was never a time when young girls didn't get pregnant; never  a time when worthless young men didn't abandon young mothers, or mothers-to-be.  What happened in your 'golden age'?  These young women were encouraged to feel ashamed, often had their children taken from them; alternatively women were trapped into loveless marriages.  Difficult divorce and lack of state assistance for single parents saw people trapped in abusive relationships.  

None of those changes have weakened society.  They have made it stronger.  It is a stronger society that promotes equality, that looks after the most vulnerable and that affords people freedom.  It is a source of enormous pleasure to me that the sort of 'strong society' you eulogise is dead and gone.  And never to return.

It seems absurd to me that your love of freedom extends to dustbins but not to love and to family.  Unfortunately I find it hard to enter into serious discussions about your other points while you prove yourself such an enemy of freedom in your comments about private morality.  Frankly, who people love, marry, give birth to, and whether they choose to do those things, is none of your business.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#20)

by FreedomAndTruth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:53:42 AM GMT

I'm sure some things I say are considered offensive in a country starved of morals. That doesn't make me wrong!

Has it occurred to you that the promotion of homosexual activity is highly offensive to me?

But in modern Britain, only certain opinions are considered 'prejudice' and 'discriminatory' and almost against the law.

There is NO EQUALITY in the UK, there is a hierarchy of ideologies and if you disagree with government propaganda, you get cast to the bottom of the pile.

Why should my views be worth less than yours?

Equality?

Homosexual acts were always deemed immoral and unnatural until the social engineers decided to normalise them.

You can even read their blueprint from 20 years ago (of course it all started before this) http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=9778353

"This “must read” article, originally published in Guide magazine, November 1987 is the blueprint for the now global homosexual propaganda campaign to replace marriage-based society with a culture of sexual anarchy."

The state IS trying to make people give in to homosexual urges. Brainwashing primary school children with books about two princes falling in love and a boy's dad who leaves his mum to move in with his boyfriend Frank is pure sickness to anyone with an ounce of moral fibre.

Unfortunately, government and the media have been trying to suck out our souls for decades.

50 - 30 years ago was a golden age compared to today.

Far less violent crime and drugs, happier, healthier people, etc.

When I grew up in the 70's, divorce among my family and friends was totally unheard of. Nearly all those couples who still live have stayed together in happy marriages.

Of course there are exceptions as you point out. That has always been the case. Homosexual relationships are notoriously ugly and short-lived and the partners unfaithful.

Look at all the statistics coming out about Britons having the unhappiest, unhealthiest lives in the Western world.

Who are you kidding that everything in the garden is rosier nowadays?

Oh, freedom is not about doing exactly what you want, it has to be taken with responsibilities in mind or you are ensnared in sin and therefore unhappiness is guaranteed.

Maybe that's why homosexuals get so upset when anyone disagrees with their lifestyle.

I'm a sinner; I know, but at least I haven't allowed the Government and its minions and its globalist bosses to suck the soul out of me and change right into wrong and vice versa.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#21)

by doctordunc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM GMT

I'm sorry, but there's really nothing left to say. Your odd mix of dogma, conspiracy theory and golden-age self-delusion is too entrenched to try and engage in rational discussion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#22)

by FreedomAndTruth on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM GMT

I'm sorry too that you continue to be blinded by a Labour Party that has been taken over by globalist elitists selling our country out.

What's wrong with you that you cannot see what is happening?

Waken up!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#23)

by FreedomAndTruth on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:46:04 PM GMT

Labour went to war on lies - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour are giving away even more of our sovereignty to the EU and refused us a referendum - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour refuse to lower the abortion limit, despite medical evidence and public opinion - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour using climate change and every other reason to tax us till the pips squeak, even taking away the 10% income tax rate from the very poor - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour MPs voted to ditch a child's right to a father in a continual war against families - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour's open border policy is putting British people out of work, driving down wages, increasing crime and causing division in society - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

Labour's minions in 'authority' are clamping down on the British people for things that aren't even crimes - FACT, not conspiracy theory.

How much more obvious can it be that Labour is destroying Britain?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Party Examine All Criticism (#24)

by FreedomAndTruth on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:48:47 PM GMT

You can deny it all you like, but don't dare say I am delusional.


[ Parent ]

Should the Party Examine All Criticism or Sweep Certain Things Under the Carpet? | 24 comments (24 topical)