Brown and Blair are bullies and cowards, say their colleagues

Labour MP, Bob Marshall-Andrews, is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society and a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, but despite this, I like his maverick style. He has some honour and sense of fairness: traits not normally associated with many of his colleagues of late.

On his official website at epolitix.com, we are reminded of the unceremonious ejection of Walter Wolfgang from the 2005 Labour Conference with an article entitled, "Our PM Is Nothing But A Bully - Just Ask Old Walter."

The frail 82-year old Mr Wolfgang, who has devoted his life to the Labour Party, had the audacity to propose that Jack Straw was being less than honest about Iraq.

Mr Marshall-Andrews writes: 'For this offence Mr Wolfgang is seized by a massive, apparently anonymous "steward", physically manhandled from his own conference and detained by police as a suspected terrorist. A nearby delegate, attempting to intervene, is himself assaulted by another massive example of New Labour's finest. Hours later, Blair delivers an apology wholly typical of the man. "I'm sorry," he says, "but I wasn't there."'


'This event is not isolated. On the same day, Austin Mitchell, the venerable, clever and wholly amiable MP for Grimsby, has his camera snatched and the contents sanitised in order to eradicate pictures of a queue.'

Mr Marshall-Andrews offers his analysis:

'Behind these violent and ugly displays of rank bullying lies a profound irony which exposes the true pusillanimous nature of New Labour and its prime architect. In their analysis of the party's electoral failure the high priests of New Labour identified party indiscipline as a root cause.'

"Pusillanimous," is defined at Answers.com thus,

"Adjective. Ignobly lacking in courage: chickenhearted, cowardly, craven, dastardly, faint-hearted, lily-livered, unmanly. Slang: chicken, gutless, yellow, yellow-bellied."

This sums up our recent (sub) Prime Ministers perfectly.

Mr Marshall-Andrews continues, 'As part of the cure, therefore, intellectual challenge and dissent were to be ruthlessly expunged. Rule books have been amended to emasculate conference, and sanitise debate. The parliamentary power of patronage has been ruthlessly employed to advance quiescent minds, placemen and transparent cronies to protect orthodoxy and order..'

'Worst of all, the erosion of party democracy has shadowed systematic populist assaults on civil liberty and individual freedom. Oppressive and bullying "security" of party meetings has proceeded alongside repeated attempts to curtail trial by jury, legislation to allow imprisonment without trial and the covert introduction of "shoot to kill" powers. In this climate it comes as no surprise that an aggressive and illegal foreign policy should be directly linked to the public assault of an elderly man whose only crime has been an adherence to the peaceful ideals of democratic socialism for 60 years.'

Nearly three years on and the shadow Home Secretary has resigned in order to force a by-election due to sharing the Labour MP's concerns about assaults on our liberty.

Of course Bob Marshall-Andrews was criticising Blair, the new Catholic, now employed ostensibly as a man of "faith," but in reality aiding Satan form a one world religion, but Gordon Brown is celebrating his first year as PM. Maybe celebrating is not the right word; perhaps he is writhing and cringing while chewing his knuckles. This would certainly be understandable.

Gordon Brown is also a "bully and control freak." So says Lord Turnbull who was Mr Brown’s permanent secretary for four years and then cabinet secretary.

According to John Prescott's new book, Blair was scared of Brown so could not sack him and Brown did not have the nerve to accept Prescott's suggestion that he resign and fight Blair from the backbenches.

Most people know that bullies are also cowards. Sometimes it takes courage to stand up for decency and our PMs have shown what little they have. So little, in fact, that they would rather betray the British people than do what is right.

Gordon Brown has saved his most gutless performance to date for his dealings with the EU. By denying us the promised referendum; by trying to diminish the Irish vote; by sucking up to Barroso and his co-conspirators like M. Sarkozy, he has shown his disdain for decency and honour.

Bob Marshall-Andrews will not be bullied. He is backing fellow renegade MP, David Davis, to be re-elected

Gordon Brown feared calling a general election last year and appears to have bottled out yet again by failing so far even to put up a Labour candidate against Mr Davis.

Less than a century ago, cowards and traitors were shot. Now they get to be Prime Minister.



Display: Sort:

Re: Brown and Blair (#1)

Woof! Quite a burning comment there.....

 Personally I think we're now seeing the end of British Politics as the old "Left-Right" argument.

It's rapidly accelerating towards Authortarian and Libertarian lines, which seem to be drawn between that of the Lib Dems and Tories on the Libertarian side, and Labour on the authortarian side.

 The Tories are beginning to gear up to a "Historic realignment" with becoming party of the "Hard Working" as part of Project Cameron, which brings them in similar line with their Atlantic colleagues in the Canadian Tories and American Republican Parties. [Who Cameron and Osborne both greatly admire and intimately follow American Politics]

Labour looks like it is about to explode with such comments coming from within their own party, as they did during the Thatcher Years. After Blair turning the party into a Psuedo-Thatcherite cause that tried to redistribute wealth heaven knows what will come clunking out of the smoke at the end of it.

And the Lib Dems will continue to be the Odds and Sods party that doesn't seem to know where it's going, what it's done, but makes everyone go "Aw bless."

Re: Brown and Blair (#2)

Tories libertarian and Labour authoritarian?

Give it a rest. We all know that the natural positions of the two parties are opposite to this. Tories such as David Davis are dyed-in-the-wool authoritarians. You only have to look at his record on gay rights and capital punishment to see that.

I don't get all misty-eyed about some 'historic realignment'. They said the same thing about Labour in the 1990's but all good things come to an end. The Tories stance on inheritance tax is proof enough that it doesn't care about working class people.

Re: Brown and Blair (#3)

That'd be the inheritance tax that they increased the threshold for so that, should any working class people run into some money, they don't have to pay tax on?

How about the Stamp Duty?

I mean, call me blind, but didn't those two policies see the polls tip severely in the Conservatives favour seeing the election-that-wasn't die off because Brown bottled it then wouldn't admit it was because of the change in the polls?

Also, considering that Labour, historically, has "State ownership" hammered all over it [Remember, they nationalized the railways, collieries, steel industry and utility services, plus founding the NHS...] how can you say they're not authortarian? Labour prefers state control over private handling, and the Tories prefer private handling to state control.

Not exactly hard to follow the logic there.

Claiming you're some sort of magical defender of liberal rights when you're in completely unknown territory [A third term] seems a bit false. Especially as Labour has, yes, given somerights, but it seems to have also taken quite a few away in the process.

People feel stifled by the state, the local council's "bin police" fanatical Civil Enforcement Officers [Trumped up Traffic Wardens] the elf and Safety agency tutting and enacting ridiculous laws.

When you expand the state, as Labour always does, you're expanding state control, and state control is more authortarian than libertarian. The mantra of being told "it's for your own good" does not sit well on the British Psyche and unless you see that then your party is eventually doomed.

Re: Brown and Blair (#8)

I think this is a very warped view of libertarianism.

You say raising the inheritance tax threshold will help working class people. How? You know as well as I do that the vast majority of working class people will never come close to reaching the threshold, so how on earth are they benefiting from the move?

I think this is Conservatives praying on the idea that working class people are too thick to know what's good for them and hope they'll get away with it.

You also say less state interference = libertarianism, and to some extent this is true. So why then do many of these so called libertarians go against equal rights for gay people, the removal of state interference in the bedroom and the end of tax benefits for married couples?

These libertarians seem quite happy for the state to withdraw from the economic sphere but seem reluctant for the state to withdraw from the social sphere. Another example would be the issue of abortion, as shown by the so-called 'libertarian' Ron Paul who wanted to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Re: Brown and Blair (#11)

Two examples of Margaret Thatcher's libertarianism:

1) Section 28
2) "Legalising cannabis would be like legalising murder."

As for Ron Paul, he also voted for legislation stopping gay couples from adopting in DC.

Re: Brown and Blair (#10)

Sometimes you need governments to enforce liberty. Are they wrong on 42 days, ID cards, Jury trials, Right to protest etc.? Yes.

But the state often enhances liberty. If we had a health insurance system, the liberty of millions would be slashed, as they lose their right to free healthcare.

By the by, you have bought into the myth of 'elf and safety. Business are under no such regulations to ensure flowerpots are kept in specific places, or and rediculous laws. The media has created this myth, and when stories such as "Man sues for £32 billion, after tripping on gumball", are printed, they forget to mention that these cases are nearly always thrown out. The number of health and safety inspectors has crashed by over 40% since Labour came in, with disasterous consequences. There are no draconian health and safety laws, that people imagine exist in this country. Hundreds die every year, as a result of corporate negligance. Regulations to make sure companies don't have things like asbestos, and other dangerous chemicals, as well as efficient safety measures would cost at most, an extra £3.5 billion. In healthcare costs over 30 years, £191 billion would be saved.


Also, only 5.4% of estates pay inheritance tax. It is one of the best taxes. When people say, "Why should I pay tax twice on my house", well, it fails a logic test. You are dead, so the tax is paid by, wait for it...a different person. It is not a tax on hard work either. By defenition you don't have to work for inheritance. You could sit around on your fat arse, and reap the winnings of up to £699,999. That's why many libertarian businessmen and economists support such a tax. Warren Buffet says it is great tax, as did that notorious commie, Milton Friedman. It is a tax that must be defended, as it is the closest to a meritocratic tax as you can get.

As for stamp duty, yes it seems pretty pointless. That's why I can't undertsand why it's being spun as a breakthrough for millions of middle-class thirty something workers. It isn't the £257,500 that stops someone buying a house. It's the £250,000. I think instead, we should make stamp duty a progressive tax, so that it makes it easier to sell houses at the margins of the stamp duty tax barriers. It is Labour that seems to have a greater commitment though, to building affordable housing.


And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#5)

>>>Tories libertarian and Labour authoritarian?

Give it a rest. We all know that the natural positions of the two parties are opposite to this. Tories such as David Davis are dyed-in-the-wool authoritarians. You only have to look at his record on gay rights and capital punishment to see that.<<<

This is a very simple one to explain. Now, I'm not saying the Tories are wonderful, but can you not see how authoritarian (approaching totalitarian) New Labour is making the UK?

Bob Marshall-Andrews and many others in the Labour Party are of the same opinion as David Davis.

If Davis is opposed to 'gay' rights, then he has risen even more in my estimation (there is no freedom in sin). We were told just a few years ago that getting rid of Section 28 would make no difference in schools.

Big lie and they knew it.

Already, very young children are being given books brainwashing them to accept homosexual relationships as normal. 

"Daddy's Roommate" is one where a young boy's mum and dad get a divorce so that dad can go and live with his boyfriend Frank.

And you wonder why society is falling apart?

Why the promotion of sex, left, right and centre, so important to Labour?

I have just read that the Government is planning sex ed lessons for 5-year-olds, with no opt-out for parents.

THIS is totalitarianism.

I fear Labour is terminally ill, because this is all pure sickness and evil.

I feel like disinfecting my fingers after typing out New Labour's bad behaviour.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#7)

Disgusting comment.

Think it's time you were shown the door.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#9)

In part he's right, pushing sex ed onto younger and younger kids isn't going to work and doing so without an opt-out for the parents is a kind of "soft" authortarianism, it's the same when Labour MPs have argued the "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" line over increased surveilence.

Whenever you increase the power of the state, you diminish the power of the individual and the individuals choice.

Every time Labour has come to power it has increased the power of the state [Massively so in 1946, and has increased the state-power by stealth since 1997] which in turn has decreased the power of the individual citizens.

  This sees natural-born citizens leave the country by around 200,000 people per year, often skilled, and often to the United States, Australia, or Spain. More often than not "The State" is offered as a reason of them leaving the country. [Office of Nat Stats, Spring 2008 report on population]

Usually it's because they don't feel like they have any choice in the matter of their country any more.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#12)

Sex ed does work at a young age. In the Netherlands, the ultra-liberal Long Live Love programme sees sex ed taught from nursery age. In stages obviously, but what are the consequences? The teen birth rate is just 4.1 per 1,000 girls aged 15-19, which is around a tenth of the rate here.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#14)

NorthernMonkey, reading your comments here offers an insight into why Labour is in the state it is and why Britain is in the state it is.

Only atheists and secularists are allowed to talk. People (like the majority) who think homosexual activity is wrong have been gelded: too scared to make an opinion because of bullies like you.

I will not change my opinion by being harassed and harangued by people with their own self-interest at the fore.

You think I should be 'shown the door' for nothing more than stating my opinion. That's what's disgusting about the present situation in this country.

I take it you're a Ben Summerskill fan. You won't be content until it is compulsory, or as Peter Tatchell writes,

"To echo the sentiments of the early gay liberationists: our ultimate goal must be a sexual revolution to enable everyone to share the joy of same-sex desire and love. That is the truly emancipatory vision of the GLF era. May we never forget it." (Tatchell's emphasis)

Now they are targetting five-year-olds. Can't you see how sick that is?? Are you able to condone this and still sleep at night?

Libertarianism is not about doing whatever you want, it is about being empowered to live a decent life without the unnecessary interference of the state.

Ron Paul is against abortion. Of course he is. The right of the unborn child is far, far greater than any perceived 'right' of the mother to kill it off before it can see the light of day.

I hope it doesn't take too long for the light to go on in your mind and you see how you have been manipulated into believing all this diversity and equality propaganda.

As I have said before, there is NO equality, just a hierarchy of ideologies. For a start, every country has some sort of elite, no matter what form the government takes. There's inequality just there.

Equality is an illusion. Was it Aristotle who said:

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal"?

'Gay' marriage is one such example. Up until a few years ago, marriage was confined to a relationship between a man and woman. Some cultures allowed polygamy, but in law, marriage was man and woman. Even when the Greeks took young men as sexual partners, they didn't marry them. It was more like a bad habit.

Clearly, NorthernMonkey, by your comments, you think you are superior to the majority who still has some grip on a moral reality.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#15)

People like you are most certainly in a small minority.

Even many Conservatives would find your views repugnant. You don't come close to being a libertarian - more like a fascist.

I'm surprised you've not been banned yet. Go sell your homophobia elsewhere.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#21)

I've found a very appropriate quote:

"People are entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not entitled to use the criminal law to force that view upon others... A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality."

This was said by our former PM, Tony Blair.

YouGov found in 2007 that:

  • More than a third of people say they have a high opinionof lesbians and gay men, while only a quarter say theyhave a low opinion.
  • Three out of four people would be comfortable if their child’s teacher was gay and more than three-quartersof the population would feel comfortable if their doctor was gay.
  • Almost everyone (92 per cent) would be comfortable if a footballer on the team they support was gay, andclose to nine in ten people would not mind if a member of the royal family was gay.
If that isn't enough:

  • Nine out of ten people want anti-gay bullying in schools to be tackled.
  • Over half of people think that lesbian and gay peopleexperience public prejudice in Britain and a significant majority (73 per cent) think that anti-gay prejudice should be tackled.
  • Nine out of ten people support laws to protect gay people from discrimination in the workplace.
  • More than four out of five people, including ‘peopleof faith’, are in favour of gay people being protected from discrimination in areas including health care and social services.
  • The vast majority (89 per cent) of people are in favour of laws which would make it illegal to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
  • Almost 17 million adults witnessed homophobic bullying at school.

 

  • Almost 4 million people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work.
  • A significant majority (83 per cent) of people believe that the media relies heavily on clichéd stereotypes of gay people.

So FreedomandTruth can chew on that a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#24)

I always enjoy the challenge to chew things over, jkitleft, so why call for me to be banned?

Our former leader's quote is interesting. The homosexual lobby has successfully jumped on other bandwagons over the decades, in this case the racial one as if they are in any way connected.

Oh no, not another YouGov poll!

I mean, who wouldn't agree to some of these questions? All bullying should be tackled, whether 'anti-gay' or any other type.

In my opinion nobody should be discriminated against in normal day-to-day living.

BUT someone has moved the goalposts, haven't they? Equality was not enough. Tolerance was not enough. People are being forced to accept certain legislation that contravenes their conscience, like say a printer being obliged to produce pro-homosexual literature against his will or people handing out Bible passages at 'Gay Pride' parades being arrested.

It's back to my saying: there is no equality, just a hierarchy of ideologies.

The poll concludes that "Almost 4 million people have witnessed homophobic bullying at work."

What does this mean? It gives the impression that there are far more homosexuals than the actual 2-3%.

Lies, damned lies and statistics!

"Almost 17 million adults witnessed homophobic bullying at school."

This is even more ridiculous. I imagine 99.99% of cases were typical school namecalling.

"A significant majority (83 per cent) of people believe that the media relies heavily on clichéd stereotypes of gay people."

That is because the homosexual movement played it that way. Nice cuddly unthreatening stereotypes used as part of the conditioning process.

If you don't believe me read "The Overhauling of Straight America," now 20 years old and clearly been carried out.

So you see, the brainwashing has been real. Certain homosexual activists have being manipulating society for their own ends, so please stop bashing me for bringing you the truth.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#30)

The very hallmark of liberalism, should be for that printer, yes, perhaps against his will to print that literature, but if he wants to, print his own propaganda.

I can't believe that only 2-3% of people are homosexuals. I believe that number is closer to 7-10%. And that's only if you count the number of non-repressed homosexuals. Sometimes when I read posts from fundamentalists like yourself, I think they could belong to the latter category.


You seem to be feeding me every deranged conspiracy in the book. Gays are determined to bring about a New World Order. Oh, and did you know that it was the Jews who did 9/11?

You seem to think that it is a fundamental liberty- to be able to diminish other people's fundamental liberties!

I don't know why you think homosexuality is so disgusting. Surely if the god who homophobes often believe in was so powerful, he/she/it would've created the world in a way that stopped homosexuality ever existing?


Most societies up to this point have said it is a bad thing. Mainly because it was hidden. People of all classes, ethnic groups, religions have engaged in homosexuality, but obviously due to criminal law, they didn't go around broadcasting it. Homosexuality didn't suddenly arise as a result of decriminalisation in 1967. Why would a gay Jamaican, or Iranian 'choose' to be gay? So they could be lynched?

Many have tried to find a correlation between the equality for homosexuals, and a 'rise' in homosexuality, as a supposed reason for it being a choice. The fact is that it is becoming easier for repressed homosexuals to come out, when society is more open. Oscar Wilde wasn't open about his homosexuality, because he couldn't be. Why is it that in Afghanistan, the Taliban couldn't control homosexuality, as young men taught to be sexually repressed, had never seen the niqab-clad women? Homosexuality exists, but is hidden in repressive cultures. In fact, many surveyors find that it is more prevalent in the homophobic societies such as Iran and Jamaica.



Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#32)

Naturally, I disagree with your initial sentence. Why should anyone be forced to do something against their conscience? I thought Labour was trying to stop people entering forced marriages. Double standards as usual.

The 10% homosexual figure that Kinsey devised was proven to be fake. I believe it is nearer two point something percent.

I feel repressed under the current regime, but not the way you suggest.

"Gays are determined to bring about a New World Order"

Don't know where you pulled that one from!

"You seem to think that it is a fundamental liberty- to be able to diminish other people's fundamental liberties!"

It is nobody's fundamental liberty to control another's conscience.

We have freewill, so that includes the choice of whether to give in to temptation or not. This life is a time for testing.

Think about this: there cannot be a gene that is so powerful it is responsible for homosexuality because it would have been lost millennia ago.

It is primarily a choice, in my opinion.

There are homosexuals everywhere as you say. People are the same wherever you go - same temptations, etc. Some folk are attracted to dangerous liaisons.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#23)

NorthernMonkey, I refer you to my comment #22.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#16)

Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? What harm is anyone to to others simply by loving someone of thier own sex?

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#19)

As a conservative [with a small C] I can say he's probably part of the BNP contingent..... I'm also siding with NorthernMonkey. The arguments could be worded better.

So, to outline my own position:

Sex ed from age 5 with no opt out = bad

Sex ed from age 5 with an opt out = fine, even if makes me feel a little iffy.

Homosexuality = Fine, just as long as it's not in public, and I feel the same about same sex couples too, I don't like it when people sit around kissing and fondling in public. Own home, own time thanks.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#20)

Unfortunately, sex ed from a young age works. In the Netherlands, people are taught from a young age (in stages obviosuly), about the morals of safe sex, and how to use, and why you should use contraception. Compare this to the 'Just Say No' model of the US, with regards to sex and drugs. In the Netherlands, not only is drug use lower (with a quite substantial number of injuries, and overdoses as a result of misuse from foreign teenagers who have not been educated like the Dutch to handle drugs), but teen pregnancies, and sex infections for teenagers is between 8 and 10 times lower.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#26)

I was starting to like you, AngryVoter, but I am absolutely nothing to do with the BNP. I guess you are exhibiting more conditioning whereby anyone with a moral backbone is seen as suspicious in some way.

Oh boy!

You admit yourself that sex ed for young children makes you feel "a little iffy." Tell me this please - do you think you should suppress your feelings and conscience to comply with PC conditioning?

You don't want homosexuals displaying their affection in public. I couldn't agree with you more. But what started 'in the bedroom' has invaded nearly every institution and aspect of all our lives.

You know things are out of hand now, so why not join me in trying to restore a sense of decency to our country?

It is time for those who genuinely care for Britain to stand up and be counted and shrug off the insults based on ignorance, fear and conditioning by those whose only concern is looking after number one.

Re: And you wonder why society is falling apart? (#25)

Angiem, homosexuality has been considered wrong in nearly every society under the sun. It is only now considered OK by so many due to intensive conditioning via the media. How else could opinions have changed so much in just a couple of decades?

I have already posted a link to "The Overhauling of Straight America," which lays it all out.

Up until forty years ago, probably 98% of the population thought as I did because they could think for themselves and could discern right from wrong - their very souls had not yet been commandeered by the politically correct fascists.

I really hope people will step back and see how they have been betrayed and used.

Re: Brown and Blair (#4)

If you believe the sentiment “That government is best which governs least,” attributed to Thomas Paine and others, then the Tories are the best (not that I'm a Tory) of a bad bunch.

I would say all the main parties are ultimately authoritarian, with Labour and the 'Odds and Sods Party' prepared to take it to extremes with the help of les petits Eurocrats.

We need politics, not based on right vs left, but right vs wrong. Very regrettably, society is being conditioned via the media, 'education' and legislation to make extinct the age-old values of chivalry, honour, goodness, faith, hope, love and to destroy family life in the name of 'diversity,' 'equality' and 'human rights' legislation that makes a mockery of natural justice.

Regrettable again, Labour has been hijacked by elitists who don't give a stuff about us.

IMHO Labour supporters have to take their party back or start over again with a new party based on the old principles.

Keir Hardy once said that the main question facing mankind in the 20th Century was the choice between God or Mammon.

Need I say more?

Re: Brown and Blair (#6)

Oh not another God botherer. Did the parish vicar send you all a note to tell you to descend on the sinful LabourHome?

Re: Brown and Blair (#13)

Some christains aren't in this Jerry Falwell band. I know catholics who would happily describe the last pope as a murderer for their record on contraceptives in Africa, and think that this is the wrong sort of moral posturing attitude to have.

But many sound like Peter Hitchens in the Abolition of Britain. Everytime I read or hear of the John Majoresque longing for 'spinsters riding bicycles to church', or 'beer and long shadows on cricket grounds', it reminds me of why Labour's more liberal reforms of the '60's and this government are just so great. I'd much rather be British and proud of social justice, and the issues that really matter, such as healthcare, education and childcare, than whether someone gives up a train seat or not.

Of course I tut if a businessman puts up his newspaper is a women with kids comes on to the train. In fact, I often say, even if I'm standing up, "Do you want a seat?", to get an embaressed passenger to then stand up. But this Daily Mail image of a nirvana that once existed is false. Not thanks to our 'horrible' welfare state, there are feral children you didn't use to see (perhaps because the rich were living in a complete apartheid, never having to see those living in slums, or how there lives are improved by the state). Children use to drink dandelion and burdock (really?), and people didn't use to eat in the streets, and train tickets were made out of cardboard etc.

I don't really care. I occasionally pass a thought about a certain amount of rudeness, but I remember it can be linked to a lack of social integration, and when any attempt at easing this force is suggested, the very people who lament at the passing of the politeness of people, protest this measure.

Re: Brown and Blair are ... (#17)

What a fascinating and fiery debate!!

What it does show, I think is that libertarianism is finally and importantly re-entering the political debate after two decades of a government (Thatcher and Blair) consensus on authoritarianism of a kind, in terms of attacking civil liberties.

I do think that politics might therefore become realigned on a libertarian / authoritarian axis (and there is little new in this historically). But one might also consider it usefully as a two dimensional axis, with the politcal left to right on one axis, and the libertarian to authoritarian on the other axis.

As this discussion illustrates well, you can have left-wing libertarians (like Bob Marshall-Andrews) stemming from the great radical tradition of the likes of William Godwin and Chartism, or right-wing libertarians (like David Davis) who trace their roots back to traditional Toryism - or sometimes to traditional Whigism / Liberalism. Their view on socially liberal questions like gay rights or the death penalty vary. Their views on the economy vary too.

There is more of a role for the state on the left (as JKitleft points out) as a guarantor of a different kind of freedom - from hunger and from poverty, rights to equality, a tempering of the excesses of the market. But the right-wing Davis-type libertarians reject all this.

We sometimes end up with strange bedfellows on particular issues...

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#18)

Alex, ban this person. I'm perfectly willing to debate right-wingers, but not those who are willing to subjugate others with their bigotry.

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#22)

I presume you are referring to me. If you don't enjoy open and honest debate, then move to a Communist country - or just hang around Britain for another couple of years.

As for being a 'gay basher' that is only your opinion based on misunderstanding my views, so maybe Alex should remove you for being intolerant to me.

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that, but you see how the Government is relying on divide and rule to break the country apart?

I demand the right to express my opinion no matter how much you or anyone else disagrees with me. If I said I care enormously about homosexuals (which is true) you wouldn't believe me as you have been conditioned to believe in a false reality where every deviation from political correctness implies hatred.

The bizarre twist in the tale is that I end up being the target of hatred by being misunderstood by those who think they hate hatred, but instead are violently hateful themselves without realising it.

If you disagree with anything I have written then you have ample opportunity to counter my arguments with your own reasoning.

Instead you want to go crying to the administrator. I politely suggest that if you do not want to partake of open discussion you stop visiting sites that encourage it.

You should rejoice in the freedom of speech that your forebears fought to protect, not try and have it banned!!

You are another anti-Britisher who doesn't understand what the Labour Party used to stand for.

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#27)

It always worries me when people think they have a complete monopoly on truth. To me you just sound like a (rightwing?) Christian fundamentalist.

It's the unsubtlety of this approach that is so worrying - it's hardly Blake or Milton is it? You talk about things as though they are black and white. But the purpose of a site such as this is, I believe, with respect, not to preach, but to discuss. Not to insult and demean but to exchange opinion in a spirit of toleration and openness.

For most of the history of Christianity it was a religion founded on reason, debating Plato and Aristotle, but in the last 100 years or so we have witnessed some very worrying separation of religion from the rational - culminating in simple-minded Christian fundamentalism, especially in the US. Dividing the spiritual from the rational leads to phenomena such as fundamentalism and fascism.

Assertions that homosexuality has been condemned in every society under the sun display at the least a certain ignorance, wilful or not.

If you are willing to genuinely debate, that is fine as far as I am concerned (though I don't run the site so it's not up to me)  - I do believe in freedom of expression, but one should not gratuitously insult and it is also difficult to debate if someone's mind is closed to any truth but their own definition. If you think you have a monopoly on truth then is there any point in people debating with you?

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#28)

What I have found here is that most people assume that they are right and I am wrong, even to the point of wanting me banned.

Yes, I do see this in black and white as do those who disagree with me. Others are confused and see shades of grey. It is a black and white issue. Either homosexual activity is right or wrong. It can't be sort-of-OK or sort-of-wrong.

Can you deny that social engineering has been changing people's perspective on this and a number of other important things?

That article I linked to about the blueprint to normalise homosexuality also says this:

"Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here."

I want to make people aware of the extent to which they have been conditioned.

Yes, my style is straight to the point. When you understand how the media works and how globalism works (it's not a coincidence that after millennia of marriage being as nature intended, suddenly 'gay' marriages are being instituted all over the 'civilised' world).

Maybe people think we live in a more enlightened age - an age that sees old people being seen as nuisances and stuffed away in care homes. An age where young mothers are encouraged to work and stuff their children into nurseries and after-school facilities. An age where leaders still lie to the people in order to make war for their friends' financial gain.

I could go on, but these are not enlightened times. More people are concerned about what happens on C4's Big Brother than the real thing; there is more interest in football than politics; people are more likely to eat chicken out a bucket than sit down for a family meal and speak to each other.

If I "gratuitously insult" then it is not intentional. I do get annoyed at people's inability to see past lies and manipulation, so I should possibly have more patience. I'll admit to that. It is difficult when you get accused of being homophobic when you're not.

Anyway, what is wrong with being a "(rightwing?) Christian fundamentalist?"

I'm neither right nor left wing, but the truth is that governments are afraid of Christians with backbones. The president of Eritrea has us locked up in steel shipping containers until we recant our faith, which few do.

In this country, it is done differently, and more successfully, by the use of lies and disinformation, smears and ridicule, accusations of hate and so on.

You wrote, "in the last 100 years or so we have witnessed some very worrying separation of religion from the rational - culminating in simple-minded Christian fundamentalism."

In the last century, mass media has enabled the 'authorities' to manipulate opinion like never before.

What you describe as "simple-minded Christian fundamentalism" would once have been mainstream and unremarkable.

The media has successfully redefined many terms. The world 'gay' itself, of course, once had a completely different primary meaning.

And the fascism that I know hasn't come from Christians, but the complete opposite.

"If you think you have a monopoly on truth then is there any point in people debating with you?"

All I ask is that people check out my assertions. I would hope that it is an extremely pressing matter that we find out how much we have been conditioned to believe what may be contrary to what is best for us and people really should question how society could have changed so much in such a short space of time.

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#33)

What you describe as "simple-minded Christian fundamentalism" would once have been mainstream and unremarkable.

'FreedomandTruth'

I don't accept that at all. For two-thousand years mainstream Christianity has been predominantly a religion of reason and discourse. The extreme and, literalist interpretations are a phenomenon closely linked to modernity, where we witness, as I said, a very dangerous separation between the spiritual and the rational. Politically it can give rise to fascism (or even to the more extreme elements of the green movement) and in religious terms it is referred to as fundmentalism.

If, what I understand to be your brand of intolerant, black and white, simplified, US-based rightwing Christian fundamentalism achieves further influence in the world (and it already has considerable influence over the right of the Republican party) then we are heading for trouble.

Perversely US rightwing Christian fundamentalism is a mirror to the fundamentalism of Al Qaeda, also a phenomenon of modernity (or post-modernity) and similarly estranged from the tremendous link between mainstream Islam and the discourse of reason.

Newspeak and confusion with the English language (#34)

Free Radical, I disagree with you. Firstly, what is mainstream Christianity? Going along to church once a week?

How would you describe, politically, Christ and the Apostles?

They were always arguing against the religious leaders and governors of the day.

As for what is 'rational'. The word has lost its meaning in today's world where black is white and right is wrong.

In Bridgend, some young people seem to think it is rational to kill themselves.

I could probably give examples all day.

Fundamental Christianity (as opposed to the heretical liberal variety) is far removed from fascism and the religion of environmentalism.

Was it this page I was talking about how words have been changed? 

So many words have been hijacked in this 'newspeak' age.

'Fundamentalism' is now seen as a bad word. People think of Muslims blowing up a bus-load of Jews and appear to equate the word with 'hatred' regardless to whom it is applied.

Fundamental Christians maintain traditional interpretations of the Bible in the face of Darwinism, secularism, and liberal theology.

David Blunkett was confused as well when he equated Muslim suicide bombers and evangelical Christians.

Deliberately? 

It's all about fooling the people to comply with government/EU diktats and be suckled by the state rather than take strength from true patriotism, religion or family.

All must be dismantled for true socialism to succeed.

Christianity and the Green Party are incompatible in my opinion. While the Almighty gave mankind the duty of tending the earth, some people now expect us to worship it and sacrifice humans to it, at the moment in the form of abortion and now euthanasia and the brainwashing is well underway that there are far too many people in the world and at least 80% of us have to be wiped out.

I'm sure many people will love this new 'lifestyle choice' just as they do abortion. The masses can obviously be played like a fiddle.

There are too many quotes to mention, e.g. Prince Philip is a eugenics advocate who has spoken of his desire to return as a "deadly virus" to thin the human population. His supposed environmentalism is merely a veil for his deeply disturbing and inhumane views on population control.

How can we say there is not enough food in the world when governments pay farmers not to grow crops?

See what I mean: black is white, left is right, up is down, backwards is forwards?

The Republican Party is full of Christians like, erm, George Bush and Labour had Blair. Both great believers who like to bomb the hell out of sovereign states and leave hundreds of thousands dead, blind and with missing limbs.

Blair presided over two million abortions and the 'Son of the Manse' has refused to lower the abortion limit or even try and prevent abortions with better advice.

When unborn children can start to suck their thumbs at 12 weeks or younger, would you really set the death penalty at 24 weeks?

These people aren't Christians (by their fruits you will know them).

Your final sentence is just untrue and offensive, but I can understand if you think this way by believing that Blair and Bush are examples of good Christians.

 

Re: Kick out the gay basher (#29)

I believe in fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech. There is surely an argument to suggest though that you express your views on gays in a forum on which it is acceptable. I take the ACLU stand: if I was a lawyer, I would defend a KKK member's right to freedom of speech, and I would even defend the godawful Fred Phelps (if I hadn't hit him round the head with a crowbar first). But, I don't tolerate homophobia in mainstream debate.

I would hate to live in a society whereby if any BNP member spoke, I would have to say "Well I don't agree with you, but you have the right to say it." I don't want endless clapping of rediculous views, the very hallmark of freedom of speech is to be subversive, and to challenge people in debate.


If anyone tried to legally enforce PC codes, I would be against it. But, thanks to many politically correct people in the '60's, the words 'kike', 'nigger', 'wog', 'hottentot' etc. have been slowly erased.

To me though, you often sound like a conspiracy theorist, convinced that anything the government does is an attempt to establish a New World Order.

The debate over patriotism exposes a nationalist error that was highlighted a century ago in a row between G.K. Chesteron and Rudyard Kipling. Chesterton criticised Kipling - the imperial drum-beater - for his "lack of patriotism". In a spluttery rage, Kipling demanded to know what he meant, and Chesterton explained: "He admires Britain, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reason. He admires Britain because she is strong, not because she is Britain." I don't love my mother because, on every objective criteria, she is The Best Mother In The World, but because she's mine. I don't love my country because it is the best country on all measurements, but because I belong here.

I love Britain, because it is home. I don't love it because of the Magna Carta, although I am proud of that great document. It's when I get off at Heathrow that I know I'm home. I don't support the EU, because I want to burn the British flag, but because I believe that if Britain is to retain its role on the world stage, then it must be at the heart of a Europe that counters the influence of China and the USA. I don't support immigration, because I want to water down the heritage of this country, but because they share the feeling that I have when I arrive back in London: which is "I'm here! I'm here!"

Labour stands for social justice. It is motivated by different strands of thought. But gay rights isn't just an issue to make metropolitan liberals more affluent. It's because homosexuality is almost certainly genetic, which is why I can't stand the "I want to cure you" rhetoric from yourself. I can't prove it, except to say that in almost every other animal species, homosexuality exists. How much are other species susceptible to the media, and gay adoption that supposedly induces homosexuality? It isn't just a stereotyped camp actor who is gay, but it is businessmen, accountants, teachers, doctors, soldiers, builders etc. who are gay.



Re: Kick out the gay basher (#31)

Firstly, I didn't bring up homosexuality here, it was NorthernMonkey, who thinks that David Davis is not allowed  freedom of speech, thought or conscience either, so don't suggest I take my discussion elsewhere because I didn't come here to discuss homosexuality.

The Government is controlled by global elites, call it the NWO if you like: that's what it is. They say start a war and the Gov't concocts lies. The Gov't says we'll give you a referendum on the EU and the globalists say 'no' we want a one world government.

It's not a theory. There are plenty of declassified government documents and other evidence to prove it.

How can you call Britain 'home' when she has been taken over? When one man's rights are taken away to give to another? When it has been made a cesspit of media filth, political correctness, injustice and excessive control.

"Labour stands for social justice."

It did once. Now it stands for division, war, selling out to the EU and keeping the citizens in line.

Tell those at the very bottom who are without the 10% tax band that Labour is a party of social justice.

This is why I don't have much patience - you can't see the wood for the trees. How much more obvious can it be that Labour now hates the poor?