The agenda is exactly the same all over the Western World: make people feel afraid of expressing opinions that are “off-message”. It’s globalism; global tyranny. It is just developing at slightly different speeds depending on the success of the opposition by decent, aware people. The threats to our freedoms – very basic freedoms, at that – are increasing all the time, as evidenced by this story: Footballer sacked over homophobic tweet aimed at Gareth Thomas.

Mike Ford, manager of the Southern Football League Premier Division club, said the decision was taken in response to Steele tweeting about Thomas’s appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. Steele wrote: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse”.

And that is it. Out the dressing room door you go, Steele.

Ford told the BBC: “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.”

But Mr Ford, manager of the diddy team playing three divisions down from the Football League, gives Steele no chance to make amends. He is an outcast and forced to wear a metaphorical yellow star in the football world.

Steele, 38, had a long career in the Football League playing for clubs including Shrewsbury, Oxford United and Leyton Orient, and was part of the Brighton squad that won the old Division Two in 2001-02.

Some careers end because of broken legs, illness and accidents. Mr Ford ended Lee Steele’s career because of a quip on the internet.

Reacting to the sacking, the Justin Campaign against homophobia in football said: “While it is never pleasing to see someone lose a position in a club or company, we fully applaud the club’s decision to terminate the player’s contract.

Fancy that; no mercy from the ‘gay’ lobby. No calls for a bit of common sense and sense of proportion. They don’t even realise that to show forgiveness and clemency would further their aims no end.

“For far too long homophobic comments like the ones Steele made have been defended using the erroneous argument that such remarks as simply harmless ‘banter’. However, we no longer accept racist ‘banter’, and likewise, we must never accept homophobic ‘banter’.

To help answer that tired old comparison with racism, and other points, I will turn to this interesting analysis on the Guardian Watch blog entitled, Homophobia – The Gays’ Secret Weapon.

The writer has some sympathy for the club’s position, but then states,

So for the footballer in this case to be sacked for expressing what is a very very common feeling amongst straight men [‘latent homosexual tendencies’], especially straight men who find themselves in environments surrounded by other men, such as football, seems incredibly unfair. He was basically sacked for being a man!

I think this tells us exactly what is going on – and deserves to be in bold text:

This increased use of ‘homophobia’ as a ‘criminal’ offence is all part of the Big Gay Project. Again as Simpson has so clearly explained (back in 1996 in his book Anti Gay for example), the ‘gay’ identity has developed in part through the development of the concept of ‘homophobia’:
‘So, in the As [After Stonewall] epoch, homosexuality, with its nasty medicinal odour, was now an increasingly redundant term. Instead, ‘homo-phobia’, a word with a nasty medicinal odour, was coined to explain the origins of the obviously mentally imbalanced idea that gay wasn’t good. While the innocent BS [Before Stonewall] homosexual was the victim of pathologisation and prejudice, the guilty AS [After Stonewall]  homophobe was obviously deserving of pathologisation and prejudice. ‘

Now onto the comparison with ‘ racism’:

I find this conflation of racism with homophobia troubling, in part for the reasons I have stated above. If ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are in fact an aspect of nearly all men, then ‘homophobia’ does not relate to an ‘other’, separate from the ‘homophobe’ as racism does.

However, there are ways in which ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ DO function in similar ways as discourses. The ‘born this way’ version of gay identities suggests that being ‘gay’, like having a certain skin colour, or being from a certain place, is innate, natural, fixed. But, as is often the case with identity politics there is an irony here. It is, in part, using Simpson’s ideas,  this ‘fixed, natural, innate’ gay identity that enables ‘homophobia’ to exist.  Without ‘homophobia’ ‘gay’ may not be here at all, and this is why gays use ‘homophobia’ so strategically in their crusades.

As James Baldwin has put it so eloquently:

“People invent categories in order to feel safe. White people invented black people to give white people identity. . . . Straight cats invented faggots so they could sleep with them without becoming faggots themselves.”

– James Baldwin to Nikki Giovanni

I might add to that statement – ‘faggots invented homophobia so they could continue to exist as a distinct identity group in an ever-changing world’.

So if we want to get rid of homophobia (and indeed racism, for whilst skin colour is something we are born with, the ‘black’ or ‘white’ identity is not), we need to challenge the categories on which it is based. And that means challenging the notion of a ‘gay’ identity, especially challenging the idea that ‘gay’ is particularly special, particularly oppressed, and particularly, to use Simpson’s word: ‘fabby’.

I don’t know where the writer gets the idea that ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are an aspect of most men; it would be interesting to read any believable research. Certainly, there has been a major shift in what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour. As the writer indicates, homosexuality was the mental illness of the past, but now not thinking that ‘gay’ is good is considered its replacement clinical condition.

The extra danger now to freedom is that once something has been labelled a mental condition, it makes it easier for ‘dissenting’ individuals to be abused by the state, as happened in the USSR:

Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

Many people wonder why one or two percent of the population has so much influence in how our society is evolving, or rather, being re-engineered, but in my opinion the main reasons for the promotion of homosexuality are these:

1) as a divide and rule tactic;

2) for the weakening of traditional family life, society’s basic unit of strength;

3) as one part of the agenda to erode the West’s moral values and culture;

4) to aid in the control of thought and speech.

It has nothing to do with equality, fairness and justice and everything to do with control of the masses. The Tories promised to reverse this madness of political correctness, but it keeps marching on. Of course it does; they are party to it. They wouldn’t be allowed to form a government if they weren’t keen as mustard. It’s a global phenomenon. It’s also surely one of the reasons we didn’t get our EU referendum. The EU is one of PC’s major steering groups and 27 countries are subject to its diktats, so that isn’t something the globalists will sit idly by and watch disintegrating if they can avoid it.

Diane Abbott. Or is it Robert Mugabe?

Firstly, I think the woman is horrendous, particularly for her campaign to have abortion legalised in Northern Ireland, despite the protestations from all parts of the community there. Typical socialist: we don’t care how you want to live or what you hold precious, we’re going to tell you what to do.

However, this doesn’t imply she is a racist. I’m sure she despises the unborn equally, regardless of colour. I wonder what she makes of the fact that black unborn babies in the USA (not sure of the UK figures) are more likely to be aborted than white ones, in what some term the black holocaust. They say that US abortionists kill more blacks every three days than the Ku Klux Klan has done in its history. I doubt she cares. ‘Rights’ to feminazis of her ilk do not include the right to life (surely the most basic right of all), but the ‘right’ of a woman to ‘control her own fertility’, blah, blah. Similarly, to the feminist mind, the father has no rights in determining the future of his unborn child, just the woman. There’s only one thing worse than a feminist woman like Abbott, and that’s a man who shares her feminist beliefs.

Leg-iron wrote a piece with which I largely agree and raises several valid points,

As a honky myself I took no offence other than to observe that it is not white people, but politicians such as herself, who are using the ‘divide and rule’ principle these days.

Cue some excerps from the post on this blog I link to most,

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has announced that:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather wrote: “Earlier drafts [of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

And as we know, multiculturalism is about dividing the population into pockets of ‘communities’ and the ‘equality and diversity’ brigade can then stir them up with all the phoney ’rights’ nonsense to get them at each other instead of fighting our common enemy: the social engineers.

As Leggy writes, her comment was racist, as it ‘defined an entire ethnic group within one derogatory statement’, but he doesn’t believe she is. I just don’t know, but as most of her white colleagues would appear to be racist against the native Brits, why should she be any different? I also don’t know if her subsequent twittergaffe (if this isn’t a word, it should be) in which she suggested that taxi drivers are inclined not to pick up black passengers, is based on reality or if it is just her that they don’t pick up, and who could blame them, especially as she looks increasingly like Robert Mugabe (see picture above for proof!) and they are probably fearful that if they let her in their cab she’ll take their home and land from them.

BBC Bristol sacked their presenter, Sam Mason, in 2008 after she called a taxi firm to collect her 14 year-old daughter and requested an ‘English’ driver. I wrote to the BBC at the time to complain about the dismissal and, of course, received the sort of standard reply I expected. Is Sam Mason a racist for wanting to protect her daughter from a (perceived) heightened risk?

So is it just proles who deserve to be sacked for being ‘racist’ whether or not they really are?

As Leg-iron concludes,

Diane Abbott was part of the government that brought about this equality. The one in which the politicians despise us all equally.

She was one of those who made this happen. She was one of those who created these laws.

They are ridiculous, but they are laws. Should she escape them?

One rule for the proles, another for the Politburo. Let’s see if that’s true.

Many, many people are about to find out just where they stand.

Is she racist?

Who knows?

Is she stupid?

Undoubtedly.

Should she be sacked?

She should never have been elected.

I think the width should be reduced to make reading easier, and maybe one of the side columns removed.

Do you find that the pages tend to load slowly?

Would extra features help, like receiving an email when someone else comments after you? What about the ability to vote on comments?

I think that the ability to share posts to Facebook and Twitter is now the done thing, so that should be happening.

Would having to type in a security code make you less likely to comment or would it just irritate you slightly?

You’ll no doubt be glad to know that adverts won’t be appearing, apart, perhaps, from ones for my own businesses, which I really should link to, if only for SEO purposes.

I know I need to put the blogroll back up. It disappeared some time ago of its own accord. I didn’t suddenly get grumpy with the rest of the blogosphere.

Do you like the masthead? For a bit of fun, I was thinking of adding a bit of graffiti now and then as the mood takes me!

Is there a blog or other website that you really like the look of?

Are long posts better than short posts?

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on any or all of these things.

—————–

UPDATE 13.27PM: English Viking makes a good point for consideration – “Having a ‘reply’ button next to each comment is helpful in maintaining a coherent thread.”

It’s that time of year again – actually, it seems later than usual – when Total Politics gives us the chance to vote for our favourite bloggers. This year you can also vote for your favourite blog writers and political tweeter. I have just filled it in. You need to list at least five in the two main sections. If you don’t want to submit ten choices, write “blank” in the space, and you’ll also need to choose a category for the form to work.

Your vote for Real Street would be greatly appreciated. You can select up to three categories for it, such as “Scottish” and “non-aligned” in my case, or whatever else you think is appropriate!

The form doesn’t say when the closing date is for entries, but I think I read somewhere that it is this Friday, 19th.

Some popular social media icons.

The Daily Mail thinks so, as they rename the House of Commons the House of Twits. I’m sure that the name is appropriate generally, but I happen to think that the new social media, like Twitter and Facebook, not to mention MPs’ blogs, are a handy way for us to communicate with MPs and replies are often received, albeit often sarcastic ones. Surely anything which increases politicians’ interactions with us proles has to be a good thing?

The Mail reckons that,

They spend 1,000 hours a year chatting to constituents, friends and even complete strangers on the social networking site.

It is not clear if this is per MP or in total. It surely cannot be per MP as this would equate to about twenty hours a week each, so if the total amount of tweeting is 1,000 hours from 650 MPs then the average is about an hour and a half per year. Big deal.

In one week alone this summer, MPs tapped out nearly 2,500 ‘tweets’ on everything from energy policy, a joke about the Dalai Lama or meeting voters.

Of the 275 MPs who are said to use Twitter, this averages out at nine tweets per week each. Not a lot.

Of course, some MPs tweet quite a lot. Kerry McCarthy, the former Twitter Tsar (or Tsarina, as I used to call her, before she blocked me), is the champion MP tweetmeister (or tweetmeisterin, as we are being politically incorrect, but grammatically spot on) with over 27,500 tweets.

Number two is Tom Harris, with over 21,000 tweets, quite a few of which are insults directed to me! A few days ago he called me “insane” and then he insinuated that I was “daft” which seemed like a compliment in comparison.

At least he hasn’t blocked me yet, unlike several MPs, all Labour. Eric Joyce, at number 9, is one of the Labour MPs who had enough of me after we had what I thought was a good tweeting rapport. I even had a pet name for him: Brando (he knows why). But late one night, I took him to task for his bad language and he blocked me. I am sure that he broke one of the rules for sensible tweeting by doing it while having had too much to drink. Very soon after, he was arrested for alleged drink driving.

Maybe I should have given the no swearing advice to Tom. The Mail chose to reproduce this tweet of his from yesterday:

Hmm. I might consider supporting death penalty for the little sh**s who knicked the satnav and the fascia for my radio out of my car . . .

And I might consider the death penalty for the little bleeps who have committed treason against my country.

The most annoying thing about 7th placed Louise Mensch’s Twitter presence is that she has had that horrible green profile picture for about the past year.

Although not in the Top Ten, Ed Miliband gets a special mention. I had a brief Twitter encounter with him in November 2009, just before the big Copenhagen Climate Change conference, when he was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I asked him,

Are you absolutely sure that your facts about ‘climate change’ are correct before promising away billions of pounds?

He tried to assure me that he knew what he was talking about,

yes,at met office today.CO2 concentrations highest for 650,000 years.co2 link to temp. clear, scientific effect

He didn’t respond to my point that it was much warmer in the Middle Ages.

This illustrates one of the negative aspects of Twitter. The other person can just stop talking to you. You can’t do a Paxman and say, “I really must press you for an answer” – “Did you threaten to overrule him?” – “Come on!”.

And they can block you from ever contacting them again as easily as ejecting Walter Wolfgang from Party Conference.

The Mail reminds us that…

Two years ago, David Cameron famously made clear he was no fan when he unguardedly told a radio station that ‘the trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it – [is that] too many twits might make a tw*t’. He later apologised for his language.

Were that true, he would have been top of the list. So come on, Dave, let’s have some tweeting. Unfortunately, nobody will believe a word you say.

[Picture from here]

When English taxes are being used to subsidise services we apparently can’t afford for ourselves, I don’t discriminate between Scottish student paying nothing for uni or having their council taxes frozen and Greeks civil servants retiring at 53.

In another comment, Jim Morgan mentions the fact that we no longer have prescription charges in Scotland (as of this Spring).

Now, I think it is wrong that the devolved parts of the United Kingdom get these benefits and England doesn’t when we all pay the same rates of tax. It isn’t fair, but I think it is counterproductive to blame Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, especially as of the 650 Westminster parliamentary constituencies in the UK, 59 are in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. England has a whopping 533 MPs, allegedly representing their interests, so why not blame them when they clearly do not care about the “equality” most of them always bang on about?

Why blame a couple of million Labour voters in Scotland and Wales for the UK’s problems, while ignoring the larger number of Labour voters in England? This has bemused me for some time. I guess it is easier to blame others than to accept any responsibility for your own lack of action. Why hold your own elected representative to account when you can rant at the telly as News At Ten announce free prescriptions north of the Border?

The really stupid thing is that, while people get upset about tuition fees and prescription charges, the far weightier matter of treason has gone largely unnoticed and completely undealt with. Labour’s admitted re-engineering of society should have millions demanding trials for a number of anti-British villains who have skulked among us and slither through the corridors of power still.

Jim Morgan also writes,

England is governed by anti English British establishment.

Yes it is, but it is not a case of the rest of the UK ganging up on the English, giving them Chinese burns and stealing their pocket money so that we don’t have to pay for our prescriptions. The anti-British establishment hates us all equally, but the English are the dominant party and so they are the ones who have been earmarked for cultural genocide first. Likewise, our Judeo-Christian laws and customs are attacked because they are mainstream and have made us strong. The traditional family is undermined because it is the building block of a stable society. What is normal is being denormalised. Right becomes wrong and vice versa.

It is all to divide and conquer to bring this country to its knees. This is why I believe we should fight our common enemies together and not allow ourselves to be divided by all these crude, yet highly effective, social re-engineering tricks.

A comment from Paul Kevin Wiffen sums it up,

This is why the EU will always win! You people fall out with each other just like the Judean People’s Front verses the People’s Front of Judea. It’s the way the EU works, Divide and Conquer (they got it from Caesar’s Gallic Wars) they promote devolution, the Scots then hate the English and the English hate the Scots and hey presto, no-one attacks the EU any more! Get wise, stop having a go at each other and face the common enemy Brussels/Strasbourg. Otherwise we’ll be in EU chains forever!

So where are we going in this country? Will we carry on being paranoid and continue to whinge about being “offended” at every turn and demand “rights” designed to get one over our fellow man before he gets one over on us?

Will we ever learn to grow up and stop fiddling while Britain burns?

A Tacoma seventh grader faced federal interrogation at school for what he posted on his Facebook page.  His mom said it all happened without her knowledge or permission.

After Osama bin Laden was killed, 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted an update to his Facebook status that got the Feds attention.

“I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers,” says LaPinta.

I imagine that the Feds’ computers have spiders which crawl the internet and were alerted to this “threat”.

A week later, while Vito was in his fourth period class, he was called in to the principal’s office.

“A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service,” LaPinta said. “He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President.”

Now he’s more careful about what he posts online.

And that was probably the point of the exercise, to make an example of him – to train people to just talk about the weather, or sport, or what’s on the telly tonight.

His mother says she isn’t financially able to take legal action but hopes her family’s story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.

The Seattle branch of the Secret Service did not respond to requests for comment.

This seems to be happening more and more, where people in authority consider themselves to be judge and jury and non-accountable.

This is the country that our traitor former Home Secretary Blunkett agreed a one-sided extradition agreement with whereby an American court can basically just ask for a UK citizen to be sent there and our police go and arrest them.

I use Facebook quite regularly, and Twitter. I would be surprised if what we are saying here in the UK is not also being monitored. In fact, I wonder if these social networking sites were set up for this very function. Before YouTube was full of adverts, I used to wonder how (and why) they gave people unlimited storage space for uploading videos for no obvious financial gain.

I have just visited young Vito’s Facebook page. At the time of writing, he has seven friends. This is odd, because I know these youngsters like following each other. Of his friends, two don’t allow the public to view their friends, but the number of friends of the other five range from 218 to 766.

Did Vito also have hundreds of friends? He looks like he would, doesn’t he? Have all of his “friends” bar these seven unfriended him out of fear?

Maybe I should add him as a friend. Or maybe he feels he’s in enough trouble already. Maybe he’ll be waterboarded if he is found to associate with the likes of me.

Source and hat-tip.

What a truly disgusting site Liberal Conspiracy can be.

Ah, so it’s not a new phenomenon?

It comes to something when it falls to another left wing site – in this case Harry’s Place – to have to point out that LC seems to condemn homophia (sic) against liberals but when it’s against a Tory it’s OK.

Check out THIS blogpost on Harry’s Place to see the truly vile nature of what Liberal Conspiracy did yesterday.

Alan A writes on Harry’s Place,

A post went up late last night on the ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ blog exhibiting what I can only describe as jaw-dropping bigotry and homophobia.

It concerns some diversion of views they have with a Tory councilor, Simon Renwick, concerning the student protestors’ behaviour in London. But this is barely relevant. What is however is the wanton homophobic schadenfreude they exhibit over completely unrelated difficulties the councilor is having with his employers.

There was “gay porn” found in the web browser cache of his work laptop. “Is gay porn somehow more scandalous?” to a liberal, asks Alan.

Mr Renwick had also searched for information on social etiquette and for the locations of “gay” pubs and had been “struggling with his sexuality for some years” and that these searches had been conducted in an “attempt to find more information and to look for role models.”

The writer may well have his differences with the councilor. The councilor – for all I know – may be a deeply unpleasant man. But none of this justifies the casual homophobia Liberal Conspiracy have used to express their political disagreements.

Iain Dale continues,

But it gets worse. The blogpost originally said that a Tory councillor accessed a site called Fit Kids. He didn’t. It was a site called Fit Lads. Rather a difference. Unity has been found out and should issue an apology. More from Harry’s Place HERE. Fitlads.net is a sort of Facebook/Gaydar style networking site. It most emphatically does not feature “kids”. As Harry’s Place says…

Why did ‘Unity’, the author of the article on the Liberal Conspiracy blog change the name of the website? The alteration of the name of the website implied that Renwick had been accessing child pornography: a very serious allegation to make indeed. We should be prepared to give ‘Unity’ at Liberal Conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, I suppose. Perhaps it was a transcription error.

What upsets me is this. Many people who harbour nasty homophobic attitudes subconsciously conflate ‘gay’ with ‘interested in kids’. Perhaps that’s what was going through Unity’s mind when the slip up was made.

Nevertheless, gay men face violence and hatred, because of careless and deliberate conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia. The “gaykids” slur may not have been deliberate, but that was its effect.

For that, Liberal Conspiracy should apologise.

I don’t have the time to explore the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, though please comment if you have anything to say on the matter.

To sum up, it seems all right to slate a Tory Councillor for his homosexuality if you disagree with his political views, but when I state the health and moral problems associated with homosexual and bisexual lifestyles and the dangers in promoting them to children, I am regarded as “homophobic.”

Iain Dales ends with this,

And then go to Dizzy to see what Sunny Hundal thought of yesterday’s student violence. Apparently it was all a bit of harmless fun and the police were ‘wusses’.

The folk at Liberal Conspiracy seem confused. Is it because they are liberals? Or socialists? Or liberal socialists?

Mr Hundal has his own page on Wikipedia. Reason unknown. It says,

About 3 months after the Coalition Government was announced Hundal joined the Labour Party in order to influence its political direction.

Oh, what fun they’ll have together…

I rarely visit Liberal Conspiracy, whose editor is Sunny Hundal, but I received a tweet yesterday (not from LC) plugging this post: In defence of LGBT History Month: a reply to Toby Young.

Of course, this was like a red rag to a bull, so I had to charge over to Liberal Conspiracy, horns polished, to read this “defence” of brainwashing children with political correctness.

One Jules Mattsson, a self-confessed bisexual, wrote the piece.

My first comment was no. 7, which you can see has been replaced with this:

[homophobic comment deleted, user banned]

It turns out that I wasn’t banned, but I suspect that this was the “homophobic” remark:

You say you are “bisexual”. Do you understand what has happened? You engage in immoral, dangerous and dirty behaviour – yet you give it a name and think it entitles you to special ‘rights’.

Why do you think you have any rights over and above everyone else just for indulging in such a licentious lifestyle?

Hard, but fair, I think. This is one trick of the social engineers: to give something unpleasant or unwanted a name so that the public thinks of it in abstract terms to distract from the actual meaning and all it entails. So, for example, when bisexuality is mentioned, you think of it as a matter of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ rather than about people with very loose morals who flit from man to woman like bees buzz from flower to flower to collect pollen. Only, the bisexual will likely collect a lot more than just pollen, and then spread it around.

But if you say this, i.e. tell the truth; medical facts – you are “homophobic.” This provoked the first reply from “Left Outside” who told me to “eff off you cee” but in full low-grade-moron sweary mode. As far as he was concerned, that was the end of any conversation. I am scum and he wins.

It reminded me of this sign I saw the other day:

Just swap “racist” for “homophobe,” or “islamophobe,” or just make up your own “phobia”. If you are an anti-smoker talking to a smoker, you could shout “murderer”. It’s easy to win an argument when you know you’re a right-on socialist and therefore, by definition, beyond criticism. You could just shout the all-encompassing, one size fits all, “Nazi” slur, turn your nose up, and walk away – from the person in front of you, or the computer screen.

Still, it is hardly surprising that people have lost the ability to string two coherent thoughts together, never mind write them down afterwards.

Here we see the “value” in dumbing down education. The government just has to announce that they are doing X in the name of “equality,” Y in the pursuit of “health” and Z to “keep us safe” and the capability to analyse these claims for many has been lost and they blindly accept what they are told. Not only that, they attack anyone who still has the ability to make an independent appraisal and therefore dares to express an opposing view.

In another of my comments which was deleted, I wrote,

And when the majority of youngsters have some sort of same-sex attraction at some stage, why do you think it is acceptable for the “gay lobby” to encourage them to identify with a sexuality at that stage? Recruitment, that’s why. Cynical and wicked, and yet you seem to approve.

I said as much on my previous post as well. I don’t think it can be underestimated just how much damage this “LGBT” agenda could be doing to youngsters. They could be consigning thousands of children to years of homosexual abuse based on teenage confusion. And here again we have a contentious agenda reduced to an abstract and harmless-sounding four-letter abbreviation.

After I noticed that my previous comments had been removed, as well as some of the replies, I left this comment (and started making screen captures):

The miserable cowardly control freak, Sunny Hundal, also deleted this.

What is worse, he has left in comments which contain slurs against me and which I previously dealt with. I have come across a similar lack of integrity with a few other bloggers. Usually on socialist/Labour websites.

Liberal Conspiracy is the number one blog on Wikio. The rankings are based on who links to you (based on rss feeds). Hopefully, their position is due to other bloggers linking to them because they cannot believe the nonsense they espouse.

You can see how the likes of Hundal think by reading this “Mission Statement” on his other site, Pickled Politics. It seems that if you don’t subscribe to every politically correct edict going, you are guilty of the following:

racism

anti-immigration hysteria and Islamophobia

soft racism of the middle classes.

bigots

bigots who hate, despise and look down on others based on their race, religion, caste, sexuality and nationality.

bigots (again)

bigots and the religious fanatics.

bigotry

The Statement also contains these two gems:

Other media spaces remain constrained either by vested interests or political correctness.

And,

We need to be unafraid of criticism, be open to learning and not be plagued by a victim mentality that holds back meaningful self-criticism.

Why don’t you?

You also need to develop a sense of honour and integrity.

Or maybe blogging’s not for you.

Today he lost an appeal against his conviction for “sending a menacing electronic communication” and has to pay costs of £2,600 in addition to the £400 from the trial in May.

His counsel Stephen Ferguson told the appeal hearing that even the police officer investigating the case branded it a “foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see”.

He said the prosecution had failed to prove his client had any intention to threaten anyone or that he thought there was any risk someone would interpret the tweet in this way.

News of Mr Chambers’ appeal has reached far and wide, with the Washington Post suggesting that we need a “sarcasm mark” to make sure the humourless can tell when it’s a joke. I had to do a thorough search of the keyboard to find this wee chap: `.

I propose the “`”, because it seems as though this key sits on your keyboard all day long with nothing else to do, and also because it’s like a less enthusiastic air quote, which is sarcasm all over. If Paul Chambers had been able to put a ` at the end of his sentence, none of this would have happened.

Sure, a sarcasm marker might be dangerous in the wrong hands. Accidentally stick it on the end of “I love you`” and it’s lethal!

Instead, maybe we could have a Ministry of Jokes and Funny Walks and let the “authorities” pre-screen our attempts at humour. They could, of course, then just arrest us on the spot for our thought crimes. They could also insist that all future computers have an in-built taser which shoots out instant justice at the behest of the Ministry.

Cllr Gareth Compton - he didn't really want anyone to be stoned to death. Duh!!

Another attempt at Twitter humour was committed by Tory Birmingham councillor Gareth Compton, who was arrested today after tweeting this about a Muslim journalist: Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.

Okay, it’s not funny, but she is considered by many to be obnoxious and writes for the Independent (same thing?) and it was in the context of her appearance on Radio 5 Live where she discussed human rights in China.

They don’t have the right of free speech there either, nor, presumably, jokes.

Of course, in these humourless and unforgiving times, this resulted,

A Conservative party spokesman said that Councillor Compton’s membership to the party had been “indefinitely suspended” pending a further investigation.

The 38-year-old barrister, who has represented Erdington since 2007, later described his tweet as a “glib” comment and apologised for any offence caused.

“I did not call for the stoning of anybody,” he wrote.

“I made an ill-conceived attempt at humour in response to YAB saying no politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran.

“I apologise for any offence caused. It was wholly unintentional.”

It’s easy – maybe too easy – to tweet and send off an email or Facebook message without thinking very much. I have regretted some myself. At least when blogging, I have more time to consider what I am writing.

I have only ever suggested that death is a just punishment for the traitors who have deliberately changed the fabric of our society for political gain. And I wasn’t joking!