Husband and wife, Bill and Star Etheridge, were due to represent the Tory Party at the upcoming local elections. They also run their local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness. It has been clear for a while now that these two interests go together like chalk and cheese in David Cameron’s unconservative party.
The couple announced on facebook yesterday that they have resigned from the Party:
Forced Out Of The Conservative Party For Not Being Politically Correct
Until today, both myself and my wife were Conservative candidates for the May Council Elections.
I worked as a Campaign Executive in the run up to the last election and am a member of Dudley North and South associations. I am also Chairman of Claverley association.
We are openly Thatcherite and believe in an EU referendum. We also organise the local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness.
We received a letter today from Conservative Head office suspending us from the party as our activities with the campaign against PC could be considered to bring the Conservative party into disrepute. The main problem was that we had been pictured holding a toy Gollie
Our response was that a party which stifled free speech and was prepared to discipline members for holding a rag doll was no longer the Conservative party. We have both resigned with immediate effect.
We do not intend to be silenced and will increase our campaigning in favour of Freedom and Against Political Correctness.
This is why the couple simply had to be disciplined – they were photographed holding children’s dolls. Isn’t it heinous? Have you ever seen such an obvious and outrageous display of racial hatred? I feel faint. Pass the smelling salts, someone.
Pictures of her husband posing with Golly can be seen here. Be warned: they are just as graphic as the one above. I will take no responsibility if these images cause you to hyperventilate or go into spasms. Please ensure that there are no sharp edges round about you in case you pass out at the sight of more of these nauseating pictures.
This is a copy of the letter the couple received from the terrified Tory Party:
BY POST AND EMAIL
18th March 2011
Following a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Conservative Party, I am writing to advise you that your membership of the Party has been suspended for a period of 30 days from today’s date.
The Committee received a complaint relating to images which appeared on a Facebook website in which you were photographed with a toy “golly” in support of a campaign against political correctness.
The Committee is satisfied that the complaint raises serious issues that might bring the Party into disrepute and/or that you may be guilty of conduct not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party.
You have the right to apply in writing to the Committee for this suspension to be lifted. The Committee may allow you to make oral representations on the matter. The Committee may then lift or confirm the suspension, or vary the terms on which the suspension takes effect.
Secretary to the Disciplinary Committee
It’s the same old story. “We received a complaint”. Did you, Tories? Did you really?
And the Disciplinary Committee may allow the couple “to make oral representations on the matter.”
“Thank you, Massa. We so grateful, Massa.”
Eureka! It has just dawned on me why golliwogs are personae non gratae. It is because they remind us of slavery and we are the new slaves!
So who did complain, if anyone? In 2008, I wrote a post for my old site, thelabourparty.org, called Who is Pulling Gordon Brown’s Strings on the Road to a One World Government?
I began by writing,
Clearly, the leaders of the main Western nations are following a script given to them, which is the reason Western Europe, North America and Australia in particular, are self-destructing under the weight of ‘human rights’, and ‘equality’ legislation, where reality is the opposite of the rhetoric.
Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, has been given the task of continuing to enslave the British people by taking our rights and dumbing us down in the hope that we do not notice and are unable to change things.
Further down the post, I wrote,
Have we been brainwashed into believing that golliwogs are offensive?
Well, some African-American sisters have inaugurated the Black Doll Collectors Convention.
“Among Britt’s favorite dolls is her collections of golliwogs — the century-old “black-faced” rag dolls that are seen as racially offensive-caricatures to modern day sensibilities.”
But Britt says they created in childhood stories to endear rather than offend.
“They are part of my history and I embrace them. You have to learn from the past. You can’t hide from it,” she says.
So I guess the agenda is to make a mountain out of – well – nothing at all.
It is just something else whereby innocent people can be harassed by ‘officials’ obeying orders from corrupt bureaucrats and unthinking politicians who want us to feel threatened continually.
Black folk can love and cherish their golliwogs, but if anyone else does, it means they could be racist. Or something.
As I wrote on Bill Etheridge’s Facebook page, WELL DONE!! Best thing that could have happened to you, I reckon. The Tories, like Lab and Lib, are too corrupt and full of traitors to care anymore.
There was another Gollygate two years ago after Carol Thatcher was suspended by the BBC for referring to French tennis player, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, as “a golliwog” due to his hairstyle.
This wasn’t live on the telly, but in a private conversation in the green room with some of The One Show crew, including Adrian Chiles.
The Times wrote,
During a conversation about the Australian Open tennis tournament Thatcher used the word “golliwog” in what is understood to have been a reference to a player in the men’s competition.
A BBC insider said that Chiles, who also presents sports programmes, was “very shocked” by the remark and that others in the room told Thatcher that they considered her language offensive.
Could Miss Thatcher’s issue have been that she shares her mother’s love for the French? Is it also “racist” to have a dig at the French?
But friends of the journalist and author said that the remarks were made jokingly during a private conversation that took place after several drinks in the green room. They said that there had been no complaint at the time and that Thatcher only became aware of having caused potential offence 48 hours later when the BBC contacted her agent.
A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC considers any language of a racist nature wholly unacceptable. We have raised the issue with the individual concerned and are discussing it as a matter of urgency.”
A spokesman for Thatcher, who has been a regular contributor to The One Show for three years, said that the comment had been “an off-the-cuff remark made in jest”.
Her spokesman added: “Carol never intended any racist comment. She made a light aside about this tennis player and his similarity to the golliwog on the jampot when she was growing up. There’s no way, obviously, that she would condone any racist comment – we would refute that entirely. It would not be in her nature to do anything like that.”
If someone’s hair looks like a golliwog, why is it any more racist to say so than it is to say that a skinny blonde looks like Barbie? Someone might find it offensive, but that’s not the same as it being “racist.”
Jonathan Calder wrote at the time on Liberal England, about the view of morality that operates today in “vaguely liberal institutions” like the health service or the BBC – and now the Tory Party.
The first is that the individual is seen as weak and unable to defend his own interests, and at the same time as dangerous and in need of control. For both these reasons, modern workers are hedged in by all sorts of policies and codes of conduct that govern how they behave to their colleagues at work. At one time the left would have understood that this was a diminution of their freedom: now trade unions are enthusiastic advocates of the process.
Whether or not a particular word is offensive depends on many factors, notably the relationship between the participants in the conversation in which it is used. But officialdom insists on codes of conduct and allows no room for individual judgement.
And when Carol Thatcher used the g word, could it not have been left to those present to argue with her? Are they so weak that they need to be protected from any possibility of offence.
The second point is that these incidents show that the concept of a private life is rapidly being eroded. Would you like everything you say in private to an old friend to be repeated to the world? The need to avoid offence is now seen as overriding any concept of privacy.
The third point is that these incidents… show that we regard morality as chiefly a question of using the right language. In particular, it is a matter of avoiding the use of certain proscribed words.
I am sure we have all met people who imagine themselves on the left, use impeccably correct language but do not have a democratic bone in their bodies. Surely morality is about what one does as well as what one says?
The fourth point is that racism is just about the worst sin. Indeed, its wickedness sometimes seems to be the only tenet of modern morality.
Finally, it wouldn’t be an article about golliwogs without the author saying what a fond memory he has of them from his childhood, including the ones on the Robertson’s jam jars.
There, I’ve said it.
But seriously, we didn’t know what racism was growing up in the suburbs of Glasgow. Political correctness has created far more divisions than it has healed or possibly can ever heal because it is a vital component of the divide and rule/divide and conquer strategy of the ruling elite. I am convinced this is the reason they are so dedicated to it.
And as Liberal England says, this can also have the effect of making people think twice before saying anything, even to people they think are their friends. If folk feel offended, they should be left to sort it out themselves. It is what adults are supposed to do, not go crying to nanny state or nanny BBC (same thing). If the issue cannot be resolved amicably, then, and only then, is it reasonable to consider other options.
Top picture swiped from here.
New picture found from Lawson Narse: