Prince William doesn’t know what he’s letting himself in for, does he?
Neither, obviously, do the noble lords. (Big H/T to Daphne Anson.)
Funny thing is, Baroness Warsi cites Tommy Robinson’s imprisonment as a way of discrediting him. Whereas in the sort of societies she aligns herself with, imprisonment is cited as a symbol of heroism.
I was railing against the low quality of our politicians. Lord Pearson is the sole exception. But of course he is unelected.
ReplyDeleteWarsi would even stifle free speech within the walls of The House of Lords. This is the overriding flaw in hate speech laws - any criticism of Islam can, on Warsi’s terms be defined as islamophobia. Presumably she would like to have seen Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens behind bars. I probably don't have much in common with Pearson's views, but the useful idiots jeering him do no credit to themselves.
ReplyDeleteOutrageous -the state delaying the TR appeal hearing...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTULqnpqjSA
What could be more simple than a contempt of court case? Why on Earth would the state need more time to counter an appeal. He was put in the slammer within 24 hours of the alleged offence.
And yes Warsi would definitely like Dawkins behind bars, along with Lord Pearson and Anne Marie Waters.
OT (no open thread this July) -
ReplyDeleteStandards of BBC presentation are in free fall. Anita Anand was in charge of presentation for the Reith Lecture delivered by Margaret MacMillan (Radio 4 this morning). She referred to the phrase "lions led by donkeys" and mis-equated donkeys with politicians whereas of course this is a reference to the Generals who led British troops as is made clear by the following:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys#Attribution_to_First_World_War_German_or_British_officers
AA would have had plenty of time to do her research for this lecture. It's pretty pathetic she can't get the meaning of such a well known quote right. Suggests as I have always suspected she is overpromoted.
As for the lecture itself, that was quite embarrassing.
The lecturer, MacMillan, was having to "imagine" what war might be like as, of course, she had never been in a war. Given there are several tens of millions of people on the planet who have been in wars, it seems a bit odd to choose a person who hasn't been in a war to tell us what it's like. Many of MacMillan's observations were perfectly reasonable but platitudinous and common place.
MacMillan got the standard anti-Thatcher jibe in, in making the surprisingly non-feminist point that women aren't necessarily more peaceful than men. They never reference Rosa Luxemburg or Indira Gandhi do they?
The Q&A after was an obvious fix. Just happened to start with a female soldier. Only problem was she started on about being a mother and the extra burden this places on female soldiers...didn't exactly do the cause of women in the front line much good.
My caveat about today's Reith lecture was the complete absence of mention of the Holocaust. MacMillan introduced the primary section about the effect of war on civilians - especially women, and then proceded to ignore Jewish civilians, gay men and women, gypsies - indeed all those incarcerated in the death camps just for being who they were. I note her next topic will cover The Troubles in Northern Ireland - but not to even mention the WWII Holocaust was bizarre, if not actually shameful.
ReplyDelete