Off Topic Political Debate

If you check it out you will find that it does explain how it gets it's funding. Most of the income comes from normal business, with grants from the Adessium Foundation which supports many different projects including wildlife conservation. Very wide ranging and hardly a cause for concern.

 

And Soros - how different is he to Mordoch? - and were does the Adessium Foundation get it's funding from?

 

The left wing reverting to what it does best, censoring those it does not agree with. It was sold out so plenty would like to hear what he has to say.

'Not welcome here' Left-wing students call for Rees-Mogg to be BANNED from giving a speech LEFT-wing student activists have called for “bigot” Jacob Rees-Mogg to be banned from g...

 

Well rees-mogg is a bigot. As such he should be heard and shown up for the bigot he is. Let him speak I say.

 

It is the lefties who are classic bigots by their intolerance of views which they do not agree. Rees Mogg has strong views on certain subjects but he has not denied others expressing alternatives views which he disagrees with. They should challenge him with a reasoned argument, are they not confident with their ability or knowledge?

 

I would put it down to that particular left wing group not being bigoted but rather, mistakenly, having no interest in arguing against or giving a platform to a dinosaur whose fundamentalist religious views and intolerance to women's rights (at least over their own bodies) in the C21 are quite repugnant. He should be heard and his views dismembered one by one. I have no time for development-platforming, especially in our Universities.

 

There is a growing number of Momentum lead left wing groups up and down the country refusing to give a platform to speakers they may not agree with. This is classic behaviour of bigots.

BIGOT a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own.

Again I will say he may disagree with certain ideas but is tolerant to those that chose a different view. This honesty is in complete contrast to the cowardly Lib Dem leader Farron who lied to promote his ailing career only to show his true feelings once rejected by the electorate.

 

The bigoted Momentum bully boys are well organised it seems.


More than nine in 10 UK universities restrict free speech on campus ...

 

And of course the biggest bigots of all are those like rees mogg.... he is only tolerant because he doesn't have the power to be intolerant which is a requirement of any fundamentally religious person which he is. He is nowhere near as honest as he makes himself out to be. In fact as Farron resigned because he realised that he would have to compromise on his religious beliefs to be a successful modern day politician - refused to be scripturally ignorant - makes him a damned sight more honest and brave, if no less of a bigot and idiot himself. The religious right are a danger to every civilised society and no society dominated by them is tolerant of anything other than the conformity and greater ignorance of the people under their law... be the christian, muslim or whatever.

 

1) I think that does make you one SH? And before you come back with your left-wing riposte, I actually am one of those wishy-washy ( your words about me) who believe in tolerance.......

2) Why do you always use use emotive and deprecating terms almost every time you mention a politician of a different persuasion? Just a query ...as such behaviour is of course bound to cause a response in those who support such people....

 

Farron told lies for several months for electoral gains, when he realised the public rejected his leadership and party he allowed his morals to resurface so he resigned. His action was cowardly and dishonest. Not quite as bad as the previous one, Hulme that ended up in jail for perverting the course of justice.

 

Your tolerance is extremely selective wishy.

 

Momentum and the far left have not labelled Winston Churchill a 'racist' Your censorship idea is catching on Cologne.


Winston Churchill-inspired 'Blighty cafe' is stormed by group of Left-wing protesters who brand Britain's wartime saviour a 'racist'

 

'Censorship' has a bad name, but every country in the World practises it - not just those on the far left or far right. Our 'news' is monitored daily, and every political system controls what is on offer in terms of eg. sexual explicitness, violence on TV. material which is considered as incitement to violence or is of an overtly racial nature. Just as slander and libel are also controlled. The British establishment 'controls' every bit as much as eg. Putin, it is just less obvious. You can express any political ideas you like - what I am concerned with is the way you express them. As for regarding Churchill as a racist - this is judging historical characters by modern criteria. Of course he was a racist (by modern standards), most people were in his day and age - and his politics in relation to Ireland and India were brutal in this respect. But, on the left, many of us need to be reminded how racist Marx and Engels were (particularly the latter).

 

It should further be added that Churchill was an imperialist, who was fully in favour of Britain suppressing other countries outside of Europe in the same way as the Nazis were trying to do in Europe.

 

A massive stretch of the imagination comparing Churchill's suppression to the efficient industrial murder of millions by the Germans.

 

I think you need to read up on the atrocities committed in the British empire - in Malaysia, India, Palestine, Aden etc. and not suffer from the collective amnaesia which many British have regarding this.

 

None of this can be compared to the slaughter by the Germans. The only thing that comes close is the communists purges in Russia and China.

 

This is getting us nowhere SH. It is like saying that A is better than B because A murdered fewer people. You will find that concentration camps were a British invention - look at Kenya, Malaysia or the Boer War. You will find that induced starvation was used as a weapon against whole groups of people - there were as many people died in the Bengal famine as under Maoist purges - and Churchill not only refused all help, but put pressure on the Americans and Canadians to not help either - together with forbidding the Indians free use of their own shipping to alleviate the problem - thus around 3 million dead can be laid at Churchill's door. This being only one case. In the concentration camps torture, murder and enforced starvation were the rule of the day. Churchill appears also to have been impatient at the squeamishness of some other politicians of the day because they had moral concerns about using chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. The list of atrocities of the British empire is long SH. and covers a large span of years - they are not confined to the one regime as in Germany. Unlike with Germany Britain's human rights violations were also commited in far remote corners of the Earth where documentation was not as complete as in Europe. Britain's crimes also go on beyond 1945 - look at where Harry Roberts (the one we used to sing about) developed his taste for murder - Malaysia.

 

Is choice of what you say and do not say the same as censorship?