Is the UK no longer free? 

The treatment of Tommy Robinson, coupled with the contrived outrage over Boris Johnson’s ‘burka’ remarks this week, do beg the question: is Tucker Carlson right to question whether, in fact, the UK really is a free land?   And why are the Catholic bishops not asking the same question? 

Comments invited…   

50 responses

  1. Well, since I would not have seen Tommy Robinson allowed to speak on any UK news programme, but had to wait for this American programme to hear his side of the story, I would say that the UK is anything but a free country.

    We are only allowed to think and say certain things, so that’s a funny kind of “freedom”.

    As for the burka – the polls are showing that the majority of the public agree with Boris, LOL! So, their shock horrified reports have backfired on them.

  2. That is a very emotional interview with Tommy Robinson, and no wonder he’s not being interviewed on MSM here where we have the best police and court system in the world, if you believe the sales talk.

    Poor man. He was put through the mill for no good reason, while we have the liberal elite trying to prevent two known terrorists being sent to the USA in case they receive the death sentence.

    No, we’re definitely not a free country in the true sense of the word. Just because we don’t have MI6 agents following us around doesn’t mean we’re free. We definitely are not.

    • MM

      Yes, a very emotional – and fact-packed – interview with Tommy Robinson… all the way from the U.S.A. I’ve yet to see him interviewed on any mainstream news programme here.

      The interview brought back to my mind the defence of Tommy’s imprisonment posted by one of our recent trolls – do you remember? He (troll) insisted that Tommy had put the trial at risk by his comments outside court, hence he was legitimately imprisoned; so, now, not only has Tommy’s explanation given the lie to that false claim, but so has the Judge.

      Trolls really are tiring. I know that trolls have souls, as we acknowledge in our House Rules, and we do have a duty to try to help them, but, WOW! Are they nearly always plain wrong about almost everything. And they DO waste so much of our time, but I won’t say any more on that subject, right now…

  3. Hilarious to think this is a free country! The BBC for starters are no longer remotely objective in their reporting and they have an obvious agenda. As for poor old Tommy Robinson: he’s been portrayed as a racist and a white supremacist (both obnoxious states) when he is anything but. I love when he calls out the media with their “these young girls are being groomed by Asian men”; he says, “Asian men” what? Asians can be Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc but these are Pakistani muslims! Ah yes, we mustn’t offend them, must we?!!

    • Olaf,

      What an interesting point you make about using “Asian” as a cover for meaning Pakistani Muslims. I didn’t think of that. Everyone is so scared to speak up about this. Tommy Robinson is very brave.

      When I saw him leaving prison on the news, I was struck, right away, by how much thinner he looked, so it was interesting to hear him say he had lost a stack of weight in prison due to his mistreatment. It’s really scandalous.

      • Laura,

        He’s lost 40 lbs. Incredible. He has been heavily punished for daring to speak out against the (laughably named) liberal establishment.

        It will be interesting, in a few years time, to see how the mass/open door immigration policies turn out and to watch some of Tommy’s YouTube conversations to see if any of his forecasts have come true. Assuming, of course, that the planet is still here, that the plastic bags didn’t win the day, after all 😀

    • Olaf,

      The labelling of anyone who dares to say a word of concern about immigration control, Islam and certain other politically correct issues is a very cunning device to bully us all into silence. Add to the fear of being thus labelled, the fear of being accused of a ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’ and it’s fairly obvious that, whatever else one might say about the nation states of the UK, ‘being free countries, or as united free land’ isn’t one of them.

    • Olaf

      Tommy Robinson purposely did not give any British MSM interviews because he knew how biased they all are. I don’t know of one that would be unbiased?
      Listen when his friend was interviewed by Nicky Cambell and judge if you think he would be treated fairly by the BBC after all he has been through!

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06gcr1n

      • John,

        I totally agree – none of the mainstream news channels would give Tommy a fair hearing. They want to keep the public ignorant of the truth. When I saw the YouTube video somebody posted on this blog, where he was speaking on a one-to-one with an interviewer in a privately made video, he came across as a very conscientious, ordinary person, concerned for his family’s future in a country where the open door immigration policy means that the culture in England (and the rest of the UK) would be completely changed. I can’t see what is unreasonable or “bigoted” about that. I really can’t.

        But the establishment don’t want people thinking about immigration in that long-term way, just keep saying “they contribute to the economy” and “the NHS couldn’t operate without immigrants” etc. to keep us focused on short term supposed advantages. They forget that the more intelligent members of the population will be asking why we’re not training enough doctors and nurses here, rather than having to bring them from overseas.

        Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t got any objection to bringing staff from overseas, but I do think it’s a fair enough question to ask, as Tommy asks, if changing our culture so that it looks more like a foreign culture, is necessarily a good thing. Saying that, I LOVE Chinese takeaway, LOL!

        • Josephine

          “Tommy” is not the nice guy you seem to think he is. Do a bit of research on him to find out what he is really like.

          As for not enough doctors and nurses being trained here, the answer is that there are not enough people. Abortion slashes the population you know, it is not only about religious beliefs.

          • Frankier,

            Why don’t you specify – give at least one example – of what you are saying. What is it that Tommy has actually DONE that makes him “not the nice guy”?

            As far as I can see, he is guilty of politically incorrect opinions on the effects of mass immigration of Muslims into the UK.

            Does that make him “not a nice guy”. If so, I’m not a very nice girl!

            One last thing; the people around him, certainly don’t seem to be too nice, and maybe he should discourage them from – at least – being within camera shot. On the other hand, when all the “respectable” folk want to stay OUT of camera shot, “don’t want to get involved” in the debate, I expect he is glad to have support from wherever it comes.

            All I can say is, whenever I’ve listened to what he has to say, and I’ve seen him in a couple of one-to-one interviews, I’ve not heard him say a single word with which I disagree.

            • Editor

              Check Tommy Robertson v Celtic fans in Sunderland on 29 July
              2017, where he invited Celtic fans to a fight and then had a van load of fascists come with baseball bats and put one supporter in hospital.

              The nice guy Tommy, if given the choice, would rather that the
              Irish/Catholics, especially in Scotland where he is extremely popular in certain areas, were booted out of the country in favour of allowing Muslims to stay.

              If you ever need to learn the words of the Famine Song (the famine`s over, why don`t you go home), the lovable Tommy is your man.

              Quite frankly, Ed, I had to check a couple of times to confirm if
              this person was being lauded on CT`s website, especially since it wasn`t the first of April.

              • Frankier,

                I checked out the 29 July Celtic, Sunderland etc and it looks to me like the Celtic fans had already been “hating on” Tommy. I couldn’t really understand the link between Celtic and Hamas etc, so the video wasn’t very clear and even reading it, I’m not 100% sure I understand what he was getting at, but I found the video of the Celtic fans disrupting his book signing the next day and that wasn’t impressive at all. I hope you don’t know my family because they’re all red hot Celtic supporters and I’d be in trouble if they ever read this, LOL!

                I understand Tommy to be a right wing Englishman who wants English culture for his children in the future, so he may be anti-Irish as well as anti-Muslim but I don’t think that’s the point. It’s about whether or not he should be jailed and put in solitary confinement for his views, even if they are obnoxious.

                Do you think he should have been put in jail and treated the way he was for his opinions? I’m asking that because of what you said about this blog “lauding” him – I didn’t think of it that way, just that nobody should be flung in jail and put in solitary confinement, spat upon etc all because of their opinions. I’d like to know what you think about him being jailed.

              • Frankier

                I’d love to view the videos you mention, but alas I can’t, as “this information is deemed too offensive” for me to view. Which is rather the point of this thread.

                I’d like you to prove your assertion that he would rather “Irish/Catholics…..were booted out of the country in favour of allowing Muslims to stay”. I really would like you to point me in that direction please, Frankier. Quite honestly, I doubt that, but I am open to correction, and would be happy to be proven wrong. I await the evidence.

    • Olaf

      The BBC for starters are no longer remotely objective in their reporting and they have an obvious agenda

      Great comment. And their agenda manifesting in various ways, including their staffing. A recent example was when the BBC Radio 1 Breakfast Show presenter – (homosexual) Nick Grimshaw – moved to another role.

      Over his 6 years on the flagship show aimed at young listeners, its numbers of listeners kept falling and ultimately his tenure resulted in the worst ratings in the entire history of the show.

      For any normal organisation, this would have been a major blow and such an unpopular presenter would have been hooked much earlier, to limit the damage his lack of popularity was doing.

      But the BBC priority was not producing a quality, popular show for their license payers, it was using the show as a platform to have a homosexual person in a prominent public role (especially given the target audience is youth).

      This was broadcast loud and clear, when – after one particular savage drop in ratings, the BBC One controller issued a statement defending Grimshaw and the collapsing ratings which actually said “This is what we want him to do”.

      That’s right, the BBC defended keeping him in post on the grounds that significantly reducing the shows popularity and losing market share was what they wanted from him. What contempt they have for the intellect of the public.

      Such an idiotic and orwellian statement shows the BBC up exactly for what it is – a highly partisan organisation which very much has its own agenda to push.

      The sooner the license fee is abolished the better. It will be very satisfying to see these over-paid nobodys fleeing their defunct ivory tower.

      • Gabriel Syme,

        With apologies for the lateness of this post’s publication – it had gone into SPAM and, yesterday being an exceptionally busy day, I’ve only just found it.

        Excellent comment, illuminative – for which, well worth waiting!

      • Gabriel Syme,

        Kind of reminds me of Pope Francis’ Angelus addresses, which are now so sparsely attended that the media have to use certain camera shots to make it look like there’s the usual crowd.

        • RCA Victor,

          Yes – I have seen the type of “close ups” the media use to try to hide the fact that Francis’ regular audiences are not drawing many people beyond Francis himself, the usual invited protestant groups, a few pigeons and the Italian Carabinieri who police St Peters Square.

          Apparently one of the Pigeons had a few interesting reflections on the Gospel recently – certainly it was head and shoulders above anything Francis might vomit up.

          Speaking of Francis, this caught my eye yesterday:

          • Gabriel Syme,

            Well, the trouble with that “long suffering good priest” is that while everybody over there in the Vatican might know that about Francis, everybody out here in the real world, doesn’t, and they think he’s the humble, saintly, cares for the poor, pope as portrayed in the film, “I Am Francis!”

            I wish those in position of influence, who would catch the attention of the mainstream media, albeit for all the wrong reasons, would take their courage in both hands and call a spade a spade or, in this case, the pope an atheist.

            What is WRONG with these people?

            • I would go one step further: not only does Francis not believe in God, he thinks he himself is god. As in, “the god of surprises.”

  4. It is worse in my country and probably all over Europe and, in my opinion, it is not going to get any better, because the more or less left-wing powers feel more and more threatened…

    • RCA Victor,

      That link makes chilling reading. I highlighted this nugget:

      The Edward Snowden revelations were initially jointly published by The Guardian and the Washington Post. The contrast between what happened to the two papers couldn’t be more stark. In the US, the Washington Post was honored with a Pulitzer (shared with The Guardian’s US team). In the UK, The Guardian was visited by government spies and forced to destroy its own hard drives. Downing Street also explicitly threatened to have the paper closed down.”

      “Chilling” is the word.

    • RCA Victor,

      I did Google, as you suggest, and got lots of returns. I think this one is very important, as it comes from a Chief Constable
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/peter-fahy-police-state-warning

      It’s interesting, his use of the term “thought police” because it’s a fact that the police are prioritising so called “hate crime” over other crimes such as burglaries so the “creeping” police state is with us already, thanks to the political correctness which seems to be here to stay now.

    • Yes, I think we are definitely a creeping police state. Lots of stuff is in place, the surveillance, cameras everywhere and the covering up of Tommy Robinson’s prison experience.

      Poor Tommy – my heart did go out to him watching the Tucker Carlson interview. The authorities should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. He has been treated abysmally.

    • Helen,

      Here’s the definition on the Citizens Advice website:

      “The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

      They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:

      disability
      race
      religion
      transgender identity
      sexual orientation.

      This means that if you believe something is a hate incident it should be recorded as such by the person you are reporting it to. All police forces record hate incidents based on these five personal characteristics.”
      https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/

      So, as long as someone THINKS they’re “hated” or “FEELS”/”BELIEVES” it, they can report it as a hate crime.

      It sounds very dodgy to me – makes me nervous. In fact, a few weeks ago, at the height of the heatwave we’ve been getting, I was in a shop in town and the girl serving me was wearing the Muslim headscarf. She was very friendly, which I find unusual, as I usually find the Muslims don’t want to strike up conversations but she was different, so that gave me the courage to ask if she didn’t find it very hot having to wear the scarf in this weather. She was fine, just said you get used to it, and I said, yes, I suppose you would and headed for the door. I then turned back and went back to the counter and said I hope I hadn’t caused offence by asking that, it wasn’t my intention, I was just curious. She said no, she hadn’t taken offence, no problem.

      It’s that ‘walking on eggshells’ feeling that I think a lot of us experience because of this business of if YOU think you’re being targeted with a comment or a look or whatever because of your religion etc, that makes it very difficult to socially interact with those who are different religions. Personally, I think it’s very dangerous legislation, the hate crime law.

    • Helen,

      There was an article in the Catholic Truth newsletter, a few issues ago, which unmasked “hate crime” as thought crime, since it punishes certain thoughts allegedly behind a criminal action. It started, I believe, relating to the black civil rights movement in the US, but soon was extended to “protect” the demonic LGBT crowd from those who refused to accept their perversion and instead affirmed traditional morality.

      “Hate,” in fact, has become the favorite smear of those planning the globalist tyranny.

      The article also reminded readers that thought crime is a primary characteristic of a police state. You’d have to open the Archive zip file to find it, but perhaps Editor, always at your service, can direct you to the proper issue.

  5. We here in Australia have, in certain areas, huge problems with gangs. These do not originate in Pakistan but in Africa…the Sudan to be precise. Australia has taken quite large numbers of refugees in and it so happens that most of them have headed for two cities in particular. Sydney and Melbourne. Two days ago the police in Melbourne were called to a gang of over 100 young blacks who were terrorising one particular area. They were throwing stones, smashing bottles, smashing parked cars, threatening the locals while the police did nothing but tell the residents to go indoors and lock their doors. They attacked the police, called them “white trash” and laughed at them saying that the police could do nothing (which is true!) while they smashed a police-car. Finally the police called in the dog-squad and the riot squad. No arrests were made and the police defended this by saying that their job was to ensure the safety of the residents and the dispersal of the mob! Nobody is being taken to Court over this. Is it any wonder that the police are now despised by many Melbournians?
    And you are not allowed to call them “Sudanese Gangs”. Most of the young ones were born here so they cannot be deported. They are Australians! Their parents have no control over them…and neither, it seems, does anyone else!

  6. John Rayer, that is indeed a frightening story! I’m sure glad we live in the north of Scotland where peace still reigns and the only “refugees” are in the Takeaways and they seem to be good and peaceful people. Before long the populace of big cities will be forced out into the isles and wilderness! God help us all.

    There must be a reason why it is so worldwide that these “refugee” gangs go unpunished?

  7. We can see how “free” the UK is in the furore over Boris Johnson’s remarks about women wearing the burka. He’s not even calling for it to be banned, merely describing it in language that is “unacceptable” to the politically correct.

    At the same time as the opinion formers are agreeing that Boris has the right to his opinion blah blah, pity about his language, they are calling for him to be sacked from the Conservative Party. All very “free speech”, I don’t think! Here’s an interview on a radio, phone-in, the Julia Hartley-Brewer show. She seems to be alone in showing common sense, and I’m not sure if that’s her playing Devil’s Advocate! At one time in the UK, committing an illegal act, actually DOING something was what got us into trouble with the law; now we only have to SAY something deemed “inappropriate” or “offensive” and we’re in danger of earning ourselves a criminal record. Or in Boris’s case, sacked.

    • The caller says that to have (limited apparently) free speech, “we have to be responsible”. Yet I doubt this caller would have any problem with irresponsible major media spinning their stories into fabrication when denouncing policies that he and the media disagree with.

  8. Hilarious! They DO look like letterboxes so what’s the problem? Oh they should get a life! What utter nonsense. Julia sounds perfectly sensible and that bloke talking is a misogynist. Indeed, HE wouldn’t wear one, would he?!!!!

  9. Here she is again, a shorter piece this time, but interviewing a very sensible Muslim man who is opposed to the covering up of faces in public – worth watching. Particularly interesting to listen to him, agreeing with similes (letter boxes, bank robbers) and saying if these women want anonymity they should stay at home! WOW!

    • RCA Victor,

      Yes, that is precisely the sort of thing that is now the norm here: “watch your language” used to mean “don’t swear, no profanities” but now it means say nothing that is likely to annoy certain minority groups – or take the consequences.

  10. Some excellent questions posed by Paul Weston to the Home Secretary ( which will never be answered )
    Questions that would have been asked by the MSM maybe forty years ago? Not anymore.

  11. IMPORTANT NOTICE…

    A couple of times in the recent past, bloggers have enquired about The Case of the Missing Athanasius, since it’s quite some time since he put in an appearance here.

    In an effort to prevent a conversation developing on the subject, since, generally speaking, I try not to put pressure on bloggers, many of whom have family and work commitments which mean they can only blog “as and when”, I suggested that enquirers should email me privately, adding that Athanasius’s reason for not blogging at the present time “doesn’t put him in a good light, far from it” .

    It has been drawn to my attention that this might lead readers to speculate that Athanasius is guilty of some dark crime, or at least held under police caution pending an identity parade 😀

    Not at all. It’s much more mundane, I’m afraid – partly a simple misunderstanding between Athanasius and myself, very easily explained…

    And partly for personal reasons which have nothing to do with the blog, so he’s currently AWL (Absent With Leave) for the foreseeable future.

    I hope that clarifies the position.

    Athanasius is, however, a chocoholic so I’m going to remind him of what awaits him if only he decides to cut short that leave!

    Drum roll…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: