Labour’s bullying wins again – that’s the lesson according to the gospel of BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show. Welcome to the modern culture of hypocrisy, browbeating and cowardice. It was there for all to see on Sunday morning.

Following a week that saw the Conservative Free School campaigner Toby Young bullied into apologising and out of a job, and Tory MP Ben Bradley hounded over his historic tweets, selectively quoted and bullied into apologising, viewers watched in amazement as Labour deputy leader John McDonnell was let off the hook by Andrew Marr over his vile attack on Esther McVey, the recently appointed Work and Pensions Secretary.

Mr McDonnell was recorded in 2014 repeating calls by activists for Ms McVey to be ‘lynched’. Yesterday he insisted he had not been quoting the comments approvingly, and refused an offer by Marr to play the tape. ‘You don’t need to, I know exactly what was on it,’ he said.

You might well retort that it is a waste of the licence fee-payer’s money for the BBC to be stirring up this ‘offence’ agenda at all. But only if everyone were playing ‘even-stevens’ would you have a point. And that is not the clearly not the case. It is the Left, not the Right, that has so successfully ‘weaponised’ offence in the pursuit of its own bullying, anti-free speech, anti-democratic political agenda.

The aggressively driven modern Marxist Labour Party is succeeding in browbeating not just the Tories with its game of shame, but the BBC’s craven interviewers too.

Marr’s servility in face of the passive-aggressive Mr McDonnell astounded commentators, including Liam Halligan and Dan Hodges.

‘Why is Marr giving McDonnell the option of choosing what audio he does and doesn’t play on his program?’ Hodges tweeted, soon to be followed by another bemused comment: ‘Marr asks McDonnell if he wants him to play audio or video of his attack on McVey. McDonnell says he doesn’t. So Marr doesn’t. Unbelievable’.

It was weird, Liam Halligan tweeted back.

But no, it was not. It was to be expected. It was a product of fear, as Hodges himself then went on to tweet: ‘I don’t think decision to cede editorial control was product of bias, but a product of fear. I’ve noticed, and commented on, this before. For some reason Marr producers especially sensitive to social media backlash from Corbynites.’

This is the crux of the matter. The entire culture of Labour in its modern Marxist form is characterised by bullying and hypocrisy. The Left, as US commentator Ben Shapiro pointed out a while back, no longer put forward arguments about the effectiveness of policies. Their only argument is character assassination, from which they seemingly have made themselves immune.

Well, it’s time to take a leaf out of bully-boy McDonnell’s book. Stop apologising. Face the Left down. Granted, not everybody is Jordan Peterson, and it helps if you are a genuine conservative. But for every right-minded conservative it does not need a degree in psychology to know this basic truth: stand up to the bully and he crumbles. And that people who are bullied also bully.

Here, as in the US, the Leftists took over all the major institutions as the rest of us capitulated. Now these institutions in turn, including the Labour Party itself, are being taken over by a much harder, more Stalinist and brutal Left than anyone could have conceived. The BBC is first in line to surrender, as Marr’s obsequious interviewing makes clear. He should look forward to how the BBC will function under a Corbyn government. He might find himself replaced by Paul Mason.

That is why it is so important that the Toby Youngs, Ben Bradleys et al of this world stop apologising now. Apologise and you are done for. It does not save you. Look at poor Professor Tim Hunt. Every apology is not just a surrender to silencing, but the surrender of democracy to totalitarianism.

The time for apologising is over. It’s time instead to walk towards the fire. If you are in doubt about what I mean I can only refer you to Ben Shapiro’s 11 rules for winning the argument, How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them.

It’s the only way – and don’t rely on the BBC to help.


  1. DJT never apologises, and that is what gets fat women furiously marching, which is him trying to improve their lives.
    Doesn’t this show that he really cares for women?

  2. Since the BBC and all of its presenters, I use that word cynically, are Momentum “useful idiots”, why would you expect other?

  3. While avoiding any racial hatred and calls to violence, which are unacceptable, the rule should be to never apologize. If called to do so by the left (which includes most of the Conservative Party), an even stronger statement should be made. Always avoid following the left/liberal categories of value
    and language. If we accept them we have already lost.

  4. Come on Kathy! Spineless Cameron had every chance to junk the BBC and its parasitic unique way of funding, but he was far too corrupt and cynical to do that and allowed them another few years to carry on business as usual.

    If the right are too craven even to fight the dragon then they cannot slay it, and this is the price of that cowardice.

    • He gave the BBC another lease of life because he thought this mouthpiece of left liberalism would be an ally against Brexit.

      He was right.

      • Yes I have mooted that point before, although that would mean Cameron would not only have been corrupt but terminally stupid as well as the BBC would always have backed remain regardless of the licence fee position.

      • And since the BBC had its Charter renewed they have shewn their gratitude and turned even further to the left.

    • Maybe Cameron was corrupt and cynical, but he was never on the right. The problem is that, apart from around a dozen MPs, the Conservative Party stands for liberal values. With UKIP’s impending collapse, we must have a real conservative movement in Britain.

      • I didn’t actually say Cameron was on the right, it’s a separate paragraph and refers to people like Toby Young who failed to stand up to the left.

      • Cameron was a very slippery, devious customer who was not as clever as he thought he was.

        He has a fine contempt for the ordinary Brit, like so many of his background.

        We are not exactly untouchables in their eyes, but certainly lower caste; there to be ruled by our betters, ie himself.

    • He gave the BBC 13 more years of licence fee not just a few. He also allowed the BBC to be regulated by an Ofcom board loaded with ex-BBC staffers.

      The BBC has zero effective accountability to licence fee payers and, as you quite rightly say, the fault lies entirely with the Tories’ cowardice and complacency.

  5. The capitulation of the institutions to leftist bullying is all of a piece to their capitulation to Islam, the ally of the left in its assault on Western Civilisation,

    Behind every failure to criticise this religion there is the fear of violence.

  6. And the worst offender is Saint Theresa. She’s a bigger disaster for the Tories than Ed was for Labour.

    She must have some inner compulsion to back down in the face of opposition and not give offence.

    “Brexit means Brexit.”

    Sure. She has been steamrollered by the EU at every turn and before long we will be paying for access to to the Customs Union etc.

    • May has actually revealed she is wholly unsuitable to negotiate Brexit by saying that if there were another referendum she would vote remain.

      Labour are now ahead in the polls and to be honest with this hopeless mish mash of greed merchants it will be a good thing if they are forced back into opposition. A wealth tax is what Corbyn needs to introduce. I want to see some real punishment of the craven Tories who placed May at the head of the party because she was a ‘safe pair of hands’. With the election of Cameron as party leader they allowed the party to move into Nu Labour territory and they need to pay a price for that.

      The last time we were in this situation with a hopeless Tory leader doing ridiculous things was Major trying to take the UK into the Euro, and Maastricht which nearly broke his party and consigned them to three terms in opposition. If at the time Major had lost we would have been spared the mess he made, and it would probably been no different with Kinnock. The big difference is though that when Kinnock did lose there would have been a Tory party to take over and Blair would not have happened.

      It’s not always a good thing that the Tories win sometimes they are so appallingly bad that the alternative is better, and this is one of those times.

      • Corbyn a better alternative to the Tories? You must be joking. If he gets into No.10 there will probably never be another alternative ever again. The comrades behind him are playing for revolutionary keeps. The whole country will go down the pan, not just “rich Tories”. It would be like sticking a dagger into your heart to get rid of the pain of toothache.

        • Quite so – Seeing the memos and whatnot in the recent Women Only Shortlists kerfuffle, Labour communications are now addressed to “Comrades”. They’re not even attempting to hide their intent anymore.

  7. They have seen that the fear lock still works from their theological brothers in arms in Islam and have taken the well worn route of doing the same in true leftist totalitarian fashion.

  8. Yes yes. It is a constant frustration how conservatives tumble, heedlessly it seems, into the traps Ms. Newman parodied in her interview “technique”. I desperately want May to keep it together because having set off on Brexit there is disaster looming in a disunited Britain. However time after time she looks hapless. Successfully turning attention away from the serious and “bloody” battles in Labour to knee touching in her own Party by repeating the idea there is a “big problem” for instance. Remember Peterson is a social liberal, his stance is based on what works and the scientific method. Another model might also be “the Mogg” who politely states his position and remains firm.
    I can’t say I know much of Toby Young but the obvious line would be that the tweets were in the past and not his view now, and stick to it.
    Conservatives need to forget Cameron et al and face up to their democratic responsibility to face a political enemy far more honed in dirty tricks and far less concerned about a party democracy (which they regard as a distraction). It really is like watching a village Cricket team facing a Rugby League team. Don’t forget the “new” labour isn’t much bothered if it hounds one of its own to death, if its politically expedient.

    • I agree completely that currently unless they grow a pair the Tories are finished and as they go down so will the rest of us.
      We need a viable way to counter the “Sturm Abteilung” of the now very illiberal left and to do it to protect the many and not the few.

    • I fully agree. The Tories need to go on the offensive and deploy some attack dogs to focus on Labour scandal and sleaze. They also need to go after bias in the BBC. Sitting on the QT panels looking perplexed at the BBC sponsored hate fests and trying to use reason is not working. There is an orchestrated onslaught against May’s government using every trick in the book and they need to start fighting back.

      Corbyn is like Hitler, distancing himself from the thuggery of his supporters, playing the reasonable politician in public and creating a demon of the Tories to distract from his own unsavoury past and beliefs.

    • Unfortunately, May wants herself and her party to be ‘likeable’ which she seems to think can be achieved by being ‘nice’ and accommodating – folding to criticism or challenge. Too few seem to realise that you can be firm, stand your ground and argue from reason whilst still being well-mannered and unbelligerant. The two chaps you mention, Jordan Peterson and Jacob Rees-Mogg are both exemplary in this – they simply don’t give their opponents any purchase.

      It does, however, take intelligence, thorough knowledge (something which always confounds the radical Left) and a sharp mind to swerve the pitfalls. This requires effort, so doesn’t appeal to many!

    • Regardless of your assertion that the Conservatives need to forget about Cameron, call me Dave has a lot to answer for.
      Every leader, every businessman, virtually everyone in a position of power tends to use the motto ‘hope for the best, prepare for the worst.’ Cameron was so sure that remain would win the EU referendum vote that he didn’t even prepare for a contingency should they lose. This put extra pressure on his party when the worst, for them at any rate, did come to pass and they had to, in effect, start the process of leaving from scratch rather than from a position which they’d prepared.
      Cameron has done more harm to his party than anyone else in the last 7 years.

    • It’s also a bit rich to denounce someone for bullying Esther McVey. She’s vile and her policies hurt real, live actual people with no comeback.

      • Well she isn’t “vile” is she? She has a political view that wishes to limit welfare spending to those that absolutely need it, and minimise that. If people don’t *want* to be impacted by those political goals, then they can always support themselves.

          • If you rely on the charity of the state, you are the state’s plaything. I’m sure she is no more “vile” than anyone else in government. Have you heard of the principle of collective responsibility?

            BTW, if you’re looking for someone vile, try your racist homophobe murderer Che Guevara.Or is that different?

          • And no. She’s not vile, she just has a different political outlook from you. You should be celebrating diversity of opinion, not slagging it off.

        • Timeless knowledge as stated by Ben Franklin:

          “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

          ― Benjamin Franklin

      • Don’t you mean her party’s policies? She may support them but she doesn’t draw them up. You may not like her or her party’s policies but you debate them and effect change that way, you don’t talk about lynching her. Maybe that’s acceptable to you but not to me.

      • She’s worth a thousand Harriet Harmans ( or any other Labour spokeswoman). You are vile to say that, in my opinion.

          • That’s your opinion. So because somebody’s opinion differs from yours, instead of coming up with a reasoned and effective counter argument you go into bullying and vilifying mode. Typical Marxist-Liberal-feminist leftie.

          • Harriet Harman was high up in the National Council for Civil Liberties when it allowed the Paedophile Information Exchange to become associated with it. One other Labour MP who was a member of the NCCL in those days has since apologised. Harriet Harman has refused to apologise and gets very angry when anyone raises the subject.

          • She was a legal officer for the Council so she should have known what this PIE outfit was about. I mean, even the name is a give away.

            If she claims that she didn’t know , I for one do not believe her.

      • There is nothing wrong in principle with limiting welfare payments to those who really need them. Last week it was reported that one of the SAS team that had stormed the Iranian Embassy in London to free hostages many years ago was now homeless. In contrast one of the terrorists involved in that siege who was later allowed to stay in this country because it was thought that it would be dangerous to send him back to Iran has been given accommodation.

        • Oh, and incidentally, before I’m traduced as a hopeless leftie:

          Welfare assessments were introduced under Labour, for whom I have not voted since as I am disgusted with them for doing so. My ex-wife had a serious mental illness and was taken to her incapacity assessment by her mother. At the assessment, she cried throughout, was unable to make eye contact and was clearly distressed and yet, as she was able to answer the questions, was assessed as being fit for work. Having received the letter, she went out, bought enough paracetomol to float a battleship from various pharmacies and tried to take an overdose.

          • I am sorry to hear about your ex-wife’s problems. Obviously the rules for benefits are sometimes applied in a purely mechanical manner where the interviewer ticks boxes like someone at the other end of a telephone helpline when you have a computer problem who, instead of listening to you, just reads a script starting with “try rebooting your computer.”

            There needs to be some room for the application of common sense. That applies not just when it comes to benefits but also asylum claims and the giving of British citizenship in general.

  9. Jeremy Corbyn faces race row for making white people pay more than ethnic minorities to hear a speech

    Most people here realise that Labour Hates white people with a passion, but does anyone seriously think Corbyn and the Sturmabteilung are going to apologise?

    Does anyone here think that Blue Labour are any different? They have been pushing positive discrimination a policy whose very definition was once described by them when they were conservatives as ‘racist’.

    And as you might expect there’s not a mention on the BBC about this.

    • The Tories need to go after the BBC big time. They have nothing to lose because the BBC will never be kind to them anyway. But they are in government and their minister responbsible needs to use his power and put the wind up that “Corporation”.

      • The Tories are solely interested in the acquisition of money and the holding onto it. If they move to put the BBC on a subscription basis who will pay for the deficit in the pension fund? They got caught on the privatisation of Royal Mail with that, and taking on another will reduce the chances of tax cuts.

  10. Like the RINOs in the US they constantly crave to be liked by the liberal elite and avoid any scenario where they may be criticised or in anyway lumped in with their natural base which they also consider deplorable.

  11. The left rely on their effectiveness to bully people into an apology. Often for stupid things such as the odd throwaway comment or a T-shirt or any micro-aggression they can find (or invent). Those on the right (or slightly over) always seem to crumble at the slightest bit of attention and immediately apologise. This does not satiate the left. While they sit in their pot-smoked rooms looking smug, they continue to find new ways of obliterating anyone on the right from politics so they can continue their own crazy narrative. Whether it be Tim Hunt or Toby Young, they are helping the left by reinforcing the idea that freedom of speech and expression only exists to push the agenda which societal norms currently support. They need to stop giving more ammunition to the left, stop apologising and pull the public into debate rather than allowing the left to shut it down in an instant.
    Does it matter that the BBC adhered to McDonnell’s whim and didn’t play the audio? Not really. The BBC has been pro-Labour ever since the supposed abused levied towards Diane Abbott last year. They don’t ask the pertinent questions of the party as much anymore and they don’t attack the incompetence of many of its PLP. Many people have their opinions of John McDonnell and these will be aired or written about in other forms of media. People generally know what they are going to get from the Beeb and yesterday’s instance wasn’t surprising at all. Rather than focusing on McDonnell, yesterday offered the general public another reason to have a go at the BBC for its bias.

    • I don’t know if you remember the interview he gave with Emmanuel Macron, when he was a finance minister. I think it was around the time of the EU referendum vote. Macron was insulting to this country, he openly laughed at our chances of doing anything in the world post-Brexit and Marr just sat there, listening with a smile on his face, allowing this man to denigrate us. Yes, I know, he was giving an interview and couldn’t exactly grab Macron by the lapels and headbutt him but he could have at least raised his own objections rather smiling with him.

  12. I have noticed Marr’s left bias for years – his interview of Gordon Brown years ago was ultra obsequious followed the next week by a very aggressive even nasty attitude to David Cameron.

    • His interview, at the end of last year, with Hilary Clinton was beyond obsequious. He was one step away from a cigarette.

  13. I hope Trump gives May some tips when they meet.
    He never apologises and he just gets stronger. The Dems are in meltdown and he’s heading for a second term.
    In business being nice doesn’t get you anywhere, that’s where DT came from
    TM is desperate not to be nasty but she is taking her cues from lefties who would never vote for her.
    I thought Gordon Brown was bad but she is worse.

    • Theresa May is a weak leader who compromises, appeases and capitulates. The Brexiters must take her in hand and insist on holding those red lines.

  14. The trouble with allowing people to be condemned out of their own mouths, is that they are most avidly listened to by those without ears.

  15. Not in the tiniest bit surprised at Aunties posture on this. Not in the failure of the Tories to hold a magnifying glass up to it to show the public just what a total and utter g*t MaoDonnell is.

    Sad, but true.

  16. I thought Marr was very poor yesterday. Surely the point of playing the tape was not to refresh McDonnell’s memory, but to allow the audience to make up their own minds. JM’s wishes were irrelevant. Equally, how can McDonnell know that the touted figure for his nationalisation programme is too high, but claim not to know how much it will cost?

    • As long as the government give the Beeb an inch, they will continue taking miles. When Whittingdale went after the BBC, they attacked him personally forcing him to turn tail and run. As long as we have public figures too frightened to take Auntie on, we (the paying public) will continue to receive the same poor service.

        • He was accused of having relations with a prostitute – so what? He’s a single man, he can do what he likes in his personal life. He had no skeletons of note but it was enough for the Beeb to get him to about turn which tells you what you need to know about Whittingdale’s character.

          • I didn’t say they’re less human. But the trade in flesh is horribly close to slavery. If someone passed a law to suggest that people who had sex with prostitutes had to do jail time, I’d support it.

          • There was a prostitute on Victoria Derbyshire last year arguing against the feminists who want to shut down the sex trade. If some women want to do it, then they should. How is it slavery when those who work in that trade want to do it?

          • Most prostitutes do it to feed an addiction or because they’re utterly desperate. Were I to be confronted with a man who had slept with a prostitute, I’d try and get out of his company as fast as possible.

          • Because I regard it as profoundly immoral and, as I said, very close to slavery. I wouldn’t want to spend time with someone who thought it was all fine.

          • Well, that’s your personal opinion but you can’t put your personal prejudices onto someone who actively enjoys and wants to work in that trade. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you should stop someone who does enjoy it doing it. I don’t deign to speak for all prostitutes and neither should you. Yes, I imagine some are slaves to the industry but some actively enjoy it. Live and let live, I say.

          • I think the numbers of people who do it because they want to are small, that such people are very damaged and that the misery of the trade outweighs any other factors.

          • We’ll never agree on this. Like I said, I don’t deign to speak for the profession and neither can you. Some people are slaves to it (customers included) and some do it because they want to.

          • Certainly they’re not as bad as young gold diggers who marry rich old men, or wives who divorce their husbands, make false allegations and alienate their children from him, or women engaging in consensual sex who subsequently accuse the man of rape, or women who simply falsely accuse.

            One can understand more men wanting to use prostitutes these days, except that men are now prosecuted for doing so, while the prostitutes are free to carry on their despicable trade preying on the weaknesses of some desperate men who don’t know any better.

          • So you think prostitution is immoral but you don’t think drugs are immoral even if the prostitute is doing so to feed a drug habit?
            If the drugs weren’t available would she have become a prostitute?

          • So you believe in the right of anybody to possibly do irreparable harm to their bodies to the enrichment of others but not to the right of anybody to use their bodies to the enrichment of themselves?

          • They’re using their bodies to service addictions. If drugs were legalised and taxed, you’d have addiction clinics so it wasn’t an excuse.

          • If prostitution was legalised, you would have health clinics and protection under the law against criminal elements.
            So it would seem you are okay with people being addicted to legal drugs so long as the costs are socialised to the rest of us?

          • If you’re addicted to legal drugs, the money would be going to a state company and the state would send you, under penalty of law, for treatment.

          • So you’re happy for people to sleep around to their hearts content, so long as they don’t profit from doing so?

          • How about if the state profited from prostitution by taxing them and forcing them to go to clinics under penalty of law. Would that be okay?

          • Kant would say prostitution and those who use prostitutes are immoral.

            Both in a most direct and physical way are using people as means, not ends in themselves.

            The same may be said of those who indulge in promiscuous sex.

          • So the prostitute has no agency?
            I like the way you see drug use as a completely victimless crime.
            You seem to discount the families and friends of these people who have to deal with the fallout of drug taking. You seem to discount the effect on the person and there ability to subsequently lead productive and fulfilling lives. You seem to discount the socialisation of the costs of that person needing treatment and support to live because of their drug taking.
            You only need to look at the damage legalised drugs such as alcohol and anti-depressants are doing to come to the conclusion that adding more ingredients into that lethal cocktail (legal or otherwise) is a recipe for disaster.

          • When a tall, beautiful young woman marries an ugly old rich man,
            that’s prostitution on a high level.
            Why punish the little ones on lower incomes ?

          • Here speaks a self styled “anarchist”.
            Or, self deluding, exhibitionistic, troll for anything anti conservative.
            There, I’ve done it again & responded to his garbage.
            I’ll punish myself by looking at the “Big issue pliss” EU import in the town centre for a full ten seconds, or, until I throw up.

        • Chaps. Could I point out that the word ‘prostitute’ is not used in socially conscious these days. ‘Horizontal sex worker’ is the correct term or ‘missionaries at prayer’ in the case of the washing machine salesman’s suppliers.

          • I believe the Inland Revenue describes them as ‘Solicitors’.

            So they do have a sense of humour after all.

            I am probably dense or have lived an uninteresting life, but the reference to washing machines escapes me.

      • I hope that eventually Theresa May will realise her political career is completely dead and take advantage of that fact (which means the BBC cannot hurt her) to set out legislation for the BBC to become a commercial operation.

        She probably won’t but I continue to pray for small miracles.

        • I don’t think it matters what government does or doesn’t do. The BBC relies on public money and a reduction in license fees would force it into change. Unfortunately, not enough people are cancelling or refusing to pay their license fee and so the juggernaut rumbles on. If half the population stopped paying their license fee tomorrow, the BBC would have to do something.

    • How about showing some his attendance and speeches at openly communist meetings and marches! Given where these policies historically end up is it okay to p*nch him?

  17. Andrew Marr believes in bullying – if it comes from the left. He is on record as saying,

    ‘I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good.’

    What are the flaws in this statement ? Discuss.

  18. They all follow the Alinsky model of politics, organising their community to shout down , bully and cheat their way into power. Destroy the opponent by any means necessary in order to get their hands on the funds of the tax payer.

  19. It is outrageous that McDonell was allowed to dictate the content of Marr’s show and even more outrageous that he was not pressured into making an apology. Many right wingers have been browbeaten into doing so for more innocuous comments than advocating the murder of a woman. Let’s face it had the lynching of a high profile lefty (Diane Abbott, for instance) been proposed, and laughed about, by a Kipper or Tory the SJWs would have collectively hounded them into apology and thence resignation. Another scalp for the liberal elite cause.
    In Vox Day’s excellent and highly amusing book, ‘SJWs Always Lie’, Day is very specific that if you should find yourself a victim of a lefty ‘point and shriek’ attack, you should never apologise. An apology will not appease the accusers but will be an admission of wrong doing and will of course allow them the right to demand resignation and thenceforward a lifetime of being roundly abused by every SJW on the planet. Careers, indeed lives, have been ruined by lefties taking remarks or incidents out of context and using them as ammo just to oust someone whose opinion they dislike. This happens not just within high profile positions but to many people in very ordinary jobs. An overheard joke or a flirtatious comment can be sufficient to have you out of work and lambasted as a racist/homophobe/misogynist…Etc. Such is the power of the liberal left ideology in our society that no one dares ignore the pointing finger of the SJW even when there is no case to answer, very little evidence to support it or the accusation is blatantly barmy.
    I don’t much care whether McDonell actually apologises or not, it is more the gross hypocrisy which angers me, the left will often happily ignore unsavoury opinions from it’s own whilst destroying anyone on the right for, often historical, remarks which do not accord with their daft ideas. I remember Diane Abbott’s defense of her own past iniquities when she excused herself by saying that like her hairstyle her opinions had changed. That apparently was a sufficient explanation for her youthful support of the IRA. Yet Toby Young can be hounded out of job for which he was eminently qualified just because he makes some lewd comments about women’s breasts (imagine that, a man who likes boobs, shock horror). Unless the right gets a backbone and starts to say ‘no’, we’re sticking by our own, just as the left does, the loony lefties will achieve their ultimate goal and hold every key position in the land and any pretense of free speech will be completely destroyed. So fellow right wingers let’s man up and fight them at their own game and remember, never ever apologise.

    • Unless, of course, you could lose your job. In which case, you keep quiet, apologise and then go back to keeping quiet.

      • Why should you keep quiet, why should anyone be terrified into not voicing an opinion simply because the liberal left gestapo might overhear you and use it as an excuse to oust you from your job? Freedom of speech is one of the most valuable human rights we should all feel at liberty to use regardless of whether Ms.Raving-lefty-feminist in HR approves of it or not.
        Besides which apologising will avail you nothing. If you happen to fall short of an SJWs exacting standards they have only to utter certain key words, ‘racist’ etc, within their accusation and a full disciplinary enquiry will ensue even if there is no evidence to back up the claim. Apologising can onlybmake it worse, it’s an admission of guilt. Employers know that if they do not give credence to certain accusations the SJW will instantly go to the press and express their outrage, headline news ‘Scumbucket & Son condone racist opinions, says employee.’ No business, big or small, wants that sort of negative publicity. Apologise or not, you’ve lost your job, why give them the satisfaction of saying sorry especially if you know you’ve done nothing wrong.

          • Even if you knew that the charge levelled against you was unjust and spurious, you’d apologise just to hang on to your job?
            That makes you a coward in my eyes.

          • There’s a line in a song that goes – “If you tolerate this, then your children will be next”
            But I believe you, in company with most of the leaders of Europe, don’t have any children.
            So perhaps the line – “First they came for the …, but I wasn’t a …, so I did nothing” could apply.

          • Absolutely. But it applies to most people. As I always say to those who are outraged, I’m a worker drone. Not a hero.

          • Presumably, you have a job in local government or quango to be able to follow this so blog frequently? I am retired and staying in but still have to to other things during the day.

        • For someone supposedly not interested in politics Guevara always seems to back Labour in any comments. Probably a Labour-Momentum troll playing (not very good) mind games.

          • Sigh. A former Labour voter. Then a Lib Dem. And then I gave up. May is incompetent, Corbyn is either vile or similarly incompetent and Cable is simply too old and leading a party that has no purpose.

        • Because none of these people got where they are without network brown nosing. Each one exists in their roles because they are subservient to other people and, in the media, that is the collectivist ideology to begin with. They aren’t going to upset anyone who might make their lives difficult. Outliers like Farage, Trump or Reese Mogg aren’t part of the group that draws its strength from each other-they can therefore be attacked carefree as representatives of a horrible, selfish individualism which is a direct threat to those in their group.

          We will never see interviewers attack the left, unless, those left happen to be outliers themselves-Ken Livingstone comes to mind. What’s more, no lefty is going to risk exposure to a more aggressive interviewer when they can have their mates give them an easy time of it.

          • An American President once said in a lecture at the Sorbonne:

            “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

            Try it, it’s also a lot more fun, even when you lose.

          • If you’re accused, and you’re innocent, you need to do a quick mental calculation. Admit guilt, get a slap on the wrist and move on, or kick up a fuss and potentially get a more severe punishment.

    • I heartily agree. The left, to use one of Abbott’s comments against her, like to play divide and rule and the right are allowing them to do this. By folding and reaffirming the left’s assumptions, they give more strength and unity to the left while they are being picked off. Vox Day has it completely right. Do not apologise, do not back down, fight your corner because whether you’re right or wrong, it doesn’t matter to the left. They will destroy you regardless.

  20. Yes Jordan did show the way against the hapless Cathy Newman, of the alleged news programme on C4

    Its worth watching for the lies, projections and strawmen she engaged, to throw him off track

    One of the poorest pieces of journalism and interviewers you will see for a long time
    But c4 did seek their revenge via the trope of misogyny . .

  21. McDonnell does sometimes apologise. It’s worked for him too.

    An apology can defuse an issue, as McDonnell demonstrated his apology for some of his IRA comments. The apology pretty much killed the quotes as an issue, and McDonnell’s never been properly held to account for those views. The apology shouldn’t have worked so well, but it did.

    I think there’s a different lesson to be learned from McDonnell’s many escapes and from what happened to Toby Young: be unrelenting in your attacks. The attacks on Young’s appointment didn’t stop when he was defended. They kept being pressed. They were raised in Parliament. New things (primarily the strange UCL conference) were added. That kept the story going and kept the pressure on.

  22. There is a huge difference between attacking someone for the views they hold – particularly if they are a public figure – and attacking people for who or what they are.

  23. NEVER APOLOGISE! is one of the fundamental rules laid down in Vox Day’s book “SJW’s Always Lie”. An unusual read but lots of valid stuff in it.

    • The SJW’s next door – ‘neither you nor anyone else in your department knew what to make of the most recent mandatory harassment seminar, which involved four hours of listening to an individual of uncertain sex wearing a dress and alternating between shouting at everyone and bursting into tears, but it turned out to be a real team-building experience.’

      When I read this (and the initial story about Gamergate) I was in hysterics. Truth is stranger than fiction.

    • “NEVER APOLOGISE! It’s a sign of weakness.” — Nathan Brittles, Captain, US Cavalry, in the film She Wore A Yellow Ribbon

  24. The days of when the Labour Party was domianted by Methodists and Sunday School Teachers ( Jim Callaghan ) are long gone. From the 1960s the Left have been dominated by verbally aggressive but physically weak types. The problem is that most Tories at universities appear to be puny types and easily intimidated. The tougher types tend to be those playing sport and many are taking taking STEM subjects which require many hours of study and so do not get involved in student politics. Verbally aggressive Labour types then go into local government, unions, media, certain types of law where they get away with their verbal aggression because noone opposes them. If they worked in heavy industry,farming, forestry, fishing or armed forces there would be plenty of people who would stand up to them. Having a toe to toe argument with a foreman is good practice in learning to stand one’s ground.

    Most verbally aggressive types if offered a choice of stepping out side or discussing the matter in a reasonable and civilised manner suddenly become well mannered.

    I would suggest that Campbell got his way because he intimidated most journalists physically. Dr Jordon Peteson has pointed out that when there is confrontation between men there is often an underlying threat of physical violence.

    Most of the Tory MPs appear to be easily intimidated. This why Ben Shapiro’s advice is so important. As the late historian Arthur Bryant is quoted as saying ” The boxing ring was considerd to be the nursery of British manliness” . A gentleman was expeted to be able to stand up and literally fight in order to oppose tyranny. A coward is incapable of opposing tyranny. I suggest a combination of Bryant’s 18 th century boxing bare kuckle skills combined with Shapiro’s rapier sharp wit are required for victory.

  25. Here is one pet leftish hypocrisy: Tax Avoidance
    Tax avoidance is legal
    It is MY moral duty to pay as little tax as possible – if YOU (you left wing hypocrite) want to pay more than you are legally required to – go ahead; lead by example ! But remember – 1) I don’t care; 2) see 1).

    Do I really have to explain the difference between AVOIDANCE and EVASION – are you that ignorant and stupid ? Really?

    Companies paying tax in the EU BY EU LAW have to nominate ONE EU state, and only one; in which to pay tax. Companies have a fiduciary duty (my left wing mate; that means the law says they must) to their shareholders not to waste capital; paying excess tax is a direct contravention of this law. So they are required by law to minimise their tax bill – which means nominating Luxembourg or Eire for their NOMINATED company tax office

    So; the question for the really nasty party and it’s hypocritical follows boils down to one thing : Are you really advocating that Companies deliberately break the law ?

    Penuary for the many; not for the few

    • “It is MY moral duty to pay as little tax as possible.”

      Lord Clyde thought so too, in a famous and well-cited case, Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:

      “No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue”

  26. Marr is a leftist BBC lickspittle. He should be replaced by Andrew Neil who is by far the more talented interviewer.

  27. Livingstone only prevented financial catastrophe by sacking McDonnell in 1985. In his autobiography he stated McDonnell exaggerated spending figures to support his case that the GLC had to ignore the rates cap.

    MacDonnell now determines of Labour’s economic policies. Labour’s polices once in power are to instantly crash-dive the UK economy. There’s nobody to sack him this time because they are all far lefties enjoying the same Confirmation Bias.

  28. The soft left can’t be relied on to fight the hard left. In their heart of hearts they agree with them.

    It’s on the right to see off these collectivist tyrants. Again.

  29. I somewhat doubt the BBC producers were genuinely afraid of the Momentum bully boy corbynistas. Because they themselves simply ARE fellow Corbynistas.
    It’s required or you simply don’t get hired by our “impartial, envy of the civilised world” BBC.
    After all part of the selection process is that the Beeb places all it’s job adverts in the one paper.

    That’s self selection in a nutshell. They have all political opinions in the Beeb from Marxism to Communism.

Comments are closed.