Back in 2010, outside 10 Downing Street, David Cameron publicly credited New Labour with making Britain more ‘open at home’. Perhaps he was referring to civil partnerships and the inquiry into the botched investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and all flowed from that. He was not referring to SureStart centres.

It would have been better if Mr Cameron had not been making this pronouncement in a Downing Street that is now gated and patrolled by armed officers in bullet-proof vests wielding sub-machine guns. Armed response vehicles prowl our streets. The SAS is presumably on permanent standby should jihadists storm a shopping centre. Our police are now less Dixon of Dock Green, and more Judge Dredd.

When Mr Cameron was ten years old, he could have walked unimpeded into Downing Street and stood in front of No 10 for as long as he wanted. I know, because in 1977, I did this.

Open? The Palace of Westminster is now a fortress, with gates and barriers. The need for this was demonstrated earlier this year. Barriers now separate traffic from pedestrians on London’s bridges.

Open? A spot of poor driving in Kensington caused an emergency security meeting in Downing Street, while businesses near the Natural History Museum were evacuated. A bible-preacher deciding to annoy commuters on a train caused a panic as they fled the carriage. Fighter pilots now have rules of engagement to shoot down civilian airliners over Britain. An airliner was escorted by Typhoons to Stansted last week.

Open? The 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence in south-east London caused a public furore from Day One. There had to be a change of government and the repeal of double-jeopardy legislation before it was properly addressed. Seven years later, the death of Damilola Taylor not far away mobilised the justice system that did not relent until his killers were jailed. How about Corey Junior Davis? A few weeks ago this 14-year-old boy was blasted at close range by a shotgun in Forest Gate in east London and died in hospital. Corey did not get the same attention. In fact the deaths of black men and boys due to gangland violence in London is now reported as blandly as sectarian murders in Northern Ireland were during the Troubles.

Open? The Mayor of London reassures the population that terrorism is ‘part and parcel’ of urban life. Terrorism is normalised with a standard media cycle, removing all outrage and anger to limit community tensions. We now have to accept that being massacred in public spaces, buses, and trains in the 21st century has replaced death by infectious disease in the 19th.

Open? The Labour Party is open. Openly anti-Semitic. Openly Stalinist in its policies and activities. Its female MPs have to beg the leader to restrain his supporters from making open threats of violence and rape, and other abuse.

Open? Universities, previously places of education, discovery, challenge and enlightenment, now ‘no-platform’ guest speakers, provide ‘trigger-warnings’ that presume widespread emotional trauma amongst students and have ‘safe spaces’ where discourse is heavily controlled according to fixed political ideas.

Cameron might have been damning New Labour with faint praise, especially as he credited Tony Blair and Gordon Brown with making the country more ‘compassionate’ abroad. The rightness and wrongness aside, Tony Blair sent troops overseas to fight in quite a few conflicts. Perhaps Blair did it all out of ‘compassion’ rather than national interest.

What Cameron was referring to was Labour’s social reforms, which run according to a ‘progressive’ agenda. This is based on the concept of ‘oppression’ that must be progressively relaxed. But where does progressivism stop? In the name of progressivism, ‘liberated’ parents are now poisoning their children’s bodies with strong hormones and the prospect of mutilation when they are older. They do this because their children are unhappy and they believe this is the only way to make them happy.

The concept of progressivism could be viewed as a graph, where the horizontal axis represents the advance of time from, say, 1945, and the vertical axis represents social freedom. But where does it end? Perhaps it is in a world where there is no differentiation based on identity or values, all being regarded as equal or interchangeable, or both. But that would mean the abolishment of identity, of individuality. There are philosophers who believe that people have no identity or indeed consciousness and that language does not confer identity, but only difference. A dog is not actually a dog. Its ‘dogness’ is defined by the ways it is not a cat or a rabbit.

Alternatively, this could end in people being defined exclusively by their identity instead of as individuals. There are numerous articles in The Guardian and elsewhere in which the author writes not as a human being who holds personal views but ‘as a woman/feminist/socialist/member of a profession’ and so on. The function subverts the flesh. The collective identity comes before the individual human being. Individualism may have been a human trait acquired by circumstance, such as the need to distance oneself from others during plagues to avoid infection. But that is no reason to diminish it or revert to a herd identity.

There seems no end to this ‘progressive’ agenda, despite all the reforms that have taken place. When the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality was marked, some prominent activists used this not to celebrate, but to attack the ‘oppression’ which had gone before and to complain that it was a flawed reform. They refused to acknowledge that curbs were ‘progressively’ relaxed. They could not recognise progressivism and instead wanted revolution.

The graph model seems out of date, especially when feminists are now brawling with transsexual activists in public areas. The problem is that agitators for social freedoms cannot stop agitating once those freedoms have been achieved. There is always a newly-perceived or confected barrier that has to be breached.
Perhaps the model is not a graph, where the axes proceed to infinity. Consider that instead it is a closed system containing two or more entities that completely occupy the entire space. As one entity expands, the other entities must contract.

We seem to have reached peak progressiveness. Various groups have adequate legal protections against social or economic disadvantage based on identity. However the unintended consequence is that identity is being used for entitlement and advantage over achievement and ability. Recently the Culture Secretary blocked the appointment of a person to the board of Channel 4. However, it was the identity, and not the actual ability of the candidate, that was the issue, as the person blocked was black and female. So it was assumed that these were the factors that prevented the person from taking up the position. Indeed David Lammy MP asked the Prime Minister: ‘Does she not think there is a woman or a black person in the country worthy of being on the board of Channel 4?’ According to Lammy, it is no longer a case of the best person for the job, but the best identity.

We are less open. Discussion and debate is now being unreasonably closed down as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or Islamophobic. As a result, people are being hurt and killed unnecessarily. People are policing their thoughts as never before as all discourse is increasingly politicised. History is being edited, most recently by trying to make out that Britain’s greatest sailor, Horatio Nelson, was a white supremacist on the basis of nothing at all but a feeling. Ideas are not being explored and silos of identity are being given a greater licence than that allowed to those who do not fall into a defined group. To criticise the licence is a social, and possibly actual, crime.

It was French journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan who stated that ‘like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children’. Progressivism does not take bites, but nibbles over time. Social reform has reached a plateau, where the reformers’ demands (never requests) are more outlandish and outrageous. They are making us less happy, less free, and less safe.

It’s not a graph any more. It is a closed system. And as such, it is reasonable, possibly even necessary, at times, to push back.


  1. I’ve said this before on this site but I’ll say it again.

    Progressivism is like a long line of lobster traps feeding into one another. Once we’ve entered the first one, we hear the cry of “onwards” and anyone suggesting we go back is pilloried under the pretense that going backwards will harm us in some way. “It’s 2017/we’re in lobster trap 22. Keep up.”

    Better to be swimming in the whole ocean than trapped in a narrow and increasingly confined space.

    • Perfect analogy.
      Most decent people in the UK would not look down on someone because they have
      dark skin or are a useful immigrant.
      Well meaning “progressives” criminalise racism etc
      After a few decades, dark skinned racists can groom & rape white British children & get away with it because indigenous police, politicians, teachers, social workers are scared
      of being branded racist, or, the ultimate oxymoron, islamophobic.
      Thanks to anti racists we are now a racist society along apartheid lines

      • I think we are the easiest people in the world to get along with, I think we are very accepting. What we don’t like is being expected to change to accommodate others at our expense. The former will be, is, our downfall.

    • “It’s 2017. . .” q.v Bik Byro who likes to marginalise empirical comparisons of now to then by deploying ageist bigotry.

      If I lived through it, remember it and think it was better I have every right to do so. Even Balls Points wouldn’t write off the first hand recorders of history as “dead and irrelevant”

    • Exactly! The “progressive” M.O. is modelled on the old fable about gradually heating up the water in the pan so the frog doesn’t realise it’s being boiled alive until it’s too late!

      • I think the good Peter Hitchens describes it as like small slices being taken off a salami one by one. There isn’t much sweat that can be poured over each change, and fierce opposition appears to be the radical opinion, not the change; but the cumulative result is truly radical

        • Are you allowed to say ‘frog’, I mean, we wouldn’t our chums across the Channel to think we were unconsciously meaning them…

    • I liken it to drawing a line in the sand; they step over it, so another is drawn; they step over it, so another is drawn, and so on, till, suddenly, you find yourself out of sand, in the water, and still they keep coming until you run out of energy and drown – capitulation complete.

  2. “When Mr Cameron was ten years old, he could have walked unimpeded into Downing Street and stood in front of No 10 for as long as he wanted. I know, because in 1977, I did this.”

    Coincidentally, not long ago I said this very thing to some younger work colleagues. I relayed how, on my first visit to London as a teenager in 1980 – when IRA bombings were commonplace – our family of five had been able walk unimpeded up Downing Street and take photographs with Number 10 as the backdrop. No doubt there had been some police presence nearby, though I don’t remember even being conscious of it. Having known only routine restrictions due to catch-all “security”, the whippersnappers exchanged doubtful looks as though the old boy had finally gone doolally.

    • Just after I met my future wife, I took her to London for the day, being her first visit. She wanted, amongst other things, to look at No10, so having got there we found our progress blocked by a burly PC who explained the situation. This was just after they’d tightened the security, but we didn’t know in advance. It was the one thing that spoiled her day.

      • Such have been the changes over recent decades, not just the fortification of Downing Street but the relentless restrictions on so many everyday activities, at times I half-wonder whether, when recalling the past, I’m suffering False Memory Syndrome.

        • English, I lived in the U.S.A. for a few years. In the late 90s I used to walk into Burbank airport in California to catch a flight to Las Vegas. If you dressed and looked okay, you weren’t stopped or searched – I never was. At Las Vegas, you got off the plane and could exit via a side gate, if you wished, straight onto the street. Last time I did this, well, suffice to say the experience ensured it was the last time I did it. I now drive there.

    • In 1964, I went with a couple of friends (all students) to an election meeting at which Harold Wilson was to speak. I forget the actual venue but I think it was a church hall in Twickenham. Anyway, we turned up and just walked in. I think there were a couple of bobbies on the door but that was all.

      After an introduction by some nobody, Wilson came on and addressed us. There was a bit of heckling, but it was civilised heckling, not just insults and Wilson addressed them seriously and civilly. Nobody got hauled out of their seats and arrested like Walter Thingy at the Labour Party Conference when he shouted “Rubbish” at Jack Straw.

      At the end, we gave him a standing ovation (I blush now) and that was it.

      Compare and contrast, as they say, to the paranoid security of today.

      • Harold Wilson was a beacon of normality and decency compared to the current shower. And I’m the polar opposite, politically.

    • You could still do that up to 1989. I used to walk through Downing Street as a shortcut. And they tell us things are better? (Laughs maniacally…)

  3. “We’ve reached peak progressivism” .. no, (sadly!!) there is a long way to go. If this is what today’s Kim-Kardashian-obsessed virtue-signalling nanny state younger generation want, then this is democracy in action.

    The blame lies with the Conservative party coming across as a set of old pearl-clutching fuddy-duddys stuck in the 1950s with nothing to offer the upcoming generation.

    • Coming across to whom? To you? That’s not how they come across to me. Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, pearl clutching fuddy-duddys stuck in the 1950s? If only!

      Come off it. If the Tories were really pearl clutching fuddy-duddys stuck in the 1950s we wouldn’t be where we are now.

      • Yes, to me. And you are one of the colonel blimps that wants to turn the clock back to 1952 and then sit back in surprise as to why vibrant young people laugh at how irrelevant to 2017 you are.

        “Wouldn’t be where we are now?” – you mean nearly losing an election we should have won by up to 100 seats, having the labour party currently ahead in the polls and on course to win next time, and having a voting demographic that is dying off with their tweeds and not being replaced.

        Come off it yourself.

        • Too funny. You excel yourself in presumptions, assumptions and twaddle-riddled ageist bigotry. The irony is delicious.

          The Tories didn’t miss out on 100 seats by being “pearl clutching fuddy-duddys”! Where have you been since 1992?

          And 1952 wasn’t all bad, so I’m told! People of all ages have the right to participate in political debate, even those not yet old enough to vote. Those “dying off with their tweeds” are not dead yet, are still citizens, many of them vibrant, with the right to vote, however much you might dislike that.

          And the funniest thing is that even those “vibrant young people” will one day be old. Let’s hope by then that they don’t have idiots like you telling them they are irrelevant.

          • Go back to putting a 78rpm on your gramophone and relax by looking at the framed picture of Jesus hanging next to the grandfather clock and thinking wistfully of how much you hate brown people.

          • I don’t have a gramophone, any 78s, a framed picture of Jesus, or a grandfather clock and I don’t hate brown people.

            0/5. Must try harder.

          • Funnily enough I didn’t vote for them. I made that “least worst option” mistake with Cameron the first time. Instead I gave my pearls a good clutch and sat down in my tweeds with the memsahib to listen to a few old 78s on the gramophone.

          • You keep using that phrase ‘brown people’ – are you one? Married to one? What? I have nothing against ‘brown people’, per se, I simply don’t want to be surrounded by millions of them, or Islamists, or anything else not conducive to my enjoying my white culture and feeling at home anywhere I choose to travel to in my country.

            We have had this forced on us by successive governments, a fait accompli, no choice whatsoever, yet we are expected to accomodate each new development, each new discomfort – terrorism from within – not only without complaint, but we must be seen to ’embrace’ it. I’ve had enough of it, I keep getting shoved and I’m expected to give way – that is NOT the way to induce tolerance or understanding.

        • In 1952, there were 26 year old men , who at the age of 19 years of age were officers had led commandos into combat and women who had served in the SOE in occupied territories. Some of the women on the Comet line, taking Allied servicemen to Spain s were eighteens years of age and some of the couriers were only 15 years of age.

          A reason why so many people who endured the Depression and WW2 enjoyed the 1950s was that they could wake up and not find themselves in combat , a prisoner of war camp,a torture cell or a death camp and hungry, cold, sweating or in pain. Those who had endured combat were grateful for life.

          Those Jewish people whom survived because of Schindler had one over riding desire; to create a family, as did those who survived combat.

          Progressivism has attempted to destroy the family, yet those who fought for our freedom, their overriding desire was for a normal, happy and contended family life. As so many brave and fit men had been killed and wounded, many women were grateful they were able to marry.

        • Well, I understand what he means by ‘where we are now’, in societal terms. I was born in ’58, and for all their imperfections I’d happily go back to the 70s, 60s, 50s. As for ‘vibrant young people’, jeez, where to begin…

        • Turn the clock back…

          A few weeks ago I was shown around a failing shabby out of control comp that had once been a grammar school.

          Most of it was wrecked. But near the hall was old photographs and cups, lists of former pupils and a glimpse of the sense of pride, decency and honour that this school was once and is no more.

          I am too young to have attended such a school. They were long gone, when I started secondary school

          I wish I had though and that is why So many of us are determined that our children will never attend our state secondary schools. So far I have managed to fund it, many I know would love to have this sort of choice for their children.

          • I was luckier – I went to a grammar. And that is one of the things for I would wholeheartedly support the reintroduction.

    • The blame lies with the Conservative party embracing socialist principles and ideas and trying to be all things to all people. White van man with Conservative values still exists, but will never vote for this bunch of apologists.

      • Depends what you mean by Conservative values. I don’t think White Van Man could care less about (a) gay marriage, (b) going to church every week and (c) fox hunting.
        On the other hand, he is probably very concerned about (a) the effect on unrestricted immigration on his job and public services (b) being able to work hard for his family without being over-taxed and over-regulated and (c) having a patriotic pride which he doesn’t want anyone to erode.

        • You are half right. White Van Man with his traditional Conservative values couldn’t care less whether other people are gay, go to church each week or go fox-hunting, provided it doesn’t impinge on his or his family’s own life.

          However, he might care about fox-hunting if he lives/works in the countryside and knows a few game keepers; he might care if his kids are taken on a school trip to the mosque and learn how to use a prayer mat; and he might care that his twelve year old son is being encouraged to believe that gay marriage is cool and trendy.

          • I’ve lived in the countryside for years and I’ve noticed that most country people I know don’t support fox hunting any more. It’s certainly an issue that seems to alienate more of the electorate than it attracts. On the second point, personally, I’d prefer all primary schooling to be secular, as religion should be a personal choice which you consider when you are old enough to make your own mature decision. Likewise with your sexuality, the time spent in primary education should prioritise on the 3 R’s.

          • Bik, there are two sorts of country people – the urbanites who live there (having forced house prices above locals’ means); and the locals who may still live there if they are older, and their children, who work there, but often have to live elsewhere, unless they have a tied house or have been lucky to buy before the influx of urbanites. Only the locals are true countrymen, and generally support foxhunting, shooting etc.

            The urbanites tend to be anti both fox hunting and/or the local gamekeeper shooting foxes, right up until the point their fancy hen house is raided (because they forget one night to close it up), at which point they become fanatically anti-fox.

          • Nobody I know has a problem with shooting foxes that kill livestock. It’s the making of a social occasion of a prolonged death they (and I) object to. And if you forget to lock your hen house, then there is no excuse for poor stockmanship. PS I’m going on a pheasant shoot later this month so I’m not exactly a ‘townie’

          • I never said you were a townie :). PS your description of a “prolonged death” applies more to shooting, e.g. when a fox is wounded, which happens even to the best of rifle shots some of the time, than to hunting, where the fox either escapes or is killed instantly 100% of the time. I don’t follow hounds (apart from a couple of times with the local foot pack on our shoot’s land just before the ban, to show moral support), but the scientific evidence is that if you want a fox to have a quick, clean death, hunting with hounds is the best method.

          • I expect the fox, his heart bursting out of his chest as he flees, then having hounds rip into him, may disagree with you.

          • For the fox, a quick nip to the back of the neck by a leading hound, and it’s all over. A quick death is not a courtesy the fox gives to his prey.

        • I drink in what may be termed a ‘white man van ‘ pub, not through choice, but my brother has not seen fit to emulate my sensible move into middle-classdom and prefers to slum it. Anyway, I can assure you that such men detest this, as one put it, “expletive, expletive, rhymes with ‘roofs’, expletive, expletive, movement”.

    • The Conservative Party is where it is because for the last two decades it has been chasing on the heels of Blairism. Turning away traditional conservatives trying to get into the BBCs good books meant it can hardly hold on to a majority. Of course it will fail because the Left despise the right no matter what it does. The “fuddy duddies” have been edge out of influence in party since 2006.

      PS. you vote for these “old pearl-clutching fuddy-duddys stuck in the 1950s” in the last election.

  4. Coincidentally the criteria for “oppression” in Britain has multiplied at the same rate as the lucrative, taxpayer funded or subsidised careerist employment that combatting its various inventive manifestations offers.

    People who get very well paid for campaigning to ban smoking in pubs are not going to meekly accept P45s when smoking is banned in pubs. The envelope which sustains those privileged, elitist, virtue-signalling lifestyles is always expanded.

    The monster has been created and now approaches industrial proportions. Those with the power to kill it have a symbiotic relationship with it. They fund it, consult with it, pander to it, appease it and are driven by it. No stone must be left unturned in their joint hunt for “oppressions”.

    • The race relations industry (probably the daddy of them all)
      The Health and Safety industry
      The gender-bendering industry
      The Childcare industry
      The Speed Camera/Driving in Bus Lane industry

      …. gets boring after a while so I’ll stop, but there are plenty of other examples.

      • Please do not call it the Childcare industry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with caring for children.

        • With the exception of gender engineering propaganda (aka complete lunacy), you could say that about all the above – apparently driven by fluffy ideals working ostensibly for the General Good, but with another agenda lurking underneath.

    • These people are also, of course, devout supporters of the EU. This is not only because the EU itself dishes out oodles of taxpayers’ cash to fake charities, etc., but because the EU is undemocratic and offers no scope for the general public to direct or curb its activities.

      • I should have added that the reason that university graduates are more likely to support the EU is because bureaucracy tends to produce lots of very well paid, secure jobs and these jobs are overwhelmingly (exclusively?) taken by graduates.
        Bureaucracy also generates well-paid jobs indirectly, for example lawyers owing their employment to the complex laws and regulations that bureaucrats formulate.

        Len the Lorry Driver and Sue the Supermarket Checkout Operative do not have access to this source of riches and so are more likely to be either opposed to the EU or at least unenthusiastic about it.

      • There is no European Union general public; so there are no pan-EU parties to represent them; and there are no pan-EU parties as there are real members of general publics called, Germans, Italians, British, French, Irish etc., who identify with, well, German, Italian, British, French and Irish parties.

        However, a start could be made in that English is the most commonly understood language; but, the French insist it is French, and the Germans insist it is German and the Catalonians also want a say – and the British are leaving – but not English. What a mess!

        And, yes, you are right. In such a situation Brussels must become the absolute authority as there is no such thing as a European Union general public.

        • Neither is there such an entity as a EU citizen. Citizens owe allegiance to and depend on support from the parliaments to which they elect their representatives and which processes passport applications etc. for their citizens.

          Voting for a MEP is about as productive and useful as selecting a brand of motor fuel. It’s a distress purchase!

          • No E.U. citizen? Well, look at your passport and driving licence, they are clearly E.U. documents sub-classified by individual country. We are all but there.

          • Just because my misguided parliament have allowed a blue flag with some stars on it to be impressed on some documents there remains no doubt that I am a citizen of England, not some political construct devised by jumped up European bureaucrats.

          • Yes, you and I know we are, but they are, nevertheless, E.U. documents – they are the same E.U. – wide. They have not imprinted E.U. stuff onto them, to distinguish each country they have allowed those countries to imprint their stuff on them – see the difference?

            They are trying to ‘imprint’ on people through such tactics that they are European first and foremost – notice how the new one Pound coin – designed before the ‘Brexit vote’ – bears a uncanny passing resemblance to a one Euro coin? Ditto the one Penny and the Cent? That ain’t no coincidence.

            By the way, have you visited the U.S.A.? Try putting ‘English’ or ‘England’ on your immigration landing form, if they spot it, it will be rejected and you will be expected to insert ‘British/Britain’; incredibly, they allow the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish to ‘identify’ as such.

          • You are keen to avoid conceding my original point; there is no such thing as a ‘EU citizen’, a term beloved by the EU apparatchiks and the MSM.

  5. A dog is a dog. But how else would you define a dog other than by what it is not? We only know that a dog is a dog and not something else because our mother teaches us when we are children. If she didn’t have a dog to show us, she couldn’t do it. Were we asked to describe a dog to someone who came from a place where dogs were unknown, we couldn’t do it in a way that would infallibly allow him to identify a dog if he came across one any more than we could describe the colour red to a blind man. Language is not a sufficient means for an understanding of the world. It requires the complement of sensual experience. Wittgenstein used to say of Russell and Moore that there was no point in showing them his work because they wouldn’t understand it. What he meant was that words were incapable of capturing precisely and definitively what he meant. We can do wonderful things with words but they have serious limitations.

    • “A dog is a dog….”

      And a horse is a horse, of course of course…sorry, couldn’t resist.

    • “…As PETA has long pointed out, ‘pet’ is a derogative term and we should refer to animals in our care as ‘companions’. The prosecution of farmer Bob Jones for referring to zhis companion Shep as “my pet sheepdog” is simply a logical outcome of unfolding societal progress.
      As noted before in these pages, there is no evidence that biology is to blame for differences in behaviour between humans and other mammals. Biology is simply about the workings of bodies; the mind is a tabula rasa, shaped by societal influences…”

      Guardian OpEd, 10th October 2022

  6. Interesting that terrorism in Northern Ireland is mentioned, in the article, as if was past tense and yet it’s still going on with mainly IRA inspired security alerts every few days!

    • It never went away. You don’t dismantle what also was/is a criminal empire simply because politicians tell you to.

  7. Push back? I agree, but how? No one to vote for who will do this, nowhere to protest without the full force, via the police, of the ‘no-one to vote fors’ descending on one. No getting past a job interview without uttering the latest ‘mustspeak/mustthink’, a seemingly unstoppable onslaught of proponents and exponents of the those forces garnering more print space, more House of Commons’ time, more rushed through, ill-thought out laws and guidelines. Jeez, I can see the day I’ll need my shotgun for more than shooting clay pigeons.

  8. The Stephen Lawrence affair was turned into a virtual industry.

    There was no evidence of racial attitudes on the part of the police according to the evidence produced at the Macpherson inquiry. In its urge to smear white people and the police in particular, the inquiry was therefore forced to find the police guilty of ‘institutional racism’, a vague leftist category which effectively emasculated the police and other services all over the country there after.

    The anti-police, anti-white bias evident in that inquiry was the subject of Dr.Frank Ellis’s excoriating analysis here :

    Contrast the leftist / media feeding frenzy over Lawrence with their total silence over the thousands of young white girls serially abused by non-whites all over the country. Some of the blame for this gross scandal can be laid at the door of Sir William Macpherson and his plaguey report, which cowed people into silence for fear of being labelled ‘racist’, even those who were inclined to do something about it. How many people have been brought to account over these disgusting failures? Where is the media outrage and pursuit of those responsible?

  9. I don’t think there is anything unforeseen about the forceful closing down of the British mind and the institutionalised control of the leftist thought police. I think it is what has been the agenda of those leading this phenomenon all along. Here is what Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist Frankfurt School theoretician, said in his influential essay, ‘Repressive Tolerance’, way back in 1965:

    ‘This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance towards prevailing polices, attitudes, opinions and the extension of tolerance to policies,attitudes and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words tolerance today appears as what it was at the beginning of the modern period-a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice#.

    By these means, the Left could achieve a majority and retain it. Which they have done.

  10. The Stephen Lawrence affair was turned into a virtual industry.

    There was no evidence of racial attitudes on the part of the police according to the evidence produced at the Macpherson inquiry. In its urge to smear white people and the police in particular, the inquiry was therefore forced to find the police guilty of ‘institutional racism’, a vague leftist category which effectively emasculated the police and other services all over the country thereafter.

    The anti-police, anti-white bias evident in that inquiry was the subject of Dr.Frank Ellis’s excoriating analysis here : http://drfrankellis.blogspo

    Contrast the leftist / media feeding frenzy over Lawrence with their total silence over the thousands of young white girls serially abused by non-whites all over the country. Some of the blame for this gross scandal can be laid at the door of Sir William Macpherson and his plaguey report, which helped, along with the prosecution of the Nick Griffin, to cow those who were inclined to do something about it into silence for fear of being labelled ‘racist’.

    How many people have been brought to account over these disgusting failures? Where is the media outrage and pursuit of those responsible?

    • I find the whole affair shocking and disgusting, as would any decent human being.

      This Yank does have a question for all you friends across the pond…..why are those from the Mid East (Yemen, Iraq, Qatar, etc) referred to by the British press and police as “Asian”? Is this the common usage of the term Asian, or is it an attempt to lump together these folks from the inhabitants or immigrants from Vietnam, Korea, and similar locales?

      I am not stirring the pot, I am quite befuddled. The two groups are never lumped together here in the US, so I am looking to be edified….

Comments are closed.