I'm feeling rather faint. I've just read Peter Hitchens' column in the Mail on Sunday. There are two notable things about his column today. He has failed to use the phrase 'useless Tories' and I found myself agreeing with every word he wrote. I need to lie down.
UPDATE:I knew it was too good to be true. Apparently I can't have got to the end of the main piece in his column. See the comments for an explanation!
33 comments:
On another note - Did you see Huhne at Clegg on the Politics Show. o how i laughed as they tore into each other. Seems the era of agreement is falling apart at the very last hurdle...looks like another stab in the back for the Lib Dems.
Think you missed his last sentence "what a shame we don't have an opposition"
Actually Iain! The last sentence reads' What a pity we don't have an opposition' think that is 'Useless Tories' by another name.
Iain, I'm sure you didn't agree with the final sentence:
"What a pity we don't have an opposition"
It is only a matter of time until Hitchens does a Kilroy-Silk and sets up his own party...
A Conservative agreeing with a racist, chauvenist, ignorant LUNATIC?? Well there's a turn up for the books. Next you'll be telling us Champagne Dave supports financially-exclusive independent education!
The slow , step by step movement, drip by drip, to the extreme right keeps on and on. Agreeing with Peter " The Nut" Hitchen...Oh dear.
Jimbo, his main point was that he's against detention for more than 28 days. I agree with him. Do you? If not,I'd say it is you who is on the authoritarian right,not me.
The whole point of this piece was to point out that I normally wholly disagree with virtually everything Peter Hitchens writes. This week was different. Did you actually read his column beforeyou penned your pathetic comment?
“What a pity we don’t have an opposition” is putting it mildly. Conservatives are just as much to blame for allowing the evil nuLieBore regime to implement these polices. A man that led a standing ovation for B’Liar is incapable of defending the freedoms of the British people. Our lives and liberty are facing an immediate and far more extensive threat from government that it could ever be from terrorists or the environment.
It *might* mean (to try an answer at your question!) that the force of argument against detention without trial (remember it was just 24 hours when this government came to power) is so powerful that it unites many of us, even though we may normally not agree with one another. For example (to leave Peter Hitchens out for a moment) this is an issue which unites, honestly and fundamentally, social democrats, liberal democrats, liberal Tories and old-fashioned Conservatives: because the one thing we all feel vibrating within us is that the state has no right to lock people up for long periods without charging them and proceeding to a prosecution. It says a lot for how successful this evil government has been that there isn't marching in the streets at the merest hint of this desecration of habeas corpus. What I cannot help rejoicing in is that this is an issue which our appalling Prime Minister thought would be a tactical weapon to paint we Conservatives as "soft" on the terror threat; it is now, I hope, going to rebound on him to his great disadvantage, since, I'm afraid, the locus of trust with which we probably wrongly imbued his predecessor does not extend to cover Gordon Brown. It's just too, too easy to imagine Brown as a man who doesn't give a stuff about the concept of liberty, no matter how many rubbish speeches he cribs from Wikipedia on the subject.
Oh dear Iain of course I read the article. You found yourself agreeing with The Nut. Does that include his personal assertion, that Aiken and Archer shouldn’t have been jailed.
Or that ADHD is non-existent complaint
Or that the country has no affective opposition
Or that the current good polls for the Tories are in fact giving a false impression
Or that the Chicken Pox vaccine is pointless
Or that whole country is to be turned into a prison.
Hitchen is a classic foaming at the mouth right wing Nut.
His main point was that he's against detention for more than 28 days. Is this because he a great believer in Liberty, or just political opportunism. The later me thinks. A Tory party against stiffer, tougher detention laws. Never thought I would see the day. Whatever next demanding the head of the countries top cop….Oh dear
So come on then Jimbo, put your money where your mouth is. Are you in favour of detainingpeople for more than 28 days or not?
So come on then Jimbo, put your money where your mouth is. Are you in favour of detainingpeople for more than 28 days or not?
The Force
I don't think you get it. Iain was surprised at agreeing with Mr Hitchens's article, as he does not usually agree with the man. There was nothing in this article that was "...racist, chauvenist, ignorant [or] LUNATIC". I don't read the Mail or know enough of Hitchens's writing to say whether your assessment of him is correct, but that is irrelevant, as Iain makes it clear he is surprised by agreeing with this articel.
People making cheap political points that add nothing relevant to the discussion usually end up by looking stupid themselves. I am glad Conservatives like Iain are not as ignorant as you.
"The Force", calling Hitchens a racist, without a shred of evidence is a very silly thing to do, been a registered user, do not be under an illusion you are anonymous, you are not.
I do hope you do not own any assets, as Hitchens is a reader of Blogs, and would possibly not be shy of taking action against you.
"Iain Dale said...
So come on then Jimbo, put your money where your mouth is. Are you in favour of detainingpeople for more than 28 days or not?
November 18, 2007 3:03 PM
Iain Dale said...
So come on then Jimbo, put your money where your mouth is. Are you in favour of detainingpeople for more than 28 days or not?
November 18, 2007 3:03 PM"
Say it again Dale! What you tell us three times is true.
How wonderful to witness The Governor being caught out by the vagaries of the technology.
Iain Dale said...
So come on then Jimbo, put your money where your mouth is. Are you in favour of detaining people for more than 28 days or not?
November 18, 2007 3:03 PM
ABSO BLOODLY LUTELY in favour of extending time to retain potential TERRORISTS. Why to you ask, Iain, do you NOT want the same.
I am glad you admit you want a Police State. I do not. 28 days has proved to be quite sufficient and no one has made the case for an extention. When they do we can consider it.
that last was jiNbo not jiMbo!
Anonymous 5:01 PM
It's a good job I am several thousands of pounds in overall debt. Blood and stone spring to mind.
Peter, if you are reading, I apologise, but please stop going on about immigration all the time. It is comment pieces like your's and Littlejohn's that sensationalise the whole issue, and permeate through to the less well-educated than yourself as intolerance (even if this is not your attitude), and this intolerance is what keeps Britain stuck in the 70s in terms of cultural integration.
Why can't we all just get along?
Police state…You are amusing Iain. You’re beginning to sound like a student activist for the Marxist party.
Your opposition is simple opportunism and nothing else. So if a case did come to light you would u-turn and then agree with 28+ days. However without such powers now, the potential terrorist can plot away in their garages, get caught plotting, evidence collected may turn out to be insuffient, the 28 days lapse and their scott free.
Surley better to nab them and have more time to make a tighter case.
Once more never thought I would see the day when the Tories, yes the Tories didn’t want the police to have more powers to protect the public, shameful opportunism
It's nothing to do with opportunism. The line has been consistent from the start. I know, because I was there when the discussions took place back in 2005. Where will it end? 90 days? 120 days? No other country sees the need to do it. No one has made the case. You don't even do it yourself. On not a single occasion have the Police needed more than 28 days. Even they are not asking for it - apart that is from ian blair.
Cant blog now, off to the smoke free pub, which incidentally your lot voted against. Hopefully the cops in our police state wont nab me on the way for questioning. What a load of nonsense. Andy Caulston has told you to attack everything, and that is what you are doing. OPPORTUNISM
I met Andy Coulson at the 2005 Tory Conference. Since then, I have never met him or spoken to him. Fact.
However, maybe now is the time to put that right.
the force said: "Why can't we all just get along?"
Have you tried asking the muslims? yardies? Somalis?
Iain, just because someone states an obvious truth or voices an opinion you agree with does not make him agreeable, nor in fact someone with whose collective opinions you would go along with. Fear not dear Sir, even Hitler observed some truths and said some laudable things.
He was also quite popular at parties I understand. Best kept secret and all that.
And yes, he is not shy of taking legal action against you, whomever you may be. Apparently his lawyers can always "find something".
The Force said...
"Why can't we all just get along?"
Because everyone hates you.
Surely as publisher, moderator and editor of this, it would be Iain rather than an individual poster who was liable for libellous comments. Several other bloggers edit out potentially libbellous comments for exactly that reason, and this has certainly been the precedence elsewhere.
I'm also fairly sure that Hitchens has more to worry about than the ill-judged jibes of "The Force", stupid as they may be.
Surely no one can be as stupid as The Force? He address Peter Hitchens through Iain's Comments site, as if this were a normal thing to do, and as though he were presenting an argument based on sound logic:
"going on about immigration all the time. It is comment pieces like your's and Littlejohn's that sensationalise the whole issue, and permeate through to the less well-educated than yourself as intolerance (even if this is not your attitude), and this intolerance is what keeps Britain stuck in the 70s in terms of cultural integration.
First, the obvious question? Who said we wanted "cultural integration?" Integrated with what? The exciting,advanced culture of the Dark Ages? People who worship a diety who is touchy, to say the least?
You're a poor thinker if you think "intolerance" is always a negative. We were intolerant of Hitler's plans to invade Britain, for example. We were intolerant of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The government of Singapore is intolerant of drug dealing.
Re cultural integration, the British have shown no stomach for it. We like our advanced, tolerant culture. We didn't vote to share our island with people from a primitive society have a very, very, very intolerant diety who is stuck in the Dark Ages.
Veridee said
"We like our advanced, tolerant culture. We didn't vote to share our island with people from a primitive society have a very, very, very intolerant diety who is stuck in the Dark Ages."
Yes - any irony there? Oh really for f****s sake.
Here's a slightly different viewpoint. We didn't ask ask you and your culture to come and impose your noisome diety on us. Bad luck we are back! Sorry, too late.
Verity said
Re cultural integration, the British have shown no stomach for it. We like our advanced, tolerant culture. We didn't vote to share our island with people from a primitive society have a very, very, very intolerant diety who is stuck in the Dark Ages."
of course you dont love. I remember as a boy facing the british flag being raised and putting my hand on my heart as "god saved the queen" as played. no probs.
bad luck you dont like black people coming to live here. Think you miss the ultimate irony of the Empire. Britain will be more black than white.
oh Iain - I just read your comment to someone "your pathetic comment" - get a grip man. One of the things I think this website really needs is some civility. I know it's your website but please stop it. Frank viewpoints are fine but describing someone as "pathetic"? Shame....
Post a Comment