tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post3397192660411966871..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: First They Came For - In Defence of Free SpeechIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-76741845490949611992007-04-27T21:13:00.000+01:002007-04-27T21:13:00.000+01:00WHO'S BEHIND 'HATE' LAWS ?To find out, Yahoo "The ...WHO'S BEHIND 'HATE' LAWS ?<BR/><BR/>To find out, Yahoo "The Earliest 'Hate' Criminals." (It is still legal in America to read it.) MargeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12768576618559988792007-04-21T13:07:00.000+01:002007-04-21T13:07:00.000+01:00“Who, exactly?”Chuck, I said it was sp...<I>“Who, exactly?”</I><BR/><BR/>Chuck, I said it was speculation. By the way, there’s a great article <A HREF="http://www.libdemvoice.org/book-review-the-great-city-academy-fraud-694.html" REL="nofollow">over here</A>. Not exactly a New Labour stooge am I?Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-79186796946341680432007-04-21T12:55:00.000+01:002007-04-21T12:55:00.000+01:00What it’s got to do with the argument “Tin Drummer...<I>What it’s got to do with the argument “Tin Drummer” is that I actually use the tiny levers of power at my disposal, and then accept the democratic outcome. You either buy into democracy or you don’t. Why so many on this thread who have railed against Europe did not sign the petition, is a genuine mystery to me which only they can explain. With millions rather than just thousands of signatures, we might have forced the government’s hand.</I><BR/><BR/>I do try to use these levers too - but I hadn't heard of that petition until last night, which was 2 months too late. I did sign a petition to save the red squirrels though. I do buy into democracy, which I worry quite a bit about laws like this. Better to be worried, paranoid and wrong, than relaxed and also wrong.Bill Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357811679771159469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-74727690018796027402007-04-21T12:21:00.000+01:002007-04-21T12:21:00.000+01:00LB: "some of you"Who, exactly?LB: <BR/><BR/><I>"some of you"</I><BR/><BR/>Who, exactly?Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1264765055118379872007-04-21T11:34:00.000+01:002007-04-21T11:34:00.000+01:00As to “forcing the government’s hand.” Are you ser...<I>As to “forcing the government’s hand.” Are you serious?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I’m serious. If the numbers seriously rack up then it becomes impossible to ignore. You see my suspicion is (and here I’m indulging in some wild speculation) that some of you are just not content with the tiny slice of the democratic cake which is yours by right. I suspect that some of you don’t vote at all, never mind sign petitions. The reason? Because we “don’t live in a democracy any more.” You detest Tony Blair (so do I). But the fact that he was elected three times in a row gives some of you no pause for thought whatsoever. Of course I could be completely wrong about this . . .<BR/><BR/><I>‘Challenge’ is one of the most overworked, misunderstood and abused terms of recent history. It has now been reduced to a meaningless burble, signifying nothing.</I><BR/><BR/>A bit like “political correctness” then.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20839593289974417272007-04-21T11:12:00.000+01:002007-04-21T11:12:00.000+01:00has anyone got a link to the actual text of this l...has anyone got a link to the actual text of this legislation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39463132411439481202007-04-21T09:07:00.000+01:002007-04-21T09:07:00.000+01:00LB: "Why so many on this thread who have railed ag...LB: <BR/><I>"Why so many on this thread who have railed against Europe did not sign the petition, is a genuine mystery to me which only they can explain."</I><BR/><BR/>A) You know this for a fact, of course. No doubt you'll have asked each of them individually to provide some sort of statement...<BR/><BR/>B) Why should they 'explain' their actions or inactions to you, or anyone else, for that matter?<BR/><BR/>As to "forcing the government's hand." Are you serious? Did you take a look at the outcome of the various 'petitions' on the Downing Street website and the 'government' responses to them? Let's not be silly!<BR/><BR/><I>"It’s not just the internet; it’s technology in general which is posing new challenges"</I><BR/><BR/>Oh God here we go again. What 'challenge' and to whom, exactly? 'Challenge' is one of the most overworked, misunderstood and abused terms of recent history. It has now been reduced to a meaningless burble, signfying nothing.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2418425068590839862007-04-20T21:35:00.000+01:002007-04-20T21:35:00.000+01:00What it’s got to do with the argument “Tin Drummer...What it’s got to do with the argument “Tin Drummer” is that I actually use the tiny levers of power at my disposal, and then accept the democratic outcome. You either buy into democracy or you don’t. Why so many on this thread who have railed against Europe did not sign the petition, is a genuine mystery to me which only they can explain. With millions rather than just thousands of signatures, we might have forced the government’s hand.<BR/><BR/>It’s not just the internet; it’s technology in general which is posing new challenges. And it’s not racists flying a flag that have brought this about; just racists, and they are a major problem. By the way, the reason you should use your real name is that being fully accountable for what you write lends your argument greater credibility. I’m just trying to help!Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75013477636800586692007-04-20T20:50:00.000+01:002007-04-20T20:50:00.000+01:00Ah, Europe again. I don’t see you on the list eith...<I>Ah, Europe again. I don’t see you on the list either, but then I’m guessing “The Tin Drummer” is not your real name. It’s true that I haven’t studied the legislation, but then I’ve already said that I’m broadly against such measures. I’m also broadly against European interference (I signed the petition remember).</I><BR/><BR/>Er... ten out of ten. So? What's that got to do with the argument? And, in case you hadn't noticed, "Europe" is where the law is coming from, so it,er, has quite a bit to do with the subject. By the way you don't need to supply a real name to exercise a right to freedom of speech, that's just a rule that some self righteous people made up. Saying - or suggesting -that you need to give a full name to speak your mind is a bit of a worry: why do you need people to give your their details before they speak? I quite like Gawain and the Green Knight but I haven't the foggiest who wrote it. Do I care? <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I may or may not give you my real name if you email me privately. I have been known to do so.<BR/><BR/><I>And we’ve also established that libertarians are not racists, rather that some racists may be flying a libertarian flag. But of course fundamentally that’s what this is all about. That’s why this legislation has been proposed in the first place, because there is a real problem with race hate websites and the like which we simply can’t ignore. <BR/><BR/>That’s why we might ultimately have to accept certain restrictions, in order to enjoy a much greater freedom </I><BR/><BR/>Oh? It's websites now, is it? I thought that websites were only a small part of it. If websites were the main problem, why this catch all law then? Why not just a telecommunications law? You know perfectly well that the internet is only a part of a law designed to take in _all_ kinds of expression of which the internet has barely been mentioned as a prime mover. It is a European wide law designed because of the worries of some, specific European states, to do with all kinds of speech and writing. It's a complete joke to imply. as you do, that the pressure of so many "racsits flying a libertarian flag" has brought this law about. It's been on the cards for six years, and has been a project of the political elites all that time - certainly the British people have been slow to call for a new law. <BR/><BR/> Please, then, fully explain how we will enjoy much greater freedom from this law. I'm afraid your line of argument, which seems to be that you keep saying you're not in favour of it, and then saying we might need more laws anyway, has got me truly baffled. <BR/><BR/>And nice one for throwing abuse round *again* - this time it's being "childish". Well, if being childish consists of railing against unjust laws imposed by fiat, then count me as a babbling kid spewing into my bib. And my toys! Well, they've been on the pavement for days, and are going rusty.Bill Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357811679771159469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60000025383058095022007-04-20T20:08:00.000+01:002007-04-20T20:08:00.000+01:00Ah, Europe again. I don’t see you on the list eith...Ah, Europe again. I don’t see you <A HREF="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EUreferendum" REL="nofollow">on the list</A> either, but then I’m guessing “The Tin Drummer” is not your real name. It’s true that I haven’t studied the legislation, but then I’ve already said that I’m broadly against such measures. I’m also broadly against European interference (I signed the petition remember).<BR/><BR/>And we’ve also established that libertarians are not racists, rather that some racists may be flying a libertarian flag. But of course fundamentally that’s what this is all about. That’s why this legislation has been proposed in the first place, because there is a real problem with race hate websites and the like which we simply can’t ignore.<BR/><BR/>That’s why we might ultimately have to accept certain restrictions, in order to enjoy a much greater freedom, namely the internet itself. That’s why I deliberately conflate the issues. What would you rather have? The internet plus race hate laws, or turn the clock back twenty years and have no internet at all?<BR/><BR/>I never cease to marvel at my ability to publish around the world in my boxer shorts. Nor do I cease to marvel at those who cry that their freedom of expression is under attack using the self same medium. It’s just so childish. It’s like some of the posters here have read a little history, and therefore know that freedom of speech is the first casualty of a totalitarian regime, and then think that’s what’s going on here.<BR/><BR/>No it’s not. We’re in a new technological situation which has no historical precedents.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-87902662464409791022007-04-20T20:01:00.000+01:002007-04-20T20:01:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64377265378899356752007-04-20T18:55:00.000+01:002007-04-20T18:55:00.000+01:00ERK...self censorship alert...should read - "and o...ERK...self censorship alert...should read - "and other 'racist' libertarians"....Bill Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357811679771159469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-14727944331676360882007-04-20T18:53:00.000+01:002007-04-20T18:53:00.000+01:00I would quite like to get some mates together, go ...<I>I would quite like to get some mates together, go down to Westminster, and chuck Tony Blair in the Thames. But I don’t really expect to be allowed to do that, and in fact I’m quite glad that I can’t do that.<BR/><BR/>What is it that you want to do, that you cannot do?</I><BR/><BR/>Laurence, forgive if I'm wrong here, but you seem again to be trying to smear people who don't agree with you by comparing them -satrically, of course - with extremists. This was the same tactic used by the govt during the Catholic adoption farce. Read the text of the law, as DK and other racist libertarians have actually done and then come back and tell us we're only arguing for the right to be racist bastards.<BR/><BR/>And I've read all the comments on this thread but I've not read any comment that tells you that you should simply not be saying what you are saying, only plenty that vigorously disagree with you (even - gasp - using bad language). Please tell me how this is in fact trying to stop you speak. I've been shouted down on loads of leftist forums but I've always assumed it's because no-one else agrees with me, not because no-one wants me to have the right to speak. I've always assumed I retain the right to post further (unless I've been banned of course, which, erm, I haven't); which right you continue to have. <BR/><BR/>To answer your question further:<BR/><BR/>1. discussion on immigration law without falling foul of EU wide legislation;<BR/><BR/>2. discussion on various genocides, which may include lessening the figures given (as the figure for the Shoah came down from the original Soviet figures without the help or hindrance of laws), changing the motivations of people involved; redrawing conceptual maps of the process; in short, as new documents arise, changing existing interpretations of them - exactly what this law could be used to prevent, at least in part;<BR/><BR/>3. the right to write or say what I like - not directly inciting violence - without being subject not only to a prison sentence but also to subsequent deprivation of benefits, employment rights or pensions and without my views on any subject being seen as de facto an incitement to violence where there is none;<BR/><BR/>4. the right, as a citizen of the UK, to have laws made by a government elected by the citizens of the UK and not to have domestic laws relating to liberty handed down from a meeting at which the UK is 1/27th represented or whatever it is;<BR/><BR/>5. the right to be an angry right wing bastard without being labelled with various pathologies and given porridge.<BR/><BR/>This isn't a comprehensive list and, as always, I'm happy to be told that another law restricting freedom of expression is in fact _increasing_ it, and that anyone who doesn't agree is de facto a total and utter git. And probably a racist. <BR/><BR/>If that is how you, or anyone else, views me, then arrest me. I'll come quietly (well that _would_ make a change).Bill Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357811679771159469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54198057883733678772007-04-20T16:45:00.000+01:002007-04-20T16:45:00.000+01:00“That is just remarkably sloppy thinking. Let's no...<I>“That is just remarkably sloppy thinking. Let's not confuse ability to publish with freedom of speech, eh?”</I><BR/><BR/>No, let’s confuse the two! It’s absolutely vital that we confuse the two, that’s my point. You can view freedom of speech in one of two ways. Either as an inalienable right to deny the Holocaust, or as an opportunity to make a difference. Every time a libertarian makes a great stink like on this occasion, they are just wasting a “slot” in what is a finite resource of column inches and airtime. Banging on incessantly about freedom of speech is a bit like talking about sex instead of actually doing it.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think I really need to define a word like liberty. It is simply the freedom to do what ever one pleases. I enjoy perfect liberty in my life because there is absolutely nothing that I want to do that I cannot already do, subject to the universal limitations of time, money, energy, and the law. I would quite like to get some mates together, go down to Westminster, and chuck Tony Blair in the Thames. But I don’t really expect to be allowed to do that, and in fact I’m quite glad that I can’t do that.<BR/><BR/>What is it that you want to do, that you cannot do?Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11576812385061869242007-04-20T14:15:00.000+01:002007-04-20T14:15:00.000+01:00Laurence Boyce: " A decade ago, you could make you...Laurence Boyce: " A decade ago, you could make your views known to rest of us by writing a letter to one of the papers and getting some decimated version of it printed on page 37. If you were lucky that is."<BR/><BR/>That is just remarkably sloppy thinking. Let's not confuse ability to publish with freedom of speech, eh?<BR/><BR/>Frankly I don't particularly care whether my views are published on the internet or elswhere. Want I don't want is some bleeding numbskull interfering jobsworth telling me what I can say or, indeed, what terms I can use. I am utterly pissed off with complete mongs imposing their 'values' and 'beliefs' and 'faith systems' on the rest of humanity.<BR/><BR/>You introduced the word 'Liberty' into this debate. Now please do us all a favour and tell us what exactly you mean by that term. Or maybe you now wish to withdraw it?Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89018208389023478902007-04-20T12:03:00.000+01:002007-04-20T12:03:00.000+01:00Richard, I’m not in a minority of one because I ag...Richard, I’m not in a minority of one because I agree with you all! I don’t want legislation restricting freedom of speech; I think it’s counterproductive; the David Irving case showed that. Neither do I want ID cards, but not because I think that Big Brother is going to follow me around controlling my thoughts. I don’t want ID cards because I know the government will cock it up and the computer system will cost billions and won’t work and so on.<BR/><BR/>But what I don’t accept is that there is any slippery slope here or any need to man the barricades. Some of the above posting has just been pure paranoia in this respect. What we are seeing is the democratic process at work. If you don’t like European interference, then there are measures you can take. Once again I don’t see your signature on a <A HREF="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EUreferendum" REL="nofollow">recent petition</A> though I do see mine.<BR/><BR/>In a democracy we all help shape and influence legislation but our individual contribution is necessarily miniscule. That is how democracy works, by summing together these infinitesimal forces on the levers of power. If the legislation is bad, then it is fundamentally our fault. We can blame “dark forces” if we like but that will get us nowhere and just invite ridicule.<BR/><BR/>This is not the first time I have been shouted down vigorously by proponents of free speech, where the irony of the situation appears to be completely lost on them. And doing it over the internet just takes the biscuit. Of course there are countries where the internet is censored, so that is where the change needs to take place. But we don’t have libertarians to thank for the internet, nor even Al Gore. Just the technology.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-8824706653927998462007-04-20T02:57:00.000+01:002007-04-20T02:57:00.000+01:00Laurence,leaving aside my rejection of foreign pow...Laurence,<BR/><BR/>leaving aside my rejection of foreign powers imposing laws on this country without any democratic control, one thing I'll add (just to avoid you getting the last word!) is that it should be down to these people to prove the necessity of a new law, not for us to disprove it. What does this law with all its paragraphs and clauses do (for the good) that isn't covered by the prohibition of incitement to violence?<BR/><BR/>No one's trying to shut down debate. It's just you're in a minority of one on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-26117753083198144192007-04-20T01:34:00.000+01:002007-04-20T01:34:00.000+01:00Jesus, I never even mentioned the BBC. And I’m cer...Jesus, I never even mentioned the BBC. And I’m certainly no fan of New Labour. Can’t any of you understand an argument in the abstract? Just look at some of the vituperation that has come my way today. It’s enough to make anyone wonder who’s really trying to shut down the debate here.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-80034676633593411232007-04-20T00:59:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:59:00.000+01:00What is political correctness..?Speaking over simp...What is political correctness..?<BR/><BR/>Speaking over simplistically, it's a political and conceptual hegemony, laurence, by the most powerful groups in society (government and giant corporations) to advance and protect their interests at the expense of the majority of us in England. <BR/><BR/>The Scots are not subject to the same level of hegemonic control, largely because they are (or rather were) a crucial part of nulab's payroll vote.<BR/><BR/>Political correctness is the ideological wing of nulab and their corporate backers and a critical part of their political thrust towards high levels of power and privilege via control and dominance of the way of life of the rest of us.<BR/><BR/>PC focuses on a number of ideological concepts such as 'Social justice', 'inclusiveness', 'partnership', 'life long learning', 'choice', which, in reality, stand for the very opposite of their implied and generally accepted meanings. <BR/><BR/>For those in England, the reality of nulab's social justice is denial of justice. Here, social justice means suffering unjust and disproportionate levels of overall taxation, plus unjust funding of NHS, Higher Education, care for elderly and cancer patients, disproportionate living standards and services and unjust levels of regulation<BR/><BR/>It also means unjust and disproportionate regulation of the majority in relation to the political class. The majority must relinquish; smoking; obesity; pension expectations; reasonably priced travel; the homes we've worked to pay for all of our lives (when sick); privacy in our homes and our lives; our fingerprints; DNA, and freedom of expression - and all in the 'national interest'. <BR/><BR/>All the while government give themselves and the Scots increasing levels of privileged funding and exemption from control and intrusion in these areas<BR/><BR/>Auntie Flo'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-45834977769110476292007-04-20T00:50:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:50:00.000+01:00BTWLibertarianism like conservatism is not an ideo...BTW<BR/>Libertarianism like conservatism is not an ideology it is a way of thinking.<BR/><BR/>They are both expressions of the eternal individual human spirit which refuses to LOVE the socialist jackboot, however many times it is told, lied, or intimidated too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-71489620033629889812007-04-20T00:32:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:32:00.000+01:00Dont worry about the comming of an Orwellian futur...Dont worry about the comming of an Orwellian future anymore, because its already here.<BR/><BR/>Its worked on the likes of Laurence Boyce anyway.<BR/><BR/>I quote<BR/>Political correctness is not an attack on free speech it IS free speech.<BR/><BR/>And just to show what a great job the BBC and the education system has done. He thinks that it is Gordon Browns hard work and higher taxation that is giving us a higher standard of living. Not cheap Chinese imports and the British peoples hard work coupled with the use of modern technology.<BR/><BR/>Working on LB logic we would be at our richest if taxes were over 100%.<BR/><BR/>We would also have true free speech, when the government has got around to completly working out by law what it will or will not allow us to say about anything whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>Good thing that they have not brought in a law yet banning being in possesion of a silly political social and economic ideology.<BR/><BR/>Because he would be starting a ten year sentence, before he gets to finish his cornflakes in the morning. If a government he did not like gets into power, one day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53623260262342576222007-04-20T00:30:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:30:00.000+01:00laurence boyce [10.54 PM] You say: "Political corr...laurence boyce [10.54 PM] You say: "Political correctness (whatever that is) is not an attack on freedom of speech. It is freedom of speech."<BR/><BR/>Come, come, laurence, you know perfectly well what political correctness is; not freedom of speech, but the very opposite. A doctrine which:<BR/><BR/>1. Holds that certain things are unsayable and certain words are unusable;<BR/><BR/>2. Expects that the list of unsayable things and unusable words will be drawn up by the political left and rigorously enforced against the political right. <BR/><BR/>On your recommendation I read Robert Locke's "Marxism of the Right". It is risible. He defines libertarianism in terms which no libertarian would recognise and then pours scorn on it. I resent the time spent reading such stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22307785099925518382007-04-20T00:20:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:20:00.000+01:00"As Locke points out, sometimes we freely choose t..."As Locke points out, sometimes we freely choose to have our freedoms restricted."<BR/><BR/>You're confusing democracy with liberty. Locke's argument is shockingly weak, especially his point about Russia being an example of laissez-faire capitalism. It's dealt with pretty well here:<BR/><BR/>http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/03/10/libertarians-do-it-laissez-faire/<BR/><BR/>One point the respondent doesn't bring up (and which therefore weakens his argument) is that not all libertarians have advocated treating children like adults. There is disagreement in the libertarian camp on childrens' rights. He could also have done a better demolition of Locke's point regarding Japan i.e. Japan's success was due to its high savings rate and many industries the state tried to support failed while many of its most successful ones ignored state direction. As for Russia - several decades under Soviet Communism were hardly conducive to the emergence of a genuine free market order. Libertarians have always accepted that a culture that respects enforcement of contracts and private property rights is necessary for laissez-faire to function. Such as 19th century Britain and America for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73068384974851505972007-04-19T23:40:00.000+01:002007-04-19T23:40:00.000+01:00"I’d much rather have a higher standard of living ..."I’d much rather have a higher standard of living than lower taxes just for the sake of it"<BR/>Yeah - tell that to the low paid who just had a tax 'cut' from the Gobblin KingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21369578538525160352007-04-19T22:54:00.000+01:002007-04-19T22:54:00.000+01:00Hi Jeremy, good to see you on 18DS the other night...Hi Jeremy, good to see you on 18DS the other night. You’ve widened the argument out a bit from my remarks there which were just about freedom of speech, but taking your points in turn:<BR/><BR/>1. Not quite sure what you mean here. State education is not in a brilliant shape, hasn’t been for some time. I don’t think we’ll be able to fix it tonight, but I’m not sure where liberty comes into it. Going off tangent, I would say that the principle of liberty cannot really apply to education in any case. If it did, many children might choose not to attend school at all.<BR/><BR/>2. We’ve got higher taxes because we have a broadly left government which we elected three times in a row. If you want lower taxes, then tack to the right. But levels of taxation are not the be all and end all. I’d much rather have a higher standard of living than lower taxes just for the sake of it.<BR/><BR/>3. I can’t say I’m that bothered by “eco-fascism.” People keep saying that the debate is being stifled, but <I>The Great Global Warming Swindle</I> was aired to the entire nation. I understand there were some “dodgy graphs” in there, but otherwise I thought that it made some pretty strong points, especially towards the end. The debate continues.<BR/><BR/>4. Political correctness you mean? In fact what does political correctness mean exactly? If someone starts a campaign against racism, sexism, and homophobia, I could certainly imagine it becoming a little tiring after a while. But it’s all part of our discourse. Political correctness (whatever that is) is not an attack on freedom of speech. It <I>is</I> freedom of speech.<BR/><BR/>5. You mean Europe? Fine, so vote UKIP (which I think you do). But I’m not sure that people in general are all that fussed. There was a <A HREF="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EUreferendum" REL="nofollow">petition recently</A> calling for a referendum on continued membership of the EU, but it gained less than 5,000 signatures. It’s going to need 5 million to make a good start. The funny thing is that I can see my name on the list, but I can’t see yours.Laurence Boycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838530535994771528noreply@blogger.com