I'm getting heartily sick of the Conservatives
Discussion
As the title says, and having had the censoring and deletion of intelligent (maybe) comments by the party faithful I find this.
Firstly I'm pissed off at the semi-professional offence takers in society, people who seriously do seem to try very hard on all occasions and are quite desperate to take offence at anything.
Then I'm pissed off with the BBC, nowt new there then.
But then I'm really pissed off with the Tories, see last paragraph, my bold.
Blog from Douglas Murray.
A Conservative MP mentions honour-based violence against women. The BBC and Tories freak out
Firstly I'm pissed off at the semi-professional offence takers in society, people who seriously do seem to try very hard on all occasions and are quite desperate to take offence at anything.
Then I'm pissed off with the BBC, nowt new there then.
But then I'm really pissed off with the Tories, see last paragraph, my bold.
Blog from Douglas Murray.
A Conservative MP mentions honour-based violence against women. The BBC and Tories freak out
Douglas Murray said:
I got caught up in a rather strange to-do last week concerning the Conservative MP David Davies. BBC Radio 5 called to say that they had just done an interview with him about the horrific case of Balal Khan, a 14-year-old from Stoke on Trent who had just been convicted of raping a woman. Davies was obviously heated up about the case. Rather understandably. It wasn’t a nice case. What ensued was one of those perennial ready-made media storms of the “MP in race row” kind.
During the interview Davies had said “there do seem to be some people in some communities who don’t respect women’s rights at all, and who… without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion, who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women”.
The interviewer was clearly riled by this and demanded to know what Mr Davies was talking about. In his defence he repeatedly said that the Centre for Social Cohesion could back him up on this. I believe he was referring to a report from a couple of years ago called Crimes of the Community which focussed on honour-based violence across ethnic communities in the UK. The report is still the most in-depth investigation to date about so-called “honour-killing”, female genital mutilation and other practices which are indeed very barbaric. It’s been cited repeatedly in Parliament and the mainstream press both here and abroad. By my count Davies cited us four times.
Anyway – as a result, Radio 5 called me immediately afterwards. They said that they had already received a complaint from something called the Ramadan Foundation – a group of semi-professional offence-takers. They claimed, incorrectly, that Mr Davies’s remarks could be interpreted by listeners as meaning that Muslims are all rapists or some such thing. No reasonable person could have taken such a thought away from the interview. Which is why the Ramadan Foundation did. To cut a long story slightly shorter, I ended up going on and had a rather predictable barnie.
There are two reasons I mention this strange affair. One is that it was perfectly clear that Mr Davies’s comments could not in any way be interpreted in the way one complainant thought they could, yet the BBC made up a new segment within the hour based on this unwarranted complaint. The result of this should, I hope be obvious. Next time you object to anything you hear on BBC radio I do hope you call in and demand a segment of your own to respond. Even – and I want there to be no misunderstanding about this – even, or perhaps especially, if your claim has no basis in reason. So the next time the BBC runs anything at all about, say, the Catholic Church, would Catholic readers of this blog mind calling in and claiming that what a guest said could be interpreted as meaning that all Catholics are rapists? Even if it most certainly could not.
Bit by bit, the BBC like other media will have to realise that an angry and delusional Muslim is as worthy of attention as an angry and delusional Catholic. That is – not really worthy of any attention at all.
Secondly, the story seems striking to me because of the Conservative party’s official response. What statement was given to the press by an anonymous “spokesman” for the party? Was it to say, “yes there are indeed problems that have been imported from foreign cultures and religions?” Or to say – as I think they should have in this case – that Mr Davies might have been going off on a bit of a tangent this time by talking about this issue in relation to this particular case, but that are were indeed problems about certain minority attitudes about women that need looking at?
No – it was simply to say: “These comments do not reflect the views of the party in any way.”
Perhaps we shouldn’t expect anything better, particularly in an election year. But I’m sure I’m not the only one who reflects on an almost daily basis that even when a Conservative MP tells the truth on a sensitive subject, the party does everything it can to cover over the fact.
During the interview Davies had said “there do seem to be some people in some communities who don’t respect women’s rights at all, and who… without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion, who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women”.
The interviewer was clearly riled by this and demanded to know what Mr Davies was talking about. In his defence he repeatedly said that the Centre for Social Cohesion could back him up on this. I believe he was referring to a report from a couple of years ago called Crimes of the Community which focussed on honour-based violence across ethnic communities in the UK. The report is still the most in-depth investigation to date about so-called “honour-killing”, female genital mutilation and other practices which are indeed very barbaric. It’s been cited repeatedly in Parliament and the mainstream press both here and abroad. By my count Davies cited us four times.
Anyway – as a result, Radio 5 called me immediately afterwards. They said that they had already received a complaint from something called the Ramadan Foundation – a group of semi-professional offence-takers. They claimed, incorrectly, that Mr Davies’s remarks could be interpreted by listeners as meaning that Muslims are all rapists or some such thing. No reasonable person could have taken such a thought away from the interview. Which is why the Ramadan Foundation did. To cut a long story slightly shorter, I ended up going on and had a rather predictable barnie.
There are two reasons I mention this strange affair. One is that it was perfectly clear that Mr Davies’s comments could not in any way be interpreted in the way one complainant thought they could, yet the BBC made up a new segment within the hour based on this unwarranted complaint. The result of this should, I hope be obvious. Next time you object to anything you hear on BBC radio I do hope you call in and demand a segment of your own to respond. Even – and I want there to be no misunderstanding about this – even, or perhaps especially, if your claim has no basis in reason. So the next time the BBC runs anything at all about, say, the Catholic Church, would Catholic readers of this blog mind calling in and claiming that what a guest said could be interpreted as meaning that all Catholics are rapists? Even if it most certainly could not.
Bit by bit, the BBC like other media will have to realise that an angry and delusional Muslim is as worthy of attention as an angry and delusional Catholic. That is – not really worthy of any attention at all.
Secondly, the story seems striking to me because of the Conservative party’s official response. What statement was given to the press by an anonymous “spokesman” for the party? Was it to say, “yes there are indeed problems that have been imported from foreign cultures and religions?” Or to say – as I think they should have in this case – that Mr Davies might have been going off on a bit of a tangent this time by talking about this issue in relation to this particular case, but that are were indeed problems about certain minority attitudes about women that need looking at?
No – it was simply to say: “These comments do not reflect the views of the party in any way.”
Perhaps we shouldn’t expect anything better, particularly in an election year. But I’m sure I’m not the only one who reflects on an almost daily basis that even when a Conservative MP tells the truth on a sensitive subject, the party does everything it can to cover over the fact.
A party paralysed by the media.
How can we make an informed choice to vote for a party that cannot express what it stands for? 'Getting Labour out' is not a reason to vote for this shower, I've said it before on here, I do hope there's a good independant to vote for come the election, as despite quite liking him, I can't vote for Hague when he belongs to such a weak and spineless party.
How can we make an informed choice to vote for a party that cannot express what it stands for? 'Getting Labour out' is not a reason to vote for this shower, I've said it before on here, I do hope there's a good independant to vote for come the election, as despite quite liking him, I can't vote for Hague when he belongs to such a weak and spineless party.
john_p said:
Support in polls does seem to be tumbling a bit lately. I wonder if they are trying to please too many camps..
Indeed, I think they do have to tread a fine line. If they're ahead in the polls then there's a lot to be said for staying low and not doing/saying anything too radical.I hope that once elected (hopefully) they'll be clear to make the big decisions. However that will require a majority...
People want a party to put it's line in the sand and then act.
CMD's lot are pretending to draw little feint lines for lots of different people and spouting lots of doublespeak.
This isn't conducive of a party that will act.
People know that the country has wallowed into a sorry state and decisive action is what's needed. People may lack education on the economy and the fine nature of the policies, but they want a change and know that the only way it will happen is by people prepared to actually do it.
You don't send Mary Poppins to do Arnie's job.
CMD's lot are pretending to draw little feint lines for lots of different people and spouting lots of doublespeak.
This isn't conducive of a party that will act.
People know that the country has wallowed into a sorry state and decisive action is what's needed. People may lack education on the economy and the fine nature of the policies, but they want a change and know that the only way it will happen is by people prepared to actually do it.
You don't send Mary Poppins to do Arnie's job.
Although I feel generally inclined toward most Conservative policies, I feel that at the moment I'd only be voting for a party which wasn't Labour.
Cameron is too bland, almost too false, trying to be too much like Bliar. It's almost like they are petrified of committing to anything in case the left-wing press seize onto it and game over; their hand isn't strong enough so they are just continuing to bluff and bluff and hope to win the election..
Cameron is too bland, almost too false, trying to be too much like Bliar. It's almost like they are petrified of committing to anything in case the left-wing press seize onto it and game over; their hand isn't strong enough so they are just continuing to bluff and bluff and hope to win the election..
I quite like the intrigue and mystique surrounding the Conservative policies at the moment. Nobody really knows what they stand for, I expect they must know, they just seem to be keeping it secret from us until nearer the time.
Does anyone actually know any of their policies?
They seem to be. . .
1) Hope Brown stays in charge of Labour
2) Avoid questions on Europe
3) Keep changing their stance on economic cuts.
4) Generally try to appeal to everyone in a vague kind of way, without actually pleasing anyone.
5) Try to win an election without actually having any policies whatsoever.
I'll still vote for them to stop Labour getting in again but I'm really surprised how poorly they are performing so close to an election given all the disasters Labour have been involved in over the last decade.
Does anyone actually know any of their policies?
They seem to be. . .
1) Hope Brown stays in charge of Labour
2) Avoid questions on Europe
3) Keep changing their stance on economic cuts.
4) Generally try to appeal to everyone in a vague kind of way, without actually pleasing anyone.
5) Try to win an election without actually having any policies whatsoever.
I'll still vote for them to stop Labour getting in again but I'm really surprised how poorly they are performing so close to an election given all the disasters Labour have been involved in over the last decade.
Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 2nd February 16:17
To be fair, its not just the Tories who are caught up with the political correctness thing. This has been slowly growing for 40 years, ever since they started pandering to Mary sodding Whitehouse.
There are lots of uncomfortable facts out there that the media like to blow out of all proportion when a politician tels it like it is, for example most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.
There are lots of uncomfortable facts out there that the media like to blow out of all proportion when a politician tels it like it is, for example most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.
PaulHogan said:
Their single most important policy - and it will, I'm afraid, win them the election - is they are NOT the Labour Party and their leader is NOT Winky Mcf
kNut
The Tories won't win this election. Labour will lose it. Big difference.kNutHow on earth are they simply not romping ahead in the polls? Disaster after disaster in the government which they seem unable to capitalise on.
CMD needs to be out and about telling anyone who will listen exactly what he and his party intend to do to sort this mess out. This country needs clear leadership and strong policy to back it up.
Winning by default just isn't going to cut it. The Conservative party need a resounding victory and a clear mandate to govern.
William Hague is the man for the job in my opinion.
rs1952 said:
Oh yeah - 14 pints a night and a cap on backwards, wasn't it? 
That is exactly the reason that we end up with ineffectual morons in government - people are apparantly more interested in what people look like and what they do in their personal lives than they are with their competence. Hague is probably one of the most intelligent people in parliament, and it shows when he speaks at the dispatch box - He used to regularly get the better of Blair at PMQs.14 pints a night? Do you seriously think that he drinks that much every day, or even on a regular basis? I doubt very much there are many people who didn't drink too much at times in their youth.
rs1952 said:
B17NNS said:
William Hague is the man for the job in my opinion.
Oh yeah - 14 pints a night and a cap on backwards, wasn't it? I'd like to see a firm statement of ideology from the Conservatives. I accept they are wary of revealing specific policies this far ahead of the election, but would like to see a commitment to a set of values and an ideological belief, rather than the media-led, court of public opinion shambles that Labour and Conservatives both appear to be embracing...
Tangent Police said:
tank slapper said:
Anyone else expecting this election to have a record low turnout?
Yes. We are powerless to change anything and the local nobodies are all on a trough binge. (is what most people will think, I suspect).The reaction to that is to stay at home and moan.
I'm not sure who will benefit / suffer most from that?
Low turnout is usually bad for Labour, but then you have the severley disenchanted Tory vote. I'd bet the Lib Dim vote will hold up in terms of numbers.
Just don't know how to call the result.
Re B17NNS comment "Tories won't win it, Labour will lose it."
I still think there are significant parallels to the 92 election where Tories didn't win it, but Labour lost it, i.e. unpopular dicredited Government seemed as if they were trying not to win the next election when the Opposition snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
There is a distinct difference this time from 92, then John Major gained support because he was not Margaret Thatcher, and Labour had had it's leadership change and people, rightly imho, just did not trust Neil Kinnock.
In the end the only real losers in this election will be the electorate, sadly. I'm afraid I'm with fluffnik on this, the whole rotten barrel needs breaking up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff