Events in other parts of the world have so distracted me lately that it was with some embarrassment that I had to admit, when I ran into Harry Miller at a House of Lords free speech event recently, that I had only “vaguely heard” of his Bad Law Project. Well, I’ve definitely heard about it now: the fearless free speech champion was arrested on Thursday for standing between police officers and their intended target, a military veteran of many years honourable service. The background to this event can be found here, with videos of the event (in chronological order) here, here, here and here.
The ex-soldier’s supposed crime? He had posted a trans-BLM flag reimagined as a swastika on social media. This emblem was originally designed and posted by Laurence Fox and re-posted by many others – including the Daily Mail. Its purpose was to highlight the authoritarianism of “trans-activist” groups such as Stonewall, whose influence runs so deeply in the police (and in Whitehall, local government, universities and employers) that one of the attending police officers was even, according to Harry’s report, wearing a rainbow badge saying “Hampshire Police” on it.
Harry is right to say that the rainbow flag is a political symbol, and that the police are legally obligated to be impartial (but they aren’t). Imagine the situation at some Hampshire Constabulary office where these same officers were sitting down assessing the complaint they’d apparently received about the ex-soldier’s post mocking the rainbow flag – which is a lawful statement in common law and also protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. They can hardly have been unbiased – one look down at their rainbow badges would have told them what to do. They simply cannot claim that they acted impartially when they themselves wear as insignia the very symbol being mocked.
Thus, the arrests of Harry and the military veteran look political – that is, the police are acting as the enforcement arm of a contentious political creed. A shocking statement to make, but true. Indeed, the police actions were so sinister that I began to speculate whether, in fact, by wearing these political badges while purporting to act as the police, they are themselves in breach of the Public Order Act 1936 – a statute that was intended to suppress the public marches and quasi-military pretensions of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.
I doubt Hampshire Constabulary will be arresting themselves for a public order offence –quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – but comparisons to political police forces in totalitarian societies might not be all that hyperbolic. As Justice Julian Knowles said in Harry Miller v. College of Policing:
The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.
In that case, the judge ruled that it was unlawful for Harry Miller to have been questioned by police to “check his thinking” over a supposedly anti-trans comic verse. How much more unlawful, then, to arrest Harry in defending another man for something rather similar? The police would call that an aggravated offence. Yet the police consistently fail to recognise, despite it having been pointed out on numerous occasions by courts up to and including the European Court of Human Rights as far back as 1976 (Handyside v. United Kingdom), that being offensive is not an offence – or else “who should ’scape whipping?” And following Harry Miller v. College of Policing, the College of Policing recently issued new guidance supposedly making this clear (if it wasn’t already). But the police don’t seem to be listening to the very public pronouncements of the courts, or even to their own standards body. And it seems that instead of the now-discredited “non-crime hate incident”, police are still recording nonsense complaints, this time calling them “other incident: non crime”.
The police were recently mocked for driving round a rainbow-themed billboard on the side of a van which said being offensive is an offence, which clearly shows their deep misunderstanding of the law as well as their favouritism towards certain causes. But to see how real and pervasive the politicisation of our police has become, one simply has to observe their hands-off approach to the BLM riots, offering on one notable occasion a “non-visible style of community policing” and their bending of the knee on those occasions when they did show up – and compare that with their handling of pro-Brexit or anti-lockdown protesters. The police march with the Pride Parade – they don’t send out the Territorial Support Group.
These actions of the police are causing a deepening division in our overwhelmingly tolerant and civil democratic society. They seem to think we’re all anti-trans racist bigots, but the problem with cops enforcing the political agenda of organisations like BLM or Stonewall is that we do not live in a racist or anti-trans society, and it is the police who are increasingly looking like partisan, intolerant bigots.
As Sir Trevor Phillips – who knows something about police bigotry – said in his speech to that same recent House of Lords event, before an audience including the likes of the Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey (both now victorious in their free speech battles):
There is nobody here who does not believe that somebody who thinks they were born into the wrong body shouldn’t be treated equally, and shouldn’t [have the] same privileges, rights and compassion as anybody else. There are no transphobes here.
That is to say, those who oppose these authoritarian travesties being committed by organisations such as employers or the police are not attacking trans people. Nor are we racists – as Trevor Phillips might have said, if it weren’t already obvious. What is at stake is whether we can make statements such as “trans women are not women”, “all lives matter” or “I don’t want to live in some sort of alcohol-free Muslim caliphate” without being investigated by the police – even when some people take offence. Trevor Phillips went on to say:
There is no right not to be offended. That is part of what it means to live in a democracy.
So the problem is not with Harry Miller, or with the ex-soldier. The problem is with those who, possibly at the urging of BLM, Stonewall or other groups, break the law by harassing, intimidating and alarming innocent citizens. In this case, the problem is with Hampshire Constabulary. On the previous Sunday, when three officers visited the veteran at his home, their motives were clear: they threatened him with arrest unless he paid £60 and agreed to go on a course that the police said would “re-educate” him.
I wonder who wrote that re-education course. Did any outside organisations contribute to it? Does this course accurately reflect the law? I sincerely doubt it, and Hampshire Constabulary have said they won’t provide that information absent an FOI request. But the irony is, of course, that they are the ones who need re-education – not in some Maoist fashion, but by innocent citizens not bowing to their madness, by the courts issuing harsher penalties against constabularies for false arrest under circumstances that so clearly contravene established law – and by reform of the law.
In the United States, there is a citizens’ movement of “First Amendment Auditors” (whom the police, sometimes quite understandably, loathe), who visibly exercise their rights to free expression under the law – for instance, by videotaping in a public place. This often results in them being unlawfully arrested, but it does seem to have had the effect of forcing some police departments to revise their policies and training procedures – if only because the judgements for false arrest can easily get into the tens of thousands of dollars, making it a lucrative business. (The popular YouTube channel “Audit the Audit” documents some of their efforts with informed commentary.)
I hesitate to suggest that we need something similar in this country, mainly because it might (at least in the short term) cause the police’s already woeful performance in solving crime to sink even lower. In one area of Aldershot near where Harry Miller was arrested, police have solved none of the 83 burglaries committed over the past three years. Yet they sent no fewer than five officers to this non-incident, resulting in probably reams of paperwork – not to mention the financial costs of defending the claims that’ll soon be made by the arrestees. (Laurence and Harry’s Bad Law Project has already issued a letter before action.) What a gigantic waste of time, money and resources. So wouldn’t it be marvellous if instead of these officers policing our tweets, they could instead police our streets?
It’s unsurprising that the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner said:
I am concerned about both the proportionality and necessity of the police’s response to this incident. When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response, something is wrong.
One has to ask: How did we get into this crazy mess in the first place? It wasn’t always like this.
Perhaps surprisingly to those who’ve grown up in an increasingly repressive society, in recent history the law around speech wasn’t all that different, in effect, from U.S. law. It began to diverge significantly with the introduction of the Race Relations Act 1965, enacted in response to the considerable racism and violence stemming from sections of society following the wave of immigration that began in 1948. Firstly, this created a civil offence to prevent refusal of service or other discrimination on the basis of race in hotels, bars, theatres, etc. In this limited respect it paralleled events in the U.S., where the Civil Rights Act had been enacted the previous year. However, the Race Relations Act also created, in clause 6, the crime of “incitement to racial hatred” – a momentous change in the law regarding speech.
Before that point, the law required that for speech to be unlawful, it had to be intended to cause – or at least be likely to cause – a breach of the peace. The term “breach of the peace” means “when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance”. This arose from the Public Order Act 1936, occasioned by the threat to public order of the British Union of Fascists, and which effectively (though not technically) replaced the common law crime of “incitement [to violence]” in this area. The point is that for speech to be criminal it had to be – based on a reasonableness standard – likely to lead to violence.
However, the 1965 Act went beyond this to create a criminal offence in circumstances where speech was likely to inculcate in the mind of the hearer a feeling of hatred towards a particular racial or ethnic group, decoupled from any likelihood of violence or the threat of violence. In relation to the former common law offence of “incitement”, this law effectively made the offender guilty as an accomplice before the fact of an imaginary, hypothetical crime of violence: one that had not been committed, nor would likely ever be committed.
It’s worth quoting at length from the then Labour Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, in the Commons debate in which he addresses criticism from the Opposition of clause 6 in a manner that will be familiar to anyone who has ever argued for free speech:
[…] would they on reflection, really wish to retain such a liberty [as the liberty to cause hatred] in so far as the existing law allows it? I am positively certain that there is no Hon. Member of the House who would dream of wishing to exercise it. I said in so far as it is allowed under existing law.Our common law, as interpreted in his summing-up to the jury in the well-known Caunt case [R. v. Caunt [1947] 64 LQR 203, Birkett J. – a failed seditious libel case against an anti-Semitic newspaper article that arguably led to violence] by the late Lord Birkett, provides that to seek to promote violence by stirring up hostility or ill-will between classes of Her Majesty’s subjects is a serious criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. The common law offence requires an intention to stir up disorder. When hatred has been stirred up history, unfortunately, shows only too clearly that violence and disorder are probably not far away.
Clause [6] substitutes an intention to stir up hatred for an intention to stir up disorder. That is far from a momentous change.
The final paragraph is a fine example of rhetorical legerdemain, since the law for the first time made citizens in some sense responsible for the thoughts of their fellows. And the answer to the question of whether such a liberty – to create feelings even of hatred in the absence of any likelihood of violence – is a liberty worth having or defending must clearly be “yes”, since as Justice Sedley famously observed: “freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.
Yet even where the text of the Race Relations Act formally decoupled hatred from violence, the stated intent of the law was nevertheless to prevent such speech on the grounds that “violence [would] not [be] far away”.
This is an absolutely crucial point: at that time, the justification for such legislation was, ultimately, to prevent violence, even where violence were just a dim and distant prospect. A noble aim, under the circumstances. But while it may be the case that hatred (as distinct from greed, envy and so on) can lead to violence, this begs the question of whether suppression of “hate speech” decreases the likelihood of violence: it is merely assumed to be true. I won’t offer a detailed argument to the contrary, but will observe that such arguments are very possible and even compelling – for instance, with reference to 1920–30s Germany (where Hitler’s popularity arose in some measure from the suppression of his speech), the English Civil War, etc.
It was clear at the time that the Conservative Opposition understood that the proposed Bill was very much not “far from a momentous change”. Quoting W.R. Rees-Davies in the same debate:
On that point, does the Right Hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that this particular matter is absolutely plain? Hatred is not in any way linked whatsoever to the creation of a breach of the peace or a public disorder. Clause [6] does not relate to them at all. The Right Hon. and learned gentleman referred to them being likely to stir up hatred, but says nothing whatever as to whether there was any likelihood of a breach of the peace. That is what is wrong with it.
The question might have been asked, that once hatred in the mind of the public became regulated, ought not the law also regulate other feelings, such as hurt and distress? This is, of course, what has happened.
Following the Southall riots in 1979, a review was conducted into the public order legislation. Again, the basis of the review was to prevent actual public order disturbances. Yet, under this cover, clause 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 made it unlawful to use “insulting” language in a manner likely to cause “distress”. Note that, in the words of the then Home Secretary, “we have abandoned the requirement of proof of actual alarm, harassment or distress”.
Further, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 criminalised the sending of a message that is “indecent or grossly offensive” and which causes “distress or anxiety” to the recipient.
The Blair-era laws went further, extending the legal protections of persons based on race (which, in the words of Soskice, is a characteristic “nobody can help”) to the protection of elective characteristics such as religion, gender identity, and so on. In addition, the Communications Act 2003 criminalised the sending of a “grossly offensive, indecent or obscene message” without the requirement that the message ever even be received by anyone, let alone be perceived as hurtful.
We have now, sadly, entered the Orwellian realm of thought policing. So to restore our freedom of speech we should not simply tinker around at the edges with slight changes to this or that law (as has been done), but seriously reconsider the fundamental principles at stake. Instead of regulating the thoughts and emotions of our citizenry, we should have greater respect for the speech rights that were so dearly won for us over past centuries, and revert to something similar to the status quo ante, narrowly defining unlawful speech by requiring there to be evidence of potential violence (not just some vaguely defined “harm”).
The well-argued U.S. jurisprudential standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which prevents government interference in speech of this type unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” might be too much for many to stomach, but a thorough overhaul of the laws that have led us to the point where a petty, grievance-mongering individual can perhaps gleefully bring about the infliction of violence – i.e., forcible arrest and imprisonment – based very likely on nothing more than a false claim of victimhood, is long overdue.
The type of complainant in this case, as well as the police, are now the ones frequently likely to be responsible for what the U.S. Supreme Court called “imminent lawless action”. This should not stand.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Yeah, well, why don’t they do down to Duckett’s Common on Turnpike Lane and see how many whites are playing pickup basketball on the courts there? Though to be fair in recent years the Eastern Europeans have been present there too. Not too many White English though. Or Flipper’s Roller Boogie Palace in Shepherd’s Bush on a Saturday night.
If I were black I reckon I’d think this lot are patronising gits telling me what I should and should not spend my leisure time and money on.
I see nobody’s decided to pick on skiing yet though.
Not only are the slopes the wrong colour and should come with a trigger warning, but I’ve never seen any black people skiing. Therefore, skiing is a racist sport undertaken by white supremacists. 
Also, I’m frankly amazed the woketard lunatics haven’t decided to persecute farmers further and declare farming a profession rife with racism, ergo farmers are white oppressors, because when’s the last time you saw a black farmer?
I can’t see this woke mind virus going anywhere, unfortunately. It’s going to be with us to infinity and beyond.
The idea that every group, sub-group etc has to be equally represented everywhere at all times is so obviously moronic that you’d think even the most idiotic of useful idiots would see through it.
And just a reminder that it is entirely possible to be black and racist. You reading this, Hardliner??
”Julius Malema has repeatedly called for the genocide of the 4 million Whites living in South Africa.
Malema could very possibly be elected as Prime Minister in a few months.
Zero international outrage.”
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1754911641789956447
But then there is the enforced daily menu of DEI driven twee adverts – equally moronic
Well of course whites, especially non-camp white males, are grossly under-represented now in TV commercials. But the traitors responsible will justify this “because racism”.
See my comment later here. Racist is meaningless in law. Ergo there cannot be racism whatever one may say or do. Those often calling white people racist are wasting their breath, but of course the left lap it up!
The %age of black and Asian persons in the UK population is 13% and that is a ratio of 1:7.7. It is wrong to suggest that the numbers are in some way skewed to show a white supremacy – there is a white supremacy in numbers. As an ex farmer, I did not see any interest in agriculture by minority ethnic groups in the same way that rap singers are normally black not white.
I am fed up seeing every advertisment or hoarding showing a disproportionate number of minority ethnic groups being used which indicates a much higher %age of these groups in British society. Try asking random friends their estimate of the %age of black and Asian persons in the British population, you will be astonished by their incorrect answers.
Incidentally, I have stopped our annual subscriptions to the National Trust and RSPCA about 3 years ago when I saw the way their woke doctrines were being rolled out. Both are member organisations and that is the way to ‘hurt’ them and make them think again about their ideologies which do not represent many of their members
“Try asking random friends their estimate of the %age of black and Asian persons in the British population, you will be astonished by their incorrect answers.”
I believe that is part of the intention- to normalise something that will eventually happen
This heavily depends on where you are. The people who commission this kind of programming live in cities and most of them, probably in London. Hence, all their adverts show „real Londoners“ according to a subjective sampling made when occasionally walking around in Westminster and Camden¹.
¹ On Saturdays, Camden High Street is absolutely stuffed with stalls where black and brown people sell all kinds of crud and many of their customers are from the same ethnicities. Walking there has a decidedly Tourist in some third-world country feel to it.
There is the London centric aspect but I feel it has more to do with ESG, wokery and making sure they can never be accused of racism, so they go overboard with making sure there are plenty of minorities and blacks.
You will hardly ever see a TV advert with 5 white people in it, even though statistically this would be very likely if the actors in the ad were chosen at random. ——-But ofcourse they are not chosen at random. Tere a TV period drama called Bridgerton. The producers were asked why there were so many black people in it when there were not many black people (if any) around at that time. They replied that their casting as “colour blind”—-So does this mean they would have no problem casting George Clooney as Nelson Mandela?
Obviously not. That would require their casting to be white-blind which it certainly isn’t.
Yes and it shows the absurdity of the social engineering going on where TV dramas, adverts etc are used to stuff minorities everywhere for political purposes. – Can we not even be free of diversity politics in our entertainment ? ——Apparently not.
There is but one – The Black Farmer (theblackfarmer.com)
“The country’s green spaces are governed by “white British cultural values”, the report argues”
I should damned well hope so.
Until recently the United Kingdom was white and Christian and the last thing we need are more overtly melanin supplied islamic foreigners with no roots in this land dictating a la the khant how our countryside should be governed.
You’ve got to wonder about the pitiful individuals who presented these conclusions. They are presumably just useful idiots, but what a way to spend your time. They need to find a less depressing hobby, like sex, drugs or rock’n’roll. Anything to stop them doing so much good!
tof, I have one word for the treasonous barstewards pushing this crap although good manners dictates I use two :
Next Tuesdays.
Yup. I just cannot fathom it – what possesses them? I will never understand it. The big fish I can sort of understand – money and power are attractive in their way. But getting off on self-flagellation or flagellating others working for these charities? Just crazy. We visit lots of old buildings and always chat to the volunteers who are sort of guides and security people rolled into one – all enthusiasts giving up their time who love our history. I’d walk out if I were them and my organisation was run by this kind of dregs.
Totally agree.
I work as a volunteer Dry Stone Waller. I do hard physical labour building and repairing some of the 180,000 miles of dry stone walls that decorate these beautiful islands. I love this country, our landscape and our heritage. I am white and Christian and the firkin treasonous heathens despoiling these lands have no right to remain here.
The landscapes of the United Kingdom have been shaped by our white, Christian ancestors and I am exceedingly proud of what they have given us. Those that wish to mock and deride their achievements can just F. Off.
“I work as a volunteer Dry Stone Waller.”
Good on yer, mate.
I kind of get people coming here from crap countries looking for an easier or better life. What I don’t get is our fellow native Brits who seem to want to drag our country down.
Thanks tof.
Good on you Hux. I did a dry stone walling course a while back, its fecking hard work.
Where did you do the course WW?
In the West Country. Lots of limestone walls hereabouts.
Brilliant. Good on you.
There are just not enough rice paddies in Essex, and scarcely a digging-stick to be seen in Herefordshire. And why are re re-wilding with white British beavers when Salisbury ||Plain could be full of colourful Bison hunts?
Yes white is the new green, but what they really want is 50 shades of brown…
I can only recommend these people take a leaf out of Midsomer Murders book, where it went from 100% Caucasian to culturally enriched over the course of 2 episodes. Something to aspire to there then…
I think it is a silly point because you can’t expect black people to feel the same resonance for the European countryside as white people. If you think that then you don’t ken the differences between the races. And it isn’t because of an anti-black attitude in the countryside or because of a feeling of being threatened. It is deeply ingrained in us. Imagine you moved to live in the amazon. Do you think you would have the same connection to the land as the natives do? Of course not their connection would be beyond our understanding. As if you can catch up by being there for a couple of generations or reading a few books. That is an arrogant position.
What if we planted some palm trees..?
There are lots of palm trees in Reading, eg, on a windy night just north of the Forbury (park).
“suggesting that the Government create a “legally binding target for access to nature”, possibly by ensuring everyone has a green space within a 15-minute walk from their home.”
“A 15 minute walk from their home”
I seem to vaguely remember ’15 minute walks from home’ cropping up as part of another agenda recently. Obviously I am becoming confused.
Silly me.
That’s what you would call des Pudels Kern¹ in German. The sole point of this load of tosh is to trick the government/ MPs into creating the first legally binding 15 minute something.
¹ Literallty, the core of the poodle, after the opening scene of Faust I, where Mephistofeles (the devil) initially appears as poodle before turning into himself.
Thanks for that RW.
Sock puppet consultancy.
Marxists who’ve infiltrated these greenist charities tell woke politicians what they want to hear.
Anyone who donates to these organisations hates England.
Donations to charities are just secondary taxation for the gullible.
And where the aforementioned charidees are mentioned the donations are treasonous.
Any charity supposedly responsible for British national heritage, the countryside or anything similar making political statemens of this kind should be lined up in a public place and then summarily executed as the shell of the former charity has obviously been secretly been invaded by enemies of Britain and the British people who killed the real charity in the process.
Seconded
“This is such a classic example of Western self-hatred.”
The people espousing the racialisation of everything and now including the very land from which we were born need forcibly exporting to somewhere like Burma or Afghanistan. Somewhere thoroughly alien to their very beings and from which they will be told there is no return. Let them racialise their new countryside and see if their politics hits a nerve with their new neighbours.
I confidently predict none of them will reach pension age.
The countryside is open to everyone. I used to visit Windsor Great Park regularly (when my ex lived there), and at a weekend there were so many visitors of all ages, shapes and ethnicities. There were usually quite a few Asian families. It’s not like anyone is being excluded.
It seems like yet another of those ‘solutions’ in search of an actual problem.
Ah – those were Asian families adopted into whiteness…
Not “adopted” Jon – in the language du jour ….Radicalised.
I think the phrase is ‘white adjacent’ – and thus equally condemned.
I visited the beach at West Wittering last year, and thought I was in Bombay or Pakistan.
There are indeed barely any Asians and Blacks one encounters inland in West Sussex, and I have come to appreciate that and find it just as normal as constantly bumping into them on the North End Road.
But the ones who do live there are very valuable and much appreciated, hard working and fully integrated members of the local community.
This is such a classic example of Western self-hatred.
This is absolutely incorrect and – in fact – a symptom of having been sucessfully brainwashed to at least some degree. These people hate us — white Europeans with a European cultural background they’re proud and not ashamed of. They don’t hate themselves.
It is a pity that black people are penned up in cities because we don’t get a lot of Vitamin D at the best of times and that meagre amount is likely to dimish subtantially over the next twenty years barring a pole shift then who knows. Black people who work in offices have a very hgh incidence of cancer and of course this is a result of Vitamin D deficiency. If you want a star to steer by I would aim at maximum sunlight and Vitamin D. We can go hard on the sun worship.
I always take extra vitamin D in winter (despite being milk bottle pale), and I don’t understand why it isn’t general advice for everyone.
I agree although there are immense complexities in defining what Vitamin D actually is. Critics of supplementation argue that the chemical that is put into supplements is actually the residue of an action of sunlight on the skin. That they aren’t capturing a beneficial substance but rather a reaction. This idea is not without merit if you look at the supposed action of Vitamin D. We use rough terms to describe forces within our reality and I think we are approaching the first step which is humility It is the only way just to say that you know nothing. It can’t be taught but every soul realises it in the end. As long as you are attuned as a human being to see that we are under a serious ongoing attack and you understand the parameters of the enemy.
Because brazenly Hancock lied in Parliament, during Covid, that it was ineffective. And yet he backtracked enough to issue too little, too late, in the winter of 20-21 to the elderly.
No science, no consistency, and much government disinformation.
It puts itself in different garb throughout the centuries but its the same old force. Look at our times and what has been robbed from us in terms of the beauty of the moment. It wishes to continue this agenda so that life being so denuded that one way or another you will kill yourself. This is not a natural situation and we have a duty to overcome it.If we don’t overcome it then they will move towards even more radical action in terms of our elimination.
In terms of banking cycles and the ‘inflate or die mentality’ we are at the end of it. This is a very dangerous point. Very little we can do on a national level. You can have a deposit guarantee scheme but what does it matter when you can inflate to infinity and they will. This really is where we are. So rich or poor we have to accept certain truths as a society and that means bridging the gulf that operned up in the early 1980s in the British people. You don’t have the luxury of dividing people up.
It means ‘Happy Days’ communities. Find some old woman in your circle, set up up as the matriarch – doesn’t matter what she’s like she is just a symbol for now we can deal with her later. I mean look at the community in The WIcker Man. They were portrayed as essentially criminals. All they were doing was practicing their ancient rites. And as Christopher L:ee said to Edward Mcallum – you will never understand the spirit of sacrifice. It isn’t a horror to be burned in the wicker man it is in fact a privilege.
British Advertising is a racist and heterophobic black space.
Which is why I completely ignore it.
Yup on the rare occasions we have live telly on the sound is immediately muted and we look away from the screen
Repulsive
Whenever I see something like this, I’m always wondering why black people would buy all this stuff. Eg, to use a current example from the Oracle “Wear heels with your hoodie!”. Well, if that’s your “culture”, why not?
You need to set up a proper old woman. Some really raddled old bag that speaks unexpected truths. And from that point you can start to rebuild.
We are moving into a year with no hope for our people. No vision, no end to the torture of rising prices, no sense of any alternative. If you are a serious person then you need to be aware of these things. These polite chats that we have here won’t last forever. We have to put the spirit of the country first and that means uniting a lot of people.
It doesn’t matter as long as you care about people. The time that we are moving into will be able to pick up on that. Having a perpective counts for a great deal.
This stuff really p*sses me off. None of these (predominantly white) self-obsessed, self-flagellating, anal-gazing woketards look at the relative poverty in rural areas, significantly lower average wages than urban areas (and often longer working hours – sheep and cattle don’t give birth 9-5 Mon-Fri), lower standards of living with a concomitant increase in health risks, higher fuel and transport costs due to distances with little or no bl**dy public transport, less access to things like adult education, etc etc… They are trying to erase a couple of millennia of the social and cultural history of a northern latitude country just so they can worship at the altar of woke. Well they can eff right off.
Terrific
Telling like it is, Hux.
The removal of the industry dealt a terrible blow. I lived in Country Antrim in northern ireland and it was a great privilege in terms of seeing nature. Parts of northern ireland were among the most beautiful places in the world that I have seen. Truly Europe’s best jkept secret. It is a fine thing and they are a fine people. Such a fine people and such a fine landscape I have lived all over the world but there is no place like the Mourne mountains.
Stop giving money to people who hate you.
I had never heard of this mob before. None of their members will get my shilling.
No more nonsense. We either continue to talk crap to each other or we do something better, I am frankly fed up with mentioning it. It is your choice, I don’t care what you say I have a feeling for it annyway. But I take you onboard,
How long before the White Cliffs of Dover are racist?
I looked up Wildlife and Countryside Link. I beleive this is the document that nhas inspired thge DT piece https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/WCL_Route_map_towards_greater_ethnic_diversity_October_2022.pdf
its a typical woke DIE word-salad that has no meaning other than to show the left-tard ‘Team’ are fully aligned with this victimhood excrement.
I see Richard Benwell is CEO; someone with a PhD in International studies, whatever they might be, but is somehow qualified to have advised the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee and later as a HoC Senior Clerk advising the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee; later standing as LibDem PPC for Wantage.
It happens that spent yesterday in a remote high altitude North Wales Sitka spruce forest with a professional contact from Kerala, who is here with university connections in the UK for a year. Weather was foul – the wettest day in 8 years. We were soaked through by nighfall. He was really enthusiastic to see it for himself, what we are doing there and compared things with his teak forests back home. Maybe I might get an invite to see them sometime if we remain permitted to travel. We talked about things of mutual interest. Otherwise his race was irrelevant. He would have been bemused had he known of this Route Map.
Few black people find themselves here but whether black brown or white we don’t see many city dwellers here especially on days like yesterday..
How does “oh just F OFF” sound .
Short and to the point Freddy.
Anyone supporting these charities should withdraw their membership forthwith. Cut off the funding and cut off the head.
That’s why I moved to the countryside
How come the NT’s begging letters kept getting mailed to whites then?
These charities obviously have far too much money such that they can waste it on non core activitities like this. Suggest all readers if they do donate stop doing so immediately as clearly as well as hating white people, they also have forgotten what their primary role is
These are nowadays their core activities. They’re just keeping the traditional names because it helps with fund-raising.
Well if you’re white probably best to stay well away from the National Trust and its properties then. They couldn’t possibly want “racist” white people’s money. And there’s no need to ever get involved with the WWF or RSPCA.
Seconded
I already try my best to avoid giving money to any organisation riddled with wokery. I even politely asked my wife not buy Dove products (Unilever) ———Surprisingly enough she agreed not to buy the creams from them. ——Maybe I shouldn’t push my luck and ask her not to buy any more of her Nike Trainers.
Maybe they could combine racism with the historic house tour with whites only being admitted through the servants entrance at the back door.
2021 National Trust CEO SALARY 115,000
2021 RSPCA CEO SALARY 95,000
“””””” WWF ” ” 90,000
Those are 2021, its now 3 years on so they will have had increases, below them are Directors, Managers who comission reports such as the above it makes you wonder how much is left to spend on the core charity remit.
I wonder how many tinged staff earn the big bucks compared to the less tinged staff.
They are being recruited as we write.
Exactly. These are the figures that matter.
If these outfits can afford to pay these sorts of salaries they don’t need donations.
Surely the British countryside has been colonised by fuchsias and rhododendrons?
Probably the countryside with it’s fields of quietly grazing sheep and blue tits whizzing about the bushes could do with a fresh injection of Rap Music. “Mutha Fukka Yo” “What’s up Yo”.
Sheep are racist! Almost all of them are white!
“Hey You Black Sheep Mutha Fukka”
Non-racial colonial white spaces are called – wastelands and deserts.
A look around the World at diverse, inclusive non-White areas shows this.
Interesting but meaningless. The recent Lawrence Fox cases both found that being called racist mas no meaning in law and there is no case for defamation that can be made against such an accusation. It means that I can safely call anyone I like racist and there cannot be any comeback, and this could well be the Police. Recent events seem to show that white people are second class citizens, and yesterday a man was arrested for waving a Union Jack at a demonstration. There were plenty of Palestinian flags and even an Isis type one, but no arrests there. I cannot imagine what the alleged crime was, as we have this flag flying over public buildings (Parliament etc.) all the time. Are they going to arrest the Speaker?
My only comment is that they are stupid, ignorant fools. But then we all know that anyway. The National Trust in particular should be careful in it’s cancelling of history crusade, there are many examples of this kind of behaviour, and all of them proved disasterous. Take the French Revolution, the killing of intelectuals set France back 100 years in its development, and may have even cost it the Industrial Revolution.
Another reason why I will not contribute to these agencies.