Why is Melanie Phillips Mainstream Acceptable? 802

I have often pointed to Melanie Phillips to illustrate the fact that while left wing radical thought is excluded from mainstream media, you can be as completely mad, raving off the wall right wing as you wish, and yet still get invited onto every BBC panel or discussion series in existence. She still justifies the Iraq War. She thought Saddam did indeed have those WMDs and they were hidden in secret underground chambers underneath the Euphrates.

Less harmlessly, Phillips employs hate speech and was praised by Anders Breivik. Sweeping anti-Muslim Phrases such as “the Islamic enemies of civilisation” come easily to her. I was appalled by this particular example of Phillips’ hate speech four years ago. You can see how Breivik found her inspiring:

Romney lost because, like Britain’s Conservative Party, the Republicans just don’t understand that America and the west are being consumed by a culture war. In their cowardice and moral confusion, they all attempt to appease the enemies within. And from without, the Islamic enemies of civilisation stand poised to occupy the void.
With the re-election of Obama, America now threatens to lead the west into a terrifying darkness.

I called this out at the time as incitement to religious hatred. Interestingly enough it has now disappeared from Phillips’ own website: http://melaniephillips.com/america-goes-into-the-darkness. But you can’t hide your disgrace on the internet.

Today Phillips spreads the hatred still wider by telling us the Scots and the Irish are not real nations. Only Britain is an authentic nation (behind the Times paywall). Scottish nationalism, she states, is based purely on romance and a hatred of the English. As for Ireland:

The truth is that a large majority of the states in the world achieved independence after 1922. Even if you pretend an Irish nation did not exist until 1922, that still makes it one of the world’s older states. In fact of course Ireland, like most other states, re-emerged into independence following colonial dominance. Nationality is a human construct, not a fact of physics or geography – there never was a state before colonialism with the precise boundaries of India or Nigeria or almost any post-colonial state you can name. But there were autonomous peoples. And very few would describe them as not a nation now.

Even old states change their boundaries from time to time. Norman Davies has a beautiful phrase about Poland emerging again and again into statehood through the mists of history, but never in the same place twice. Yet despite radical boundary changes and having had political autonomy for only 50 of the last 250 years, nobody doubts Poland is a nation state. Nobody doubts Ireland is a nation state either, except Mad Mel. As for Scotland, not only was it a full nation state for hundreds of years until it entered into a voluntary union, it is possible to trace distinct political and cultural expressions of popular nationhood.

Phillips’ hate-filled opinions would be her own affair, were she not given such powerful platforms from which to expound them. I return to where I started. Phillips is evidence you cannot be too right wing for a media platform in the UK, even if you propound actual religious hate. By comparison, nobody as left wing as Phillips is right would ever be given airtime on the BBC or a column in The Times.

802 thoughts on “Why is Melanie Phillips Mainstream Acceptable?

1 2 3 4 6
  • lysias

    If Britain is an “authentic unitary nation,” doesn’t that imply that \Scotland is not a nation either?

    • Brianfujisan


      This article may be of some historical interest to you –

      ” What Melanie doesn’t tell you is that this Celtic culture and language which was spread across Britain and Ireland was not confined to the British Isles, it was also found across Gaul, across large parts of Iberia, Central Europe, and in tribal groups all the way to Galatia in modern central Turkey. Many of the British tribes possessed territories in Gaul as well as in Britain, and they were closely linked to Gaul by ties of culture, family and language. If the tribes of Britain and Ireland did belong to a single over-arching nation, it was a Celtic nation that encompassed much of Europe. Rather like the EU, come to think of it.

      Saying that Britain was beset by “attempts at secession by tribes across Hadrian’s Wall and across the Irish Sea” is utter guff from a historical point of view. These tribes were always independent of those to the south which were conquered by Rome and incorporated into the Roman Empire. The reason the Romans built the wall was not because of secessionist activities from the northern tribes, but because they never successfully conquered the northern tribes in the first place. The Romans never extended their power to Ireland. These tribes remained proudly independent, and by the end of the Roman period a single Gaelic language and culture had spread across Ireland ” ….

      ” The modern concept of Britishness dates from no earlier than the Union of Crowns of the 17th century. It was a concept which Ireland and Scotland rejected for generations. Modern Britishness only came into being with the Union of Parliaments of 1707 and the extinguishing of Scottish independence. In theory, English independence was also extinguished by this event, but in reality as the larger and more powerful part of the new British state, the new Britishness became a proxy for English nationalism. That’s how it remains to this day. All Melanie Phillips is doing is attempting a spurious rewriting of history in an attempt to justify the right of English nationalism to rule over the rest of these islands.”


      • lysias

        And that same Gaelic language was spread to most of Scotland in the early Middle Ages.;

        • Brianfujisan

          Yes Lysias.

          They tried hard to wipe out the Gaelic, And the Dress ( kilt / Tartan )… It’s a Beautiful Language ..Especially in Song..Methinks

        • fred

          It came to Scotland from Ireland around the 4th century, by the middle ages it was already in decline. Gaelic has never been the official language of Scotland.

      • fred

        Brian where I live in Scotland wasn’t Celtic, it was Norse. Where I lived in England was Norse as well. Much of Scotland was Saxon like much of England and parts of England were Celtic, like Cornwall.

        What Orwell had to say about Celtic nationalism.

        Celtic Nationalism. Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation. Members of all three movements have opposed the war while continuing to describe themselves as pro-Russian, and the lunatic fringe has even contrived to be simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-Nazi. But Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia. Its motive force is a belief in the past and future greatness of the Celtic peoples, and it has a strong tinge of racialism. The Celt is supposed to be spiritually superior to the Saxon — simpler, more creative, less vulgar, less snobbish, etc. — but the usual power hunger is there under the surface. One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection. Among writers, good examples of this school of thought are Hugh McDiarmid and Sean O’Casey. No modern Irish writer, even of the stature of Yeats or Joyce, is completely free from traces of nationalism.

        • glenn_uk

          Hmm, I don’t know about that. Despite supposedly having their “lunatic fringes” who are “simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-Nazi”, both Wales and Ireland distinguished themselves by never having invaded another country. Odd behaviour for countries with such diabolical tendencies, wouldn’t you say?

          • bevin

            Orwell was making a point of dubious validity then and of none now.
            it is a bit like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem being pro Nazi or the tactics pursued by Subhas Chandra Bhose in WWII or Wolfe Tone and Lord Edward Fitzgerald in 1798 or Roger Casement in 1916: all made alliances against imperial Britain with the Empire’s enemies.
            To put these things in perspective you have to bear in mind that the British were also making alliances with their enemies’ enemies-hence the Orange Order, splitting Presbyterian nationalists away from the Irish cause, hence the cultivation of Zionist settlers against Arab nationalists in 1938, solidifying the rift in the two communities… and so on.
            And the answer to Bhose’s militant nationalism was to boost the Muslim League and tear India into pieces.
            All in all millions died and are still dying because the Empire was not ready to allow people to rule themselves.

          • fred

            The lunatic fringes were not necessarily Celts, any more then Hitler or Goebbels were Aryan. There is probably a bit of Pict, Celt, Norse, Saxon, Dane in most of us, Four thousand years ago the culture of the Beaker People spread across most of Europe and the British Isles we will all be descended from them.

          • Habbabkuk

            “Orwell was making a point of dubious validity then and of none now.” (Bevs, above)


            Interesting to observe how the extreme Left still has it in for Orwell more than half a century after his death.

            (Whereas they seem strangely forgiving of Uncle Joe, who also died more than half a century ago 🙂 )

        • Rob Royston

          Where you live in Scotland was Norse in much the same sense as Nigeria, India, etc, were British. The Norse were invaders and lost power on the Scottish mainland after the Battle of Largs. Where you stay the people were Celts or Picts with Viking mixed in.
          After the Hebrides came back under Scottish control, Hebrideans going to Ireland as soldiers were known there as the Gall Gaels, or the foreign Gaels.
          The Vikings left a huge influence on the areas of Scotland that they dominated for quite a long period, but the evidence suggests that the Celtic culture continued into the following centuries.

          Donald Trump is a Gall Gael on his mother’s side, he may even be linked to Leif Eriksson, the first European American, whose wife came from Lewis. Her name was Thorgunna and their sons were Thorkell and Thorgils. Donald’s Clan, the MacLeods of Lewis are known in Gaelic as “Sìol Thorcaill” , or “seed of Torquil” in the other language.

          • fred

            The first to colonise the area after the ice receded were the Picts, then came the Catti who were a Germanic tribe and after whom the County is named. Gaelic culture arrived around the 6th and 7th century with St Fergus and other missionaries then it wasn’t long before the Norse started arriving. The Vikings didn’t just arrive in Scotland across the North Sea they came from the south as well with the Normans, Robert the Bruce wasn’t a Gael he was Norman, Norse man.

            The history of Caithness is told in the surnames of it’s people, Sinclair, Sutherland, Gunn, Mowatt… It’s a part of who they are a major part. That can’t be dismissed as like Nigeria or India under British rule.

          • fred

            They wouldn’t be able to distinguish Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings genetically, the Saxons and Danes occupied the same area at different times

            Neither the Romans or the Normans did much colonising, the Romans sent an army and the Normans took over the nobility but neither sent many people to settle and raise children, both had an affect on the culture of Britain however. In Orkney there is evidence that Norse men colonised driving out Pictish men but that Pict women remained.

        • J

          Some naive thoughts on the topics raised:

          Orwell’s original preface to Animal farm appears to sum up his feelings of alienation at home and his visceral disgust toward Soviet Russia which few in his circle shared according to his observations. In 1984 his totalitarian dystopia appears meant to be an extrapolation of communism, instead it describes with unnerving accuracy the future which capitalism built and delivered. Almost as if the solution to the antagonisms within ideology will remain fundamentally the same, only the illusions are different.

          From the daily hate to eternal war, from Newspeak to Doublethink, from telescreen to constant fear of surveillance, we have it all.

          Orwell didn’t have time to extend his critique but that preface hints that he might have, even as it demonstrates how powerful obsession can be.

          I loved Terry Jones Barbarians series. The evidence presented suggests the Celts were quite the opposite of the caricature savages handed down to us by Roman hagiographers. They were smelting gold and building roads, honoured women and fashioned beautiful ornaments. The Romans were quite the opposite of everything handed down to us, more savage than the ‘savages,’ greedy, genocidal and self deceiving. Projecting brute power and total domination with almost every facet of the arts, they were more likely to hinder civilisation than nurture it. They were happiest propagandising enemies with dull regularity and then inventing phrases like ‘decimate’ to describe how they dealt with them. So dehumanising and brutalising to its enemies that they became very like the Romans in order to survive them. As Terry points out, Rome created no mathematicians of any note across the centuries, but they had great engineers and field medics. A centralised war economy is a rather short sighted and somewhat obsessed instrument, not to mention dependent on war. Eternally.

          So, what has Melanie Philips ever done for us? Apart from cheerleading for the New Rome?

        • JOML

          Hi Fred, you might find the following of interest, with regard to the use of Gaelic in Caithness. My Grandfather was born in Lybster in 1870, to parents who were fluent in Gaelic, written too. However, he and his siblings were brought up without any Gaelic because his parents felt the would face less discrimination if they had no Gaelic. I’ve seen Government recruitment notices for fishery officers from those times stating,”preference will be given to non-Gaelic speakers”. This goes a long way to explaining the rapid decline of Gaelic in mainland North, not to mention the decline in the population.

          • fred

            From the Statistical Reports for Latheron 1840:

            Language, Habits, &c. – The Gaelic language is generally spoken by the
            lower class of people throughout the greater part of the parish, but
            it has certainly lost ground during the last forty years, and in
            proportion as the improved system of education advances, it will no
            doubt continue to decline still more. In proof of this, the presbytery
            of Caithness have lately come to the decicion to discontinue the
            preaching of the Gaelic language in the eastern district of the parish
            occupied by the mission of Bruan, where a missionary was last year
            appointed who has no Gaelic. Formerly the missionary always preached
            in both languages, but, in all probability, this system is not likely
            to be again resorted to.

            It is a singular circumstance that for a long period, the burn of East
            Clyth seems to have formed the boundry between the Gaelic and English
            languages. On the east side of it, scarcely a word of Gaelic was
            either spoken or understood, and on the west side the English shared
            the same fate; and this was the more wonderful, as both sides were
            rather densely peopled. Now however the English has not only made
            encroachments upon the Gaelic territory, but has extended itself over
            the whole neighbouring district, and, indeed, were it not that its
            progress was considerably impeded by the importation of several
            colonies of Highlanders from the heights of Kildonan and other parts
            of Sutherlandshire about twenty years ago, when the sheep system
            commenced there, its triumphs ere now, would have been still more

      • fred

        “The Romans never extended their power to Ireland. ”

        I think there are some very valid arguments that that statement isn’t exactly accurate.

  • Bazza

    A common complaint to the BBC – I don’t like that person’s opinon….ban them from tv. About sums up your point.

    • glenn_uk

      Did you bother reading the post?

      Obviously not. There is nobody – repeat, nobody – with a left-wing viewpoint as harsh (never mind as shrill) as that of Phillips on the BBC. Yet this rancid harpie gets to put forward her vile pro-Nazi ravings on a regular basis (such as “The Moral Maze”), besides being a guest participant on the likes of Question Time far too often.

      But why bother explaining anything to you – facts? Reason? Meh – whatever, your mind is clearly set in stone.

    • J

      Hate speech isn’t hateful if you share the point of view? Not really and it’s not even the profound insight you think it is. Perhaps you really want to have a debate about the definition of ‘hate speech.’

      Dehumanising, degrading, reductive language, generalising, arbitrarily categorising, demeaning, non-evidential and prone to racial or cultural typing perhaps with a view to incitement of aversion, intolerance, dismissal, violence and eventually lucrative war?

      About sum it up?

      • Soothmoother

        Generalising – so everyone on this blog is guilty of hate speech! Including Craig Murray who generalises when referring to the racist English. Not to mention generalising that the average brexit supporter is racist. Everyone has a label. How I hate Political Correctness.

    • Bazza

      Yes, I read the post. And I summed it up. Craig wouldn’t be making the argument if he agreed with Mel. Effectively that’s what it comes down to.

      How right wing she is, what a left wing equivalent would be – all very subjective and debateable, but there’s a lot of people appear on the BBC so plenty to chose from.

      I haven’t see her on QT in ages, how often is too often?

      I’d be happy for you to explain anything to me. Go ahead.

    • Shatnersrug

      Nice rob – produced but Mr Larry Wallis from the Pink Fairies.

      To think we thought it had all gone to shit by then! Oh how little we knew

  • RobG

    The way that the police state contrives comment pages like this is just laughable.

    Perhaps you people could talk about real things.


    • glenn_uk

      Perhaps you could articulate some of the “real things” you’re concerned about, RobG, instead of the spluttering denunciation you’re rather fond of at this point in the evening?

      We are on page-2 of this topic, so feel free – and try to make a bit of sense, without the threats, eh?

  • K Crosby

    You’ve got a fair few MadBiddy clones on here Craig…. When you go on about Russia you start to sound a bit like her too.

  • Zed

    Craig, you berate people for reading the Mail and the Express, while you go reading Melanie Phillips??????????

    That woman is plain crazy!

    • glenn_uk

      Not quite, Zed. People shouldn’t be berated for reading and quoting the far-right propaganda from our populist, nationalist press, Mail/Sun/Sport/Express and so on. But only if they’re doing it to counter that evil propaganda and highlight the ludicrous excesses therein.

      You’re quite right that Phillips is completely insane – she even whines about how restricted she is, how silenced her points of view, and how unjust that so many are deprived of her wisdom!

      Right-minded people don’t read filth like the Mail/Sun/Sport/Express, so we’re not aware of the exposure to lies faced by the unfortunates who do. (Although Radio-4 listeners will be painfully aware of the views of Phillips.)

      Articles like this one might help us sympathise with the poor fools that read papers like those mentioned. They are so deluded now, that Phillips’ views do not raise an eyebrow. The Overton window has ratcheted that far to the right.

      • michael norton


        I am aware that you consider readers of The Daily Express to be deluded half-wits
        now tell us which paper we should be reading to broaden our minds,
        thank you in advance.

        • Shatnersrug

          Michael, I don’t think you’re a half wit, I think you are actually on of the more interesting contributors. I just don’t understand your commitment to nationalism and fear of culture shifts, which can only be a part of the movement of time, after all, the effects of dreadful American pop culture have had a far worse effect on most modern culture than the bloke that runs the Indian restaurant.

          I left Essex when I was a youngster because I could not stand the pervading closed mindedness of the Essex attitude, all everyone seemed to want to do is either moan about the risk of foreign cultures infiltrating the neighbourhood(of which there was almost none) and drive around to big shopping malls and business parks in their big cars and now SUVs. It seemed and seems to me that British culture had already been infiltrated by the worst aspects of another culture. That of American consumerism, not the traditions of the subcontinent

          Mind you, I’m half a Scot so perhaps it was us doing the infiltrating 😉

  • Doug Scorgie

    michael norton
    March 7, 2017 at 19:01
    Melanie Phillips is as mad as Nicola Sturgeon

    I must disappoint Michael…

    Melanie Phillips is as mad as Nicola Sturgeon is sane!

  • giyane

    Melanie Phillips is a propagandist of the Zionist BBC. Craig complains about the cosy relationship between the SNP MPs and Westminster. Much to your collective disgust, I spend much of my time on this blog complaining, for similar reasons as Craig’s, about the cosy relationship between Political Islam and Zionist global power. It’s as easy to explain as this. Same as where there’s muck there’s brass, where there’s power there you will also find politicians.

    Politics. What is politics? They say that ‘politics has no father’. i.e. politics is the art of the unexpected, catching people unawares. Most human beings will protect their own interests by not trusting certain organisations, so in the art of politics the skill is to prepare people’s minds for fears about things that are harmless so that they can be stung in areas where they have been lulled into compliance. MSM Islamophobia refers.

    Another strand of politics familiar to all those who have been stung by the political magicians is that we are systematically leaked about what is going on covertly. WikiLeaks report of backdoors in TVs and mobiles today is a good example. The purpose of our receiving inside information is so that when we get stung by the shite who are the politicians they can turn round to us and say, ‘but you condoned’ us bugging your TVs or as a Scottish psychiatrist once said to me, ” You condoned your wife having affairs”.

    If condoning the Zionist neo-con War on Islam with every fibre of one’s being and every second of one’s spare time , and in all human encounters, is condoning, on account of being powerless to stop something, yes I condoned. Bollocks.

    Anyway Melanie Phillips is an organ of the political media contraption called propaganda, whereby we are induced to listen to Zionist propaganda because it is presented by the BBC as moral debate, which is something every intelligent person should be interested in.

    Why did you not write fuming to the controller of the BBC that that appalling racist Zionist female was on my radio last night again and I threw my cup of tea at it causing a nasty smell of burnt shellac from the electronics of my one-way bollocks propaganda receptor machine? Instead, you listened obediently to the layers of Zollocks and YOU CONDONED what Ms Phollocks and Mr Portisrael were saying.

    • K Crosby

      Get rid of the telly and watch dvd’s instead so you deprive COMbbc of £145.50 a year.

  • Habbabkuk

    Far be in from me to speak for Ms Phillips but it is a little rich for some of this blog’s vociferous “commenters” to accuse her of using hate speech and expressing hate-filled expressions. Is that not what they themselves do on here**, whenever they find a pretext, in respect of the State of Israel? Ably assisted on occasion by Craig it must be (regretfully) said.

    ** and that’s after the mods have probably eliminated stuff readers never get to see.

      • Brianfujisan

        So We had a Great confab last night..

        Zero Attacks on Posters

        And in Comes Hab

        Insisting …By the way The Blog Suppresses ..You CAN make it up

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        yes. you. may. be right(ish) about some of the. commenters but. that. doea. not excuse. Melanie. Philllips. A blog such as this is. not comparable to the. BBC. Hate speech here is
        a. suppressed
        b. not on a scale of distribution that Phillips enjoys on the BBC.

        • Habbabkuk


          “yes. you. may. be right(ish) about some of the. commenters but. that. doea. not excuse. Melanie. Philllips.”

          You’re right, it doesn’t. I just find it interesting how un-selfaware some of the Eminences on here are; they condemn Melanie Phillips for hateful and hate speech while blissfully unaware of their own hateful and hating offerings (or incitements). The only differences I can see is that the targets are different and Ms Phillips gets paid for her efforts.

      • Zed

        Tell me, do “wailing prophets” have any connection to “weeping Angels”? I refer, of course, to the new leaks from Wiki-leaks?

    • George

      Sounds a bit inflammatory to me Hab. Especially considering the remark, “and that’s after the mods have probably eliminated stuff readers never get to see.” i.e. you are assuming that the alleged hate speech towards Israel is much worse than anyone can see since it has been eliminated. So even if anyone points out that the criticism of Israel doesn’t amount to “hate speech” you can say, “Ah but you don’t know about the stuff you haven’t seen. It’s (probably) really bad!”

      • Shatnersrug

        Luckily for everyone concerned no one takes any notice of what Hab has to say, including him I’d say, reading through his confused ramblings.

    • Ba'al Zevul

      ** and that’s after the mods have probably eliminated stuff readers never get to see.

      We’re in the realm of pure imagination here, but I’m pretty sure the #1 reason for deletion is antisemitism. Which the system is set up to catch and quarantine, uniquely. Craig’s opinion of such posts has been repeatedly and unequivocally stated. Are you complaining about this? Personal attack has also been cited as a reason for binning posts, and some of us can’t resist the temptation to take a pop at an obvious twat, can we? That policy has also been stated from time to time.

      Have you any evidence whatever that posts have been deleted on the basis of unannounced policies? Even if you have, do you deny a blogger’s legitimate right to remove anything he damn well pleases? Maybe the Moral Maze will get around to addressing these important questions, but until the screaming harpy gets her claws into them, your opinion matters….

      • Habbabkuk


        “Have you any evidence whatever that posts have been deleted on the basis of unannounced policies? Even if you have, do you deny a blogger’s legitimate right to remove anything he damn well pleases? ”

        To take the second question first : I agree that Craig can remove whatever he likes. And, unlike some members of this “community” (Mary and Macky, the private Pike of this blog, spring to mind), I tend on the whole not to complain when one of my posts gets deleted and I certainly don’t leave the blog in a huff…

        On your first question : I have no evidence that there are unannounced policies which have led to deletions but since that wasn’t what I was suggesting the fact that I have no evidence should not surprise.

        What I had in mind was rather the following : there does seem to have been a drop over the last few months in the number and frequency of posts designed (at best) to put Israel into a bad light and (at worst) to stir up hatred of Israel – as evidenced for example by the disappearance of people like Passerby and Fedup, the disappeararance of those so silly posts on Israeli “atrocities of the past seven days” regularly put out by some fool (was it “Node”?) cutting-and-pasting from a Kiwi website, fewer references to a public figure’s actual or possible Jewish ancestry/relatives/friends, and so on.

        Now I do not believe for a moment that the Israel-haters have changed their spots. What I do believe is that the mods – whether acting on Craig’s instructions or merely aware of Craig’s best interests – are, over and above deleting the gross anti-semitic stuff, also playing it “safe”, so to speak, and deleting stuff which might be seen (if only through its frequency and obsessive appearance) as hate-speech against Israel with Israel as a pricy for the J**ws.

        In other words, the mods became fully conscious of the reputational damage accruing to Craig’s blog and to Craig himself from the inability of a certain number of people, bith regulars and non-regulars, to restrain themselves.

        Now of course I should end by saying that the only people who could provide proof for the above speculation are (1) the mods and (2) those whose job it is to keep an eye on blogs like this one (they will know not only who posts but also who has tried to post). I suspect that, for very different reasons, neither will wish to comment.


        • Ba'al Zevul

          Ah, so you’re not complaining about the deletions – I misunderstood you. You were in fact welcoming the disappearance, real or imagined, of critics of that apartheid state. As I would welcome Melanie ‘Londonistan’ Phillips’ ejection from any public platform, for exactly the same reasons.

          We understand each other, then.

          Though I think the downturn to which you refer has more to do with the proprietor’s interest in Scottish independence, competing catastrophic developments elsewhere, the failure of Netanyahu to bomb Gaza flat again for a couple of years, and a partial takeover of the comments by Russian propagandists and their useful idiots. It’s good of you to remind us all that the problem hasn’t gone away and could do with a bit more attention.

          Happy to oblige.


          • Habbabkuk

            “You were in fact welcoming the disappearance, real or imagined, of critics of that apartheid state”

            I have no problem with any criticism of Israel which is based on reality and which does not serve as a cover for Israel-hatred or hatred of the J**ws in general. I hesitate to put you in the latter category but your use of expressions like “apartheid state” make me hesitate about my hesitation :). It’s almost as peculiar as the use of ‘genocide” (which seems to have stopped now..)

            As for the downturn, you’re probably right to some extent. I take it you join me in welcoming the fact that there has been no bombing of Gaza for a couple of years and would also welcome the sagacity of the Gaza leaders for not providing Israel with a pretext for doing so?

            (BTW the “bombing flat” is perhaps revelatory of certain attitudes – you might need to look at activities in a country to the north of Israel if you feel an urgent need to use that phrase.)

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Put me in any category to which your own prejudices incline you. I call it an apartheid state because it is an apartheid state. To say that there has been no bombing of Gaza for a couple of years is simply untrue. Since we’re nitpicking.



            Israel acknowledges that Hamas isn’t the one launching occasional missiles at its territory, and that the guilty parties are Salafi organizations close to or affiliated with the Islamic State. Despite this, it holds Hamas responsible for the rocket fire and demands that the organization, which it doesn’t recognize and which it defines as a terrorist group, fight the Salafists.

            These are the same groups that launched missiles at Eilat from Sinai in early February, but Israel doesn’t operate in or bomb Egyptian territory – at least not publicly. It leaves the work to the Egyptian army. Nor does it denounce Egypt or hold it responsible for the rocket fire on the grounds that it is the sovereign power in Sinai.

            The paradoxical situation in which Israel views Hamas as the sovereign, and therefore holds it responsible for what happens in Gaza yet at the same time fights against it, cannot produce the quiet it seeks.

    • Hmmm

      Fair play Hab. Deep into page 2 and still no mention of Diane. Her ultra left wing views are always on telly. Sat next to that portaloo bloke usually. Would be nice if we had some proper far-left views to counter this mad Mel, rather than some fake who sends her kids to private schools….

      • Ba'al Zevul

        Fair comment. Perhaps we could broaden the debate to include all the media whores who circulate round the political op-ed scene endlessly repeating the worn-out tropes of their in-groups. Don’t recall hearing Abbott on the Moral Maze, though, unless she simply can’t get a word in past Mel’s ravings.

      • Anon1

        That’s the trouble. Every time an example of a left-winger is given to you, you’ll counter by claiming they’re fake and not really left-wing at all. Because all left-wingers are gross hypocrites, you can therefore say that no left-wingers appear on the BBC. In fact, by your own logic they don’t exist!

        • glenn_uk

          Is Diane Abbot calling for collective ownership? A common wage across the board? The total elimination of the gentrified classes, how about the elimination of private schools and health-care?

          Because I’ve never heard her say anything of the sort. Have you?

          • Anon1

            Those are nutty ideas on the far-left of the loony end of the political spectrum, Glenn. I doubt 1% of the public supports such a set of beliefs, so there really is no requirement for the BBC to represent them.

            But if a system were to be implemented in which there was a “common wage across the board”, you can be absolutely certain that the little piggies in charge would be paying themselves considerably more than everyone else, whilst saving all the juiciest privileges for themselves.

            At which point, you’ll say “Ah, but they’re not pure communists. A pure communist wouldn’t advance himself like that at the expense of the worker”.

            So really there are no lefties, Glenn. It’s just an ideal. If they’re not on the hardcore, full-scale communist end of the spectrum, they’re not left-wing. And if they are, but inevitably they succumb to human failing, gross hypocrisy, and there develops a huge chasm between what they say and what they do, they are deemed to be no longer left-wing.

            I’m afraid I can’t produce an example of a left-winger on the BBC that would be acceptable to you, Glenn, because they all fall into those two categories. You win hands down because what you are asking us to find doesn’t exist.

          • Bob Apposite

            Oddly I most commonly hear common wage advocacy from a Libertarian friend of mine. I mostly ignore his posts, because – even if it was proposed, he would no doubt eventually advocate against the very idea he continually proposes.

          • George

            “collective ownership? A common wage across the board? The total elimination of the gentrified classes, how about the elimination of private schools and health-care?”

            Despite what Anon1 says, I suspect the majority of the public would support such things. Of course the ruling class has no intention of ever allowing any of that which is why the media has to endlessly present these things as “the far-left of the loony end of the political spectrum”.

          • glenn_uk

            George: I suspect you’re right, particularly if the majority of the public was fed a constant line of how the Establishment was enriching themselves at our expense, instead of blaming the poor and dispossessed for taking all the working people’s money.

            Because the rich _certainly_ don’t seem to be doing too badly these days.

            Whatever these despised migrants and asylum-seekers are doing, they are clearly not causing the ultra-rich any grief at all.

  • michael norton

    If true would that be:
    misconduct in a public office,
    I slap your back and you slap mine?

  • Republicofscotland

    Today is International Women’s day, in some quarters the fairer sex, still struggle for equality.

    Madeleine Albright, a one time US ambassador to the UN, said, regarding women’s struggle for equality.

    “There’s a special place in hell, for women who don’t help other women.”

    Albright also justified in 1996, on a Sixty Minutes TV interview, the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. Those children many of them future young women, never got the chance to fight in the struggle for female equality.

    Leslie Stahl said to Albright,

    “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright had responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

    Albright later regretted making that comment.

    • glenn_uk

      On Women’s struggle for equality, here’s Anon1’s MEP: Women earn less than men “because they are weaker, smaller and less intelligent”


      This is the same MEP who likes to compare migrants with “excrements” and making Nazi salutes in the chamber.

      With upstanding crusaders like this fighting the good fight, maybe Anon1, Norton and the rest should reconsider their wish to leave the EU?

      • Ba'al Zevul

        “because they are weaker, smaller and less intelligent”

        Than Michael Gove?

        Colour me conflicted. Both Radio 4 and the Grauniad are wall-to-wall Wimmin’s Ishoos right now. And it’s fucking tedious.

        • Anon1

          “Both Radio 4 and the Grauniad are wall-to-wall Wimmin’s Ishoos right now. And it’s fucking tedious.”

          That means you hate women.


      • Republicofscotland


        Yes he sounds a lovely fellow, yet history is strewn with men far more renowned, who had misogynistic tendencies.

        Picasso described women as “machines for suffering” and that a woman was “either a door mat or a goddess.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, was considered by some to be a misogynist his famous book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” contains a section called “Old and Young Women.” In this passage, Nietzsche suggests that women’s sole purpose is to become pregnant and raise the next generation — consider the line “Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution — it is called pregnancy.”

  • SoS

    For those who are still unable. there is an easy way to see through Jacinta Pollard nee Fallon, watch Rachel Maddow US election videos. May come of use in the upcoming General Election as melanie earns her money doing a similar job on Corbyn.

  • nevermind

    Oh dear, today its our black hole specialist who is asking for Corbyn to stand down. Stephen Hawkins says that he would would vote for Corbyn, but that it would be futile. He fails to suggest any other leader, indeed he agrees with many of Corbyn’s worthy goals. Stephen has capitulated to the fickle and conniving media, that is his essential message.

    Well, I’d rather see Corbyn being leader and doing the canvassing than Stephen Hawkins who should keep to the universe, he’ll make an awful candidate and would be as much hounded by the backstabbing media as Mr. Corbyn is.

    article in today’s independent.

    • Soothmoother

      Does this mean that Mr Korwin-Mikke is a misogynist? Is this hate speech? In my opinion the answer is no. It just means that he’s an idiot, fool, a***hole, etc. Why does anyone take people like that seriously?
      This blog and others that I’ve viewed have a lot in in common. The bloggers/commenters have pre-conceived ideas based on generalised opinions of others whose opinions they disagree with. They search media looking for evidence that supports their bias to vindicate their personal beliefs. Then they can pop that person into a convenient bundle, Lefty, Communist, Fascist, Anti-Semite, Feminist, Sexist, Racist, Whateverophobe etc.

  • bevin

    It is a libel, against all concerned here, to suggest that there is any ‘hate speech’ directed at Israel or, more importantly the community from which its settlers are generally recruited.
    This abuse of the concept of ‘hate speech’ is far more sinister than the consequences of bigots revealing their natures by insulting entire communities on the internet.
    I note that Habba actually uses the formulation “…expressing hate-filled opinions…” which could be something different and refer to supposedly concealed motives underlying innocuous expressions. This would take us into very dangerous Benthamite territory, akin to the idiotic definition of ‘anti-semitism’ to which the government (and I believe Corbyn) shamefully, subscribe.
    There is no need to laws against hate speech- the laws against libel and incitement to disturb public order are more than sufficient to deal with any dangerous lynch mob instigators. Banning ‘hate speech’ will clearly lead , for example, to the criminalisation of persons who have discovered that all the ills in the world can be traced to the agency of a ruling class which exploits the masses and is pitiless in its pursuit of monetary profits to the extent that it has put the future of the planet in jeopardy.
    As to Melanie Phillips does she not serve as a sort of barometer of the pollution of public discussion? A reminder that ‘education’ doesn’t work as advertised?

    • Habbabkuk


      “I note that Habba actually uses the formulation “…expressing hate-filled opinions…” which could be something different and refer to supposedly concealed motives underlying innocuous expressions. This would take us into very dangerous Benthamite territory, ..”

      Well noted, Bevs.

      Did you also note that Craig used the same expression at the beginning of the last para of his post (“Phillips’ hate-filled opinions..”)? 🙂


  • Sharp Ears

    The CPS is reconsidering its decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner for hate speech. Pressure has been applied by Gideon Falter of the Campaign against Anti-semitism. The BBC cancelled a prop piece on the White Helmets this morning on the Derbyshire programme to bring him on along with Clive Coleman, the BBC Crime correspondent and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner.
    1hr. 25mins in

    The latter participant and her brother the barrister Daniel Janner have defended their deceased father vigorously against charges of sexual child abuse. They have been given a formal status as ‘Core Participants’ in the current investigation. They have vowed to undermine it.

  • Roderick Russell

    The quote from Ms. Phillip’s article – “Britain …… An authentic unitary nation” – misses the point. It’s not about Celt versus Saxon, or Scottish versus English or anything like that. It’s about the fact that Britain isn’t today a unitary nation. Britain, once one of the most decentralised countries in the world, is today perhaps the most centralised of all the larger countries. All power has gone to the center, which governs in its own interest.

    The London establishment operates today on a base of costly privilege while the rest of the country has to pay for it. Huge bailouts in the multi-billions – not just banks 10 years ago but the insurance industry 20 years ago – and so many other goodies that go their way at everybody else’s expense. And as for free markets (that I theoretically agree with) – there is nothing free about the markets the London establishment cares about.

    No, Britain is not a unitary nation today. It is two nations, working two completely different systems: the London Establishment that benefits, and the rest of the country (including non-establishment London) that subsidises. Scotland has a chance (which I doubt it will take) to get out of this with a vote for independence, and I’ll bet that non-establishment England would like out too.

    • bevin

      Britain never has been a unitary nation. it has always been either a vague geographical designation or the core of an Empire. Empires are inimical to nations- they gobble them up and chew them until there is nothing left at which point they spew them out, preferably in small pieces so that they cannot reconstitute themselves.
      The SNP project has a lot to do with ‘picking up the pieces.’ So did Irish nationalism which could not but be aware that, in genealogical terms, most of the Irish nation had been deported and, over time, de-nationalised.
      Of course the same is true of England and the English-the first victims of the Empire-and the Welsh who, but for the fact of their superiority in every sphere, would be in a lamentable state.

  • cloudy

    Hammond walks out the Commons chamber instead of hearing out the SNP reply to his budget as he’s supposed to by convention.

    Further proof of the total contempt the Tory Elite has for those, for any, who stand up for Scotland.

    Which means if Scotland stays in the UK we not only have to deal with the effects of Brexit but also the Tory project of rewinding the devolution process that’s so obviously shaping up.

  • Velofello

    Republic of Scotland: Ah, listening to the sound of brush strokes adding colour to canvas, with the TV sound turned up!

    Sure beats warm beer, and the click of a round leather brick striking a wooden stick.

    • Republicofscotland

      “Sure beats warm beer, and the click of a round leather brick striking a wooden stick.”



      Agreed, though if Queen Elizabeth I were alive today she’d probably disagree with you on the first part. As she often had two pints of warm beer for breakfast. Maybe that’s why Queen Elizabeth nicknamed, William Cecil, “her spirit” with alcohol in mind. ☺

  • Doug Scorgie

    March 8, 2017 at 11:00

    The first to colonise the area after the ice receded were the Picts, then came the Catti who were a Germanic tribe and after whom the County is named. Gaelic culture arrived around the 6th and 7th century with St Fergus and other missionaries then it wasn’t long before the Norse started arriving. The Vikings didn’t just arrive in Scotland across the North Sea they came from the south as well with the Normans, Robert the Bruce wasn’t a Gael he was Norman, Norse man.

    The history of Caithness is told in the surnames of it’s people, Sinclair, Sutherland, Gunn, Mowatt… It’s a part of who they are a major part. That can’t be dismissed as like Nigeria or India under British rule.

    I’m sorry Fred but you comment is in my mind not your own work but plagiarised from another source. Please stop pretending to be clever and give references and sources.

    Perhaps I’m wrong and you have a degree in Scottish History.

    • lysias

      I think it is most unlikely that Scotland derives its name from the Germanic Chatti, who are first attested in inland Germany in the 1st century A.D. Scotland was named after the Scoti, a Late Latin term for the inhabitants of Ireland, which was also applied to the Scots after Irish people migrated to Scotland starting in the 4th century A.D. The derivation of Latin Scoti is unclear, but I see no reason to associate it with the Germanic Chatti.

      • fred

        Interestingly the Gaelic name for Scotland, Alba, means “white” and refers to the white cliffs of Dover. Originally the term referred to all of mainland Britain and was coined by someone who hadn’t been her, just seen it from the channel. In Latin it was Albion.

        • JOML

          The Gaelic for ‘white’ is ‘geal’, so I suspect Alba may not refer to the Cliffs of Dover. In Latin, Alba could mean ‘dawn’, perhaps a link there to the saltire… who knows?!

    • Ba'al Zevul

      I’d seriously doubt that the first to colonise ‘after the ice receded’ were the Picts. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were around ca 8000 BC, and even perhaps before the Loch Lomond Readvance (of the ice sheet) Populations seem to have changed over the next millenia, and the Picts, though poorly characterisable, were probably just one of the later ones. The Celtic culture followed, expanding to its widest reach by ~275 BC

      Or so says Wikipedia. It may not be infallible, but it’s always a better starting point than the top of your head…


      And it’s free. No excuse for not using it.

  • Doug Scorgie

    March 8, 2017 at 11:28
    (The Romans never extended their power to Ireland)

    “I think there are some very valid arguments that that statement isn’t exactly accurate”

    If there are some very valid arguments Fred name them and don’t forget to give references and sources!

    • lysias

      The histories of Saint Patrick give no indication of any contemporary or earlier Roman rule over Ireland. In them, the Irish appear as non-Romans who raid Roman territory as pirates and capture and enslave Roman citizens.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        Paddy himself was Romano-British. You can’t say he didn’t kick off some serious subjugation!

        • Republicofscotland

          Indeed Baal, St Patrick must have been one tough uncompromising hombre. Legend has it that there’s no snakes in Ireland, because after attacking St Patrick, whilst he was fasting on the top of a hill, St Patrick decided to banish them all, he then proceeded to chase them into the sea, never to return.

          Incidently all polar bears are Irish, descendents of the Irish Brown bears. I’d like to have seen St Patrick, try and chase them into the sea. ☺

    • fred

      Rome still has a great deal of power over Ireland to this day, the church of Rome.

    • michael norton

      Deep Fried Butter

      Mr Finnie said food consumed outside the home had a “vital role to play” in helping Scots be healthier.

      He added: “In our view, regulation would create a level playing field for industry, and without it, we face the very real prospect of increasing diet-related ill health and unsustainable burdens on the NHS and our economy.”

      If people slimmed down in Scotland and took some exercise you could save billions on your health service.

    • Zed

      Yes it is! You never know who may be bigger than you due to an under-active thyroid!

      Besides that, they may be “fat” but you are just plain ugly, while they can go on a diet.

      Oh sorry, wasn’t that the answer you were expecting.

      • Zed

        Come on Norton, what is it that you are scared of? Is it that some fat person might eat your share of the pies? Rest assured, they have to buy them at the same pie shop and pay the same price as you. Fat people don’t get free pies, you know?

        • Zed

          So assuming Norton, that these “fat” people are indeed eating more pies than you, and that they are not “fat” due to some medical disorder, then this means that the “fat” people are doing much more than you to support the pie-making personnel. They are putting more investment into the pie-making economy than you, which indicates, logically, that you are free-loading off of “fat” people.

          Well how do you like them apples, or should that be apple pies?

          • michael norton

            I was chatting to my neighbour / friend
            and we concluded when we were at school, there were almost no fat children.
            That was in the fifties/sixties.
            As children, we never thought we had enough to eat.
            No fridges /t.v./washing machines/ telephones, no lifts to school, only walking,
            no central heating and no actual spare money.
            Now about a quarter of children are fat.
            This is not good, for their long term health.

            But what is making them fat.

  • Anon1

    Nice little joke from Spreadsheet Phil in the Budget:

    “They don’t call it the last Labour government for nothing.”

    Hahaha. Get it? The LAST Labour government! Nice one, Phil. ?

  • Doug Scorgie

    michael norton
    March 8, 2017 at 10:29
    “I am aware that you consider readers of The Daily Express to be deluded half-wits
    “now tell us which paper we should be reading to broaden our minds.”

    The answer is to read widely and employ critical thinking techniques.

    Sadly the vast majority of people do not do that and only read one newspaper or view one online news source that they feel comfortable with politically and which panders to and reinforces their narrowmindedness.

    I buy the Daily Telegraph for its excellent cryptic crossword but I also read it; as I do the Morning Star.

    • Anon1

      “I buy the Daily Telegraph for its excellent cryptic crossword but I also read it; as I do the Morning Star.”

      Comment of the Year. ?

      • michael norton

        Ah, well, I am so tight, I have not purchased a newspaper since I found the Interweb.
        Sometimes read papers in the Library.
        Proper papers like the Telegraph and The Times are not free, the Guardian I sometimes read but it is all nonsense.
        The Independent has so many interactive adverts, I usually can’t be bothered, that leaves the mail and the express.
        We are being drained of genuine news and fed twaddle.

      • Republicofscotland

        It seems rather fitting, since this is International Women’s day, to point out that the Daily Mirror, launch in 1903 was a newspaper for women, run by women. It should then come as no surprise that when you bought the first ever edition of the Daily Mirror, you received with it a free gift of a small hand held mirror.

        • Zed

          That explains how Pierced Organ got to be editor, then. He’s like an old maiden aunt the way he goes on.

    • Habbabkuk


      “The answer is to read widely and employ critical thinking techniques.”

      Please reassure us that you follow your own advice. Thanks.

    • michael norton

      During the fraught contest, a brick was thrown through the window of a building housing Angla the Eagle’s constituency office.

      On Tuesday, the NEC agreed steps would be taken to help lift Wallasey CLP’s suspension. New elections would be held for positions in the local party and all new officers would have to undergo equalities training and sign a pledge to abide by Labour party values. Meetings will be supervised by regional officers, and will only be permitted after the elections in May.

      Bloody Hell
      hardly surprizing this shower of shit are not in government.
      Political correctness this and political correctness that……..

      • harrylaw

        Labour members in South Shields have had to be given rules on how to behave as part of measures put in place to tackle problems found by party officials.
        It comes after the South Shields branch of the party was suspended.
        Read the full story here http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/five-things-labour-members-have-been-banned-from-doing-at-meetings-1-7846766
        “A raft of new rules which have been put into place as Labour North take over the running of South Shields Constituency Labour Party include:
        1) No comments made under the breath, or to members during meetings.
        2) No raised voices or comments made in anger.
        3) No dismissive body language, including eye-rolling, tutting or head shaking whilst someone is speaking.
        4) No comments that make reference to personal characteristics, such as age, experience, gender or individual personal politics.
        5) No action which may be interpreted as aggressive physical behaviour, regardless of whether that was the intent, for example, finger pointing at other members.
        Those who display this kind of behavior are being warned they would face sanctions.
        These include:
        A written warning which would remain on their file;”
        Have you got that no rolling of eyes etc.PC gone mad.

  • lysias

    Speaking of hate-filled comments, I am reminded of several I have seen about the Irish.

    • Zed

      Lots f hate filled comments today, but let’s talk about people with blue eyes:

      When and where did blue eyes evolve, seeing as so many of us living in these islands have them?




      And the crucial one that really upsets all the racists:


      In short, if you have blue eyes, your ancestor came from the black sea region and all these arguments about Celts etc are irrelevant.

    • Habbabkuk

      Israelis have often attracted the following criticism on here: why does a people which suffered the HOlocau*t inflict something similar on others (the Palestinians)?

      Leaving aside the silly inexactness of the comparison, the answer would probably have to be : human nature is such that a people’s sufferings (or an individual’s sufferings) do not, u fortunately, stop them from inflicting the same sufferings on others.

      History is full of examples which probe this sad fact.

      Take for example the sad fate of the American Indians, sorely persecuted (and worse) throughout the 19th Century and indeed before.

      Many people from Ireland emigrated to the US in the 19th Century to flee persecution, famine, discrimination, expropriation…..by the British.

      And once in the US, those same Irish victims participated fully and enthusiastically in the genocide of the American Indians.

      • bevin

        I’m not sure about the ‘human nature’ argument but the central point is correct as the Paxton Boys showed. On the other hand the policy of the Royal Proclamation of 1763- which the Paxton gang were protesting-was actually the work of Lord Shelburne, the descendant and heir of William Petty, political economist and a man who made a great fortune ‘surveying’/plundering Irish lands during the Commonwealth.

        • lysias

          Too many Irish, once they got to America, did not draw the proper lesson from the way they had been persecuted, and participated in the genocide of the American Indians.

          Too many Israelis and other Jews have not drawn the proper lesson from the way in which they were persecuted, and have participated in the dreadful treatment of the Palestinians, or have approved it.

          • giyane

            It seems that in our lifetimes torture has been used to create cruel militants deliberately.

      • Zed

        Whatever… Is there a connection between wailing prophets and weeping angels?

        Please feel free to answer … Yes! or No! will suffice.

      • Hmmm

        Israelis or Israel?
        It’s a good point Habs. And when they get the chance I’m sure the Palestinians will be just as ruthless overlords as the ones that rule them now. I will criticise them for it. Just as I criticise Britain, USA, Russia etc. That’s not hate speech. It is pointless posturing, just another bit of fluff floating around the internet.

  • Sharp Ears

    Craig has referred to Robert Stuart before for his assiduous work in exposing BBC lies about Syria.

    Now Jonathan Cook compliments Robert.

    Is the BBC still lying over Syria footage?
     8 March 2017

    Robert Stuart, a tenacious blogger, has been picking away at a scab the BBC would rather leave firmly in place.

    His forensic research concerns an edition of the BBC’s flagship investigative current affairs show Panorama called Saving Syria’s Children. It was broadcast more than three years ago, as many in the media were trying to push the British government into intervening in Syria with bombing raids against the Syrian government – in a move that would effectively have bolstered ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

    The Panorama programme was one important piece of evidence advanced for such intervention. The footage it included was broadcast in several different formats, and purported to show the victims of a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian military on a school. The BBC reporter for Panorama was Ian Pan(n)ell

    From the outset, there were concerns about the authenticity of the footage, as I noted in a piece on my own blog in October 2013.


    • Loony

      Why do you bother – unless you are paid by the BBC.

      These people are all liars and dissemblers. Who cares what they say? Just ignore them. If they ever come near you then a method exists to deal with them. This is more effective than analyzing their lies or rebutting their falsehoods.


      It is after all, the only language they understand.

  • Sunshine

    Craig Murray says: “Melanie Phillips still justifies the Iraq War…….Less harmlessly, Phillips employs hate speech ”
    I do not like Phillips, but let’s inject some balanced reality into this….

    Some hypocrites love (and promote) the EU – ignoring it’s corruption, and it’s war crimes (aiding and abetting US rendition flights across the EU, torture and dark prisons in eastern europe).

    Indeed, many of these same people are involved in hate speech – by claiming that nearly half the British population are racist and/or stupid.

    Right, Craig? *cough cough*

    • Zed

      Look, Craig is oh so tolerant; you can see that by the way he lets Norton post his hate for “fat” people”, and Habbabkuk post his hatred of “old people”, and of course,Craig himself posts his barely concealed hatred of the English.

1 2 3 4 6

Comments are closed.