You’d have thought George Ashcroft would have enough to do with his time as a borough councillor, assistant to the local Conswervative PPC and cabinet member for regeneration on Telford & Wrekin Council but apparently not.
This letter is in tonight’s Shropshire Star:
CIVIL RIGHT TO BE SAFE FROM TERROR
Stuart Parr says that he is becoming quite worried as to the views I hold.
I would be more concerned with the loss of innocent life at the hands of terrorists. Those at risk from terrorism warrant not a single mention in Stuart’s apparent defence of freedom.
Even if he were correct in his rather extreme interpretation of the Terrorism Act, civil liberties exist to protect and enhance innocent life and should not be viewed as absolutes in and of themselves.
Stuart Parr stood last year as a UKIP candidate. Yet the sole UKIP MP, and a former Tory, voted with the Labour Government on 42 days, as did the Conservative Anne Widdecombe and the 10 Ulster Unionist MPs.
Clearly the argument has yet to be won, as there are still those who would put the “rights” of terrorist suspects ahead of the right of the law-abiding and peaceful majority to live in peace and free from the threat of serious terrorist attack.
Cllr George Ashcroft
Conservative Member
Brookside Ward, Telford
What I find most bizarre is that George actually trusts the Liebour Party despite his claims to despire them. He trusts No Mandate Brown – the despot who runs the country without a mandate – not to abuse the “anti-terror” legislation that allows them to criminalise vast swathes of the population and detain them for a month and a half without charge or evidence for going about their legitimate daily business.
And I really don’t understand why George feels the need to point out at every opportunity that I was a UKIP candidate in the election that he was elected in. Perhaps he thinks it will make people think that my disagreeing with him is sour grapes or perhaps he secretly wants me to remind people that he was the local organiser for the BNP until a couple of years ago and stood – unsuccessfully – for the BNP in Telford on more than one occassion.
This line shows how George’s mind works:
Clearly the argument has yet to be won, as there are still those who would put the “rights” of terrorist suspects ahead of the right of the law-abiding and peaceful majority to live in peace and free from the threat of serious terrorist attack.
A suspect is, of course, someone who is suspected of a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. So what George is saying is that the rights of someone who hasn’t been convicted of a crime but who the police have an as-yet unfounded suspicion of having committed a crime are less important than someone else who hasn’t been convicted of a crime who the police don’t currently suspect of having committed a crime. What he is, in fact, saying is that your constitutional rights and liberties are only valid if a policeman doesn’t suspect you of being guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act which may, or may not, actually be terrorism.
Yes George, the argument has yet to be won but when you see how quickly this law is abused as every other “anti-terror” law is abused perhaps you will see sense and join the peaceful, law abiding majority who think that our constitutional rights and liberties are more important than a Westminster power grab.
Technorati Tags: George Ashcroft, Civil Liberties, Terrorism, Propaganda
Isn’t it funny how geoge Ashcroft continues this line. As a former NF potential Leader, then BNP – both of which he was humiliated publicly, he refers to others as a “paper candidate” – “defeated Candidate” – yet fails to tell people he stood at the elections in May 07 as a “Paper Candidate” himself.
The swing came for him when his past was brought out into the public arena, but even then people did not know that he went fron NF to BNP to Tory Paper candidate.
Typically he was seen as the under dog and the brits love nothing more than an under dog – so he copped for the sympathy vote.
Only at this point did he then start delivering leaflets.
A leopard does not change their spots, they just put on another jacket.
George would gladly see innocent people locked up, civil rights decayed whilst feathering his own nest under the guise of being a Tory.
The following news piece was run by the BBC on 1st July 2008
House raids under Terrorism Act
Staffordshire Police have called for help from the community
Police have raided five homes in Stoke-on-Trent under the Terrorism Act.
The raids were part of an investigation into a “small group of people” suspected of being involved in promoting violent extremist views.
No-one has been arrested following searches in the Cobridge, Burslem and Tunstall areas of the city.
Staffordshire Police said the operation posed no direct risk to public safety and they have called on the local community to remain vigilant.
Vulnerable
Officers searched three houses in Cobridge, one in Burslem and one in Tunstall earlier, and said they would continue searching four of the five houses during the afternoon.
Staffordshire Police said they had acted on the community’s concerns and said the raids were the “latest stage” of an investigation into a small group of people suspected of “radicalising vulnerable community members”.
Ch Supt Jane Sawyers, divisional commander for Stoke-on-Trent, said neighbourhood officers were out in force to reassure the community.
She said community leaders had been fully briefed on the operation and called on local people to work together with police to tackle extremism.
“We can only tackle the real and serious threat posed to us all by violent extremism if we all work together,” she said.
Here the interesting quote is,
“small group of people” suspected of being involved in promoting violent extremist views.”
When george was and still is quoted on various web sites shouting “Gas em ALL”
I wonder if he would’ve been happy wth being arrested and locked up for 42 days and treated as a terrorist had the legislation been in force then.
i think not.
Stuart, if you can find an instance of where I stood for the BNP in any election in this country I would be delighted to see it. As you know Stuart, I have never stood for the BNP. Even at age 18 I was too young. The age of majority for contesting elections throughout the brief period of my involvement with the far-right was 21!!!
I have contested elections on 4 occasions over the last decade, all have been for the Conservatives. Perhaps I hit a nerve but your UKIP MP DID vote with the government. You DID stand for UKIP last year. I well remember because it was against me!
These are facts and not something invented out of thin air like the statement “that he was the local organiser for the BNP until a couple of years ago and stood – unsuccessfully – for the BNP in Telford on more than one occassion.” Sorry Stuart – completely wrong.
As to “Activists” statement “Only at this point did he then start delivering leaflets.”
Rubbish. I had already leafleted the ward with Graham Hossell. I covered to Brookside and Sutton Hill campaigns. I did put out a second leaflet and was half way through that when the news was broken on the Telford Council Watch site by TAWPA’s Paul Doyle. I was the only candidate that did mount any kind of serious campaign. Poor old Jim Hicks certainly wasn’t doing much work for Labour.
“I wonder if he would’ve been happy wth being arrested and locked up for 42 days and treated as a terrorist had the legislation been in force then.”
I think that there were one or two people in the orbit of the BNP that should have been locked away. We know, for example, that David Copeland, a former BNP member, murdered 3 in the London Nail Bombings. If only he had been identified earlier. If they had locked me away for anything I may or may not have said then it may well have taught me a very valuable lesson – not to get involved with organisations that inculcate people like Copeland. Lessons that I came to learn in anycase.
We don’t live in the era of the thought crime but if anyone had ever promoted violence or terrorism in my hearing I might well have turned them in myself. I certainly would today and it is today that counts.
Permit me to correct even myself but I have stood 5 times for the Conservatives in the last decade. I would suggest that such a commitment extends beyond “feathering my own nest” as the “activist” charmingly puts it. I put it to you that my involvement with Telford & Wrekin council actually COSTS me more in terms lost earnings from my main employment, which is one of the reasons why so many councillors are semi-retired or retired. Go and look at the list of T&W councillors expenses for the last financial period to see how much I have “feathered my own nest”. NOT A PENNY CLAIMED in expenses. Not one penny.
I don’t particularly need to justify myself or my work as a councillor. From having spent years on Sutton Hill banging my head against a brick wall with other residents, arguing with a council that refused to listen, to today sitting in a room, as cabinet assistant for regeneration, full of council officers both listening to the people and actually doing something about the issues is sufficient justification and reward in itself.
“What I find most bizarre is that George actually trusts the Liebour Party despite his claims to despire them.”
Let me again correct you Stuart, I have never said that I “despise” the Labour Party. I reserve any vitriol for people who deserve it such as terrorist murders and the like. Just because I have been a political opponent and critic of Labour does not mean that I despise them any more than it means I despise you for your futile support of UKIP and it’s flawed and unworkable platform.
And yes, on the question of terror, I do trust Labour more than I trust you. So does your own UKIP MP. The Conservative Parliamentary Party voted against 42 days and I understand the arguments and the reasoning. Had I been an MP I may or may not have supported their position. That is the nature of the Parliamentary beast and the whip system. There are a good number of Tory MP’s who privately support the 42 days and more. However, I am not of their Parliamentary number and, unlike them, I AM free to speak and write on these matters as a private citizen.
I personally do not believe Brown should have conceeded to his own back bench and in many ways Labour has not gone far enough in attempting to defeat the terrorist threat. I suspect that their reasoning for 42 days had more to do with money, or a lack of, rather than a determination to defeat terrorism driven out of ideological and moral conviction. For that I am critical of them. But I don’t despise them, for at the very least, they have recognised that this is a problem that has to be addressed. I do sometimes wonder Stuart, if your views and the views of one or two others are lifted straight from the pages of DAVID ICKE. It’s almost as though, you, as with Icke, fail to recognise that the terrorist threat is serious or even real. All the talk of 1984, digging bunkers, conspiracy, common purpose, Police state and the rest. Icke shares your anti-Zionist platform as well. Never mind UKIP, Perhaps you should have been up in Hull on the campaign trail with David Icke as one of his dwindling band of conspiracy nuts.
In any case, my views of Labour, terrorism, Telford, Wonko, the far right and uncle tom-cobleigh and all are set out on my web-site and which you have kindly linked to. For those with a morbid sense of curiosity I would direct them to start at the following page:
http://www.georgeashcroft.co.uk/blogview.html?blog=62
Being a student of history all this fear of the threat of serious terrorist attack reminds me of the later days of the Roman Empire where fear of barbarian attack was used to deprive the Roman freeman of his liberty and transform him into a serf on a rich man’s estate.
The men who’d formed the legionary backbone of the Romann legions were turned into serfs cowering behind the villa walls when the barbarians kicked in the gates. Such was the first step towards feudalism.
George, I stand corrected on you having stood for the BNP. You were, however, a BNP activist in Telford and that is a matter of public record. I believe I am correct in saying that you were a local organiser, along with your girlfriend at the time who is still active in the BNP.
You haven’t hit a nerve, George, I didagreed with Bob Spink and told him so. He told me his reasons, I disagreed and that’s that. I’m glad he felt able to vote against the party whip, do you vote against the whip at full council?
David Icke is way before my time, I know he’s a nutjob but I’ve got no interest in him. Couldn’t even tell you what bandwagon he’s on nowadays.
I’m not an anti-zionist either, I have no prejudice against Israeli’s or Jews. I disagree very strongly with the Israeli government and their illegal occupation and human rights abuses against Palestine.
And terrorists, George – my uncle was an officer in the Royal Marines and had to check his car every time he made a journey to make sure it hadn’t been booby trapped. Who was he at risk from? The IRA. The Irish were far more of a threat to us than muslim terrorists have been – people carrying knives are now more of a threat than terrorists according to the Met Police. They tried internment in Northern Ireland if you remember, George. That did a fantastic job of radicalising an entire generation and providing the IRA with new recruits.
No, I think it was probably stronger wording than “despise”. I remember the conversation quite clearly as, I suspect, do you so I don’t know why you would deny something as unimportant as saying that you despise the Liebour Party. It’s not as bad as the last thing you lied about (which I could have made public but didn’t, you’ll note – I guess integrity is less important to you than your ambition) and it’s hardly going to harm your career in the Conswervatives is it?
“George, I stand corrected on you having stood for the BNP. You were, however, a BNP activist in Telford and that is a matter of public record. I believe I am correct in saying that you were a local organiser, along with your girlfriend at the time who is still active in the BNP.”
No Stuart, that is certainly not a matter of public record. I have never been an organiser for the BNP ANYWHERE and anyone suggesting such, and I know that a document has been circulated recently suggesting as much, would have you believe a deception.
However, I suspect that this is where your confusion rests. What my ex-girlfirend did is a matter for her. I certainly did not support her BNP activity. Indeed our romantic involvement ended sometime before she left the Conservatives and joined with the BNP. Perhaps she did it to spite me, who can say? I can assure you that we (and by we I mean local Conservatives) did everything we could do dissuade her from her political course. I and others put a lot of effort into her campaign as a Conservative on Sutton Hill. In 2003 she had been our lead candidate for Cuckoo Oak along with Graham Hossell. Instead we fielded Graham’s wife Pauline. Alas, to little avail. A Tory pal of mine even went off to Spain to live, partly because he was so upset with the turmoil and the general political situation in Madeley.
For my part, I was living in Madeley by 2003 and I contested the Madeley ward. These are facts Stuart. Facts. In 2004 there was a by-election in Madeley. I was selected as the Tory candidate. However, word reached us that my ex, might herself stand for the BNP. We felt that in view of my own NF background some 5 or 6 years earlier that it would be best that I not stand. In the event, my agent, Pam Wilkie herself stood.
You really couldn’t make it up, I know. However, I recovered and the rest, as they say, is history. Anything you want to know, you only have to ask. I have never hidden any of it and that is why I remain as a Conservative politician today. Honesty and integrity are still valued by some.
“No, I think it was probably stronger wording than “despise”. I remember the conversation quite clearly as, I suspect, do you so I don’t know why you would deny something as unimportant as saying that you despise the Liebour Party. It’s not as bad as the last thing you lied about (which I could have made public but didn’t, you’ll note – I guess integrity is less important to you than your ambition) and it’s hardly going to harm your career in the Conswervatives is it? ”
I don’t recall the specific conversation. I might have said they were shit-bags or something. I’ve got best friends like that. Total shit-bags. A pal of mine said in jest at work the other day “I can tell you George definately ain’t no racist. He hates EVERYBODY”. What a shit-bag!
On the last point, if it’s a question of integrity then why not make it public?
“David Icke is way before my time, I know he’s a nutjob but I’ve got no interest in him. Couldn’t even tell you what bandwagon he’s on nowadays.”
I can tell you exactly what bandwagon he is on having read two of his books as a cure for insomnia – YOURS. I could quote from them, but perhaps you could look up some relevant passages yourself. Chapter 4 at Page 92 of “Tales From The Time Loop” would be a good place for you to start. This chapter contains your Israel argument, almost word for word.
Chapter 6 is a good one, chapter eight is even better. But the latter part of chapter 15 is Wonkos World almost word for word. Granted, David Icke is slightly more eloquent. Begin reading from the heading “NEWSPEAK”.
When you have read it, come back on here and say again that “I know he’s a nut job”. Because if Icke is a nut, then so are you. Your arguments are almost identical. Having read Icke, I seem to know in advance, your every point and political position. I had a friend of mine read our respective contributions on this debate today. He said, and I quote: “That Wonko is entertaining but completely nuts”. Again, just like David Icke.
I think I might put a table of some of your posts and quotes from Icke, side by side, by way of a comparison. Let others be the judge. All you have got to do Stuart is go a bit further and say that Gordon Brown, myself, Cameron, the Queen, George Bush and whoever else, are all reptilian beings from the inner earth and you could make a mint, just like Icke. You could be to UKIP what David Icke was to the Green Party.
Skimming through the Wikipedia article on him, he believes the world is run by lizard aliens, to receive messages from the spirit world and is an anti-semite that believes the holocaust was a conspiracy.
I don’t believe the world is run by aliens or receive message from the spirit world. I’m not an anti-semite and I don’t think the holocaust was a hoax or Jewish conspiracy – isn’t that something your old friends in the National Front believe?
I don’t have the time or inclination to read David Icke’s books but from what you say it sounds like we have some similar opinions on some subjects. I guess that guilt by association (“if Icke is a nut, then so are you“) isn’t just restricted to “terrorists” in George’s world*. Best give Shelton a call and get me sectioned just in case, eh? Can’t be too careful – lock em up first, ask questions later. Do you think I’d get a payout if they found out I didn’t really believe the world was run by lizard aliens after a month and a half? That might come in handy for Christmas.
* Guilt by association doesn’t apply to former National Front racists
“he believes the world is run by lizard aliens, to receive messages from the spirit world and is an anti-semite that believes the holocaust was a conspiracy”
that sounds like Gordo Brownnose, does it not?
actually, the second or third time i was sectioned, my cell mate beleived in lizard control, laser satelite tracking and a big conspiracy theory.
Hello again Wonko,
Sorry to post off topic, but do you remember the Postapoo debacle from March 2007?
I just came across this today, and hope that you too appreciate the irony:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3736558.ece
Reading this thread today it seems as though you have yet to get a grip of reality and form a rational fact-based argument. Some things never change.
“I’m not an anti-zionist either, I have no prejudice against Israeli’s or Jews. I disagree very strongly with the Israeli government and their illegal occupation and human rights abuses against Palestine.”
Ok. Fine. Here are two comments you made on my web-site in June:
“Israel: oppressing brown people since 1948”
“Same old shit. Israel is indiscriminate in its attacks on Palestine. What *you* fail to report is that the rockets from Gaza are aimed at the country that has been illegally occupying them for the past 50 years in defiance of a multitude of UN resolutions (aka “the will of the international community” – the justification used to invade Iraq).”
I’m starting to wonder if you really did leave behind all your “white=odd, brown=bad” views when you became a Conswervative.”
I think its reasonable to conclude that these comments put you category of Anti-Zionist. You say “ISRAEL” not “THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT”. Big difference. Do I really need to trawl through your own blog and remind you of your own comments about Israel?
It seems to me that you are quick to dredge up my teenage political past and crass stupidity from 15 years ago both here and on other web sites.
However, I think it’s about time that we consider YOUR OWN views today as a 31 year old and just how much they might have in common with the people with whom you would seek to tarnish me.
It seems to me that for all your talk about “freedom” when somebody such as myself comes forward with an alternative and quite legitaimate view, all you can think of to do is scratch around looking for some reason as to why they dare oppose the views of Stuart Parr. If that means scraping the barrel then so be it. Anything rather than accept that someone doesn’t particularly agree with your warped world view and is quite prepared to say so.
It’s almost as though you can’t quite believe that anyone could have an alternative view and opinion to your own. You can’t quite accept things the way they are. Political reality is all a bit of a conspiracy. Politicians are all bad and “feathering their own nest”. Big brothers watching. 1984 is the blueprint for the government. Police are visiting the web site. Common Purpose is brainwashing the nation. Europe wants to destroy England…ad nauseum.
It is all a bit “on the fringe” really. Perhaps that is why you’re just a blogger and not a serious and credible politician. Carry on as you are and you never will be.
Ross, how ridiculous. It’ll get laughed out of court, I’m sure.
George, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. You’re resorting to technicalities of the English language to try and prove your unfounded accusation that I’m an anti-zionist. You’re really getting desperate. And you’ve been in your job for over a year now and how many times have I mentioned your past? Once when it was in the news and this last day or two? I hardly think that constitutes me being “quick to dredge up [your] teenage political past”.
Get a grip George, people aren’t always going to agree with everything you say. You may think that doing a part time degree in politics makes you an authority on all matters and somehow makes your opinion more valid than others but it doesn’t.
1. I’ve never said politicians are all bad
2. Big brother is watching and you’re incredibly naive if you don’t accept that
3. Have you read 1984?
4. The police are visiting the website, I even posted a screenshot!
5. When I sent you stuff about Common Purpose you were really concerned about them to the extent that you were going to nominate me for a course to infiltrate them but realised that it was futile because they’d never accept me. What’s changed? Or are you going to deny that conversation as well?
6. Europe most definitely wants to destroy England and is well on it’s way. Find me an EU map with England on it.
What, you think people voted for you rather than your party? You’re having a laugh! Actually, that’s not entirely fair in your case – along with the Conswervative voters and disaffected Liebour voters would have been the people who want to send home the immigrants that live round by you who thought you were one of them after seeing the stories about you in the news. It was an achievement booting Liebour out of this ward and the borough as a whole but don’t kid yourself that you’d have had the same result if you weren’t standing for the Conswervatives, George. Most people are either red or blue and don’t even read the election leaflets that are put through their door. If candidates weren’t allowed to say which party they were from on their election material then the result would probably have been very different.
It seems that it’s you that needs to get a grip on reality George.
“When I sent you stuff about Common Purpose you were really concerned about them to the extent that you were going to nominate me for a course to infiltrate them but realised that it was futile because they’d never accept me. What’s changed? Or are you going to deny that conversation as well?”
I seem to recall something like that. Didn’t you ring me about it? I don’t think I was quite being serious. It seems to me that you can’t discern a joke from serious considerations.
It seems to me, George, that lying is second nature to you. Good liars need good memories though, let’s hope yours is good enough, eh?
Bring it on Stuart!!!
“You were, however, a BNP activist in Telford and that is a matter of public record. I believe I am correct in saying that you were a local organiser, along with your girlfriend at the time who is still active in the BNP.”
You know Stuart, more than 24 hours has elapsed since you made the above statement. You have yet to justify or retract it. I am still waiting.
You have said “It seems to me, George, that lying is second nature to you. Good liars need good memories though, let’s hope yours is good enough, eh?”
So, are you going to do either or are we to conclude that it is in fact you that has a certain “second nature”?
You replied saying you weren’t in the BNP, it was the National Front. Personally, I’d admit to the BNP before the National Front but there you go. There’s no need to amend the original, your reply is there underneath it. I’ll let you know if I need some blogging advice.
I sometimes wonder if you can even read properly. I think that you can, which is why I suspect you have chosen to deliberately “muddy the water” simply because I had the audacity to write a letter on a subject of some importance to the local paper and agaist which you profoundly disagree.
You have stated that I was a “BNP activist in Telford and that is a matter of public record”. You have also stated that I was a BNP “a local organiser”. Both of these claims are demonstrably false.
I have never been a BNP OR an NF avtivist in Telford. Neither have I been a BNP “local organiser” anywhere in this country. Yet, knowing this, you have seen fit to repeat these claims on other web-sites and their publishers have themselves not yet seen fit to correct these innacuracies.
You correctly state that I was a member of the NF, which as you concede, was a seperate organisation from the BNP. Today, as has been the case for the last decade, I have no interest in either. I left the NF in 1998 having spent the final few months of my membership causing them as much havoc as possible, among other things “losing” several sets of election nomination papers.
My youthful involvement with the NF (which I have both publically acknoledged and deeply regret) actually pre-dates my arrival as a resident in Telford. Since that time I have contested elections for the Conservatives in 2003, 2004 and 2007. I have served as a councillor on both Madeley and Hollinswood and Randlay parish councils and for the last year on the Borough of Telford & Wrekin.
You see Stuart, these are the very facts of the matter. You only had to ask or check your facts before you rushed into publishing your distortions and inaccuracies. Inaccuracies that actually discredit your whole effort.
I have to question the reasoning of an individual such as yourself who can fail so lamentably in this endeavour and yet can still suggest, of me, “that lying is second nature to you. Good liars need good memories though, let’s hope yours is good enough, eh ”
But of course, I am sure you will have answer to it all. But may I give you this small piece of “blogging advice”? Today, it is only your lowly local councillor that you have attempted to defame. Be more careful in the future. Other people are far less charitable and significantly better resourced than I. They might well conclude that it is simply unacceptable that you should get away with publishing blatant falsehoods and may themselves seek action against them.
But it’s different if I write here on a subject of importance against which you profoundly disagree?
Where and when?
A criminal offence I believe. The NF are a legitimate party and have as much right as any other party to stand, whether you agree with them or not.
You didn’t correct anybody when your face was on the news and in the papers as the ex-BNP turned Tory candidate just before the election.
Defamation is a deliberate act. At no time have I seen you correct anyone who has said that you were in the BNP. Go and see a solicitor if you want, they’ll tell you the same thing. I said something which I believed to be true, you replied saying it wasn’t. I haven’t disagreed or cast any doubt on your reply. On the other hand, despite me telling you more than once that I don’t hate Jews and that I merely disapprove of the actions of Israel against Palestine, you have gone on to label me anti-semetic. That, councillor, is defamation.
Can I suggest that you accept the fact that I gave you a chance to prove yourself when you were first elected, I gave you my support at the beginning and that having seen the real George Ashcroft – both faces – I no longer trust you and have lost respect for you? Don’t expect to be treated any differently to any other illiberal or dishonest public figure. You’re doing yourself no favours trying to play the know it all big man.
As I thought, you really have got all the answers.
“At no time have I seen you correct anyone who has said that you were in the BNP. ”
You know, I am really starting to wonder about you. No one, apart from you, has ever said that I was in the BNP and that’s the reason why I haven’t corrected them. I have, however, corrected you both this year and last.
“Where and when?”
Here:
http://www.telfordcouncilwatch.org.uk/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,28/func,view/catid,86/id,3583/
“I gave you my support at the beginning and that having seen the real George Ashcroft – both faces – I no longer trust you and have lost respect for you? ”
I never much trusted you to start with – and here is a typical example of why:
“despite me telling you more than once that I don’t hate Jews and that I merely disapprove of the actions of Israel against Palestine, you have gone on to label me anti-semetic. That, councillor, is defamation ”
You show me where I have said that you, Stuart Parr, hates Jews? You are playing silly games my friend.
“Don’t expect to be treated any differently to any other illiberal or dishonest public figure. You’re doing yourself no favours trying to play the know it all big man.”
Should I even dignify that with any kind of comment? Yeah, why not. I think you are a Pratt.
I’m not the author of that thread and didn’t even know it was there until just now. After you corrected me on not being a member of the BNP I emailed the Sloppy Star and told them not to publish it because it contained inaccuracies. I was going to send them an amended version but then I though “nope, not worth the effort” and guess what – you’re not. 🙂
So an unpublished letter to the Shropshire Star, written by you and not found elsewhere, just happens to appear on the Telford Watch website? And you know nothing about it? Pull the other one…
I copied John on the letter when I sent it. I didn’t know he’d put it on the TCW website. So other than an unpublished letter to a newspaper which I retracted the day I wrote it put on another website without my knowledge by somebody else, when and where George?
:monkey2:
What a surprise. I suppose you sent it to John for the good of his health? I trust you also copied him in to your second message telling the Star not to print the first one?
Despite the best efforts of people like you, George, there is still a small degree of freedom in England. Not a lot but enough for me to be able to send an email to whichever of my friends I damn well like. Similarly, there is also just enough freedom for them to show that email to whoever they like. I know that in George’s world suspicion equals guilt, public servants must not be questioned (even when they lie) and freedom of speech only applies to people who agree with narrow-minded, illiberals. However, this isn’t George’s world.
Give it a rest now, George, I’ve wasted enough time on you.
“I trust you also copied him in to your second message telling the Star not to print the first one?”
I take it that’s a no then?
“I know that in George’s world suspicion equals guilt, public servants must not be questioned…Give it a rest now, George, I’ve wasted enough time on you.”
Touchy Touchy. You don’t seem to like being questioned much yourself.
And you know, in all of this, you have never once addressed the central tenet of my letter to the Star which was:
“I would be more concerned with the loss of innocent life at the hands of terrorists. Those at risk from terrorism warrant not a single mention in Stuart’s apparent defence of freedom.”
No answer yesterday, today or perhaps even tomorrow on this important question yet what we do have is the makings of an attempted smear simply because (after you attacked me in the press)I dared to be critical of your own libertarian position and to highlight the fact that members of YOUR own party don’t agree with you.
Some of my party do not agree with me. Yet you don’t see them resorting to your tactics. There are Labour people who do not agree. Likewise they don’t go running to the press bringing up my teenage political background.
You highlighted the fact that the Conservative Parliamentary Party voted against 42 days in an attempt to suggest that my thinking was out of step with the Parliamentary party who “in their wisdom” had voted against 42 days. I simply demonstrated in my second letter that YOUR view is actually out of step with YOUR own UKIP MP.
In particular, my demonstration had nothing to do with wanting to specifically highlight your own UKIP candidature, though I did so highlight in the course of making the point. Neither did it have anything to do with me wanting you to dredge up any of my past political activity in return.
You see Stuart, when you set yourself up to criticise politicians and other authority in the way that you do, when you go around accusing people of being “illiberal” or “dishonest”, most of them (and the Telford MP is a case in point) will choose, in public, to ignore you. Not because they have anything to hide but because it makes their life that little bit easier. They simply can’t be bothered. They can never win the argument in any case as you on your blog and others on their “watch” websites set your own agenda and have the final word. Then you complain that those same politicians fail to interface and engage with “you” the “public” or “the people”.
I, on the other hand, am not afraid to engage, interface and debate with all and sundry, including you. It’s no skin off my nose at all. Yet still you critise. Still you accuse. There is a double-standard that you have chosen to apply in many of your arguments and which is a plain as a pikestaff througout this thread. It is exeplified by the following:
“I know that in George’s world suspicion equals guilt, public servants must not be questioned (even when they lie) and freedom of speech only applies to people who agree with narrow-minded, illiberals. However, this isn’t George’s world.”
I have no difficulty with your “freedom of speech”. I take exception to your factual innacuaracies which you concede were contained in your second letter to the Star and which you sent on to “your friend”. To suggest that my critisism of that action somehow implies that I am averse to free speech is an example of your own twisted and illogical thinking.
The legislation in question isn’t aimed at terrorists, it’s aimed at suspects – a distinction you have a problem making.
The problem isn’t that nobody can win an argument with me – they can, if they prove me to be wrong – but the problem lies in the fact that you can’t believe that anyone would disagree with your opinion. I’ve changed my mind on many things after hearing other peoples’ arguments, including here on this blog. However, I’m not going to agree with you because I think you’re wrong.
And no, I’m not touchy, I’ve just got bored with saying the same things over and over again to you.