OLYMPIC CEREMONY: Sshhhh! Don’t mention the politics….

It was a triumph! The whole world fell over in wonder! Boyle pulls it off in style! Athletes queue up to praise opening ceremony:

Olympic Diver Tom Daley said last night’s event had fired him up for the competition, stating “Amazing night Can’t wait to compete now.”

Cyclist Sir Chris Hoy, the three times Olympic Gold medal winner, who was chosen as Team GB’s Flag carrier added “Wow! So lucky to have experienced that, what a privilege. A moment I will remember for ever.”

Sir Steve Redgrave, the five-times gold medal rowing champion who carried the Torch to the Olympic Stadium at the opening ceremony described the atmosphere as “absolutely amazing”.

How ironic it is, that the more politicised media and Government output becomes, the less a depoliticised electorate can spot it.

There is no shrewd discernment left anywhere of anything in the UK. There are time when I despair about what is so obviously coming next.

Why, we wonder, did Hunt approve it? I hear that he “smiled a lot when being told the idea, and generally looked like a chap who wanted to keep a low profile.”

Yes, well…there is that I suppose.

80 thoughts on “OLYMPIC CEREMONY: Sshhhh! Don’t mention the politics….

  1. I don’t get it.
    This extravaganza was a masterful understatement of the history of British Life – and for not much money – and we get no credit from too many disgruntled watchers.
    Why the negatives from the non doers all the time??

  2. Whatever premise they are based upon, all celebrations are nothing more than excuses for corporatism today. Meaning is the casualty.

    I felt sorry for the athletes. But if they enjoyed it so be it. They are, after all, only athletes.

  3. soap mc tavish put it most succinctly in the previous thread: “Actually quite a good metaphor for Britain, as it went through the story of our country it got more and more confusing, shallow and embarrassing.”

    The cult of entertainment and celebrity rules, no different from Rome, 2000 years ago, another age where the elite knew the answer, bread and circuses, no different from welfare and celebrity. Rome lasted 500 years or so before the people became too effete and the elite too self-absorbed to cope with reality. I suppose we should be proud it has taken us around 350 years. On the other hand, Rome was in decline for about 350 years, we have managed it in less than three generations, 60 years at best. Not a very pleasant reality to face, is it?

    • I was only thinking this the other day: did the Romans know that they were in a permanent decline as it was happening? Rome got too deep into public spectacle to distract the population from the state falling down around their ears. Sound familiar?

      As an aside I simply thought that last night was 3.5 hrs of boring sh**e. the only thing I enjoyed was seeing Steve Redgrave on an olympic stage again given that he is one of my personal heroes. His achievements in the face of major adversity and illness inspired me when I was hit with the same condition and it’s always a pleasure to see him. Surely it’s figures like him, relevant to the sporting world, that should be the focus of ceremonies like this.

      But no, some dancing bollocks about the NHS will be much better.

    • @PeterC I quote from Sir John Glubb’s Fate of Empires:

      As numerous points of interest have arisen in the course of this essay, I close with a brief summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
      (a) We do not learn from history because our studies are brief and prejudiced.
      (b) In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national greatness.
      (c) This average has not varied for 3,000 years. Does it represent ten generations?
      (d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
      The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
      The Age of Conquests
      The Age of Commerce
      The Age of Affluence
      The Age of Intellect
      The Age of Decadence.
      (e) Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness Pessimism Materialism Frivolity An influx of foreigners The Welfare State A weakening of religion. (f) Decadence is due to: Too long a period of wealth and power Selfishness Love of money The loss of a sense of duty.
      (g) The life histories of great states are amazingly similar, and are due to internal factors.
      (h) Their falls are diverse, because they are largely the result of external causes.
      (i) History should be taught as the history of the human race, though of course with emphasis on the history of the student’s own country.

      http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

      Fairly clear where we are now isn’t it.

    • “Actually quite a good metaphor for Britain”

      i hear that the audience were fighting for the exits at the end of the performance…

      i also hear that children and soldiers were drafted in to fill the large uncrowded gaps in the stadium. a tour in afghanistan and then this, poor bloody sods.

  4. I missed the point. The whole thing was such a turn off, I went to bed, disgusted by the trivialisation, as I perceived it, of our raped society. This morning, I was told that I’d missed a big political gesture. I also saw that I was not alone.

    I applaud the trick, of course. Keeping it hidden, even, apparently, from most of the participants, must have taken extraordinary effort and skill. What a pity it carried over into the actual performance. I wish I’d been able to see through the curtain of my own despair, but the truth is that I couldn’t and didn’t.

  5. I’m staying with my Dad at the moment and he bought todays Times – the first 5 pages are all pure propaganda and codwollop about what a roring success its all been. Then there was radio 4 from the Bolshevik Broadcasting cooperation (my Dad had it on) proclaiming triumphantly the doubters and sceptics had been silenced, that they represented only a small minority of the population.

    Also, 50 cyclists got kettled buy the pigs yesterday just for having the audacity to be cycling while the great loyal subject to the queen becksie was on his way to the stadium.

    The olympics is yet another perfect example of how socialism transfers wealth (and not only wealth, but time, dignity, free speach, representation) away from the poor and into the hands of the rich and politically connected.

    • Exactly. This was like watching a political broadcast by “Common Purpose”, I felt a like an extra in an Orwellian tale. Your observation and comment regarding the way that cyclist have been treated is very telling. I thought that this games (I dare not use the O word for fear of copyright infringement) was meant to be all about sustainability. Cyclist are banned from the large sections of the ORN which only goes to underline the elitist nature of the games. The spectacle of the games has been subjugated for corporatist ends which has ruined the whole point of them being staged.

    • The BBC wasn’t the only one spouting propaganda. Here’s C4 News version of it:

      “Olympics opening ceremony stuns the world…
      The afterglow of the Olympic opening ceremony hangs in the air here in
      East London. Its brilliance set the Games off perfectly, touching
      Britain perhaps more than the rest of the world (but isn’t that quite
      appropriate?). I keep recalling the references to music, film, tv,
      comedy, literature, politics and culture. Was that really Michael Fish?
      Brookside? New Order? The Queen saying “Good Evening, Mr Bond”? It has had brilliant reviews too in most places, despite the grumblings of the occasional Tory MP and commentators who think it was either too leftie or rose-tinted.”

      You couldn’t make this rubbish up.

    • no man, you so don’t get what occurred with the cycling thing man…you see we was part of the ceremonial opening, but our crusty costumes and crusty acting was so convincing-like that old bill nicked us trying to get in. no relaxation without taxation man.

  6. It was bollocks of the first order. The commentators (athletes et al) could not say any different, could they?
    The IOC made the Dacre Mail remove a video of Mr Bean from their website.
    Couldn’t make it up, could you?

  7. Just don’t say you were not impressed in any of the MSM blogs, Hell you’d have thought someone just suggested Tony Blair should be the next PM!

  8. O/T: ‘Angela Merkel and François Hollande pledged on Friday “to do everything to protect” the European Union’s single currency.’
    Now, is pledging higher up or lower down than ‘vowing’ on the Brussels Bullshit Scale?
    Anybody know?

  9. …………………Information for Other Sloggers……………………..:
    …………………Only Lefty Sycophants Wanted on The Slog

    …………….By Order: John Ward, Slogmeister & Ubergrupenfuhrer

    There may have been a time when @John Ward allowed people to post comments on The Slog even if they disagreed with him. His only stated rule was that replies must not resort to personal abuse or foul language.

    Some people still think this to be true, but they’re very wrong.

    FACT 1:
    For most of yesterday afternoon/evening, there were 36 replies to this article: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/dr-conan-fuller-bollix-5/ This morning, there are only 34 and at least one of those was added by him this morning to basically tell me that if I didn’t like his Left-wing politics, I can go to hell and leave The Slog. This means at least three posts have been quietly deleted by the Slogmeister without a word of explanation.

    At least one post from @Just Sayin’ has been deleted, possibly one of mine and one or two by @Andy, in which @JW was politely labelled a socialist or Lefty. Since when has the truth been ‘personal abuse’?

    Political Censorship? Most Definitely.
    It was Churchill who once said that no socialist party can exist without introducing political police sooner or later (to shut people up). Recall what the last Labour govt did on this front…

    Only like-minded Lefties are welcome here. If you suss-out and expose JW’s carefully constructed facade of being non-aligned, he will censor you. His claim is *dishonest ad-man* stuff. What you see is not what you get. What he really means is that he’s non-aligned to the Labour Party or LibDem Parties. But since the Left has always contained countless factions that squabble and fight with each other for supremacy, there’s still plenty of room left for him to be a Lefty. Which he is. His particular bent is for ‘radical realism’. Yeah right. Where the Left’s concerned, that is an oxymoron and it doesn’t matter what label they give themselves.

    FACT 2:
    I also note that one or more posts were deleted last night/this morning from another thread: “http-hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/obama-against-romney-butterfingers-v-sticky-fingers/” …possibly posts by @Rastaman but I can’t be sure because I never saw the originals. But one look at the thread reveals that replies to the deleted posts are still there and look to be completely out of context.

    I wonder how long this post will stay up before it’s quietly deleted? Let’s see………………………

    • @BT

      From his output I would characterise John as a Social Liberal, which does, of course, put him on the left of the political spectrum, and he has pointed out several times his youthful political naivety regarding socialism. Like us all he exhibits some irrational prejudices against certain classes, but much of what he says is sensible and his comments often apposite. I have on occasion been critical of his posts but I have not been ‘deleted’ as far as I know.

      Whether or not he does censor or moderate some replies I do not know. If he does I would suggest he uses the method better blogs employ, snipping comments deemed unacceptable with a brief note as to why. E.g “David Cameron is a dishonest PR prat who [snip: calls to murder named individuals are not allowed] and as for Clegg [snip: ditto]“. Such does make for a lot of work and takes considerable time, of course, but it shows the blog is honest.

      • i’ve been trying to enter a derogatory comment about cliff richard since late last night, but no joy…

        draw your own conclusions.

      • @Peter C: Yeah, he’s certainly on the Left. How far, it’s hard to say, although many of his opinions are more to the Left than a Social Liberal (or LibDem) IMV. Then there’s the issue of his carefully constructed series of recent articles where he deliberately attempted to blame the Tories for Libor rigging. Breathtaking nonsense. He really should make peace on that one…
        I would place him somewhere not too far removed from the BNP, except whereas the BNP thugs hate Jews, he hates Muslims and probably isn’t a thug. Apart from that, both are angry with the Labour Party for moving towards the Centre Left to comply with democratic voting. What they all want to see is not less socialism, but more socialism. And every faction of the Left emphatically believes that its policies are the right ones, hence the eternal fighting that goes on between them. History proves none of them are right, but this never prevents them from having one more push under a new name…viz Old Labour morphed into New Labour. It took years for us to spot that it was the same old same old with a new quasi-fascist twist attached.

        On censorship…I can confirm categorically that he deleted 3-4 posts from that thread I quoted. @Andy has posted below to confirm two of his were deleted…..and I know one by @JS was also deleted, because my reply to him is still there.

        Yes, when he deletes a post it might be honest & courteous of him to make a simple post himself to say so and to explain why. But he also needs to be clear on what grounds he will justify such action. None of the posts he deleted contained personal abuse or foul language. They simply expressed the poster’s view of JW’s Lefty political stance. I don’t know why he is so sensitive at being outed as a Lefty…perhaps it’s all that wealth he claims to possess? ;-)

      • @BT

        Ah, sorry. I meant Social Liberal in the 19th century classical mould. From the excellent Wiki, “… It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Social liberalism supports capitalism but stresses the need of social capital as a precondition to both capitalism and liberal democracy and rejects unchecked laissez-faire economics for failing to recognize the necessity of social capital. Social liberalism views liberal democracy as being at its best when its individualism in society and in capitalism is moderated by public spirit and a readiness to associate.”

        Our LibDims are social democrats, just like New Labour and Cameron’s New Social Democratic Conservatives. The key difference for me is that social democrats believe in government as a social provider; welfare, NHS, education, etc. Classical Social Liberals believe in government as a facilitator with the social capital element administered and provided by mutuality and charitable foundations but expect recipients to give proper service (willing to work and give back to society, etc) and lead ‘tidy’ lives. The underlying philosophy of social provision is the same, but social democrats want it controlled by the State (i.e. big State) whereas social liberals see it as controlled by society itself (i.e. small State). Regardless they are both leftish philosophies.

        My apologies if I have stooped to teaching you to suck eggs, as they say, but I wanted my point to be clear.

    • Leftie liberals are inherent censors – and will resort to incredible amounts of cunning sophistry in explaining how while they oppose censorship, when they deem it necessary, there is regretably no other choice but to exercise it. JW is a clear socialist and a royalist to boot. He lives in a socialsit monarchy but still likes to complain – the free health care isn’t good enough, baby boomers aren’t getting enough gravy passed their way any more etc. As you point out JW has attempted to self style himself as a “radical cenerist” “non – aligned” “third wayer” etc etc. I think he occupies similer ground as Russia Today propagndist Max Keiser in his attempts to appear as anti-establishment while continually try and discredit libertarian ideas.

      • …however, I will say that critisism of the Tories does not make one a lefty or a liberal as the tories have almost as little to do with free markets as a convention of the TUC, Pol Pot, trotsky, and Hitler. Better than the other lot? Yes I will take the tories over labour as at least they seem to have a kind of “oh crap we’re in a heck of a mess here aren’t we lads” attitude, as opposed to labours “what we need is to go about deliberatly wrecking the country for the people that oppose our ideas” outlook…yet the torries are just as unlikely to do the “right” thing, and lower taxes and slash government

      • @MMP: Totally agree with both of your posts. I’m as disappointed with the Cameron Coalition as many others are, even angry and frustrated. I suspect it’s down to a number of factors…DC himself is a liberal Tory not a reformer, he was elected Leader to heal the wounds in the Party over Europe and of course he’s walked into an economic nightmare with most depts of government running on empty and chasing bizarre policies.

    • BT,
      He has deleted two of my posts, and another has vanished from another thread about a different topic. I called him a bleedin Socialist. I’m afraid I loath and detest Socialism and Socialists: they quite happily murdered in cold blood one of my friends. If he doesn’t like it that’s his problem. But he is not what he is pretending to be.

      • They didn’t murder him because they were Socialists, they murdered him because they were murderers. I assume the people who murdered your friend were also human? If so why not hate all humans on the same premise?

      • @Andy: Thanks for confirming those deletions. I saw nothing personally abusive in them. Sorry to hear a friend was killed by socialists, but it has to be said that they’ve killed millions in the last 100 years. One of the most vomit-inducing plans was Mao’s Great Leap Forward which may have sounded nice and cuddly until you discover that 10s of millions were slaughtered by him.

      • @Whatnow:
        I don’t know the circumstances of the death of Andy’s friend by socialists.

        Regarding your comment on people being human, here’s a question:
        Can you really call *human*, a demented psychopath who adopts insane policies which knowingly cause the death/murder of millions of people, and then dismisses it all as an unfortunate side effect of a far greater and far more important goal.
        Well, that’s what Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and many others have done in the last hundred years on varying scales. All were totalitarian socialists. Socialist aims are always seen as more important than human life and economic well being. These loons certainly have the appearance of being human but it has always seemed to me to be stretching things to call these pieces of excrement “human” in the usual sense.

        FWIW, I have long believed that given circumstances & opportunity, one Mr Blair could very easily join that club of mass murderers. And like them, he would justify millions of deaths in the name of a higher social goal. He is a very dangerous person and should never be left in control of any levers of power, but may very well be parachuted in to the EU Presidency.

        Welcome to some truth about socialism.

    • @BT, I guess for some people, like you and Andy for instance, being called a socialist could quite easily be seen as personal abuse. You seem to forget the principle that a blog belongs to the blogger. Its JW exercising his freedom of speech and his interpretation of what constitutes personal abuse. I come here to read what he has to say and I enjoy and frequently learn from both is writing and the comments that you and many others make. I guess the key point is that with your current tack you are effectively parasitising the work that JW puts in and the traffic it generates to promote your own one dimensional view of left/right. If JW doesn’t like it thats up to him but it won’t affect my coming to read up to date news and views that don’t make it into msm. If you do take umbrage at JW exercising his rights and start your own blog, I’m sure JW won’t mind you posting the url here so we can all take a look.

      • @PhilE: Agree with some of that. Of course I realise it’s JW’s blog and he can allow/ban posts as he sees fit. But that won’t increase his readership. I know few people who’ll post on a blog if their comments have to comply with the owner’s unreasonable demands. And the point is that by deleting perfectly harmless posts, he’s applying different rules to what he states and is actually deleting posts for political reasons. Where does that end? Yet he also claims to be politically non-aligned, which is clearly not true. There are issues on some of his own posts which contain carefully fabricated nonsense which lead me to suspect he’s not as vanilla as he claims. He could clean up his act…or become just another Lefty blog that spends its time making up nonsense to slag down the Right. {shrug}

        On calling me a socialist…it wouldn’t bother me one jot because I know it’s not true. If someone called me on the Right, I’d not be angry either because I know it is true!

    • BT

      I feel that whilst JW is entirely within his rights to do whatever he pleases with his blog. It is his blog after all. It is the same as on the Telegraph or the Huffington post (of which JW himself has complained about this very issue!)

      I am in agreement with Peter C in that JW should at least back up his deletions with some explanation. I am aware that he is a busy man with a poorly wife but that does not excuse discourtesy. I have been on the rougher side of one of his emails, which was curt and could have shown a little forbearance.

      • @Gemma: Thanks, I’d forgotten about the Huff and also the Grauniad where (IIRC) JW complained about them deleting his posts. Not good.

        Yes, I generally agree with @Peter C’s idea of JW stating why a post has been deleted and not deleting stuff quietly…also to have clear rules which he applies, not make them up as he goes along.

        I have also been concerned for some while about your own forger and why JW takes no action to stop it. I advised him how to do that some while ago without a response (he should check the blog logs and ID the IP address or User-Agent/Referrer fields they’re coming from, not the e-mail address). Like many others, I find some of the forger’s posts quite amusing and if they appeared once in a while, probably wouldn’t be too concerned. But they can often dominate The Slog and JW should be taking action… The question is why doesn’t he?
        …Just My 2C

      • BT

        I too was more than annoyed at JW’s not dealing with the troll. You are right that if it were occasional it would have been merely funny – but a consistent character attack was not on, under any circumstances.

        When he explicitly says something, in writing, and then ignores his own words is simply not good enough. Your telling him about the IP addresses and so on – all available metrics through WordPress – should have armed him with sufficient evidence. That he did not act tells me that he has another agenda. I cannot surmise otherwise, given the lack of action which is, in itself, evidence enough. Well, that is how I see it from this soggy part of Northern Europe.

        As I and others have said, deleting a comment is his own affair. However, on a blog that pleads for openness and democracy, it is incumbent on him to give good reason for doing so. Indeed, his railing against fraud, and allowing it to perpetrate itself on the very same page is astonishing. I have no problem with him expressing ideas, it is quite another to see him openly disregarding them in practice.

    • Waah, waah, waah.
      If what you have to say is so enlightening and important, why not start, run and fund your own blog?

      • DE

        to be quite honest, it is an issue that should be dealt with on this blog, not on another. If comments that could be enlightening or important are being deleted for any reason, that is an issue of concern to all readers here.

        I speak as one who writes her own stuff on her own spot.

      • @DomesticExtremist: I have nothing to say that is “so enlightening and important”. Whatever gave you that idea?

        Stick to Extremism, it suits you ;-)

    • Are you completely loopy? This is a blog and he’s the blogger. If he thinks your views are personal or offensive, then he’s the arbiter and he should delete them. It sounds as though he told you why, even if you didn’t follow his reasoning.

      I find him disconcertingly rightist, on many things. But not loopy.

      • @skylarksara: Sorry, you’ve misunderstood or misread something and got the wrong end of someone’s stick.

    • I’m sure you can’t be mistaken BT, but it seems unusual given that the replies of both yourself and Just Sayin are predictable insofar that they generally offer an alternative perspective to the blog author’s output and have done for quite awhile, leading to the obvious why now?

      • @Monk: Well I dunno. But speaking for myself, there’s actually quite a lot that JW writes which I can happily agree with. Mostly on the shambles that is the EU & EZ et al. I wish he would mainly stick to that subject instead of straying into areas of politics which he understands far less about.
        Thus, I’ve disagreed with him lately a few times because he’s had a bad bout of manufacturing false allegations against the Tory Party and a number of people who are/were associated to it, most notably blaming them collectively for the Libor rigging scandal. He made great noise about the fact that Angela Knight (ex BBA chief) stood for Parliament as a Tory some while ago and then used this to associate Libor rigging with the Tory Party. Utter piffle methinks.
        I am not aligned to the Tory Party but I am on the Right and I have asked him to only blame the Right for its own cock-ups, not those of the Labour Party (who were in power when Libor rigging went on and almost certainly were involved in it). Hope that helps………

    • @Gentlemen. This is a blog. That is all it is. It is not the bloody Bill of Human Rights and no-one has an inalienable right to post here. It is JW’s personal web space and he has the right to veto what the hell he likes, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.
      If you feel your opinion is important you are always free to create your own blog.

      • Ahem!

        @Max

        It is JW’s personal web space and he has the right to veto what the hell he likes, for whatever reason or for no reason at all.

        This is the knub of the problem. He can. He has shown this. The issue here is not about what he can and cannot do, but the manner in which it is done.

  10. C’mon BT, the beach babes in Brazil getting you down? The Rastaman crap was ignorant, abusive and took too long to be removed. Good as far as I am concerned. I want to read informed criticism not personal invective.

    That said, I sometimes wonder if JWs quantity does not affect his quality and concentrating on those areas where he is well informed probably increases the monetary value of the Slog, his stated objective – although, in the absence of advertising I don’t see how that is happening.

    • @OAH: Nope, all the Brazilian babes are down on the beach in Ipanema wearing “bikini palitos” to get themselves noticed ;-)

      OK, I never saw the Rastaman stuff, so maybe it was eligible for deletion. Can’t say.

      Yes, I agree with the quantity possibly affecting the quality. He might then be able to spend a little more time on fact checking and evaluation of whatever data he acquires. I occasionally feel that he is himself being used or manipulated by his “sources” to get their own message or version of events into the public domain. I have no material evidence of this, just some of the comments they appear to make to him which he posts about.

  11. It’s funny how right wingers always decry anything they don’t agree with as ‘lefty’ or ‘socialist’ whether it is or not.

  12. The Labour party is no more Left wing than my aunt Nellie and the Tories are a bunch of wishy washy Liberals, the LibDems are just confused.

    None of them are socialists and neither are they libertarians.

    Thatcher (beloved goddess of the Right) was a tool of the banking establishment, one her first acts was to remove capital controls which was an objective of Operation Robot.
    Blair was given their policies, repackaged them as new and usurped John Major as he wasn’t taking those policies any further.
    Cameron and co are there to maintain the status quo until the next surge.
    Millipede might get a go but he will just be Cameron & co rebadged (ie. more holding)

    We’re still waiting for the man. (you will know him when you see him, simply because he will appear to align himself with your viewpoint)

    Mr Maxi, nobody needs to discredit libertarian ideas, they do that for themselves, they are as pie in the sky as the rantings of Marx.

    ‘I want a free market – but you can’t sell guns to my kids’
    ‘I don’t want taxes but I need someone to hold my hand to enforce this contract’

    What Libertarians really want is just enough socialism to protect themselves from everyone else and just enough capitalism to have the freedom to exploit everyone else.
    (worse than the commies who at least want to exploit everyone equally)

    • Well where to start? So we don’t live in a socialst society yet nearly 60% of gdp comes from government spending – and the rest largely from cooperations leaching off government largess. “Free” health care, “free” housing, benifits for all and sundry, banker bailouts (as Lenin said, socialism can’t exist without the banks) – yet we don’t live in a socialsit society??

      No libertarians do not want socialism just to protect themselves. In a free market society people would exchange goods and services for mutual advantage. The no taxation idea would be to everyone’s (who wanted to be productive, to work, to better themselves, or wanted simply to be free) advantage. Anyone who wanted to sanction the theft of others wages would be free to leave, go elsewhere and try and start a socialst society – but it wouldn’t be implemented in a libertarian one as no one would agree to it – so no need for the government to hold my hand thanks. The same with property rights – it’s simply deemed to the advantage of everyone in a productive society so you don’t need a government to enforce it, but of course you’d still have the right to defend yourself and your property from theft (unlike in modern britain) and could exercise self defence (unlike in modern britain)

      Guns? Who owns the guns. Yep. The government. In fact look at the last century. Think of the major atrocitys – the wars, the gulags, the holocausts – they were carried out by governments. I think guns are dangerous and don’t really want to live somewhere where every one has one; I prefer to live where people think they’re rater unnessesary – yet I hardly think the aswer is to let the government have a monopoly on them and leave the citizenry unable to protect themselves.

      Well thats enough from me; I think I just batted each of your snide critiques of the idea of freedom out of the park

      • i don’t see that expelling socialists is very libertarian? surely those with left-wing proclivities should be allowed to have their own private club in which members may freely enjoy serial exploitation by the committee?

      • @MMP the UK undeniably has socialised healthcare and social security system which have been endorsed by all parties since 1945. Have all those governments since that time been socialist or just recognising what the voters want?

        You are wrong, the government does not have all the guns in the UK. People own 1.8m guns in UK, see the attached data by police force.( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbcGhOdG0zTG1EWkVPdmFISlFXSTNwYlE&hl=en#gid=1. ) The numbers of people in the armed forces are 10% of that. I accept the government has more firepower, but your basic premise is wrong. For all the bollocks I read about US citizens needing arms to defend themselves from the government I don’t see much sign of active resistance against the financial political kleptocracry over there.

        Given that there are so many guns in the UK, if there was no government and no laws, with no one to enforce them, it is likely people would settle their disputes with guns and take what they wish. Not the kind of society most of us would like to live in.

      • @phile

        thank god that during the cold war there was international law preventing the soviet union and america from nuking each other into oblivion.

      • @MMP: I agree with @maxter…thanks for that excellent piece, thoroughly enjoyable and gets right to the nub.

      • @the law, that was MAD mate, not international law: is that your prescription for a libertarian society, every household has weapons and threatens to destroy all the members of other households if there are transgressions between them?

      • well, on a local-level the concept of mutually assured destruction has been working fine for thousands of years and does not necessarily dictate the use of fire-arms…my missus has been known to inflict serious casualties on neighbouring clans tooled-up with jamie oliver kitchenware alone…only the other day she went hammer-and-tongs (well, rolling-pin and dutchy-pot actually) with the west indian lady from next-door…it began as a dispute over washing-line inchage and access, but progressed inevitably and philosophically into the realm of equal opportunities…delbert (the lady’s husband) and i kicked back on the patio with a pack of lager and a smoke to enjoy the unfolding programme of events from a safe distance…obviously we weren’t licensed to smile, but it seemed a small price to pay for an afternoon’s entertainment which was both intellectually and emotionally engaging…who needs the (£10 billion) olympics?

    • This is the most sensible and accurate thing I have read in many a long day. Very well said. I also think it is more or less the point that Mr Ward makes, leftie pinko that e is (not)

  13. I enjoyed the night,i did not get bored of the entertainment,or bored of watching set changes.Was it a success i don’t know,i usually see what other say & the world does not seem to be saying anything at all,(according to the BBC)but i still enjoyed it

  14. To all concerned I enjoyed the evening, 4 hours past quickly.
    As far a political statements, i may be a brainwashed individual, but i think it showed all that was great about Great Britain. An open, tolerant society which allows all peoples of all races to get on with their lives.
    If you looked at the volunteers leading in the Countries they came from every ethnic background, shows how inclusive our society is
    The silence [relative ] for the fallen in two world wars and the showing of the pictures of the victims of the 7th July London bombings again showed the make up of the UK in general and London in particular.
    I will mention the clever touch when the 200+ cauldrens were lit to form one flame was brilliant touch, all the countries of the world comeing together in peace. Before someone says that it was just an Illuminati symbol along with the lighting.

    • @Lupulco: “[Britain] An open, tolerant society which allows all peoples of all races to get on with their lives.” …and… “in the Countries they came from every ethnic background, shows how inclusive our society is”

      I’m not sure it shows that at all. Government prevents people from getting on with their lives by endless laws and regulations which seek to control what we think, what we say and to impose multi-culti on us. But it’s no exaggeration to say that very large numbers of Brits believe that multi-culti – so loved and peddled by the Left – is a failed policy that is costing us dear. In that respect, the Olympics opening ceremony was a pile of Lefty spin with some real truths conveniently omitted.

      • I enjoy multicultralism – I have friends from all corners, enjoy learning languages, trying new foods, flirting with women of all shades and proportionalities…yet what we have in the uk is government forced multicultralism – where I have to pay for hoards of people and their families to be housed, “educated”, for their healthcare, for world famous benifits, to use the roads, translators, to use public transport etc etc this I don’t enjoy, and neither should any migrant with the intention of bettering themselves

      • @BT: ‘But it’s no exaggeration to say that very large numbers of Brits believe that multi-culti – so loved and peddled by the Left – is a failed policy that is costing us dear. ‘
        Hear Hear. I am one of those Brits.

    • Tolerance is the most ridiculous societal ideology of all.

      It means “putting up with things you dislike”. How is that a good thing?!

      On a large scale it embodies a fuse on a large powder keg.

  15. As a left leaning person, or at least one who resents not at all paying taxes, and at the higher rate I might add,, I would say 2 things:

    1. A lot of people don’t seem to know what multiculturalism means – they, including the Burley goosestepper chap, seem to think it means seeing rather more brown faces in a crowd than they would like

    2. Multiculturalism, the policy of allowing immigrants to maintain separate and parallel cultures rather than being obliged to fully integrate, like most other countries would demand, is a total and utter failure.

    I wouldn’t worry too much about immigrants living on the largesse of the state for much longer, the Tories are rapidly making the country a most inhospitable place for anyone unwilling or unable to contribute in the required sense to society, albeit at the expense of our own sick and disabled.

    • What Now

      “I wouldn’t worry too much about immigrants living on the largesse of the state for much longer”

      Are you suggesting that the Tories are actually going to break their step?I mean by this, that the Tories might actually do something about the problem? I really doubt if they are going to do anything about stopping payments to EU immigrants as soon as they step ashore. It has been EU law for a very long time that a Government can withhold payments as long as that Government can prove that the person has not been resident in their country for five years.

      Britain has consitently failed to implement any measure to tackle this very large and well known loophole.

      • No, I simply mean that they are turning the country into the sort of hellhole that people will be trying to escape from, rather than come to.

        In any case it sounds rather costly enterprise to have to establish whether a person has resided in another country for 5 years or not. Perhaps the judgement is that it would require too much in the way of resources?

      • Worral Arf

        I thought more people were leaving the UK than arriving – you seem to be doing something akin to Greece in the 70s when any sane minded Greek got out and found a job in Chicago.

        As to this “costly enterprise” it would not cost that much to administer if it were done through the National Insurance or Inland Revenue. If a person wanted the backup of benefits in the future, they could voluntarily sign up. That would be the simplest solution, and would save Britain being seen as the place to go if your benefits are dreadful.

        The problem seems not to be with finances, but as ever, political gumption. It seems that whatever the Brits do, it requires the least possible cerebral input.

    • @Whatnow: “2. Multiculturalism, the policy of allowing immigrants to maintain separate and parallel cultures rather than being obliged to fully integrate…

      Rotfl.
      Pray, how do you “oblige immigrants to fully integrate”?

      Hold a gun to their head if they refuse to cuddle up to their English neighbours? or go down the pub with them on a Friday night? They may be Moslems. Maybe you cut their welfare benefits? Which is it?

      I’m sure the dearly beloved Labour Party knows the answer…but no sane person does. Think: there are many thousands of Brit ex-pats living on the Spanish Costas and very few of them integrate with the locals. They live in ex-pat communities and socialise together.

      THAT is the reality of multi-culti but it didn’t stop the insane Labour Party from believing it could open the flood gates on immigration and impose integration by threats and laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s