Posted on 05/06/2005 10:01:33 AM PDT by quidnunc
I cannot recommend strongly enough, Greg Hands, the new MP for Hammersmith & Fulham
__________________________________________________________
I could not agree with you more. In fact I managed to vote for him before I left the UK (Thank god for postal voting). He kept in touch with all constituents for several years and was heavily onvolved in the aea. I got regular correspondence from him whereas the Labour candidate (who did not even live in the area) did absolutely nothing. I was so glad to see him elected and to know that my vote did actually mean something.
I've met Greg and had a lengthy political chat with him. The word "sound" applies - he'll make a great MP.
Regards, Ivan
I sometimes wonder if (London mayor) Ken Livingston speaks the thoughts of a majority of Brits. I mean, I HOPE that most Brits see Livingston for the simple scumbag and political whore that he clearly is, but I wonder how many do?
Dear God, no...Ken Livingstone is a complete idiot. He is the epitome of leftist lunacy here - the very symbol of it.
Regards, Ivan
Please elaborate on the "Kilroy Silk fracas." Are you referring to his firing from BBC?
No, after the highly successful UKIP showing in the European and Local elections, Kilroy Silk demanded to be made leader of the UKIP. The leadership balked. Kilroy walked off and formed his own party, Vertias - the split has pretty much killed UKIP.
Regards, Ivan
"By the way, I should tell you that the person who posted this thread has a long history of Brit bashing and posting untrue and misleading articles about the UK in order to cause friction between British and US freepers."
What tripe.
So Marc Steyn and Melanie Phillips are "untrue and misleading?" Why, because you don't like what they say about UK? And Quid has to have an agenda to post them? I find them and Quid's posts disturbingly accurate.
There is tremendous anti-US garbage coming out of UK fomented by your press especially the supposedly neutral BBC. The Conservative Party did sell out the US.
Instead of denying the obvious, since you post here and thus must feel differently, why don't you just disagree with the Conservative/Howard party line of US bashing instead of revising the truth?
What I am seeing on this and other threads is a UK contingent attempting to stifle the posting by Quid of legitimate authors who are critical of the UK. It is the UK contingent, like yourself, who are personally attacking the poster with comments on his motivations for posting. One does not need to justify the posting of news from the WSJ or from Mark Steyn, et al. Stick with the article and leave hypothetical and irrelevant motivations out of it.
Your gripe is with your own countryman who document the anti-US bias growing in the UK.
Thanks. I was unaware of that development. Did Vertias make a showing?
No, it's you who are posting the tripe. It's been pointed out that the postings that have come out of quidnunc are from a narrow, limited coterie of Anglophobic writers. You can count them on one hand. This is not a balanced picture. Furthermore, David has posted a quote that shows that quid is motivated by personal spite.
I would add in the strongest possible terms as someone who lives here that quite frankly, the writers that have been posted are either wrong or lying. And anyone who believes it is either wrong or a bigot.
One final thing - the one element that unites the anti-British bigots on this board is the willingness to take the worst behaviour of a minority and extrapolate it into a condemnation of Britain as a whole. To do the same to America would be to take the behaviour of blue staters and assume that Texans behave in the same way, and denounce America as being entirely without merit as a result. This is a bigoted, narrow minded form of behaviour, which only serves as a method of slandering other countries.
I am sick to death of people such as yourself acting like Britain is France.
Ivan
Kilroy Silk ran in a Labour constituency and got 6% of the votes.
The split destroyed UKIP and made sure Veritas was a still born enterprise. UKIP's only "achievement" was to take enough votes away from the Tories to ensure that Labour and the Liberals held onto more seats than they should have.
Ivan
One of my best friends is a Yorkshireman. Wonderful person.
I declined to name you, but you have outed yourself as the one slinging mud on these threads.
Stick to debating the issues and omit the personal which is irrelevant. Quid's motives are none of your business, though I might add, yours are clearly no less biased.
The UK, while not France, is heading that way. Such experts as Daniel Pipes, an expert on Islamism, a Pres Bush appointee, refers to London as Londonistan and says it is worse than France in its internal failures in the WOT. France, at least internally, is quite tough on Islamic radicals. No Finsbury Mosques there.
In order to placate the Muslims in UK, the Brits have become anti-US and anti-Israel. Anti-Semitism is at an all time high. (you lost that discussion with me some time back). The BBC is virulently anti-US. Last I checked it was publicly funded.
As to Quids choice of authors, they are all reputable as is the conservative and world read WSJ the source of this thread. As to Anglophobes, they are usually British authors. Instead of the name calling and assertions of "they are wrong because I know better" challenge the facts if you can. I have considerable contacts in the UK and their anecdotal reportage, as credible as yours, confirms the anti-US picture.
Why don't you address Karl Rove's actions towards Michael Howard. Are you disputing this factually? Was Mr Howard, the head of the Conservative Party a rogue element? Why don't you adress the anti-US BBC reportage? Why don't you address the anti-Semitic reportage from the conservative UK Spectator? These are factual debatable issues not character assaults.
Quid's motives are none of your business, though I might add, yours are clearly no less biased.
Absolute nonsense. Go through the history of his posting, and you'll see that he is posting whatever mud he can find to fling at Britain, in the hopes of finding whatever sticks. This means there is absolutely no chance of balance in anything he presents - nothing is bound to be fair, and it is bound to present Britain in an unfavourable, untruthful light.
The UK, while not France, is heading that way.
Thank you, you just outed yourself as thoroughly ignorant. Facts are stubborn things, and they show that 70% of the British electorate voted for parties in favour of the Iraq War. And yes, Michael Howard re-stated he was in favour of the war last October. Britain has stood with America militarily since day one of the War on Terror, lost over 80 soldiers and kept the peace in southern Iraq. Yet in your view, we're only a step away from being France.
As for the Finsbury Park mosque - in case you hadn't noticed, we arrested Abu Hamza, and threatened the Finsbury Park mosque's charitable status if they didn't clean up their act. Internal intelligence appears to be working, as thwarting the attempted attack on the London Underground showed - it's because we do profiling, unlike the United States (though to be fair, people here would dearly love for it to occur). Yet in your view, we're worse on internal security than France.
I notice that you don't want to address the limited number of authors that Quidnunc has used. Where they publish is neither here nor there. For example, he picked on Carol Gould on a constant basis for Anglophobic articles. SHe based her view of Britain on hanging out with leftist intellectuals in North London - about as informative as hanging out in Greenwich Village is for finding out what Americans think. I will grant, on occasion, he has picked authors who are merely misguided rather than wrong - however, the sum total is the same - as stated, to fling as much slime at Britain as possible out of a personal vendetta.
And as previously stated, I am thoroughly disgusted by the coterie of anti-British bigots such as yourself who would dare suggest that we are anywhere near France. Henry V's statement about he who sheds his blood with him being his brother is obviously not enough for the standards of your kind - we have to have 100% total unanamity as a nation in our opinions, purge all the lunatics and be totally, thoroughly cheerleading for America before we'll meet your standards of "the good". It's not going to happen. I suggest that if this demand for compliance ever becomes an official policy for determining who are allies or not, America will have no allies in short order.
We can continue this as long as you like - but I have been persuaded to stay, and I am simply not going to let you anti-British bigots get away with slandering my country any longer. They can ban ME and kick me out for all I care, but I am sick of the lies being told.
Ivan
"there is absolutely no chance of balance in anything he presents'
Not his job. And would you suggest that posters on this site must present both sides of all issues? If you like no one is stopping you from presenting how pro-US the UK is. If you can find such support for your position. As to limited authors, so what. There is no obligation to present a literature survey. The authors and sources are credible.
I heard the C-Span Gould segment myself and saw nothing to document your contention. The facts are that anti-Semitic crime in UK is at an all time high. The fact is there is an academic boycott on two Israeli Universities. These are facts. The fact is media watchdogs have documented the bias that is the BBC.
And don't sell Greewich Village short. It represents the intellectual leftist academic elite that is quite detrimental to US welfare. It poisons the well just as the BBC does in the UK.
"Thank you, you just outed yourself as thoroughly ignorant. Facts are stubborn things, and they show that 70% of the British electorate voted for parties in favour of the Iraq War."
You are distorting those facts. They voted for those parties only because the Iraq War was low on the scale of issues they cared about. That does not change the anti-US bias of your press and Conservative party.
"Yet in your view, we're worse on internal security than France."
No, In Daniel Pipe's view, and other experts.
"we have to have 100% total unanamity as a nation in our opinions, purge all the lunatics and be totally, thoroughly cheerleading for America before we'll meet your standards of "the good". It's not going to happen. I suggest that if this demand for compliance ever becomes an official policy for determining who are allies or not, America will have no allies in short order."
You are unfortunately doing precisely that of which you accuse me. If I do not "have 100% total unanamity" with your whitewash of UK faults, if I am not "totally, thoroughly cheerleading for" UK, you threaten with withdrawal of friendship. I never set the standard for allies as uncritical support. If that is what you ask, it is you who set the bar too high, not the US.
In short I can criticize what I disagree with in UK conduct and appreciate that which is good. That the support for the Iraq War has come from PM Bair, not the Conservatives, is most unfortunate.
I do ask that you address the issues and stop with the personal and the threats like "if this demand for compliance ever becomes an official policy for determining who are allies or not, America will have no allies in short order."
I have always valued the US/UK alliance, but if the anti-US trends continue the alliance will be killed by the UK.
So in your opinion, it's all right if someone is a slanderer and rabble rouser out of a personal vendetta? As for the sources being credible - how many times do I have to say they aren't - I pointed out Carol Gould's perspective, which is totally bogus. It's not my fault that you don't want to pay attention to it.
I heard the C-Span Gould segment myself and saw nothing to document your contention. The facts are that anti-Semitic crime in UK is at an all time high. The fact is there is an academic boycott on two Israeli Universities. These are facts. The fact is media watchdogs have documented the bias that is the BBC.
Excuse me, but read what she has to say and find out where she's been. Anti-Semitism is something that is viewed with repulsion here: when the Labour Party put up a misguided (rather than purposefully anti-Semitic poster) of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin as flying pigs, the reaction was harsh and swift - both of those gentlemen are Jewish, and as such even the perception of putting up something anti-Semitic was beyond the pale.
Yes, the BBC is biased - but of course what no one in the anti-British coalition on Free Republic seems to remember is that there are plenty of other news sources: Sky News and ITV News, for example. Sky News, to give some idea of its ideological position, is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is a sister station to Sky. To suggest that we're all brainwashed by the BBC is about as credible as saying as Americans are all brainwashed by the alphabet networks.
And here I return to the point of extrapolation. The BBC is biased, the Guardian is biased, the Independent hosts Robert Fisk. This does not make Britain and anti-semitic nation, nor weak on fighting terrorism - at least not any more than the presence of the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times and the likes of Molly Ivins and Mark Morford make America an anti-semitic nation or weak on fighting terrorism. The error that is being consistently made - on purpose, I dare say - is to extrapolate from the BBC, Guardian and Indie an indictment of the British nation as a whole. This is thoroughly unmerited, and anti-intellectual. As such, bigotry.
What is indefensible is that you believe in peoples' God given right to pursue this bigotry, so long as the authors quoted (or even in cases distorted) publish in what you deem to be "respectable" journals.
You are distorting those facts. They voted for those parties only because the Iraq War was low on the scale of issues they cared about. That does not change the anti-US bias of your press and Conservative party.
The Conservative Party is not anti-American. There are a few anti-American MPs and members of the party, but that does not mean the party is anti-American. As previously stated Michael Howard backed the Iraq War. Same goes for the press...I dare say we have fewer anti-American publications than the United States does.
No, In Daniel Pipe's view, and other experts.
Name 3 other experts. 1 "expert" does not a quorum make.
You are unfortunately doing precisely that of which you accuse me. If I do not "have 100% total unanamity" with your whitewash of UK faults, if I am not "totally, thoroughly cheerleading for" UK, you threaten with withdrawal of friendship. I never set the standard for allies as uncritical support. If that is what you ask, it is you who set the bar too high, not the US.
I expect our allies not to lie about us. I expect them not to slander us. I expect them to not take anti-British slander at face value. Is that too much to ask?
In short I can criticize what I disagree with in UK conduct and appreciate that which is good. That the support for the Iraq War has come from PM Bair, not the Conservatives, is most unfortunate.
Stop lying. I have told you a number of times that Michael Howard backed the war. He criticised the Prime Minister on the grounds by which he pursued support for that war, not the necessity of doing so.
I have always valued the US/UK alliance, but if the anti-US trends continue the alliance will be killed by the UK.
Britain has backed the USA to the hilt and with real blood shed. The one thing the Anti-American Left has said to Blair is that "OK, so you stuck with the USA - but at the end of the day, the Americans are going to treat Britain with disdain." People like you give life to what should be a lie. When you persist in spouting off anti-British bias in the face of arguments and evidence to the contrary, you just reinforce the wildest dreams of the anti-American left in this country. Think about it.
Ivan
I should point out that never in all my years, and my colleagues will back me up on this have I EVER witnessed behaviour of the kind she describes. To be blunt, she's full of it.
Still, where she chooses to live is St. John's Wood. To give you some idea of its political makeup, click here for the election results. It's about as red as one gets. She only alludes slightly to anywhere else in the country. The publications she cites are about as useful as citing the New York Times or Boston GLobe in describing you. Yet you take this as an article of faith?
Oh by the way, here's more highlighting the highly negative reaction to even the apppearance of anti-Semitism in the UK.
Ivan
As I have said time and again, I believe it was right to go to war. Saddam Hussein was in flagrant breach of the United Nations' resolutions. He had provoked two wars in the Gulf. He had used chemical weapons against other nations and against his own people. No one knew if and when he would get his hands on more weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt: the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. I read what President Chirac has said. I don't agree.
I still think it was right to go to war. But I also think it's my right - and my duty - to criticise the Prime Minister where he has done the wrong thing.
I have two specific criticisms to make. And I make those criticisms because I believe both of his mistakes could have grave consequences for the future conduct of British foreign policy under this Prime Minister.
First, in the run-up to the war, I am afraid that Tony Blair did not give a truthful account of the intelligence he had received. I have made my views on this clear elsewhere and I don't intend to repeat them this afternoon.
Second, Britain should have ensured that there were plans in place for post war Iraq. Michael Ancram kept pressing the Foreign Secretary on this very point. We now know there were none - despite the Prime Minister's assurances that plans were "in hand".
Anyone who suggests the Tories are anti-American on the basis of this critique are lying - it's a critique of Blair, not President Bush.
As for his attitude to America - from the same speech:
One of my worries is that for some people, the main motive for greater political union in Europe is to establish a rival to the United States. I don't want rivalry. I want partnership.
Enough said.
Ivan
There is tremendous anti-US garbage coming out of UK fomented by your press especially the supposedly neutral BBC.
Firstly, I despise the BBC and would like to see them disbanded. Secondly, there are also plenty of leftist news sources in the USA attacking the Bush administration, so you should hardly be surprised that the leftist media in European countries is also attacking it.
The Conservative Party did sell out the US.
No it didn't.
Instead of denying the obvious, since you post here and thus must feel differently, why don't you just disagree with the Conservative/Howard party line of US bashing instead of revising the truth?
I would disagree with it, if it had existed, but it didn't.
What I am seeing on this and other threads is a UK contingent attempting to stifle the posting by Quid of legitimate authors who are critical of the UK. It is the UK contingent, like yourself, who are personally attacking the poster with comments on his motivations for posting.
When someone only posts articles that attack Britain (usually with flimsy evidence), along with untrue statements and exaggerations to further his self-confessed agenda to anger British posters, then yes I take exception to it. Maybe you should too.
I feel this is a good analogy. Your posts certainly evoke the spirit of Basil Fawlty. However, the big difference is that John Clesse only plays at being an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.