This Time It’s Politicians, The Media AND The Twitterati.
It is like bees to honey, more like flies to a corpse. A reasonable proposal, taken out of context, not really even a slip of the tongue, just deliberate distortion by a nasty side of Britain that sickens me.
Lord Freud Has Nothing To Apologise For.
It is reasonable, intelligent and compassionate to suggest that disabled people might benefit from work in which they could not justify payment of the minimum wage but which the state could top-up to that level.
The abuse levelled at this man by attention-seeking politicians, opportunistic disability rights campaigners and other parasites is disgusting. It seems any excuse is good enough now to target individuals.
Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis, Brooks Newmark, Lord Freud – all far from perfect, unlike those who criticise them of course. All undeserving of such focused abuse.
This is an aggressive, spiteful side of Britain in 2014 which I really don’t like.
As Demotix, the photojournalism website, captioned their gallery: “A small group of protestors gathered outside the BBC, calling for Ganja or cannabis to be legalised in the UK.”
How long will it take these idiots to learn that their behaviour sets back the cause of cannabis law reform?
Gratuitous lawbreaking, scruffy turnout, signs that look like they were made at playschool and an embarrassingly small attendance even on the weekend that The Observer publishes a survey showing that 52% of the UK population supports legalisation in Colorado and Washington.
Such irresponsible events have never had any positive impact and when they are as shabby, poorly attended and badly organised as this all they do is bring the whole cannabis campaign into disrepute.
Is there nobody associated with the organisers of these disastrous demos that can talk some sense into them? Or is it really just about the same excitement as naughty children feel when they are being deliberately out of line? That’s how the public sees it.
Even before Theresa May delivers another speech of hatred, prejudice and bile at the Tory Party conference, the dreadful news is out. Cameron himself has trailed it and blatantly, unashamedly, these two oppressors of British democracy plan to restrict our freedom of speech and thought in a way never before contemplated.
Cameron explicitly states that it is not just about committing or inciting violence, it is about holding “extremist views”. All that the Home Secretary has to have is “reasonable suspicion” that people hold views she does not agree with or dislikes and she may lock them up.
This must be stopped. It is the greatest ever betrayal of the British people and Cameron and May have demonstrated conclusively that they are not fit to be in government. They are hoist on their own petard for their ideas are as extremist as any other and if such legislation is introduced, they should be the first to be arrested and charged
As a life long Tory voter (never again), I take great offence that this patronising, cruel and out-of-touch idiot gets to hijack what was once a great and noble institution. He and his arrogant, conceited colleagues have twisted and perverted Margaret Thatcher’s legacy into a mindless, self-serving parody of itself.
His ideas repel me. Anything good or positive he proposes is extinguished by the nasty, spiteful attitude to those less fortunate than himself. He cares for no one except his own. He is the caricature of the nasty party personified. His legacy, of brutal treatment of the sick, disabled and unemployed, will be an eternal shame on him, the Tory party and Britain.
There is no excuse for the Sunday Mirror’s entrapment of Brooks Newmark. It clearly amounts to a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. For causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent the penalty is up to 10 years in jail and both the freelance journalist concerned and the Mirror’s weekend editor Alison Phillips should be charged forthwith.
The subterfuge involved is also in clear breach of the Editors’ Code and the newly created, sham press regulator, IPSO, should act. Mind you that’s like asking the mafia to lock up its gangsters. It’s not going to happen. IPSO and the sickening parasites who set up this fraud as a successor to the corrupt PCC are the problem and no part of the solution.
The only defence to the use of subterfuge under the Editors’ Code is if it is in the public interest. After their disgraceful record over many years, anyone who thinks that Fleet Street can judge what is in the public interest, must be a Daily Mail reporter. This sting has achieved absolutely nothing except to show that a man is vulnerable to the provocative enticement of an extremely attractive woman. Frankly, Brooks Newmark would be either gay or impotent if he wasn’t sorely tempted by the delicious 22-year-old Swedish model Malin Sahlén, whose photograph was stolen by the Mirror and used to entrap the MP.
This is all part of the sickening hypocrisy, prurience and dishonesty which pervades Fleet Street. Just like the banks, our pathetic and weak leaders, even in the face of the Leveson Inquiry, allow so-called journalists to act with impunity. These aren’t journalists, they are malevolent, predatory criminal abusers and they should face the full force of the law. The crime is aggravated because it is committed for financial gain and is deeply corrupting of our media and our society.
Another side to Fleet Street’s abuse of its power and hypocrisy is the revolting Camilla Long of the Sunday Times, who has been instrumental in the harassment and malicious prosecution of Dave Lee Travis – another life sacrificed on the altar of Fleet Street malice. This vile bitch, for there can be no other description has misused her power in the media to launch the most repellent attacks on a man who is clearly innocent of any criminal intent. I don’t know what is behind her abuse. Perhaps she is sexually frigid and socially inept, incapable of handling herself in a situation of mild flirtation. More likely she is doing it for the money and if you take a moment to look at the smug, patronising drivel she writes in the Sunday Times, she is obviously in desperate need of material.
As if we didn’t know already that Cameron’s cowardly retreat from Leveson would result in more abuse from Fleet Street. Newmark must feel an idiot and highly embarrassed but it seems to me he has done nothing wrong except as far as his wife is concerned. That he was a government minister should have made him more cautious but should afford him stronger protection under the law, just as he might have a bodyguard or personal security against physical attack. The offences against him should therefore result in very severe sentences and the Sunday Mirror should go the same way as the News of the World.
The odious wide boy Grant Shapps, chair of the Tory party, has launched an attack on Mark Reckless which goes way beyond politics, it is defamation. Reckless should sue the slimy oik for every penny he has got.
I know a little about defamation from bitter, personal experience. Shapps is worth suing, he’s wealthy and when you are slandered, maliciously and deliberately and the person responsible can pay, he deserves to.
Let’s be clear, Shapps is a first rate scumbag. He made his fortune by selling despicable and fraudulent get rich quick schemes under a succession of false identities. That he is now chairman of the Tory party says everything about how far that once noble institution has fallen.
My experience also tells me that Reckless will find a legal team willing to work on a conditional fee agreement. There is no doubt that Shapps’ disgraceful words are deliberately calculated to cause serious damage to Reckless and it seems to me that his repeated accusations of lying are factually inaccurate or unsupportable opinion, spoken out of malice. This ticks all the boxes as required under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Resorting to law in politics is something that must only be done in the most serious and extreme of circumstances, when those engaged in defamation have breached every limit, every red line and every tenet of civilised behaviour. That is the basis on which I decided to launch legal action against my abusers back at the beginning of 2013 and I urge Mark Reckless to take similar action now.
He, as I did, has a wider responsibility. Shapps’ behaviour is beneath contempt and beyond redemption. It is so serious that a stand must be made. People who sink so low must be stopped in the interests of wider society – just as those who attacked me.
Shapps should also reflect on this – had he made his remarks after the writ for the Rochester and Strood by-election had been moved, he should now be facing criminal charges under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Regrettably the maximum penalty is a fine of £5,000 but Shapps political career would then be finished. For that, the whole country would be grateful, whatever their political views. People who behave in the way that Shapps has, like those who defamed me, deserve everything they get. They should be made outcasts from civilised society and debate.
The more harmful, dangerous and addictive a drug is the more important that its availability should be legally regulated, otherwise, inevitably, a criminal market is created with massive consequential health and social harms.
In the UK, before the Misuse of Drugs Act was introduced in 1971, we had around 3,000 problematic drug users. We now have 350,000. Yet successive governments carry on in the same direction.
The vested interests of Big Booze have been supported and encouraged by weak politicians, leading to lighter and lighter regulation of the most dangerous drug of all. Meanwhile, relatively harmless and beneficial substances like cannabis have been abandoned to street dealers and organised crime, blighting communities and involving children in both dealing and use – just as happened with alcohol prohibition in the US.
All the evidence is before us and the most effective policies for reducing harm from drugs are very clear. What we need to do is sweep aside outdated, out of touch organisations like the Home Office and dinosaurs like the present Home Secretary, Theresa May. Yet since 1971, there have been a few intelligent and progressive ministers in the Home Office. Surely it is the irresponsible and obstinate influence of senior civil servants that has prevented governments from moving forward with reform?
Drugs policy must be based on evidence, not pressure from tabloid newspapers, the alcohol industry, scared and ignorant politicians and self-serving civil servants and quangos.
Parliament is now obligated to debate Caroline Lucas’ e-petition formally to evaluate the effectiveness of current policy. We must move rapidly and radically thereafter towards a solution that will work and put aside the idiocy of the last 43 years.