Thursday, 12 February 2009

Freedom of Speech?




David Davis (Con), on the subject of free speech today said...
Nothing

11 comments:

david icke said...

david davis is only interested in free speech on his own terms.......

the same as all the other crooks at westminster....

++++++++++++++

look up all the shenanigans during the run-up to the bye election in Haltemprice and his part in earlier events.....

it was all to boost his ego!

Leg-iron said...

The silence of all parties on this issue speaks volumes. On the threat issued one Lord, Parliament has caved in.

There can be no respect for a single member of this House any more. The ones Cromwell had to deal with with were great men by comparison. The contemptible shower who call themselves 'honourable' are anything but.

Cowardly filth, every single one.

Guthrum said...

Just watched Question Time, the only people who spoke up for Freedom of Speech as a moral imperative was the fetching leader of the RESPECT Party and Monty Don- All the others were up for the Ban. The Labour bloke spluttered and blustered when queried about the Jew hating Jihadi that was allowed in in November.

Westminster village group think

Dick Puddlecote said...

Always with Leg-Iron myself. Davis's idea of civil liberties is completely different to mine.

If I were to harangue him in a room about what the majority believe is erosion of liberties, he would just say "Huh?"

He's not even good at defending his own version.

A BIG November 5th this year please!

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Once in my life I gave a genuine apology. Nobody asked me to, nobody made me. I had said something really shitty and unjustified to a woman I actually liked, and to her face.

I didn't sleep too good that night.

Next day, in front of my wife and her husband, and to the surprise of everyone I made a point of giving her an unconditional apology. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

Mind you, she wasn't like the people you're describing here. She accepted it unconditionally and immediately. And for many years afterwards she and I were really the very best friends, and the whole sad thing was never mentioned again. Haven't seen her for about twenty years now after they went abroad.

So apology CAN be a good thing - but it does have to be genuine and not forced. And only to someone who hasn't demanded it. And that's probably what makes the difference between whether you should apologise or not. Someone who demands it isn't REALLY going to accept it and move on.

If you're still out there Mo, I still think of you occasionally.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Whoops wrong thread - that comment goes in the thread above.

Truth Radio said...

Forget the BBC, tune in to Radio Freedom and lift the scales from your eyes

it's either banned or compulsory said...

Jaqui SSmiths ridiculous ban on Geert wilders has ensured far wider publicity for FITNA than an obscure showing to some dusty lords

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0

274,000 views and counting
Nice own goal from The Righteous

Anonymous said...

I thought for a while we had in Davis a champion of (of sorts)of individual freedom and privacy. Alas just another ego tripping trougher. Very disappointing.

The Penguin said...

I'm afraid they are all corrupt, as are their senior fucking civil cock-suckers. All at the trough in one way or another.

The Penguin

Freebritannia said...

Shami Chakrabarti has also said nothing on this.

So much for "Liberty"

Disappointing.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails