Official: UK Law Now Says ManBearPig-Worship Is a Religion to Rank Alongside Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Oh dear, it’s official (nearly): a belief in man-made climate change grants you the same anti-discrimination protection in the British work-place you’d get if, say, you were a Muslim and your employer forced you to eat pork, or you were a Christian and your boss insisted you sacrifice a big black cock at the stroke of midnight on the Winter Solstice in the middle of a ruddy great pentacle, or you were a Rastafarian, and your boss wouldn’t allow you to pop outside for your statutory religious reefer-break.

At least that’s the maddening situation that one Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford is striving to engineer with the help of our crazed, activist-lawyer-riddled legal system.

Nicholson has been given the go-ahead, on appeal, to sue his former employer Grainger plc for unfair dismissal under  the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 which cover “any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief”.

Nicholson, formerly Grainger plc’s head of sustainability, said he had tried to set up a “carbon management system” for the company. Yet for some mysterious reason we can only guess at, Nicholson says staff refused to give him the necessary information which would have enabled him to calculate the company’s carbon footprint. Grainger claims it got rid of Nicholson for “operational” and “structural” reasons. Nicholson, however, believes it was a form of discrimination against his sincere, deep, heartfelt and passionate views on AGW.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

I do hope he wins, for it will only serve to bolster the suit I’m currently planning to launch against my own employer UK plc. Under this new belief system I have invented – Delingpolism (currently with only one known adherent – but the rest of you are more than welcome to join) – anyone who proselytises on behalf of AGW, carbon capture, Cap & Trade or wind farms without being able to demonstrate with at least 95 per cent certainty that their cause has any scientific foundation whatsoever, must be exiled immediately to the Arctic Circle, there to dwell among the still surprisingly large population of ravening polar bears until such time as they are gobbled up, digested and excreted into the Arctic oceans ready to pass through the food chain and end up in the beauteous gullets of the mighty blue whale (or similar).

So far, my religion’s precepts have been completely ignored by my employer. I feel sorely discriminated against. Got to be worth a couple of million in damages, at least, wouldn’t you agree?

Related posts:

  1. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  4. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong


Sir David King Condemns Green Scaremongering; Herod Condemns Child Abuse; Osama Bin Laden Condemns Islamist Terrorism; etc.

Professor Sir David King – Tony Blair’s former chief scientific advisor and foot-and-mouth massacre guru – has spoken out against climate change alarmism. He has told the Times:

“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

Presumably he is no relation of the Sir David King who claimed in January 2004 in Science magazine that climate change is “the most severe problem we are facing today” and “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism.” (Hat tip: Benny Peiser)

Nor of the Sir David King who was reported thus in May 2004:

Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week. He said the Earth was entering the ‘first hot period’ for 60 million years when there was no ice on the plane and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life”.

Nor of the Sir David King who made the following claim as recently as June 2008:

If all the ice on Greenland were to melt, sea level would rise by seven metres. Is that likely to happen? Well I was saying six years ago unlikely [but] I’m afraid that that’s having to be revised… 80 percent of our human population lives within less than a one metre rise of sea level so imagine the destabilisation of our geopolitical system with a sea level rise of the order of one or two metres. And that is on the cards I’m afraid.

Nor, one hopes, is he any relation of the Sir David King who led the British delegation to a science conference in Moscow in 2004, whose performance prompted the following disgusted after-action report by the conference chairman Alexander Illarionov:

“In our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”

If I were sensible, moderate Professor Sir David King I would have stern words with this soundalike character: otherwise some people might be in danger of mistaking him for an hysterical fool.

Related posts:

  1. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  2. ‘AGW is real!’ insists Al Gore’s new soul mate Osama Bin Laden
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. Herod orders top UN scientists to investigate mysterious infant slaughter in Judaea


It’s YOUR Fault the Kittens and Puppies Will Drown, Daddy!

When my 11-year-old son confessed the other day that he’d blurted out to his teacher in a typically eco-minded geography class ‘My dad says –manmade global warming is rubbish!’, I couldn’t have been more proud.

In my schooldays, geography used to be about unarguable facts such as the shape of an Oxbow lake or the capital of Australia. Now the subject has been so corrupted by the pious sermons of the green lobby that it ought really to be rechristened ‘The-planet-is-doomed-and-it’s-all-our-fault’ studies.

The Bedtime Story

Vivid: The Bedtime Story ad depicts a puppy and kitten drowning as waters rise

Imagine my dismay a few weeks ago when I had an email from one of Ivo’s teachers.

‘I want to tell you how pleased I am with your son,’ it read.

‘Ivo has just taken part in an interschools Eco Conference in Oxford, and performed brilliantly. At the end, unexpectedly, the boys were asked to make speeches and field questions from the floor, and though some boys chickened out, your son rose to the occasion and spoke fluently and confidently.’

Well, what could I do? Cancel his pocket money? Confiscate his iPod? Of course, I’m joking  –  well, half-joking. Part of me felt a huge surge of paternal pride. But another part was absolutely horrified.

Who had got to my boy? How had he been turned? It reminded me of that awful moment in The Stepford Wives when you discover that even free-thinking Katharine Ross has been transformed into a supine robot creature parroting the same predictable lines.

I’m not the only parent to feel this way. All over Britain, mums and dads are asking themselves the same thing: ‘Since when did my children turn into such rabid eco-fascists?’

In the old days, children were content to satisfy their inner bossy prig by simply pinching your cigarettes and chucking them in the bin ‘for your own good’. Now, they seem determined to police every aspect of our lives.

Our homes have been transformed into mini police states where our children monitor our eco correctness like tinpot Al Gores.

‘Dad,’ says Ivo, surveying my Ford Mondeo, ‘why can’t we have an electric car like the Bielies?’ (Our insanely eco German friends.)

Or my daughter Poppy will turn to her mother and say: ‘Mum, why are you buying Fairy Liquid, not Ecover?’

Then there are the lectures we get from our children on the size of our carbon footprint. And our home is now perpetually suffused in a morguelike gloom as our young ones keep busily turning off any light we’re not actually using.

They won’t even let us leave the TV on standby (‘Dad, if everyone turned their TV off we’d save an annual 480,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions’).

But should we be surprised when they’re fed such a concentrated diet of green propaganda?

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. The ideological rot that is destroying English conservatism
  2. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  3. Radio Free Delingpole: Popes and Puppies
  4. Climategate: Obama’s boot boys strike back


Greens, like Nazis, See the Entire World through the Prism of One Big Idea: Theirs

The Kindly OnesLes Bienveillantes if you read it in French, which I didn’t — is probably the most brilliant piece of trash fiction ever written. I dedicated most of the summer to Jonathan Littell’s much-praised, internationally bestselling blockbuster and loved almost every minute of it.

But it’s definitely not as great as Le Figaro thinks: ‘A monument of contemporary literature.’ Nor Le Monde: ‘A staggering triumph.’ Nor yet Anita Brookner who claimed, in The Spectator no less, that it is not only ‘diabolically (and I use the word advisedly) clever’ but also a ‘tour de force’ which ‘outclasses all other fictions [this year] and will continue to do so for some time to come.’

Note that two out of three of those rave reviews are French. There are reasons for that. The first is that the French are always going to be hot on the idea of an American who decides to write in their language rather than his own. And the second is that it’s very long. Über-pretentiously long. The story I heard is that Littell’s French editor tried to get him to slim it down a bit and that Littell refused. And rightly so, as another editor at the same publisher cynically told a friend of mine: ‘If it had been half the length, it would never have sold anywhere near as many as 800,000 copies in France.’

But just because it’s 984 pages doesn’t make it the ‘new War and Peace’ (as Le Nouvel Observateur has it). Being concerned with the wartime adventures of just one SS officer, it hasn’t nearly Tolstoy’s range or breadth. There are places — the ones involving the ethnologist, for example — where you do feel slightly that you’re being served up raw, indigestible gobbets of the author’s evidently diligent research. And the central premise is flawed. (Don’t read the next pars if you don’t want to know what happens.)

If, as the book invites us to believe at the beginning, brutal Nazi atrocities are something any of us could have committed had we lived in the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong regime, then why make the narrator a matricidal homosexual serial killer who only ever found true love in an incestuous relationship with his sister and fantasises about being sodomised by eight-armed green-skinned Martians? Doesn’t make him exactly Everyman, does it?

Towards the end, Littell seems to admit this to himself when he gives up even trying to be Tolstoy (or Vasily Grossman) and comes over Thomas L. Harris meets Ian Fleming meets Lord of the Flies. There are two policemen who appear to have strayed from some sort of early Tom Stoppard comedy; there’s a bloated, flatulent rich industrialist in an armoured train flanked by hot-babe blonde SS women and stroking a cat; there’s a superfluity of dream sequences which you skip because you think ‘well if it’s not actually happening why should I care? It’s not like I don’t know already the guy dreaming this stuff is weird’.

Don’t get me wrong, though. The book is still a magnificent achievement, whose qualities vastly outweigh its flaws. The Stalingrad scenes are hallucinogenically intense; as too are Littell’s great set-piece descriptions of the early Einsatzgruppe atrocities like the Babi Yar massacre. You’ve probably never tried putting yourself in the shoes of a young SD officer who, whether he likes it or not, has the job of supervising the extermination and burial of village after village of (all too human-looking) men, women and children. Littell does the job for you with a verisimilitude — at once nauseating, heartbreaking and intensely disturbing — which will haunt your nightmares for months.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Frogs, scorpions, greens, lies…
  2. Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis
  3. Only a nutter like Gordon Brown would think it’s a good idea to scrap Trident
  4. Nazis: the gift that goes on giving


Paternity Leave? Any Man Who Says He Wants It Is Really a Liar…

Nearly half of all new fathers are refusing to take their paternity leave entitlement because they’d rather be at work, a survey has found. Well, quelle surprise.

I could have told you that. In fact, it was a point I was arguing a month ago on Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour when I told Jenni Murray that men aren’t nearly as well designed for childcare as women; that, frankly, we’d rather be in the office than at home with the children.

My goodness, you should have heard the foaming outrage! Many women listeners said I was a Neanderthal sexist pig, completely out of touch with the modern world.

Man leaving home for work

Controversial: James landed himself in hot water on Woman’s Hour for suggesting men are not as well designed for childcare as women

What really took me aback, though, was the male response. I was amazed by how cross some of my fellow men got.

One of them  –  describing himself as a rugby-playing type who was, nevertheless, fully comfortable with the joys of parenting  –  warned that if ever I came his way, he’d throttle me.

But the reason I was amazed was because I’d never before realised quite what a lying, sneaky bunch of cowardly hypocrites so many of my sex are.

Afterwards, I had lots of secret calls from male friends congratulating me for ‘telling it like it really is’. But they all admitted they would never dare say as much in front of their wives.

And this, I fear, is very much the problem we chaps face in these supposedly enlightened, post-feminist times.

We feel the same way about childcare as our grunting, hairy, mammoth-hunting ancestors did. The difference is that thanks to decades of re-education by the likes of and Germaine Greer, we are required  –  on pain of death  –  to lie about it.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Paternity leave? It’s not natural
  2. Why did Congressman Joe Wilson need to apologize for calling Obama a liar?
  3. How The West Was Lost (ctd): the Burkini
  4. BBC – Radio 4 Woman’s Hour


Question Time: Is That Panel Really the Best They Can Do?

Nick Griffin is the greatest orator since Pericles. He has gravitas such as we have not witnessed since Winston Churchill’s “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech. His rapier wit makes Oscar Wilde sound like John Prescott. He has the encyclopaedic knowledge of a Paul Johnson; the courage of Charles Upham VC and bar; the loveability of Stephen Fry; the dramatic power of Fiona Shaw in some exceptionally moving new play about a lesbian who is slowly tortured to death by homophobic society…

Actually not – though you wouldn’t guess it from the general, angst-ridden debate about who best should be fielded against the BNP leader on tonight’s Question Time.

Nick Cohen has the details:

By this weekend, nervy producers were hitting the phones as they began to realise the 1,001 ways the show could go wrong. One minute, they booked Douglas Murray. He runs the Centre for Social Cohesion, which examines neo-Nazi, Islamist and other extremism in Britain. But he is also from the right, and so, the BBC reasoned, could tell the audience that it was possible to worry about immigration without being compelled to vote BNP. Murray was more than ready to take Griffin on, but the next minute the BBC called back with second thoughts. If he were to say anything in favour of immigration controls, Griffin would look like he was the voice of consensus. As confused call followed confused call, Murray formed the impression the BBC did not know what to do.

Nor do the political parties. Originally, the Conservatives put up Michael Gove, one of their best debaters. Then they decided that, as a British Asian, Lady Warsi would be the ideal face of progressive conservatism and a living rebuttal of BNP prejudice. So she would, had she not run a nasty campaign against the sitting Labour MP in Dewsbury in the 2005 election. In white areas, she declared that she would campaign “for British identity and British citizens” and fight the menace of mass immigration. In Muslim areas, the flag appeared in leaflets in a blood-spattered montage of Tony Blair and George Bush and troops in Iraq, while underneath it she played to religious homophobia by claiming that Labour was allowing children to be propositioned for homosexual relationships.

Jack Straw is a more formidable politician, but as a series of leaks to the Observer in 2006 showed, he spent a part of his time as foreign secretary trying to “engage” with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation that, in its origins and policies towards women, Jews and gays, is not so different from the BNP. So assiduous did Straw’s attempts at “engagement” become, the British ambassador to Egypt warned him he was engaging for the sake of engagement, and that there was no prospect of Britain being able “to influence the Islamists’ agenda”.

Me, I think the whole panel is pretty low-grade and that this particular edition wouldn’t even be worth watching if it weren’t for the Griffin factor. Bonnie Greer is too palpably nice and reasonable; Baroness Warsi’s talent is overrated beyond measure; Jack Straw (see Cohen above) is a dhimmi; and Chris Huhne – Chris Who?

At least Griffin’s likely to say something interesting, which is, after all, the point of Question Time is it not? It’s about entertainment. Gladiator sport. It’s not – though it’s amazing how many media commentators appear to think otherwise – the official occasion on which all the main parties gather together to make it quite clear how much they abhor racism. Duh! We knew that already. Now tell us what you think about immigration and Islamism. Otherwise Nick Griffin’s going to win more votes still.

Related posts:

  1. I’m glad that the BNP’s Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time
  2. Nick Clegg’s riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke
  3. The love/hate joy of Andy Murray
  4. President Perry or President Bachmann? It’s the only question remaining


There Will Be Blood

All right, I surrender. There’s just no way on earth I can deal in 600 words with all the great, or potentially great, TV that has been on lately. Emma; Alex: A Passion for Life (the sequel to that moving documentary about the brilliant Etonian musician with cystic fibrosis); Generation Kill. Truly, it has been what we classical scholars call a Weekus Mirabilis. I’m going to deal with just three offerings.

First, Criminal Justice (BBC1, all week for a whole hour each night, which is a serious commitment, n’est-ce pas?). I’ve only seen episode one and I’m torn. I sympathise totally with screenwriter Peter Moffat’s predicament: every possible permutation in psychological courtroom-drama murder-mystery has already been done on TV a billion times, so the only way you have left to maintain viewer interest is through trickery.

You withhold key information: who is this strange, cold, fragile woman (Maxine Peake)? Why does she not answer the phone in that incredibly irritating way when her smug barrister husband (Matthew Macfadyen) calls? What’s with the shower and the pills? How does any family get to keep their home quite so chic and minimal? Why does this series feature virtually the entire cast of Little Dorrit?

At the end of part one, smug barrister lay dying (or possibly not) of a stab wound inflicted (or possibly not) by his wife. But do we care enough to invest another four hours of valuable life waiting for the outcome? If the secret is that the pretty teenaged daughter did it, well I’m not happy because she looks nice and pretty. If it turns out the wife did it, well she’s frazzled and weird and what did you expect? All very languorous and finely drawn and lots of acting going on, though, I’ll give it that.

True Blood (Channel 4, Wednesday) is HBO’s biggest hit since The Sopranos and was created by Alan Ball. I hope it doesn’t go badly off, like his previous ex-masterpiece Six Feet Under did. Mind you, name me one US series that doesn’t go off. (Apart from The Sopranos, the exception that proves the rule.) The only question is will it be three or four episodes in, like Lost, a series in, like Heroes, or several series in, like Frasier?

What True Blood has in its favour is… (to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Shadow cabinet elections: new blood for the Eton Grocer’s cabinet?
  2. Warts and all
  3. We need more armed police – but do they have to be like the ones who killed Mark Saunders?
  4. So what if Cameron left his daughter behind in the pub?


Copenhagen: A Step Closer to One-World Government?

You have to be careful when talking about “One World Government.” Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.

Monckton believes that climate change hysteria is being exploited by the green liberal left – watermelons, as they’re nicknamed: green on the outside; red on the inside – to usher in a form of one world government. He claims to have seen evidence of this in a draft treaty due to be signed off by world leaders at this December’s Copenhagen climate change conference.

It will, he believes, in rich nations having as much as 2 per cent of their GDP diverted to third world countries – supposedly to compensate them for the evils wrought by two centuries or so of Western industrialisation; and tough new climate change rules to be imposed on Western economies by UN bureaucrats over which sovereign nations (and their electorates) will have no control.

I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era. It is financed by business interests so powerful that they have even suborned Big Oil (to look at most oil multinationals’ adverts these days, you’d think their main trade was wind-farming); its propaganda is spread by a supine mainstream media and subscribed to wholesale by glib politicians, few of whom have bothered to familiarise themselves with the growing body of evidence against AGW but who think sounding caring and touchy-feelie about “climate change” plays well with the voters.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn’t a theory.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  2. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas
  3. Welcome to the New World Order
  4. Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute?


Come Off It, Paxo! If You Earn a Million a Year the Licence-Payer Has a Right to Know

Last night’s Newsnight saw Old Malvernian millionaire interrogator Jeremy Paxman clashing with Old Etonian millionare Mayor of London Boris Johnson. But according to Paul Waugh the most exciting bits of the interview weren’t included:

In what insiders described as “fantastic political theatre”, Mr Johnson clashed repeatedly with his interviewer over his stance on an EU referendum, on his membership of Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club and on David Cameron’s public image.”

Mr Johnson raised the issue of Paxman’s pay, saying: “You are paid elephantine sums by the taxpayer.”

Paxman replied: “If only that were true. You don’t know [what I earn]. I should stop making assertions.”

In unscreened exchanges, Mr Johnson pointed out that Londoners could see how much he earned as Mayor but licence-fee payers were not allowed similar transparency. At one point, Mr Johnson said: “Why don’t you get a proper job?”

When asked about drunken antics in his Oxford days, the Mayor replied: “Ask me a serious question…”

Splendid stuff and I quite agree with those “Mayoral Aides” (Boris?) who are urging that the full interview be put up online.

What interests me especially is the question of Paxo’s alleged £1 million salary. It interests me first as a nosey bastard. It interests me second as a licence-fee payer. But most of all it interests me ideologically.

They can be terribly grand BBC presenter types – the Paxos and Dimblebys – when quizzed about their personal lives. The salary issue, especially, they seem to think is tantamount to asking the Queen whether or not she goes to the loo. And up to a point I agree with them. A BBC political interviewer’s private life, in so far as it does not bear on his public role as frank and fearless interrogator of slippery MPs, is none of our ruddy business.

Where it is our business, though, is in cases like the Paxo/Bozza clash above. The ideological undercurrent to Paxo’s line of questioning (he may not share it but tough: that’s his karmic price for working for the pinko BBC) goes like this: “You are a toffy public school boy. David Cameron is a toffy public school boy. You were both in the Buller. You both earn way, WAY more than the national average. How can throwbacks like you possibly be fit to run modern Britain?”

This tack is outrageous and deserves to be challenged at every turn, as vigorously as possible. (Can you imagine a similar line of questioning being adopted if Boris’s and Dave’s “crimes” were to be, say, black or female or homosexual or physically handicapped?) Boris was quite right to make his response personal, for an ex public schoolboy on a million a year (or whatever Paxo earns) by asking such a question lays himself open to a charge of  hypocrisy.

No more do Boris Johnson’s or David Cameron’s class, background and income rule them out of being great, effective and morally decent politicians than Paxo’s class, background and income rule him out of being a first rate interviewer.

If Paxo wishes to be impertinent (and disingenuous) on this score, then he should damned well expect some impertinence back.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Farms: Will Paxo ride to his brother’s rescue?
  2. Boris Johnson for Prime Minister
  3. Maybe we’d be better off if David Cameron had gone to Harrow
  4. BBC endorses tax avoidance. Good. Now can we stop paying our licence fees?

I’m Glad That the BNP’s Nick Griffin Is Appearing on Question Time

Well I’m sorry, but I am. I’m glad for various reasons, some of which have to do with freedom of speech and the democratic right of political parties which have won seats in local councils and in Europe to be represented on Britain’s main political debating programme.

Mainly, though, I’m glad because of the discomfiture it has caused among the chattering-idiot classes. Though personally I despise the BNP – as I do all parties of the left – the people I despise only marginally less are the ones who go round boasting about how incredibly outraged they are about how disgusting and wrong it is that Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time.

“I don’t think you have ANY idea about how incredibly, amazingly un-racist I am,” runs the subtext of their boasting. “I am SO unracist that if I’d been around 250 years ago, do you know who I would have been? William Wilberforce, that’s who. Except if I’d been William Wilberforce I wouldn’t have stopped with banning slavery, no sirree. I would have made anti-race-hatred of any description so completely compulsory that there wouldn’t be a single piece of race hatred anywhere left in the world by now. We’d all be like ebony and ivory, living together in perfect harmony, side by side on the keyboard, just like on Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney on a piano. Only more harmonious than that even. Races and creeds wouldn’t exist any more. We’d all have skins made up of whatever colour you get when black and brown and white and yellow are all mixed together. A sort of beigey ecru, maybe. Cos that’s how anti-racist I am!”

It’s not just the nauseating smugness and self-righteousness of all these daringly outspoken Nick-Griffin-/BNP-haters that annoys me. Its the sheer fatuousness. In fact I can safely say that the moment I hear a person tell me how much they hate the BNP and/or how cross they are that Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time, I know with absolute certainty that I can safely discount any political opinion they have on any other subject whatsoever. (Especially on Anthropogenic Global Warming, which they’re bound to believe is the second most serious threat to the world after racism, and sometimes even more serious than that!!!!)

Indeed, their sheer fatuousness is not merely annoying but actively dangerous – as Fraser Nelson points out on one of his ever-insightful blogs over at Spectator Coffee House. What this general, knee-jerk “oooh it’s the BNP! They’re racist! Pass the smelling salts!” response does is to lend further legitimacy to all the main parties’ ongoing refusal to address the real reasons why the BNP wins so many votes.

As Fraser says:

Some of their views (anti-EU, anti-mass immigration) are that of the mainstream in Britain but find no Westminster representation. Their racist views have no traction in a Britain which is perhaps the most tolerant country on earth. But on the stump, they campaign on other issues – including Westminster sleaze. To denounce them as a racist party ignores not only their multifaceted campaign style, but the concerns of the million-odd voters who backed them.

Exactly. So do remember that all you BNP-haters, next time you dare to venture – with the courage and deep insight which are your wont – how jolly disgusting you think Nick Griffin is. There’s no better recruiting sergeant for his cause than a dumb white liberal.

Related posts:

  1. Question Time: is that panel really the best they can do?
  2. Nick Clegg’s riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke
  3. David Dimbleby interview: celebrating 30 years of ‘Question Time’
  4. The Spectator’s editor agrees: the only way out of this ghastly Euro fudge is OUT