Translate

Showing posts with label Jane Garvey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jane Garvey. Show all posts

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Jane Garvey interviews Deborah Lipstadt on BBC Woman's Hour and advertises Denial as "a great film, well worth seeking out"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0890k96

Jane Garvey:

Let's talk to Deborah Lipstadt, the American academic who was living a successful but to be honest quite obscure life in Georgia when she wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust in 1993. She came to international prominence when a British historian a man called David Irving sued her. She made reference to him in that book describing him as somebody who said the Holocaust never happened. The case reached the High Court in the first few weeks of the year 2000 and is now the subject of a new film called Denial. Now here's a quick extract after a bad day in court when Irving is getting headlines for his views and creating soundbites. Deborah, who is played in the film by Rachel Weisz is understandably angry.

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Irving got what he came for. He wanted headlines, he got them: "No holes, no Holocaust." He wanted a catchy phrase, he got it. It's gonna spread like a virus.

Female voice:

More tea?

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

No, I don't want more tea! 

Female voice [aggrieved]:

I was just asking. 

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Don't you see what he's doing? He is making it respectable to say that there are two points of view. People are going to see the news now and think "OK, some people think there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, oh, this is interesting, and some people don't!"

Jane Garvey:

That was Deborah Lipstadt as played by Rachel Weisz. The real Deborah Lipstadt joins us now from the BBC Studios in Salford. Deborah, good morning to you.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Jane Garvey:

It's really interesting to talk to you for a multitude of reasons and what a time for this particular film to come out!

Deborah Lipstadt:

Unbelievable! Unbelievable!

Jane Garvey:

What do you make of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

None of us thought - not the producers, not Mick Jackson the director, or anybody who acted in it, not the actors or David Hare - none of us assumed when we first began planning and working on this that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does but given the first part of the show where we spoke about the marches, we live in a world where people have alternative facts where truthiness - Stephen Colbert calls it truthiness where if I really believe something it has has as much value as facts. 

Jane Garvey:

Just remind us, who used the phrase "alternative facts" in the last couple of hours?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Well, in the last 24 hours, Kelly Conway, the Trump Campaign Manager, now a pivotal person in the White House, when the President's Press Spokesman went out in front of the press and completely lied and said this was the biggest inauguration ever and called the press liars for saying it wasn't when the pictures show great gaps in the number of people and stands at the parade were empty - not all of them but a lot of them, he just went on this rant when the NBC interviewer called her on this and said this is not true and, she said "We have alternative facts." Well, there's no such thing as alternative facts and another word for alternative fact is shorter and quicker and stronger is lies. And this is the third day of the Administration!

Jane Garvey:

Yes, well, OK, it's going to be - I don't know how best to describe it - interesting is an adjective that catches everyone. Let's stick to that.

Deborah Lipstadt:

It's a Chinese curse!

Jane Garvey:

Let's go back in time then to you writing this book - and I said your life was obscure but I don't mean to be offensive - it was a very satisfying one, I'm sure. You cannot have expected ....

Deborah Lipstadt:

I wasn't on Woman's Hour!

Jane Garvey:

You weren't at the time, no. What did you expect when you wrote Denying the Holocaust?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Denying the Holocaust was a book that was suggested to me by two leading historians of the Holocaust who said "You should look into this phenomenon" and I said, "Are you kidding? It's like studying flat-earthers," but they really felt it was important and I have a lot of respect for them so I figured I would write the book and I didn't have a title for the next book at that moment. I said I'll spend two years writing this book and that's it, I'd be finished with the topic and I'm gonna move on. Little did I think it would shake my life and it was because David Irving came after me and sued me for libel.

Jane Garvey:

That's the important fact, isn't it? He sued you. I think some people thought it was the other way round.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I don't believe history belongs in the courtroom. I am against laws outlawing Holocaust Denial. I don't think politicians should be deciding what we can and cannot say, what is permissible and what is not permissible. I am a firm believer in our First Amendment. It's hanging on by its fingernails but it's still hanging on. Freedom of speech is important. The best antidote to bad speech is more good speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film, you are portrayed as coming to London where incidentally in the film it rains the whole time. I would like to say it isn't actually true, Deborah.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I know, I was here!

Jane Garvey:

... And you're mystified and you do get a lot of tea at times when you are particularly stressed.  You are an American at sea in the English legal system and you appeared to be baffled by it. Was that the case?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was, I was, because British libel law is the mirror image of American libel law. Here, the burden of proof is on me to prove the truth and that's why people suggested that I settle, and there were a lot of people here and in the States who thought it wasn't worth my time. If I had settled, I would have to apologise for [sic] him and David Irving offered to settle before the trial and I refused because it meant my apologising for calling him a Holocaust Denier, my accepting that his version of the Holocaust was true and agreeing to pulp all my books. He was trying to curtail my freedom of speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film you visit some members of the Jewish community in London and they also urged you to pack it in to leave it. Did that happen?

Deborah Lipstadt:

That's right. It happened quite precisely how I described it in my book. They were frightened. They thought David Irving would get publicity and even if he had lost he would win. Anthony Julius felt quite differently.

Jane Garvey:

He was your lawyer.

Deborah Lipstadt:

He was your solicitor, he was terrific, he really structured the defence together with his partner James Lipson and Richard Rampton, my barrister. He said "We're gonna fight a good fight, we're gonna decimate this man, we're gonna show he's a liar, he's a falsifier of history and we're going to expose him, and they did.

Jane Garvey:

But they did it without your actually contributing in court. Now I've only known you for a couple of minutes but I'm guessing you might have found that quite difficult keeping quiet.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I have friends saying that either the biggest miracle of this case was that I kept my mouth shut for the ten weeks that the case was and even for the year before it went to trial. Other people have described my keeping quiet as an unnatural act. It was very hard, but I came to understand the wisdom of their decision. I had written my book. I was being sued for what I wrote in my book. Our strategy was to keep the focus on David Irving. We followed his footnotes back to his sources and showed a consistent - not once or twice, not a mistake here or there - but I think 25 or 26 different instances - major instances - of lies and distortions in which he manipulates history.

Jane Garvey:

You also managed to win without the direct involvement of Holocaust survivors, so no Holocaust survivors gave evidence in court and again the film suggests you were very angry about that. Was that true?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was upset about that. I think I understood sooner than Rachel Weisz does in the film the way it was written why they were doing that. Again, Holocaust survivors would have been witnesses of fact. We didn't wanna raise questions about the factual nature of the Holocaust, we wanted the spotlight to be on David Irving and his lies, and bringing them in would have changed that. Some were upset, some were concerned, but the overwhelming victory, the overwhelming judgment we got from the court when the judge said he lies, he falsifies, he distorts and he does it deliberately I think satisfied them that it was the right strategy.

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact though is that David Irving did get his days in court. He did get attention, he did get publicity. What do you think of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I think he got publicity, but it was the wrong kind of publicity. Before when he made his claims people would say "Oh, that's interesting," but nobody knew it was true or not true. Anybody who was in that courtroom, anybody who has read my book, anybody who has seen this film will see that what he claims is not what's there. He takes a fact and he distorts it, so, yes, he got publicity, but I think it was an exposure of his lies. No one takes what he has to say seriously unless they are already anti-Semites and already racist, because racism was very much a part of it as well. 
[There appears to be a liberal presumption that anyone who is perceived to be racist and/or anti-Semitic must by definition be a liar whose legal rights must therefore be counted at nought from then on. The definition of racism and anti-Semitism is vague and wide and can include saying anything that a person of another race might take an offence at. To be called an anti-Semite these days, all that has to happen is that a Jew hates you enough to accuse you of it. Justice Gray appears to have accepted this presumption without much difficulty. Independent judiciary, my eye.]

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact is, Deborah, is that we all pick our version of the truth, don't we? Everyone knows the Holocaust took place and it was hideous beyond anything that I can think of. However, when I look at my Twitter feed, for example, I largely get the views of people who might be tempted to agree with me or think along the same lines as me. Where do we go from this, particular in this age of social media? Where do we find every bit of truth we can grab hold of?

[Jane Garvey has blocked me on Twitter and so has the brunette woman on @BBCr4today. Libtards like living in their own echo chamber only occasionally wondering out loud if they should take account of other views more, but they basically broadcast for each other. Some of the Radio 4 programmes sound so cosy, just like friends talking to each other, don't they? That's because BBC journalists find their friends and lovers from the BBC itself eg Victoria Derbyshire stole Fi Glover's husband. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706920/BBC-boss-left-radio-star-wife-presenter-Victoria-Derbyshire-sacked-claims-sexually-harassed-staff-member-probe-expenses.html These fucktard libtards don't care about us and are now even more afraid of venturing out of their own echo chamber. If any of them started expressing non-libtard normal views in the BBC canteen they would soon find themselves ostracised by their narrow-minded bigoted BBC village.]

Deborah Lipstadt:

You know when David Hare the playwright took on writing I was so thrilled by that because I have so much respect for him and he has now become a friend. He sent me a long document sort of laying out exactly what happened to me. For anyone who's going to write a biography of David Hare, it's going to be a very interesting document because it shows how he is going to shape the story and shape the screenplay, but at the very end he included a quote from Bertold Brecht's Life of Galileo, and it goes back to Galileo: the sun does not move around the earth, and you can insist that it does and you can put someone who claims that it does to death and whatever it is, but the facts stand and I think we don't all have our own versions of the facts. We may have our own explanations of why this fact happened as it did. Could World War Two have been prevented? Could the Holocaust have been prevented? Could the war in Iraq have been prevented? There are many things why but that they happened, that's the truth. Could we stop the snow caps melting? They're melting. The climate is changing. Slavery happened. It was not a good thing. There are facts and I think this movie, while it's ostensibly about Holocaust Deniers, it has a much bigger message and I never dreamt, as I said at the beginning that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does, and sadly, it does. 

Jane Garvey:

So, very briefly, Deborah, to our younger listeners, your advice in life would be listen and ask questions?

Deborah Lipstadt:

And check. A friend of mine right at the beginning of the election said to me "I hear Hillary Clinton is sick." I said to this person - she was tending towards Trump - "Really, where did you read this?" "On the internet." "Who said it?" "I don't know." "Where did he say it?" "I don't know." "What was the proof?" "I don't know."

The internet is a great gift but with every gift comes responsibility and we who care about facts - doesn't matter what your political outlook is - Conservative, right-wing, left-wing, it doesn't matter - check the facts. Check the truth. There are truths and we have to make sure we know them. 

Jane Garvey:

Good to talk to you, Deborah. Thank you very much.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Thank you very much for having me. 

Jane Garvey:

A great pleasure. Deborah Lipstadt. The film is Denial. Starring Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson. It's a great film, well worth seeking out.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/Lipstadt_judgment.pdf

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/denialmovie.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/my-review-of-denial.html

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Woman's Hour encourages wives to inflict disabled offspring on their husbands and then blame them when they walk away


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwife#Early_historical_perspective

After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

"Only a Roman citizen held the status of pater familias and there could only be one holder of the office within a household. He was responsible for its well-being, reputation and legal and moral propriety. The entire familia was expected to adhere to the core principles and laws of the Twelve Tables, which the pater familias had a duty to exemplify, enjoin and if necessary enforce, so within the familia Republican law and tradition (mos maiorum) allowed him powers of life and death (vitae necisque potestas).

The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death." 

These selfish evil feminists want to encourage stupid women to waste their lives, ruin their marriages while burdening the taxpayer even  more so they can feel all warm and compassionate inside while expecting other women to suffer the consequences of their evil and misguided beliefs. Ignore these women and, if you dare, denounce these evil bitches.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/tania-clarence-pleads-guilty-manslaughter-three-children-new-malden is what  happens to you when you snap and can no longer cope with your disabled children. This is what the evil evil evil women on Woman's Hour want to happen to you, probably.

The most conclusive evidence that feminism is evil is that it has caused the decline of the West and the loss of its reason through the desecration of the institution of marriage.

If you want to make your feelings known to most powerful woman in the land the matriarch Dame Jenni Murray, just send her a message at https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb/contact telling her you want me as a guest on Woman's Hour to explain exactly why I think her disgusting show is worse than kiddyporn in that it corrupts even more people than kiddyporn and is on air daily corrupting the morals of its impressionable and sheep-like listeners: the educated middle class women of Britain.
at 3 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Should rape be treated as a personal injury for which damages are payable?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547727/Women-drunk-men-risk-rape-says-agony-aunt-Irma-Kurtz-faces-backlash-latest-advice.html

and for which contributory negligence is also attributable?

How typical of Jane Garvey of Woman's Hour to imply that women must always right, even when they are clearly wrong.  That programme does more to lower and corrupt the morals of this nation than any kind of pornography.

A quantum of damages could be established.

How should damages be calculated and assessed?

It should always be enough to make the woman half hope that the rapist would do it again.

Should all rape victims be compensated at the same rate?  Surely it is insulting to award a rape victim who is a virgin the same amount as a prostitute? It is after all the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally.

Many interesting questions are raised by this proposal and I am sure lawyers will have fun discussing and solving this problem.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

My advice to Muslims in the West about how to become less hated: by not fearing to be hated even more

https://www.facebook.com/notes/yamin-zakaria/write-to-your-mp-and-others-regarding-the-potential-threat-from-the-far-right/238362692862747


Write to your MP and others regarding the potential threat from the far-right
by Yamin Zakaria (Notes) on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 18:17
Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to my local and European MPs, maybe you can alter it and send it to your local MPs (http://www.writetothem.com/)  and create a certain level of public opinion.

------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam

In light of recent events in Norway, and the subsequent revelations of Anders Breivik’s link with the far-right movement (EDL), we are naturally worried about a potential terrorist act in the United Kingdom.

We would urge the government to take pre-emptive measures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and curtail the activities of movements like the EDL. This is an excellent opportunity to show that such legislation (PTA) was not construed to be applied selectively against Muslims in the UK. This will help to build bridges and marginalise the radicals on both sides.

The government should look for signs of radicalisation and its sources; hence, those who are particularly violent and vocal in the EDL should be detained in Belmarsh. It might be better to hand them over to the Americans who have acquired a certain level of expertise in interrogation (‘torture’); water-boarding may indeed prove to be useful in saving innocent British lives.

This would send a message that any terrorist or potential terrorist would be subjected to these sorts of preventative measures. In addition, it would be prudent to take measures against the conveyor belt of far-right terrorism by monitoring the voices of BNP, UKIP and other commentators who stoke hate towards the Muslim community. For example, Melanie Phillips is well-known for her venomous comments, and such hate will eventually translate into violence. Would nasty comments towards the black community be tolerated? Hence, why are the Muslims selectively subjected to this kind of treatment?

In this recent case in Norway as well as the Oklahoma bombings, the media initially speculated that the act was the work of the Muslims, tarring the entire community, creating suspicion and doubt. Therefore, the media should also be given clear directives how to deal with sensitive topics so that communities are not divided and ethnic minorities are not marginalised and subjected to verbal assault; the need for this has become self-evident in the light of the recent scandals (hack-gate).

 Yours sincerely

Yamin Zakaria (www.radicalviews.org) 


Below is my response to this Muslim proposal to put the Far Right under observation as stringent as Muslims are currently being subjected to.


Breivik was a loner concerned about immigration, knowing that it would irretrievably change Norway. He did it all himself after he decided that participating in the political process was futile. Writing to your MP or even monitoring the activities of the Far Right won't help either, since Breivik did it ALL BY HIMSELF as did the others who joined a political party, left it, and then went on to plan and commit acts of terrorism ALL BY THEMSELVES.

We are not even allowed to ask what else he could have done to make his point, are we?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/controversial-new-group-for.html


I created a Facebook group asking precisely that question and it was deleted. 

As for the parties you call Far Right, they cannot manage a piss-up in a brewery. Nick Griffin exists to make money out of the white working classes who dislike immigration and do not see why they cannot complain about it without being called evil racist Fascist Nazi extremists. 

If you were white working class and not very educated you might even be a member of the BNP because you wish to assert your right to complain about immigration. 

How would Muslims like their homelands to be full of immigrants while being forbidden to complain about them?

I have already come to the conclusion that the reason why Britain is full of immigrants is simply because if feminism resulting in white British women not having enough children who are brought up by their mothers or taught in their schools to become productive citizens and employees a sane employer might wish to hire. 

Instead of addressing the problems of education and widespread illegitimacy (which would mean

(1) dealing with the teaching unions and perhaps shooting them in front of their families, as Jeremy Clarkson once suggested
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8930717/Jeremy-Clarksons-execute-strikers-joke-sparks-21000-complaints-to-BBC.html 

(2) criticising the Feminazis such as Dame Jenni Murray (possibly the most evil woman in Britain) as well as her sidekick Jane Garvey at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb as well as Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton of Mumsnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumsnet#History successive governments have in fact conspired to facilitate yet more immigration to appease their voters who are employers who need labour NOW. They cannot wait until after feminism is discredited, or when white British women decide to have enough children and bring them up properly, or when the education system is sorted out.  Michael Gove has been defeated on his proposals to raise standards of education, has he not?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-forced-into-humiliating-uturn-over-ebacc-8484074.html

The government already know that five years - which is the length of a term in office - is not enough to sort that mess out. So they continue to sweep the dust under the carpet.

The white working classes hate Muslims because Muslims are visible and obviously different, while it is not immediately obvious that one of their own is a promiscuous woman and a mother of illegitimate variously-fathered feral children who go to sink schools and leave without qualifications making them unemployable and only fit for a life of crime and welfare dependency.

It is feminism which has created the need for immigrant labour, by lowering the standards of mothering and education in our Culture of Excuses and Entitlement.

It is easier for the white working classes to hate Muslims than to hate their own women -  however promiscuous - because most men who are not in a position to support a wife or are too mean to pay a prostitute will always welcome a cheap source of sex from any promiscuous female minded to give it to them cheap or free.  Men are only after one thing, after all!

The BNP are not prepared to criticise SSMs because most of their membership are the sons of SSMs. 

It would of course help if Muslims are prepared to criticise SSMs, but I have a feeling most Muslims do not want to be even more disliked than they are already. In this way, Muslims are slowly becoming like Jews, who want to prove that they are superior to every race because they are the only ones who follow the commandments of a moral and omnipotent God. Those who do not follow what their God commands will soon find themselves becoming weak and degenerate, in just the same way that a bright student who is not studious will inevitably fall behind to even an average student who is studious.  In the same way, Muslims will also eventually lose their traditions in an environment that is so clearly hostile to social conservatism ie the institutions of marriage and the family, that British Muslims too will be mocked for coming from the land that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. 

While Muslims who now have the protection of their religion think gay marriage and being unmarried mothers will never happen to them, are they so sure it will not happen to their children and grandchildren? Most Muslims go to the same schools as the white non-Muslims  who are so gay, so promiscuous, so sexually liberated and welfare-dependent after all.

If Muslims want to be less disliked, they will have to demonstrate to the white working classes that it is their lack of religion and family values that makes them weaker than the newly-arrived Muslim immigrant. In short, they will have to warn the people whom they know hate and fear Muslims about the destructiveness of feminism to the institutions of marriage and the family.

However, I am sure no Muslim is prepared to do that. 

I am sure that the instinct of most Muslims is to say of the white non-Muslims whom they know  hate them: "Let them get weaker and more morally rotten, since they hate us so much. Nothing would please us more than to see them rot before our eyes in their stew of moral corruption of alcoholism, sexual liberation and gay marriage - all fueled by liberalism and feminism", while entirely forgetting their duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.  

It should be noted that Breivik has been identified as anti-feminist at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism  It is interesting that Muslims refuse to integrate into Western society because they don't want their children and grandchildren to end up as sexually liberated SSMs nor their sons gaily marrying each other nor ending up being divorced and homeless and having to return to live with their parents while deprived of access to their grandchildren by a spiteful ex-daughter-in-law.  The Far Right and Muslims face a common enemy: extremist feminism that desecrates the institutions of marriage and family.  It is the dead weight of feminism (which supports the right of women to be as promiscuous as men) that prevents frightened white men from criticising the worst of their women, who are promiscuous, parasitical and degenerate,even if they are in government and a member of the Cabinet.   The condition of the married white middle class liberal male politician is indeed pitiable and contemptible, for we now have politicians who are these days too afraid of discussing politics.   British Muslims may be forgiven, perhaps, for indulging in what the Germans would call  schadenfreude, and wishing to see the white man, who has bombed and invaded their countries and stolen their oil suffer just a little bit more.  However, what hurts the white man will eventually hurt them too, for they too live in the land of white people.    

I really do not think calling for more restrictions on the free speech of both Muslims and anyone who wishes to complain about immigration is going to help Muslims.  The white working classes need someone to hate for being overtaken and replaced by immigrants.  They need to hate someone whom their own government actually prefers to them.   After all, their own government cares so little about them that it refuses to even warn or advise them for their own good.   The political classes have so much contempt for the white working classes that they would rather throw money at them than tell them a few home truths or risk their careers by offending their slut and bastard voters whom no sane British employer would hire as an employee.

If Muslims want to improve things in Britain rather than merely have their revenge of the Far Right, they should point to the cause of Western malaise, instead of encouraging the government to impose more restrictions on all our freedoms - talk about going native!

Why should Muslims be afraid of offending the worst of women - the unmarried mothers of illegitimate offspring whose children are not a credit to them?  

They have gone native, or forgotten their Islamic duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.   Perhaps it is right that Muslims who neglect their duty to Allah do not prosper.  

Or they would go and like https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379?fref=ts

at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 11 February 2011

Fremantle Media Director of Marketing Mary Beer seems interested in me

http://www.fremantlemedia.com/Home.aspx

I wonder if it is anything to do with my suggestion I made to Peter Bazalgette for an X FACTOR or BIG BROTHER for philosophers or people who may wish to claim they are wiser than others.  

I think Alan de Botton and Mark Vernon and I would have great fun being Big Brother Housemates.  Other candidates for housemates:

  1. Jane Garvey
  2. Nick Griffin
  3. Nigel Farage
  4. Dan Hannan
  5. Katharine Birbalsingh
  6. Ed Miliband
  7. Philip Blond
  8. Anjem Choudary
  9. Sally Bercow
  10. Rabbi Zvi Solomans
  11. Dame Edna Everidge
  12. Katie Hopkins
  13. Peter Mandelson
  14. Justine Roberts of Mumsnet
  15. Justine Thornton
  16. Joan Bakewell
Bound to be a hit, don't you think, Dear Reader?

At least we will know that such a show will be an oik-free zone, however objectionable their views are. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...