Translate

Showing posts with label Victoria Derbyshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victoria Derbyshire. 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."


Monday, 19 September 2016

The British Thought Police widens its definition of thoughtcrime


Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation. Vituperative statements made in anger, such as calling someone "an arse" during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

What is not even a civil wrong has now become a crime in matriarchal Britain.

In the days of the patriarchy, there was free speech, but no longer in our demented matriarchy.

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

"Out of the corruption of SLUTS proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

"Out of the corruption of TOLERATING SLUTS AND BASTARDS proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

Monday, 29 June 2015

By refusing to discuss foreign policy the government merely entrenches the positions of radicalised Muslim youth

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/21/baroness-warsi-cameron-muslim-speech-condone_n_7630402.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11427370/Islamic-radicals-at-the-heart-of-Whitehall.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132209/Don-t-alienate-terror-Tory-Muslim-tells-Cameron-urges-communities-speak-out.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/exclusive-hopeless-warsi-resists-david-camerons-fight-against-extremism/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/24/baroness-warsi-coalition-assault-muslims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baroness-warsi-tells-david-cameron-to-stop-demonising-muslims-after-isis-comments-10333647.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b060ppmb/victoria-derbyshire-29062015

From 1:31:

Nadhim Zahawi:

"There is no point talking to these people because these people want to attack our values."

Victoria Derbyshire:

"Didn't people say that about the IRA at one point?"

Nadhim Zahawi:

"This is not the same thing. This is very different."

And that's it. This is what passes for "debate" on the BBC.





Whether the West likes it or not Islamic State considers itself a state and behaves like a state.




Wednesday, 20 May 2015

Why Victoria Live has bombed

Victoria Derbyshire's new show to be 'centrepiece' of BBC daytime TV news Show aimed at digital audience will air in tandem on BBC2 and BBC News Channel and include some reports distributed via social media before TV programme airs

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Claire Khaw happy to help out Victoria Derbyshire whose ratings are down
















You can hear my voice from the 26th minute at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fdkhv

I was very nervous. Talk about having my heart in my mouth! so do excuse the nervousness and initial hesitation before I got into the swing of things.

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

Minister Khaw

Minister Khaw   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaw_Boon_Wan 


If I had been active in politics in that part of the world, might I have been Minister by now?

It does sound so terribly dull though.

Minister Khaw Boon Wan convinced foldable bikes are warranted

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120805-0000051/Minister-Khaw-Boon-Wan-convinced-foldable-bikes-are-warranted

I think on the whole I would rather tell people what I think about more controversial issues than to be in office.

That is why I have no regrets for saying what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html and would do it all over again and be expelled from the British National Party all over again.

"Non, je ne regrette rien"

Where is Carlos Cortiglia now?  Or Richard Barnbrook?  Or Julian Leppart?  Or Michael Newland?  They were all BNP London Mayoral Candidates.

But I am still around, and conspicuously propagating my ideas.

Let us hope that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.   

Thursday, 8 September 2011

On Carlos Cortiglia being announced as the BNP 2012 London Mayoral Candidate

Carlos Cortiglia the 2012 BNP London Mayoral Candidate


http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/09/news-from-nowhere.html?spref=fb

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/regional/carlos-london-british-national-party-mayoral-candidate-announced

"It could have been me, and it should have been me!!" 

would be the words my detractors wish me to utter in public, stamping my feet as I tear at my hair, rend my garments and gnash my teeth before the ground swallowed me up, as it did Rumpeltstiltskin ...

I therefore dedicate this little thought-present to them.

But how do I feel, how do I really really feel?

Well, I  had thought it was too good to be true that I would be really be the BNP mayoral candidate, but everyone was being so encouraging that I had thought it would be within my grasp.

I was not however prepared to stop saying what I feel to be the truth and to express what I felt were rational views - or even put that on hold for a few months - in order to avoid this glittering prize being snatched from my eager grasp.

I do not mind making that sacrifice and demonstrating the high cost of free speech in Britain these days, because it is a very important point to make.

We know who is in power by whom we are not allowed to offend, and those whom we are not allowed to offend are women who make poor reproductive choices, and whose existence become a burden to themselves and taxpayers.

Carlos makes no such statements of course.  He knows that the leadership of the British National Party would not dream of criticising the behaviour of its own members, only the behaviour of liberals and the immigrants who enter this country in great numbers to take the bread out of their mouths at the invitation of the liberals.

Whatever is wrong with this country, it is all the fault of foreigners and liberals, never the white working classes who buy into the sex and shopping pub culture and drug culture of a consumer society - because they know no other, these white working classes who live for physical pleasures before they die, without the promise of an afterlife.

Of course the white working classes cannot compete against these foreigners, for the liberal political establishment discourages all the things that would enable the white working classes to become respectable and fit for purpose, such as a good education and the moral guidance afforded by a religion that would promote family life, unlike the current state religion that is the degenerate Anglican Church - infested by liberals and infected by feminism.

That is why the British have no culture to speak of these days - unless you can call drugs and sex and rock and roll a 'culture'.  If it is a culture, it is the culture of the primitive hedonism, or what animals would do if they could live like us.

How sad then that the white working classes have no one who will advise and warn them.  They have been abandoned first by the liberal establishment and now by their own party that purports to promote their interests.

I like to think that if I had very bad breath or if my bum really did look very large in the micro-mini skirt that I am too ugly, old and fat to wear, someone would point this out to me, either gently or brutally, but, no, the white working classes do not even have the benefit of  close family or friends, no one who will advise and warn them, because they are frankly beyond all help and hope, and are now only fit to be exploited by all and sundry, even by their own political party claiming to represent their interests.

How do I feel then about another foreigner getting the job?

I like to think I can retain my objectivity, though doubtless many would accuse me of having it in for Carlos now.

There is nothing wrong with a foreigner doing the same job a local can do, provided he can do it as well or better.

Oddly, none of the other white male applicants was formally interviewed, and the Organisers were only given the option of rejecting Carlos, and Carlos had been on the selection panel from the beginning in any case.

I shall of course continue to say that I am the best candidate the BNP never had.  I would have been the best candidate because


Imagine Claire Khaw being photographed with a BNP rosette attached to a burkha , brandishing the Britannic shield and trident ...

  1. I understand the media and know they like cut-and-paste stories which I help them to write, eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8357620/BNP-members-pro-Gaddafi-Facebook-group-snares-politicians.html and   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362770/Colonel-Gaddafi-Facebook-page-signs-numerous-high-profile-figures-knowledge.html
  2. I know journalists and have met them socially in my time.  (I believe Michael Cockerell http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3669656/Michael-Cockerell-I-wont-skimp-or-play-nasty.html took rather a shine to me at the Orwell Prize Award this year.  Whether he did in fact or not you will have to ask him.)  
  3. I write better English than Carlos.
  4. I speak better English than Carlos.
  5. I supported the right side in the Falklands War when Carlos was probably then an Argentinian nationalist (although he is in fact an Uraguayan).
  6. I could pass for English if you closed your eyes, but not Carlos.
  7. I have been consistent in my views.
  8. I am legally-trained.
  9. I am not afraid of saying controversial things, and, having said them, I am prepared to defend my positions through the use of logic and reason, however incomprehensible this is to the average Briton these days.  
  10. I never back down if I think I am logically and morally right.
  11. I could easily do better than the UKIP candidate because I talk their talk, in better written and spoken English than Carlos.   http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2445-ukip-announce-london-mayor-candidate
  12. BNP comrades have privately said to me that I am quite English in an odd way, eg I am like an English eccentric, and that I remind them of what the English used to be etc.  I like to think they are referring to my understanding of aristocratic codes of honour of a bygone imperial era that I gleaned and absorbed from books I have read about the English by the English.
  13. I feel that the role of the BNP is to say the unsayable rather than pretend that they can pass themselves off as electable politicians when everyone thinks they are mad, sad and bad anyway.  
  14. I have done a comedy course and know how to keep people engaged and entertained.  http://www.laughinghorsecomedy.co.uk/comedycourses/
  15. I am known for my charm, wit, warmth, wisdom and inexplicable compulsion to stand up for the weak and oppressed, without for one moment expecting them to be grateful.  
  16. Liberals hate and fear me because they don't know what to make of me.
  17. Muslims like me, and no London mayoral candidate ever did well without the support of London's largest non-white community.   I would have the knowledge and have been prepared to point out the BNP policies that Muslims would find in line with Koranic principles, and have the chutzpah to solicit their vote.  (The Facebook Koran Book Club https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=310958681842&ref=ts was my creation.)
  18. My Facebook walls are a hang-out both for the White Nationalist community as well as a prominent Orthodox Rabbi.  (The Facebook Mein Kampf Book Club https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147429175288744&ref=ts was my creation.)
  19. I actually have positive and radical ideas that include all the peoples of Britain, rather than the usual anti-immigrant and reactionary negativity that the BNP is known for.
  20. I am prepared to take calculated risks.  Friends, lovers and enemies have called me "dangerous".  
  21. I have principles and relish all opportunities afforded to me of sticking to them, even if it means I don't become the BNP mayoral candidate and end up getting expelled from the party because of what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show, when I said would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby, nor pass the cost of its care to the taxpayer, like an unwanted parcel, and would expect the midwife to dispose of it for me.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html  Many people have  privately said they agree with me.  
HOW ARE WE TO JUDGE CARLOS?

He would be judged a failure if he does not do better than the UKIP candidate or if UKIP manage to narrow the gap.   

BNP   128,609
UKIP  113,651    

The gap between UKIP and BNP was 14,958 in 2008.


We shall see what we will see.   

Saturday, 9 July 2011

Transcript of what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show in 2 March 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fdkhv

Victoria Derbyshire:

"Celyn has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy and cannot walk, talk or sit up, and she is also blind."


From 26th minute onwards.



CK:

I have three questions for her ...

VC:

Why don't we start with one and see how we get on?

CK:

All right then.  I was wondering if Riven knew before Celyn was born that she should be severely disabled?

RV:

No, I didn't.  She was brain-damaged at birth.

CK:

At birth: I am sorry to hear that.  I suppose the question that is probably on everyone's mind is this: what are the benefits for the taxpayer in continuing to support the burdensome and unproductive existence of Celyn who will never lead a normal productive life, who is also ruining the childhoods of her healthy and normal brothers and sisters?

RV:

Well, I kind of hope we live in a civilised society where we take care of our vulnerable members whether elderly or disabled people.  Celyn is actually quite bright so she is one of those disabled people who should she live to 18 there is no reason why she shouldn't get a job ...

CK:

[Spluttering at the thought of some unfortunate employer being compelled to take Celyn on as an employee who is blind and cannot walk, talk or sit up]  But, but you said she can't even move!

RV:

[Patronisingly]  No ... Stephen Hawkings [sic] can't move either.  He's doing quite well ...

CK:

[Incredulous at the idea of a child who is blind, who cannot walk, talk or sit up being the next theoretical physicist and cosmologist and how no one even thought of contradicting this mother's delusion]  Does she go to school?

RV:

She goes to school.  She goes to a mainstream school ...

CK:

[Horrified at the idea of what Celyn's classmates must have to endure]  And she can talk?

RV:

She talks, she uses a computer just like Stephen Hawkings [sic] does.

CK:

It seems unlikely that she will ... [trails off]  The trouble with these things is that the more you support these things there more it happens and the more people will be asking for money and the more burdened the taxpayer be and we know the coffers are empty.  The country's in debt and people will always want money for their stuff and it's other people's money.

VR:

Do you not want your taxes to help pay for Riven Vincent to look after her little girl at home?

CK:

Well, it's just that there are so many of these demands from mothers wanting this and wanting that and there needs seem to be unlimited and what there is actually in the kitty is very limited and we must now prioritise how we spend our money and think about the future.

Jack Lopresti MP:

Can I come in there?  Is Claire for real?  Claire do you actually have any children?

CK:

Yes.

JL:

You do?  Well, I find what you have to say absolutely staggering, I have to say.

LIZ:

I can't believe ... I almost can't speak I'm so angry.  Does this lady think maybe disabled people should be put down?

CK:

It depends on the degree of disability.

RV:

Oh my God.  So you think that someone who is really disabled should be put down?  Are we talking Nazi [inaudible]?

CK:

If I had a severely disabled child or knew I was about to have one I wouldn't impose it on the taxpayer and expect other people to pay for all the expensive equipment that it needs ...

VD:

So what would you do, Claire, out of interest?  If you gave birth and the child ...

CK:

I would have an abortion.

VD:

No, no, if you gave birth and the child as in Riven's case was severely brain damaged during the birthing process.  What would you do once the child was born?

CK:

I would ... [dramatic pause] ... reject it.

[Gasps of horror]

LIZ:

Are you related to Adolf Hitler?

CK:

I've heard that one before.

RV:

I believe we live in a civilised society ....

CK:

What is a civilised society?  What does it mean?  Surely we want to live in a rational society where our taxes  are not wasted?

RV:

When you're old and frail ....

VD:

Claire!  I'd like to ask a question, Claire.  So in that situation the child would be given for adoption, yes?

CK:

Well, I wouldn't ... [trails off]  I think it is unfair to pass it on like a parcel because I don't want to deal with it ...

VD:

What would happen?

CK:

I believe in the old days midwives would [interrupted by VD, but CK would have gone on to say "disposed of it for me".]

VD:

We are in 2011 now.  What would happen to the child you rejected?

CK:

I don't know what the procedure is ...

VD:

Well, it would be adoption, so in your world, it would be a burden on the taxpayer.

CK:

Well, yes, yes ... [bottling out of saying that she would reluctantly have to commit infanticide]

RV:

Would you have put Stephen Hawkings [sic] down?  He cost the taxpayer a great deal of money with his 24 hour care.

CK:

Well, I don't see that any of his theories actually help humanity much.  I mean, what is the Superstring theory about?

LIZ:

What do you do? What do you do to help humanity?

CK:

I'd like to point out these anomalies in these situations were taxpayers' money is being wasted, day after day ...

LIZ:

[Shouting over CK even as she is answering the question] WHAT DO YOU DO TO JUSTIFY YOUR EXISTENCE ON THIS EARTH?

CK continues:

and you have cowardly politicians saying "Yes, yes, I'll give you anything just give me your vote and I'll continue to waste of taxpayers' money."

LIZ:

[Shouting]  WHAT DO YOU DO TO JUSTIFY YOUR EXISTENCE ON EARTH?

CK:

I write and I point out these things that are wrong

VD [in an aside, with just a hint of pleasure and pride to have Claire Khaw on her show]:

It's Claire Khaw!

CK continues:

... and speak up for the taxpayer, that's what I'm on about.

VD:

Let's bring Liz in here.

LIZ:

Celyn's disability is not in her mind, like yours clearly is.  Claire, I can't believe your attitude.  I think it is totally uncivilised and totally disgusting.

JL:

Absolutely!

RV:

Me too!

VD:

Go ahead, Liz.

LIZ:

I'm apoplectic.  I cannot believe that in the 21st century we have people with those sorts of views.  The reason I got in contact with the programme is that a lot of people are missing the point in that Riven herself is disabled, so not only are we talking her having to look after her a disabled child, but she is disabled herself. I must say Jack Lopresti sounds like a waste of space.  He's just toeing the party line.  You can go on at the local authority until you are blue in the face, but you need to put your head above the parapet and actually make a name for yourself as an MP, I think.  [Angry giggle]  I'm still so angry about the previous lady.  I am a compassionate person and appreciate that there are lots of starving children throughout the world, but it does concern me that we are sending all this foreign aid and yet somebody in Riven's situation can't get a couple hour's respite a week ... "





There was a discussion about how many nappies Riven Vinent gets a day.  Victoria Derbyshire thought it will soon be 6, but Riven says NO, it is only four.  Jack Lopresti MP says he will help Riven get her the nappies she needs.  (Did he know when he entered politics that he would be falling over himself on some tabloid radio show to get nappies for the likes of Riven Vincent?  I doubt it.  Another effeminate modern politician with no concept of masculine pride.)

Show ends.

A woman did call in and agree with me on the day, I seem to remember, but this was left out on this link, no doubt due to deliberate PC BBC censorship to make me look bad and mad and alone in my views.

Lots of people got in touch with me later to say they agreed with me.   Some of them were even ex-Labour supporters.














Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...