December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

It’s no longer possible to write a blog under Britain’s new censorship laws

It seems this will be my last blog. With Britain’s draconian new censorship laws, it’s no longer possible to express an opinion without risking a police investigation, police harassment and possible prosecution.

There have been three main stages in the extermination of free speech in Britain:

1. Invention of the “hate crime”

The first step towards the imposition of Britain’s totalitarian-state repression of free speech was the invention of the totally spurious concept of the “hate crime”.

A “hate crime” is defined as an offense motivated by hostility, or that shows hostility, toward the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

So, if I were to dare to suggest that there is one religion that seems to be a teensy weensy bit more disposed towards intolerance and violence than most other religions. Hey presto! I could be accused of committing a “hate crime”. Or if I were to write that “Prince Charles was a lying, self-obsessed, self-absorbed, low-IQ, adulterous drip”, no doubt that would be considered as being “hostile” towards the useless Charles and again I could be investigated, harassed and possibly prosecuted.

2. Anyone can claim someone is offended

We all know that there are many thousands of idiots who spend hours on-line every day looking for something they can claim offends them. Then they can express “outrage” on “social media” and maybe even start a “twitterstorm” or suchlike. But the wonderful (from our rulers’ point of view) thing about the supposed offence of “hate crime” is that a person doesn’t have to be personally offended by the “hate crime”.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) already defines hate crime as ‘any offence which is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice’.

So, if you consider yourself offended by anything I write, or even if you are not offended but you feel someone else somewhere might have been offended, then the police would have to investigate whether I had committed a “hate crime”.

Given that my blog is often critical of the greed and incompetence of our rulers, the corruption and waste of the EU, the takeover of our continent by a resurgent Germany, the takeover of our country by our friends from the most wonderful of all religions and of our rulers’ policy of race replacement, then it becomes rather easy for someone somewhere to claim that they believe that I might have offended someone and am thus guilty of a “hate crime”.

As I wrote yesterday, this definition of a “hate crime” created a ludicrous situation last year when the Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s speech to the Tory party conference was investigated as a ‘hate crime’ after an Oxford academic — who wasn’t even there — complained about what he felt was its anti-immigrant message three months later. (West Midlands police found no evidence of a hate crime but recorded it as a ‘non-crime hate incident’.)

3. Words are now judged as dangerous as physical attacks

Yesterday I wrote about how Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales, has decided in her wisdom that on-line “hate crime” against any person or group is the equivalent of a physical assault. She extended the concept of “hate crime” without needing to get any approval from the Government or Parliament. According to Ms Saunders, police should investigate any “hate crime” and judges should sentence anyone found guilty as if they had committed a physical assault.

Alison Saunders has just issued guidance to police, prosecutors and judges demanding a clampdown on any “hate crimes” on the media. The new policy documents cover different strands of hate crime: racist and religious; disability; and homophobic, biphobic and transphobic.

Conclusion – it’s over

These three legal moves put together now mean that Britain probably has more oppressive censorship laws than most totalitarian countries. How we have allowed this to happen in a country that throughout history has been a champion of democracy and free speech is incredible. Venezuela’s laughable tin-pot dictator Maduro must be looking on in envy at how Britain’s rulers managed to extinguish freedom of speech without any protests or violence.

In this new environment, it’s clearly impossible to write a blog like mine without risking investigation and possible prosecution should anyone anywhere feel that my blog was possibly hostile to someone somewhere even if that supposedly “offended person” was completely unaware of anything I had ever written.

I have already been warned once by my local Plod about writing supposed “hate crimes”. Yet Plod apparently doesn’t have any time or resources to investigate rapes, murders, burglaries, motor theft, acid attacks, knife crime etc etc.

Had my readers been a little more supportive of my blog, I would have risked continuing. But when 98.7% of my readers were so tight-fisted that they refused to buy a copy of my most recent book ( I just asked you to buy it, not to read it), it would be stupid for me to take a personal risk for people who couldn’t give a damn.

So, as they say in the cartoons, “that’s all folks”.

But a British government forcing even blogs like my totally insignificant efforts to close down should serve as a mark of shame for our country and a terrible betrayal of all those who made sacrifices to preserve our freedom and democracy.

The libtards have won!

We cowardly Brits should all hang our heads in shame for allowing this to happen!

9 comments to It’s no longer possible to write a blog under Britain’s new censorship laws

  • mad Brian

    Dave,

    If you get into trouble then just say it was me what told you to write all this stuff.
    Tell them it was all my idea.

    I will just say it was the dog next door what told me.

    The dog’s dad’s name is Sam.

  • Joe Schmoe

    Never have so many,
    been let down by so few.

    The ‘liberal’ elite have proven themselves to be
    a totalitarian, spying state.

    I enjoyed your blog for many years.

    Good luck.

  • Stillreading

    I and I am sure millions of other UK citizens who grew up in an era when freedom of speech was so universally accepted that the only limitation placed upon it was the requirement not to commit slander or libel, are incensed by the DPP’s recent pronouncement. Indeed, I took it very personally and consider myself mortally wounded. I may have to take to my bed for a while to get over it. My confidence and self-esteem have been so severely damaged that I may not be able to confront any of my fellow humans for the foreseeable future. I may need psychological treatment or counselling. In short, I feel I am being got at personally and I am therefore a victim of hate speech. I think I may feel compelled to ask Plod to investigate, with a view to prosecuting the good lady.

    Irony aside, how much further down the road of idiocy can the UK go in order to placate the luney left? What has happened to our priorities? While stabbings on our streets are commonplace, while theft of property isn’t even investigated any more (what was it? 13,000 scooters and motorbikes stolen in London last year?), while a blind eye is turned to the rape and buggery of under-age girls in our major cities, while modern slavery is rife, Plod, on the say-so of some self-obsessed ivory-tower academic, pokes its useless nose into a common-sense statement made weeks previously by a Government minister. You couldn’t make it up!

    (Feeling extra bitter because last year Plod called on me, a 79 year old woman who lives alone and has never had as much as a motoring conviction, one Sunday lunchtime, threatening me with immediate arrest and a charge of “surveillance” because I had taken a couple of photos of a neighbour, a known criminal, as evidence for the Local Authority of his antisocial behaviour and mis-use of his rented property. Plod had already declined to investigate drug-dealing from the premises by the occupant’s son, despite repeated requests from me and other neighbours.)

    I hope you don’t give up your blog, but there’s no doubt that by continuing to state the truth in unambiguous terms, you risk unpleasant consequences. As I’ve said before, those of your readers who post endorsing your views are also potentially at risk – which is the reason I ceased some tome ago regularly to do so.

    What, I frequently ask myself, was my father fighting for in the last War, and my grandfathers in 1914/18?

  • Juliet 46

    I feel the same as Stillreading. Please find a way to carry on – we need you.

  • David Brown

    Gorgon wants to turn more men to stone.
    Alison Saunders the CPS head is by nature a radical feminist.
    What people do not understand is that the feminist movement is driving by resentment. So the commercial use of attractive women to sell products is deemed exploitive.
    We look on fundamentalist Islam as subjection of women.A feminist may actually prefer living in a world where women wear Hijab’s and Burkha’s .

  • Tom

    Well I’m offended that people can be offended by your former right to free and quite funny speech but because I’m conservative minded the hate speech I’m offended law wont apply to me. It really is time to repent and turn to Jesus because the book of Revelation and Daniel are right and the Nwo is rising. I loved the Great Charity Scandal book and have used it numerous times in challenging the likes of Oxfam etc and they don’t respond to my challenges. All the best.

  • Wonky Moral Compass

    As we desperately need dissenting voices, is there no way to offshore the blog like Guido Fawkes does? It seems to more-or-less work for them, but it takes cash, I suppose …

  • enemy of the state

    The solution is to use the TOR network to submit your content and under an alias.
    Anonymous contributions only.
    Unfortunately until the people wake up and revolt most violently to the lefts perpetrated coup de ta on free speech its the only way to get the message out there that those who would have us “submit” are inherently evil people.

  • Russell Hicks

    Remember Churchill: ‘Never, ever, ever, ever EVER give up’

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>