December 2023
« Nov    

Banned by the Times for political incorrectness?

(Monday blog)

More multi-cultural enrichment?

First, just a brief comment on our usual mainstream media bias.

I noticed in the TV news this morning that the newsreader announced with relish that a gang of thugs who attacked a man in Portsmouth were “white”. But when a policeman was attacked last week with a machete and another was run over with his own patrol car, I don’t think the ethnicity of the perpetrators was mentioned.

We now know that the man who attacked a policeman with a machete was called ‘Mohammed Something-or-other’ and the man who drove over the other attacked policeman was called ‘Mubashar Hussein’ (a traditional British name?). I, of course, being a brain-dead, migrant-hugging, open-borders, Izlumophiliac libtard have no idea what ethnic or religious group these two (IMHO) utter, worthless, subhuman scumbags come from.


Banned by the Times for political incorrectness?

Last week, I received the email below from the Times. In the email you’ll see their threat to ban me from commenting on Times articles because one comment I made was supposedly “in breach of our community guidelines”. The comment I made was following an article about (if I remember correctly) Zimbabwe collapsing with food shortages and power cuts due to the corruption, greed, stupidity and incompetence of Zimbabwe’s rotten rulers.

Most other Times readers commenting displayed admirable political correctness by bleating and moaning about how we needed to help Zimbabwe and how Zimbabwe’s problems were mainly due to British colonialism and how we must do more to help Africa and how Africans were suffering from Man-Made Climate Change because of us beastly industrialised Western countries and how we needed a new Marshal Plan for Africa etc etc etc.

But I dared be more than slightly contrarian by writing:

“It’s Africa. Every leader is a billionaire and 90% of the people live in poverty and misery. Not our problem. Let them sort it out.

Next to descend into chaos will be South Africa. Time to buy in some beer and crisps and watch the fun.”

I can see that the political-correctness brigade would find my comment waacccisst and offensive and triggering and all that other bollux. But while my comment may have been ‘politically-incorrect’, was it actually ‘factually-incorrect’?

Let’s just check my statement for factual correctness:

“90% of the people live in poverty and misery”

Over half of Africa’s rapidly increasing population live in extreme poverty – defined as living on less than $1.90 a day. And the number living in extreme poverty is increasing every year:

Hundreds of millions more live on more than $1.90 a day, but are still desperately poor. The best figures I found were that around 70% of Africans live on less than $5 a day and close to 90% of Africans live on less than $10 a day.

I think that sort of supports my comment that 90% of Africans live in poverty and misery.

“Every leader is a billionaire”

Maybe that was a slight exaggeration. Who knows? Transparency International has calculated that African leaders loot three times as much from their countries each year as their countries receive in foreign aid and foreign investment.

It’s estimated that Mugabe has about $4bn tucked away for a rainy day and that the small clique ruling poverty-stricken Ethiopia have around $14bn to buy life’s little luxuries. In the Gabon, Ali Bongo Ondimba has over $1bn; Mohammed VI of Morocco has almost $6bn; Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of petrol-rich hell-hole Equatorial Guinea has anywhere between $600m and $2bn (nobody really knows for fairly obvious reasons) and so it goes on. By the way, Equatorial Guinea is one of the ‘richest’ countries in Africa with a GDP per capita income of a quite impressive $34,865. But it also has (I believe) the highest percentage of the population of any African country living in absolute poverty – less than $1.90 a day.

On average, African rulers actually seem to have around $500m each. But that’s their identified wealth. Who knows how much isn’t known about? So, on this point I might have exaggerated a bit and probably should have said something like “there aren’t many African rulers with less than a few hundred million in their offshore bank accounts saved up from their relatively modest salaries“.

“Next to descend into Chaos will be South Africa”

I believe there are clear signs that South Africa is hell-bent on following Zimbabwe’s collapse from being a wealthy food producer to becoming a starving, blighted disaster area. The white farmers are being murdered or evicted, their land is being handed over to cronies from the ruling ANC Party who know nothing about farming and…… Well, we all know what happens next, don’t we?

Factually correct but politically-incorrect?

I believe that my comment was reasonably ‘factually-correct’. But clearly it was terribly ‘politically-incorrect’ and clearly triggered some idiotic snowflake reader to make a complaint against me.

Sad times, when a newspaper like the Times prioritises ‘political correctness’ over ‘factual correctness’. I thought that was the domain of the Guardian.

Anyway, here’s the threatening email the Times sent me:

To whom it may concern,

Please reflect on the language you use when commenting on Your recent comments have been in breach of our community guidelines and we are issuing you with a formal warning:

“It’s Africa. Every leader is a billionaire and 90% of the people live in poverty and misery. Not our problem. Let them sort it out.

Next to descend into chaos will be South Africa. Time to buy in some beer and crisps and watch the fun.”

All comments are subject to our community guidelines, which can be viewed here. Any comments that include personal insults, inappropriate language or are defamatory will be removed.

If you continue to post comments which contravene our guidelines, we will suspend the commenting privileges on your account.

Please do have a read of our guidelines to make sure your future comments abide by our community standards.



The Times Community Team

7 comments to Banned by the Times for political incorrectness?

  • dave h

    The editor is probably a common purpose graduate.
    If only these lefty wet rag snowflakes could see that they are doing the groundwork for the new world order, beating us into submission until eventually the whole population will be totally subservient.

    Sad times indeed.

  • loppoman

    Yes, the truth offends these people.
    None of them will ever discuss the serious problems which will arise through the exponential growth of African population.

  • A Thorpe

    The Times is not worth reading anymore. I gave up with it about 2 years ago. I had trouble with the comments system but for exactly the opposite reason to you. It is not about debate anymore, it is about insulting people who want a debate about different views. I noticed that there were regular offensive remarks about many comments and I used to get them from one particular person about my views on climate change. I regularly objected but nothing happened so eventually I ended the subscription. It resulted in a call of about an hour with them because they were desperate for my money. They were making various offers and I just kept them talking for as long as possible to waste their time. I had no intention keeping the subscription. Your comments did not breach the guidelines The Times listed in their response to you. It is the end of free speech and The Times is leading the way.

    Your views on the direction of South Africa are the same as Katie Hopkins in the video last week and she has been there and seen it happening.

  • Chris Dark

    Excellent stuff, Mr C. Anyone with half a brain knows what is happening now. Having a debate with different views is all well and good but these people are wedded to beliefs that are set in utter lunacy. It would be interesting to ask them why THEY think black/brown criminals’ colour shouldn’t be mentioned, and why THEY think we should hate being white. As for Africa, I have seen people jiggling collection-boxes for “the starving” and I just walk on by. They are murdering the white providers of food, shelter and etc, they clearly don’t want them in the country so let em get on by themselves. On the face of it, it sounds callous but it seems that’s the best way to treat them.

  • William Boreham

    With the new editor of the Mail being a remainder and the Express taken over by the left-wing Mirror group, is there ANY patriotic newspaper left on the shelves in this country right now? The Mail was obviously worried about the effect the change of editor would have on its readership as the e-mail reply I got to my rant about their unqualified support of that traitor May: “We were very sorry to read that you were disappointed by Friday’s edition. We always try to represent the views of our four million readers, who are the lifeblood of the paper. Please rest assured that we will continue to strive to do so. Regarding our Brexit coverage, the paper has always supported Theresa May in her efforts to deliver the best possible Brexit deal; it has also consistently expressed reservations about the prospect of a no-deal outcome. While the paper accepts that the proposed deal is far from perfect ? and has repeatedly said as much ? that position has not changed. That said, we are sorry that you have felt let down and would like to assure you that your comments have been taken on board and drawn to the attention of our most senior executives and, of course, the Editor. If you are willing to provide us with your phone number, it may be that that the Editor will take the opportunity to call you personally to discuss your views. In the meantime, it would certainly be a great shame to lose you as a reader after all these years, so we very much hope that you will reconsider and stick with us.”

    My comments about May were confirmed by an article in the Telegraph today exposing the abject surrender to the EU she was willing to sign up to:

    Are Eurocrats, I wonder, starting to feel the tiniest batsqueak of doubt? A year ago, they had the UK where they wanted it. Our officials were pledging to adopt EU social and employment laws unilaterally and to pay for the privilege. Had any other country made such an offer, Brussels negotiators would have snapped its hand off like ravening hounds. But, still bruised by the referendum result, they instead demanded more. Result? A change of management in Britain, and the sweeping away of concessions that the previous administration placed on the table.Theresa May approached the talks as a supplicant. The EU laid down the terms, set the preconditions and ordered the protocols. Every meeting took place at the European Commission rather than in London: a token attempt to hold one press conference on British soil at the Brussels embassy was rejected out of hand. Desperate to come back with something that could technically be labelled “Brexit”, the former PM signed up to every EU request.She accepted the EU’s sequencing, announcing that Britain would settle EU demands before any discussion of trade. She agreed to pay a £39  billion bill that no international tribunal would uphold. She accepted – no, she actively requested – a two-year period where Britain would be subject to every dot and comma of EU law, including new rules passed during that time, with no vote and no veto. These acts of homage and fealty were packaged together and offered to the EU at the Salzburg summit last September. Never has a sovereign country prostrated itself in such an undignified manner. Here was Britain asking the EU to set its technical standards, promising to contribute to the military security of the continent, swearing never to be more competitive than its neighbours. Yanis Varoufakis, the raffish former Greek finance minister, called it “a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war,” though it reminded me more of the ultimatum issued by Austria-Hungary to Serbia in 1914 – a provocative demand to control the internal affairs of another state.

  • Stillreading

    I didn’t think the UK could ever have worse PMs than the Bliar/Brown duo, the first of whom took us into an illegal war, based on a lie, and the second of whom finished the ruin of the economy he had started as Chancellor under his predecessor. But then along came May! THREE YEARS of prevarication, procrastination, prostration to Merkel, Macron and the EU bureaucracy, with nothing having been achieved when resignation was forced upon her. (As an ex-PM she’ll get a nice little pension for the rest of her life though!) Refreshing and invigorating indeed to read the above quote from today’s Telegraph and to realise that the light is maybe beginning to dawn in at least one media corner. As for the other redtops and broadsheets, it’s many moons since I gave any of them – and their inflated prices – my time or consideration. If you, Mr Craig, are no longer permitted to express your views in one of these, views which you are entitled to hold and express irrespective of whether or not others endorse them, without being barred for having incurred the displeasure of the libtard snowflakes, then that paper and its readers are not worth your time or attention. Truly open debate in any forum – newspaper, radio, “uni” discussion, political assembly – is very evidently no longer permissible. Our nation, the first to pride itself on free speech, is now deliberately and with intent destroying the right to that long-held privilege. As for your views on Africa’s problems – well, if the poverty resulting from absence of birth control and lack of education, alongside the widespread corruption of its native leaders, are not at least mainly responsible, then I’d like the libtards’ suggestions on what IS the cause of the deplorable conditions in which most the native population live.

  • Bill Thomson

    I have friends and relatives in Zim and have visited a couple of times recently, SA too. I came to the same conclusion as David.Corruption is a pan African problem. Unless you have studied it, its level and integration into the system is difficult to comprehend.

    I have no idea what the solution might be but sanctions only hurt the already poor. Dumping American surplus maize into aid programs bankrupts native farmers. Banning trade involving child labour denies children,food, medication and schooling which is often provided as part of the package. African needs African solutions, not plush hotels stuffed with smarmy, western, liberal NGO, free loaders.

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>