Saturday, 24 November 2012

Friends Like These

Uncritical coverage is being given in the usual places to the likes of Michael Weiss and Chris Bryant, which latter seems to have taken over the role previously filled by Denis MacShane, as they seek to destroy Conservative Friends of Russia.

Conservative Friends of Russia seems to overlap considerably with, for example, Conservative support for the statutory regulation of the press, i.e., for national liberation from the Murdoch Empire. All is not yet lost for a certain paleo-Tory sensibility even in so unlikely a place as the Conservative Party.

Harry's Place describes the campaign to allow British veterans of the Arctic Convoys to collect the Ushakov Medal as reminiscent of the Anglo-Soviet Friendship Societies of yesteryear. But how would they know? Where the Communist Party was concerned, it is not as if they ever bothered themselves with mere front organisations.

Ah, Harry's Place. Weiss's and Bryant's Henry Jackson Society. Conservative Friends of Israel, through which David Cameron and 80 per cent of his party's MPs are members of that same Likud which harbours advocates of "Holocaust" and "Hiroshima" in the Gaza Strip while sitting in coalition with those who would denaturalise the only two growing sections of Israeli society (one of which includes the ancient indigenous Christians, who are the original people of the Land and the oldest Christian communities in the world) and with those who believe that only Jews are human while Gentiles were created as beasts of burden.

Labour Friends of Israel, always the only way to get on in New Labour, but in point of fact a criminal organisation, imprisonably selling seats in our very legislature. And all the rest of them, such the deregistered fake charity Atlantic Bridge, Liam Fox's means of treasonably conducting a parallel foreign policy on behalf of the American noeconservatives so comprehensively vanquished in their own country, the racist Israeli Far Right, and the downright genocidal government of Sri Lanka.

Membership of any of these is membership of all of them.

But if they are annoyed at support for the recognition of the Arctic Convoy heroes, and at disdain for the look-at-me antics of the Pussy Riot slatterns, then would they approve of the latter in Westminster Abbey, or at the Western Wall, and what would they make of memorials, which scandalously do not exist anywhere in the world, to the British victims of Zionist terrorism in Mandated Palestine and to the American fallen of the USS Liberty?

Perhaps Conservative Friends of Russia might make representations to and through the Orthodox Church? Perhaps Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev might shame our own Royal Family and political leaders, and the President of the United States or his representative, by turning up to the unveiling ceremonies in Jerusalem, or Bethlehem, or Jericho, or Ramallah?

Then again, our own Royal Family and political leaders, and the President of the United States or his representative, might in fact turn up alongside Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Not only, but certainly, for the reaction from the likes of Michael Weiss, Chris Bryant, Harry's Place, Conservative Friends of Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, and Liam Fox.

At the very least, the parliamentary members of Conservative Friends of Russia ought to do so. As should Ed Miliband.


  1. ""statutory regulation of the press, i.e., for national liberation from the Murdoch Empire.""

    Whoah, did I just read that right?

    You support the end of centuries of English liberty defined by the existence of a free press? AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A CONSERVATIVE?

  2. A conservative and a patriot, yes.

  3. But you didn't answer the question.

    Statutory regulation of the press puts us on the road to a totalitarian state-which is why Leveson is so intimately connected to so many left-wing vested interests (the Sovereign Trust, DEMOS, Common Purpose, Labour MP's like Chris Bryant and Tom Watson, not to mention various shameless celebs etc).

    You should read Peter Hitchens piece "They're Building A Coffin For Liberty" on the tyranny that awaits us with a regulated press.

  4. Most people in this country probably assume that newspapers have always been subject to a statutory licensing system, and would be horrified to be told that that was not the case.

    In a sense, they are right. It is called the parliamentary lobby. In broadcast terms, Sky and the BBC now balance each other rather well, and no one can receive the BBC News Channel who cannot also receive Sky News.

    Some requirement would be no bad thing at all, that the papers granted lobby access should be balanced among themselves, even if not necessarily within themselves. Broadcasters having such access should be required to give regular airtime to all newspapers enjoying the same access.

    Set, of course, within the context of the restoration of the proper lobby system, although with MPs' staff members having the same rights of access throughout the Palace of Westminster.

    In fact, the signature of one seat-taking MP ought to grant any journalist lobby access. That, and nothing else. Who's in charge there? Who's in charge of the country?

    The media are over-mighty subjects as surely as the banks are, and nothing better illustrates that fact than their bank-like hysteria at the suggestion that their vast and completely unaccountable power should be subject to so much as the tiniest check or balance.

    At the very least, there ought to be a fairness requirement (which I have rather hilariously been told on here already existed, when it looked as if I might have been well enough to stand for Parliament) for the two newspapers that only exist because they are considered so important that the rules have been bent double in order to keep them going.

    For The Times and the Sunday Times are loss-making newspapers that exist only because the rules were bent double so that Rupert Murdoch could buy them in order, to his credit, to fund them out of his profitable interests. So they ought to be required to maintain balance.

    The publications granted parliamentary lobby access should be required to be balanced among themselves, even if not necessarily within themselves.

    And we need to ban any person or other interest from owning or controlling more than one national daily newspaper. To ban any person or other interest from owning or controlling more than one national weekly newspaper. To ban any person or other interest from owning or controlling more than one television station.

    To re-regionalise ITV under a combination of municipal and mutual ownership. And to apply that same model (but with central government replacing local government, subject to very strict parliamentary scrutiny) to Channel Four.

  5. Thanks for your reply.

    The fact we don't have a system of licensing is what makes our press more free than that of the rest of Europe, or anywhere in the world.

    Our broadcast media is badly over-regulated; the Left constantly complain we'd get "Fox News" if we didn't have impartiality rules,(what would be wrong with that if its what the people want?) but instead we get the BBC Channel 4 etc using "impartiality" as a cloak to push a left-wing agenda.

    It was the 1689 Bill of Rights that revoked our licensing laws and gave birth to 300 years of freedom.

    Simon Heffer recently wrote a great piece I urge you to read , about the brutal and bloody history of Britain's struggle for a free press.

    You don't address Rupert Murdoch's influence (is anyone forced to buy his newspapers?) by giving politicians power to control what we read.

    And, believe me, as Hitchens says "independent" regulators would quickly become tools of repression for all the vested interests now queuing up to back Clegg and Miliband against our free press.

    They'd be about as "independent" as Cuba's Rebel Radio.