Daniel in the lion’s den

Quite. This country has been distinguished for more than three centuries by uncensored newspapers. Here are some more defining traits: equality before the law, without regard for birth, wealth or ancestry; the mass franchise; universal education; jury trials; regular elections. There are few places on Earth of which lefties should be prouder.

It’s entirely true: but asking for it a bit to say it in The Guardian.

And this is a great quote:

As Billy Bragg, a rare champion of leftist nationalism, puts it: “If there is a single trait in our character that has set us apart from other nations, it is our determination to limit the authority of those who rule over us”.

Which is why we can describe ourselves as lefties for opposing the Courageous State.

7 thoughts on “Daniel in the lion’s den”

  1. 3 centuries without newspaper censorship? Um, yeah, I must’ve got confused and all that stuff I read about the Lord Chancellors dept, the Oz trial, etc must’ve been figments of my imagination.

    Uncensored news is a good thing, but creating some halcyon golden age in which we’ve been free for centuries doesn’t help make a case agains the current security obsessed stupidity.

  2. That’s just motherhood and apple pie. Everybody is in favour of those things. It’s when you drill down to the details that division arises.

    Take universal education: Until what age? At what price? Who should pay? Who should provide? Those are today’s burning issues.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Think, for example, of the Bolivarian regimes in my native Latin America. But here’s the odd thing. I have plenty of Labour-voting friends who are happy to cheer Venezuelan nationalism, but who would be mortified to be called British nationalists.

    There is nothing inconsistent about that. They are just strongly of the opinion that someone else ought to rule over us. In the old days that was Stalin. Now they are reduced to hoping for the victory of buffoons.

  4. What MatGB said.

    Britain has a long and sordid history of indirect control; rather than a “Ministry Of Newspaper Censorship” will have divers statutes, faux-independent “industry bodies” and so on. By this method, it is technically correct to say there is not state censorship when there most clearly in a practical sense is, and often of a most draconian kind.

    My usual example of this is the Video Recordings Act 1984; I read through the Hansard debate once, and it’s a stomach-churning chorus of mutual self-congratulation from the green benches in which various members proudly declare that “this is not state censorship” because the specific censorial rules were to be made by the BBFC which isn’t the government, it’s “independent”.

    TBH I have little real sympathy for the press in this. They are beyond a shadow of a doubt utter scum who have played a major part in the destruction of liberty and imposition of laws on everybody else- the Daily Fail being the type species here- so to moan about finally getting a taste of the same medicine is utter hypocrisy.

    BAN THESE EVIL TABLOIDS NOW, that was their catchphrase.
    -EJ Thribb

  5. I remember equality before the law but that went out of the window with a welter of Leftist diversity/thought crime legislation during the reigns of Blair and Browne and perpetuated by the current (Rightist… now don’t laugh) rulers.

    And as for that ‘determination to limit the authority of those who rule over us’, that certainly has been ‘universal’ educated, educated, educated out of the mass franchisees.

    I note, missed from the litany of virtues is the primary defining trait of the British, the World Class NHS.

  6. “… of those who rule over us”.

    Depends on who “those” and “us” are, to most lefties, Bragg included, it’s the 1% and everyone else respectively.

    The fact he’s in the 1% doesn’t matter, just as long as he’s fighting the good fight (from the safety of his country home).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *