The UK banning game

The rules of the UK banning game is very simple really. Each player gets points for criticising or insulting one of the following religions – Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism and extra bonus points for slagging off Judaism. Each player takes it in turn and the winner is the first to 1000 points, but there is a stumbling block, if any negative mention is made of Islam, that player forfeits the game and is banned. The decision to put forward a recommendation to ban a player is made by a panel of religious experts called the “Petitions Committee” who pass on their recommendation to someone called “The Home Secretary” who has the final decision based upon not offending Muslims and upon the settled wisdom that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” and therefore sacrosanct. There is an additional incentive for The Home Secretary to ban an offender and show no leniency, and that is the high probability that the Religion of Peace will incite thousands of its followers to rampage and commit violence on our streets with a propensity to decapitate innocent bystanders. This is called respecting ones own culture. Who wants to play?
The so called debate in Westminster by The Petitions Committee, regarding the call by 576,171 petitioners to ban Donald Trump from the UK for offending Muslims, says very little and contributes even less to the internal affairs of our most important ally, and one of its Presidential Candidates. Because the internal affairs of the USA have bugger all to do with British progressive politicians. However, what was said at the meeting does say a great deal about the nature of the progressive takeover of the UK establishment elite and its Dhimmitude to Islam. It also says much about the way the progressive Mindset has infected the UK active electorate.


The Petitions Committee is always going to be largely an irrelevancy since it makes no decisions, but when evaluating what is said by the 11 person Committee, we get a picture of a cross party mutually progressive establishment which reveals the truth about the popularly held belief that ” they are all the same”. It should be said that the Conservative members of the Committee advised against banning Donald Trump, but it was noticeable that none of them actually supported him. Their opposition to the ban was made purely on expediency, not on what was right. Here we have some examples. —

Sir Edward Leigh argued against a ban. ” In a free country you have a right to offend people. I offend people in this House all the time.” The first part of this quote is utter rubbish. Would Sir Edward like to try offending a Muslim in this wonderful “free country” which he apparently lives in ? No! I thought not. Has he forgotten that his very good friend Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has already banned Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering the UK for the terrible crimes of offending Islamic terrorists, and get this ! For supporting Israel. So it’s official, Israel is Britain’s enemy. Some free fucking country ! As for the second part of his quote. Well ! Wouldn’t argue with that.

He went on “ Also the United States is a friendly country. Twice in two world wars it has come to our rescue and this man may conceivably become President of our most important ally.” Just as I said above, but you can see the expediency creeping in, it would be a bit awkward if we banned a US President .Next he said that if the UK banned Trump “ It would only play into Mr Trumps Hands.” Why in hells name would it play into Donald Trumps hands to be banned from this supposedly free country ? He has already invested in Scotland and plans to invest even more. Leigh carries on.” His entire style of politics is to stoke controversy and say outrageous things. Lavishing attention, even if our  intention is to condemn or deride, is only falling into the trap he has set for us.” He added “ His continuing popularity amongst voters is evidence of this and he is popular with many voters.”.

Once again we have the weird notion that Donald Trump is “setting a trap”. So let’s get this right. Donald Trump wants to be President of the United States and part of his plans for the future is to be banned from the UK ? No, sorry but I can’t for the life of me see what kind of “trap” that would be. It’s a stupid and senseless idea. So Mr Trump says controversial and outrageous things and has the audacity to be  popular with many voters. Well, we can’t have that, what’s the world coming to when politicians become popular, next thing we know they will be expecting us to be truthful. If it wasn’t for these damned voters we could crucify Trump and the problem would be solved. If Sir Edward was ever to get the hang of using both his brain cells at the same time he might just work out that the reason why Donald Trump is so popular is because he says controversial and outrageous things, and because we long suffering annoying and inconvenient voters are pissed off with being treated with contempt by a bunch of self seeking, all knowing and lazy establishment half-wits, who neither have the energy nor courage to stand up and say something outrageous now and again. How about saying, -We politicians are here to serve the people and popularity is a sign that we are doing our jobs. Now that would be controversial.


jack dromeyOf course the Labour Party, SNP, and Muslim members of the Committee were so predictable that they need not have attended. Trump was, in their opinion dangerous, hate filled, poisonous and of course, a racist. That last word puts Donald Trump into the company of 99.9% of the Wests population, according to some. So they didn’t like him. Who would have thought ? The best piece of ridiculous rhetoric came from the Labour MP Jack Dromey who said “ Donald Trump is free to be a fool but he is not free to be a dangerous fool on our shores.”  So a highly successful multi billionaire business man is a fool according to a man who’s main claim to fame was to be involved in two financial scandals one of which involved his wife Harriet Harman. Of course as treasurer of the Labour Party at the time Dromey was cleared of all blame. So not a fool then.

It is thanks to Piers Morgan that Dromey’s, and  all the other ban Trumpers sheer hypocrisy was pointed out. On ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” programme, Piers confronted Dromey with the questions, would he ban Vladimir Putin, King Salma of Saudi Arabia  or the Chinese leader from Britain. It was like drawing teeth but Piers final got the reply, no he wouldn’t. When asked why not you can guess why not. Trump had offended Muslims. You can commit every crime in the book, it’s of no consequence but offending Muslims is unforgivable.

geller and spencerDonald Trump as far as I know has never ever harmed anyone, nor has Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders, but according to our progressive elite they are all more dangerous than all the worlds most corrupt and brutal people put together. The reality is that it is the politically correct, Dhimmi, progressives who are the biggest danger to Western society.

We are all free to disagree with Donald Trump or anyone else, or at least we should be. It is not Mr Trump who is important here, it is the long and hard fought for right to freedom of speech which has been gradually eroded over the last few decades which is important.