Re: Offensive? : Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:33 am  

Him wrote:

In what way has she been restricted from describing her feelings?

Presumably what Dally is getting at is the fact that she has been criticised by Muslim groups. He expects her to be able to express her views without fear that someone will criticise her for it .

Re: Offensive? : Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:20 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Presumably what Dally is getting at is the fact that she has been criticised by Muslim groups. He expects her to be able to express her views without fear that someone will criticise her for it .

This could be the way Britain is going under Cameron, he seems to think removing expressing opinions, objections and appeals for a lot of things can be done under the banner of 'war' on the deficit.

Re: Offensive? : Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:55 am  

rover49 wrote:

This could be the way Britain is going under Cameron, he seems to think removing expressing opinions, objections and appeals for a lot of things can be done under the banner of 'war' on the deficit.

"Could be"? ... I'm convinced of it.
He is trying to finish off what was started in 1979 i.e. the marketisation of everything he can get away with and the state-provision of almost nothing.

Re: Offensive? : Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:01 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

"Could be"? ... I'm convinced of it.
He is trying to finish off what was started in 1979 i.e. the marketisation of everything he can get away with and the state-provision of almost nothing.

The stupid thing about this policy is that they are trying to mirror the American way of doing things in a "small government" way, so you pay low income tax but you have to provide all the social services for yourself via private company suppliers.

The stupid part being that they are not actually doing this, they are still collecting the same amount of tax for (say) healthcare, and then using the same amount of money to pay either the NHS or a private provider to do the work.

Thats not "small government" at all, thats the same pot of money being distributed to your mates and party funders instead of via the NHS, nett outcome is that we as taxpayers save precisely NOTHING but the money goes in a different direction.

Re: Offensive? : Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:31 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

"Unacceptable"? ... says who?
"Free"? The very fact that you've read it in a newspaper suggests to me that our society is fairly free, actually.
"Reality"? ... no, it was the opinion of an overprivileged, reactionary snob who claims to have been frightened by seeing brown people in "her" country.
So much was it "her" country, that she was actually lost.

It's quite funny, CDW doing the 'my country' bit. If she really wants to play at being so jolly Establishment etc, perhaps she'd better give up her oft-invoked Catholicism and convert to the good of CofE.

She's an interesting character. I read her autobiography a few years ago. She did have a difficult background with an abusive father (a doctor to the royals) – and having money doesn't mean you can't have a difficult family life.

But like many another convert, since becoming a recovering alcoholic, she really has adopted a sense of being rather better than everyone else. And although she's a good writer and not a bad food historian, her books tend to reveal the same sort of casual, unthinking attitude illustrated here.