Sunday, May 02, 2010

Gillian Duffy: Gordon Brown is sexist

The life-long Labour supporter branded a 'bigot' by Gordon Brown has said she was more offended at being called 'that woman'.

At the time Gordon Brown's comments were broadcast across the world, Cranmer was wondering why the media had not picked up on this manifest sexist phrase.

The Prime MInister said: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's Sue I think. It's just ridiculous," he told Justin Forsyth. Asked what she had said, Mr Brown added: "Everything, she was just a bigoted woman."

Mrs Duffy was not simply a 'bigot'; she was 'that woman', and one sensed in his contempt the sort of sexism which has been experienced by many female members of his Cabinet who believe he appointed women as 'window dressing'.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Gillian Duffy has revealed she would not now be voting for any party, despite us being told by Gordon Brown that she had accepted his apology.

The grandmother also says she rejected his invitation to shake hands in front of the cameras.

This is not forgiveness: it is evidence of hurt, resentment and anger.

And Mrs Duffy has every right to withhold her vote and tell the world of Gordon Brown's sexism. She says: "It wasn't the bigot, it was that he said 'that woman'. I thought 'what does he mean, 'that woman'?'... It's not nice, it's not nice at all."

Mrs Duffy said she was 'shocked' by the episode and felt more sorrow than anger.

But it appears that Caroline Flint was right: Gordon Brown is not only a misogamist; he is a misogynist. He is prejudiced, exclusive and inflexible. There is no room for him in Labour's future, and the party's imminent civil war will confirm so.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I believe we are looking at a just end to a man who sold his people and his country by sigining the Lisbon Treaty into the hands of foreign powers.

One day, when he looks back over the years, it is my belief that he will regret what he did.

What a tragedy.

2 May 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger Clare@ BattlementsOfRubies said...

You agree that saying "that woman" is sexist?
That seems like nonsense to me.
Don't you think you are just adopting the same old silly pc rules on this occasion because it suits you to use it against Gordon Brown.
I'm no longer voting Labour because I have seen the anti family spirit that pervades so much of their policy making. I've had enough of the petty interfering in, and micro managing of our lives. The Badman report and Ed Balls latest attempts regarding the enforcement of teaching govt approved sex ed in schools has been the final straw.
But really, to claim that Gordon Brown is sexist because he said "That woman" is just silliness of the lefty variety. I'm surprised at you.

2 May 2010 at 12:39  
Blogger Dippyness. said...

You have forgotten to mention the bullying. I agree Brown is sexist. But worse still is the bullying which has become endemic within the Labour Party & spread out to the Public Services. This has lead to people being too scared to speak out against any of the corruption within the system.
It's a disgrace state of affairs.

2 May 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

If he had said "that man", then it would not have been sexist. As much as I dislike how Labour has ruined my nation, I don't think that sexism was the problem with what he said. It was the classification of anyone who questions immigration as a bigot.

I think that uncontrolled immigration has been deliberately propagated by Labour in order to increase their support. Unfortunately for them, the proportion of Britons who are of foreign stock is still very low, so their support has plummeted. Still, many areas of the country have been irreparably damaged by the creation of ghettos. I think that if we combine the immigration controls of the Conservatives with the regional immigration of the LibDems (if that's actually workable), then we may be able to integrate those from foreign climbs a lot more easily.

If population control continues to be the policy of all the parties, then we will need immigration to continue to exist. If we didn't have immigration, then our population, by the time I was old, would be far less than it is now.

2 May 2010 at 12:45  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

We also need to debunk the idea that having children isn't 'green'. Abortion and contraception are being used, whether deliberately or accidentally, to exterminate the British peoples.

2 May 2010 at 12:47  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dear Mrs Clare@BattlementsOfRubies,

It matters not a jot whether or not you believe 'that woman' to be a sexist phrase. The important thing is that, to many women, it most certainly is, especially when said by a man. And Mrs Duffy certainly thought so.

His Grace has himself fallen foul of this: 'that woman' does not find its masculine equivalent in 'that man'. The former, rightly or wrongly, is perceived by many as being a derogatory term.

You may disagree. But in a world in which only Pakistanis may call each other 'Paki' or only Roman Catholics refer to 'Papists', one must be careful not to offend.

'Gay' is a wonderful example: it is the identity label by which many homosexuals now prefer to be categorised.

Would you defend Gordon Brown if he had said: "Whose idea was it to put me with that gay?"?

2 May 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Clare@ BattlementsOfRubies comments hit the mark, the post does fall into the trap of liberal dogmatic hogwash, revealing the reason why so few people see trotskyist neoconservatism as a solution to the ills we suffer.

Signed: Gert Welsonne

2 May 2010 at 13:10  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

With respect, I think Your Grace is in error. While both 'that man' and 'that woman' are most often used in derogatory fashion, neither is inherently sexist. Nor do I believe Mrs Duffy was complaining about sexism - I think she was complaining that the term is one of disrespect. It is the lack of respect that seemed to hurt her more than anything - which she says in today's Mail On Sunday article.

Whether Brown is actually a sexist or not I could not say (Harriet Harman is the only Labour MP who I am completely convinced is a sexist). That he seems to hold an utter contempt for anyone who dares to question him in any way or who does not completely agree with him is, to my mind, evidence of a general contempt for humanity that knows no boundaries of sex, race or station.

To be a sexist, one must hold a general contempt, distrust or dislike for people based solely on their gender. A general contempt, distrust or dislike for anyone who disagrees with you, be they male or female, does not, to my mind, fit this definition.

2 May 2010 at 13:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

These are barren days indeed, if this is all His Grace can find time for: what has happened to the wit and incisive analysis to which we have become so accustomed. The media is serving up nothing more than a beauty pageant and His Grace is settling right into it.

Meanwhile - The electorate is being given promises of bread and circuses when all the time what really matters as the man once said, ‘it’s The Economy – stupid!

Why else would Darling Alistair, ‘Orrible Osborne and the able Cable be so infrequently on display? – I suspect we wont have long after the election to find out just why.

2 May 2010 at 13:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


In his anger, what else would he say. That person? It seems a little uncomfortable and doesn't easily roll off the tongue. It is as awkward to say as 'Chairperson' or 'The Chair'.

'It matters not a jot whether or not you believe 'that woman' to be a sexist phrase. The important thing is that, to many women, it most certainly is, especially when said by a man.'

We should not be wary of not offending, for the sake of not offending. The message of Christianity, that we are ALL sinners who need and can find salvation, is incredibly offensive to the modern world. I feel that you've been taken in by one of the most odious of the Liberal doctrines; that offence is defined by the recipient and not the intention of the speaker.

Including Catholics in your list of people who we're not allowed to offend is a bit silly and really only shows your prejudice. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called ridiculous things by people who are otherwise quite efficient at self-censorship. I have never heard a Catholic call himself a Papists either.

2 May 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

As YG commented the other day, more communication is through intonation than through words alone. The intonation in Gordon's tone was most definitely one of contempt. I don't think the words, "That women", alone are inherently sexist.

I wonder if Gordon is still such a fan on the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra?

2 May 2010 at 13:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lakester91 (12:45)—…the proportion of Britons who are of foreign stock is still very low…

According to the Office for National Statistics, ‘There was a continued rise in the proportion of births to mothers born outside the UK: 24 per cent in 2008 compared with 23 per cent in 2007. In 1998, 14 per cent of births were to non-UK born mothers.’ I wouldn’t call 24% very low.

If population control continues to be the policy of all the parties, then we will need immigration to continue to exist.

If immigration continues, ‘we’ (I assume you mean the British) will no longer exist. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reported in 2007 that ‘BME [black and minority ethnic] groups now account for 73% of the UK’s total population growth, due to differences in fertility rates and some inward migration.’ The quote is in this PDF file; scroll down to ‘Box 1: BME groups in the UK’.

If we didn't have immigration, then our population, by the time I was old, would be far less than it is now.

If we didn’t have immigration, then our population, by the time you were old, would be heading towards a more realistic total; around 30 million would be a sustainable population for a country of Britain’s size, topography and natural resources.

2 May 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger Ray said...

Dreadnought is right, if we are reduced to worrying about simple things like the contracted version of "that woman I just spoke to" because that's all it was, then we should be living in a paradise.

2 May 2010 at 14:02  
Anonymous Katy said...

Your Grace!

I have attempted to find the relevant post but it appears to have gone missing, but I do remember that some time ago, when a man on this site posted a clearly racist comment, that His Grace refused to accept that it was racist simply on the grounds that 'that man' said he was not.

On the same principle, since Gordon Brown has said that he is not sexist, who is His Grace to start saying that he is? I am deeply saddened.

I picked up on the general 'that woman' statement too. What disturbed me more about the comments was that he seemed to write off everything that Gillian Duffy is, and everything she said (immigration wasn't her only concern) because she was 'bigoted'. He pigeon-holed her. That makes him prejudiced and unfit to be in a position of responsibility.

2 May 2010 at 14:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Rottenborough,

My argument is that population control is completely immoral. I believe we should stop that, as well as uncontrolled immigration.

The proportion of Britons who are of foreign stock is still low. The reason that they are breeding more, is because we are not breeding enough ourselves. Most British couples are having fewer than 2 children, which is unsustainable. If the average fertility rate for EVERY two people is consistently less than ~2.4, then we WILL die out as a race of people. At the moment we have a large number of people who remain single throughout their lives, get married but do not attempt to breed until they are infertile, and cap their number of children at one or two.

'If we didn’t have immigration, then our population, by the time you were old, would be heading towards a more realistic total; around 30 million would be a sustainable population for a country of Britain’s size, topography and natural resources.'

but we'd also be on an irreversible decline, which would see the British Anglo-Saxon race die out within a few lifetimes.

My argument is to stop ending so many pregnancies in abortion, stop selling contraception as a panacea to our problems and to encourage people to have ~3 children. That way we don't need immigration to survive. The British-born children of immigrants will be just as infertile as the rest of us, so until we answer the problem of population control, we will need immigration in some form or another.

Otherwise we can go back to the real point of immigration; to gain the greatest skills and knowledge throughout the globe for our research and manufacturing industries.

2 May 2010 at 14:19  
Blogger Owl said...

I think it is about time for politicians (amoung others) to be offensive when telling the truth. Not matter what you say, it will undoubtably offend someone. If the truth offends then so be it. The PC fear of offending anyone is not only self defeating, it is a sickness at the heart of Lib/Lab/Con. As his Grace has put it, we have to choose which is the least evil of the three. YG, perhaps we don't wish to vote for evil whatever the degree

2 May 2010 at 14:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I don't care if Gordon Brown is "sexist" or "racist" the labels are meaningless. He is however a hypocrite and displays a contempt towards a voter introduced to him by Labour's own candidate in Rochdale.

If you want to read what the Unison rep said about Gordon Brown who has just destroyed Labour's campaign in the area, perhaps you should read the local press online.

It is unbelievable just how bad 'professional' politicians are in this country. They have an arrogant disdain for the voting public, and Brown has saddled himself forever with this YouTube clip....go look at Jon Stewart, the American comedian who demolishes Brown and the others on his Comedy Hour show.

In trying to diminish Mrs Duffy Gordon Brown has destroyed the last vestiges of a human being.

2 May 2010 at 15:29  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lakester91 (14:19)—The British-born children of immigrants will be just as infertile as the rest of us…

Muslims appear to be immune to infertility: in an article headed ‘Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock’, the Daily Telegraph says: ‘On average, foreign women have 2·5 children each, rising to almost five for those from Pakistan, and 3·9 from Bangladesh. The number of babies born to British mothers is also increasing, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1·7 children each.’

If the West is going to continue creaming off ‘the greatest skills and knowledge’ from developing countries (doctors and nurses for the NHS, for example), those countries will never prosper. In addition, immigration takes a terrible toll on our own communities; the effects of the arrival of East Europeans in Peterborough are detailed here.

2 May 2010 at 15:37  
Anonymous pedant said...

Your Grace is right to raise the archiepiscopalian eyebrow at the phrase "that woman".

However, Mrs Duffy's indignation is not quite the same as yours. Up North "that woman" is a most insolent usage. Mr Brown should have said "that lady".

Mrs Duffy seems to be more hurt by this than by being called a bigot.

The Queen Mother, asked what she thought was the most important thing in life, replied, "Good manners." As the loutish Mr Brown takes his well-earned place among the plate scrapings and soiled nappies in history's dustbin, it seems she spoke yet wiser than she knew.

Mrs Duffy has done us all good. She is the unquestioned heroine of this election, admired worldwide. One hopes that her 15 minutes of fame will not be painful to her, and may even bring her some profit as well as instruction in the ways of the political world.

To those who stand back a little, it is not surprising that a party whose core ideology is that of predatory kleptoparasitism grows to despise those off whom it preys. As Tacitus tells us: "Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris." - It is human nature to hate those we hurt.

2 May 2010 at 16:08  
Anonymous len said...

If our thoughts were broadcast for all to hear who would be without sin?
Most of us are actors with the script being written by the politically correct school of thought( or perhaps that should be non-thought).
We had a brief glimpse into the heart of Gordon Brown, anyone else volunteering to have their heart and mind searched?
In anticipation of responses I am not a Labour supporter.

2 May 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Voyager at 15.29 - exactly so!

Brown is an arrogant, dismissive, bully; forever looking to off-load blame onto others. He is despicable!

What can one expect from a man who bites his fingernails down to the quick? He's nowt but a grubby-pawed social-inadequate!

Mrs. Duffy has given him a lasting lesson in manners! Let ALL politicians take note!

2 May 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous Gordon "Snot-Gobbler" Brown said...

I am getting on with the job and rising above this petty gossip. I am getting on with helping hard-working families realise that I brought about an end to boom and bust and that I saved the world. Thank you, now I've got to be getting on with the campaign.

*gets back into his car*

"whose idea was it to put me in there with Archbishop Cranmer? It's ridiculous... he's just a bigoted religious prat..."

2 May 2010 at 18:06  
Blogger Andy JS said...

Updated Tory target list with estimated declaration time now included, (estimates by PA):

2 May 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Gordon Brown sexist? Please Your Grace, can't you do better than that? For what he has done to our nation over the past 13 years, he should be arrested and tried for treason, at the very least. Along with that Bliar Tone!

2 May 2010 at 19:31  
Blogger Cooking Street said...

It seems in this country most hated are Eastern Europeans. I been trying to comment on but my comment wasn't approved. The comments on Milena Popova's " This disenfranchised eastern European will receive no apology" article in are suspended many of them removed. Sadly, but the facts speaks for itself. I'm myself Eastern European living and working in London. To the attention of Gillian Duffy there are no boards and is free movement within EU. All the Eastern Europeans are mostly honest and hard working people only very few claiming benefits. But there is much bigger percentage of Asian and African immigrants and the question is how they getting to the country. Message delivered by Gillian Duffy was clearly addressed particularly to Eastern Europeans. For me this is abusing and very discriminating. I think G.Duffy should be charged with discrimination and not jeopardised as a victim. In this case victims are Eastern European community in UK.
Although I will vote for conservatives in this case I'm 100% supporting Mr. Gordon Brown and can't see any reason why he should apologise.

Read more:

2 May 2010 at 20:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't the Tory Blogs reporting this?

2 May 2010 at 20:36  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I think as an Eastern European you should understand the native population a little better before sounding off.

Rochdale has very high unemployment; it is No6 in this country for ASBOs. It has a huge Asian population - 20% - and yet an influx of people from Eastern Europe. Why ? she asks.

What is everyone coming to Rochdale for ? It is a town of high unemployment and decaying infrastructure.

So if to ask such questions of your Prime Minister is to be sent to the Gulag, at least we know where we are living.

If people from Eastern Europe think people asking such questions should "be charged with discrimination" we can at least rest assured that democracy is now truly dead and we have the Eastern European form of People's Democracy with Labour camps and Secret Police

2 May 2010 at 20:37  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Misogynist is it. Well I expect so: surely 'genderisms' are only handy factors of Communism - just like waycism, post-colonialism, anti-Christism, anti-patriotism, ageism,.....

Dear God - the euros even get to vote against us in our own country! (cf the foreigner's post at 20:09). What do they come here for anyway? I wouldn't go near any of their places.

Years before Mrs. D. brought them to our attention, one euro (unrecognizeable, unpronounceable name) paraded as a doctor and killed my aunt in a northern hospital. I got home to her as soon as I could, only to find that having allowed an 'uncontrollable infection' to invade the ward: "We withheld the antibiotics; it was the best thing to do for her." The supervising 'doctor' was from you-know-where (i.e. he wasn't British either).

Furthermore I encountered another euro 'medic' in Scotland when I suffered a retinal detachment. He sat on the other side of a clanking old bit of machinery and laughed in my face: "It's come clean away!" I told him I was glad he thought it amusing, only to be advised that I couldn't expect anything else (never mind how it happened): they didn't treat that condition in people of my age. That hospital didn't even deem it necessary to inform my referring GP of their diagnosis.

Oh, yes. Great improvement to our standards in every category. There soon won't be enough of us left even to begin a civil war!

2 May 2010 at 21:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Mr Brown described Mrs Duffy as a 'bigot'.

The Daily Mail online reports another Christian arrested for preaching against sins listed in the Bible.

The report is followed by an article by Peter Hitchens.

It won't be long now, before Christians are blackmailed for being Christians.

2 May 2010 at 23:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Here is a link to the article:

2 May 2010 at 23:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The YouTube clip is well worth watching - for the legal advice alone.

2 May 2010 at 23:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

2 May 2010 at 23:40  
Blogger Ginro said...

Apparently, this is Maggie Thatchers opinion on all three party leaders:

On Cameron:

In frank conversations with her close confidant and former Tory grandee Lord Tim Bell, Lady Thatcher dubbed Cameron "boring" and "still out of touch with the British public"

On Brown, Clegg, and Cameron:

She was just as dismissive about Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour PM Gordon Brown.
"I'd eat all three leaders for breakfast," said Maggie, 84. "Maggie admits she doesn't think any of the leaders are up to running a country. She told me, 'None of them is capable of achieving what I did'.

"After trying to watch the first debate Maggie said, 'they irritate me'. She is particularly angered by the way all three do their utmost not to answer questions."


3 May 2010 at 06:20  
Anonymous no nonny said...

She is particularly angered by the way all three do their utmost not to answer questions. She's not the only one!

They needs must obfuscate, of course. Those dummies can't see how to do a thing without permission from their puppet-masters....

wv: tomessie

3 May 2010 at 07:29  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Cooking Street: "I think G.Duffy should be charged with discrimination and not jeopardised as a victim."

So, you don't believe in free speech? With an ideolgy like that I think that you should fit right in with Brown's castrated and gagged Neu Arbeit Britain.

3 May 2010 at 07:39  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Gordon Brown called a woman a woman - Shock horror!

His Grace talks bollocks on a grand scale these days.

3 May 2010 at 09:05  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Lakester91 @ 14.19, you are starting to touch on a fascinating topic - that of the voluntary extinction of peoples. The great blogger Spengler in Asia Times has given considerable thought to the matter. His basic premise is that once a people, rather than a nation, loses its religious belief it declines. Here is a link to a fairly recent article by Spengler on the topic. If you navigate around the site you will find more, much more.


IF Spengler is right, it follows that those narcissitic atheists/secularists/humanists that we endure are the true enemies of the British people, whose will to live they erode.

3 May 2010 at 11:46  
Anonymous Katy said...


Brown did not call Gillian Duffy 'a woman'. He called her 'that woman'. As has been pointed out above, up here in the north of England (as Brown will know because this persists in Scotland, too) 'that woman' is an insult. 'That lady' is not. There may be a north/south misunderstanding here. I am given to believe that 'dahn sarth' people take the term 'lady' to mean someone put on a pedestal, and is therefore anti-feminist. 'Oop north' we call a spade a shovel, but we call a woman a lady, until she disgraces herself.

3 May 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Bluedog,

An interesting article to be sure. This isn't just England; this is all of Europe. No wonder we are splintering throughout the continent.

3 May 2010 at 16:10  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr D. Singh,

These are indeed scary times in which we live.

3 May 2010 at 16:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

That's right, Lakester91. My view is that it will get worse. The difficulty is that when the 1986 Public Order Act was passed no one imagined that it would be used against Christians for expressing the standard Christian view. If anyone had said hat that Act would be used against Christians - hey would have been ridiculed as demented.

Today the provisions under the 1986 Act are clearly being used against Christians in a sinister way.

For example, let us set aside whether or not a member of the public was caused 'harassment, alrm or distress' when Mr McAlpine said 'Homosexuality is a sin'. Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that it was just the PCSO that heard the comment.

Would that be caught under the 1986 Act?

I think it would. A PCSCO can experience 'harassment, alarm or distress' just as any member of the public - indeed there is case law that says a police officer can.

Well, 'if' that is the case then a police officer, as apparently in this case, can ask any Christian in a public place: do you regard homosexuality as a sin?

If the Christian replies 'Yes'. Then the Chrisian is caught.

3 May 2010 at 16:31  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

What's unbelievable is that this law isn't used to lock the obnoxiously loud drunks of Friday and Saturday evenings in the cells for the night; yet it's used against a man who quietly (it seems) was expressing his opinion.

3 May 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...


You need to understand police logistics and personnel resources.

Each force is likley to have very few personel available on a Friday and Saturday night merely to control public disorder incidents. If they make just one arrest in a town centre (likely to take three officers to make the arrest) then they need to spend a large amount of time in the station processing the detainee.

It is far easier to arrest one man (Dale McAlpine) on a Saturday afternoon - as their are more resources available.

Secondly, in McAlpine's case officers 'up the line' would have been afraid not to arrest for fear of transgressing force policy and damaging their force's reputation before public pressure groups. For example, their Chief Constable could be vilified in the press for failing to protect the gay community.

That in turn would damage his chances of getting promotion to the top cop jobs (West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police forces).

3 May 2010 at 17:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Promotion to the top cop jobs being controlled by the Home Office.

The Home Office is not going to promote someone who does not hold its Left-Liberal values.

Furthermore, the police of tomorrow are unlikley to control riots once each force reaches 35% of officers being female.

Moreover, the officers of the future are more likley to resign. The Socialists have broken the '30 year' commitment. That means experienced officers are unlikely to advise junior officers to use their discretion and not to make an arrest where to do so might not be in the public interest; for example, in McAlpine's case.

This means that more 'innocent' citizens like McAlpine will succeed to the DNA database. His DNA, even if he is innocent, will be on the DNA database for six years.

The effect is to, in this case, silence the Christian.

3 May 2010 at 17:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

How then will Cameron's government respond to to riots?

It will be impelled to call out the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve.

Soldiers, as Northern Ireland proved, make bad cops.

They abuse citizens.

3 May 2010 at 17:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace


3 May 2010 at 17:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...


3 May 2010 at 17:37  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


3 May 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous len said...

It is interesting how quickly the 'thought police'swooped on Gordon for his politically incorrect outburst.
Yet we murder the unborn and no one protests.
Christians who are becoming more and more out of step with our secular governments will also be labelled bigots.
Political Correctness is just a mind control system enforced by law to distort truth and impose a way of thinking in line with what is acceptable to the elite who control us.

3 May 2010 at 17:46  
OpenID manicbeancounter said...

For my own part, I feel quite sorry for there appears to be a divergence between the public and private face of Gordon Brown. Our Prime Minister is a deeply troubled individual. He is astute enough to realise that not only did he get bank regulation wrong, and pensions wrong, but that his justification of structural deficits has left the government finances in their most wretched state for over 30 years. In so doing he knows that public services will have to be cut and then constrained for a generation.
So in private he needs to blow off steam and rage against the world. How better would it be if he knew Christ’s love and forgiveness, rather than hold on to the lust for power and love of spin.
So please pray for Gordon Brown, that he may gain time for reflection and rest.

3 May 2010 at 23:18  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

The clown called Singh is highly entertaining.

4 May 2010 at 09:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older