• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

C

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so? - Telegraph

Perhaps Jacqui Smith thinks that it "sends out a signal" about the kind of Britain we want. On the contrary, it reinforces a culture – created by this Labour Government, and its addiction to political correctness – where people are increasingly confused and panic-stricken about what they can say and what is forbidden, a culture where a police officer can seriously think he is right to arrest a protester for calling a police horse "gay". Our courts and tribunals are clogged with people claiming to have suffered insults of one kind or another, and a country once famous for free speech is now hysterically and expensively sensitive to anything that could be taken as a slight.
Click to expand...
Nice to read at least one British politician who understands that political correctness is evil.

I especially liked the part where Michael Savage's radio broadcast very likely did not violate any British law.
 
I wonder if the libs over there will charge that politician with a hate crime or hate speech for defending Savage.
 
I think O'Reilly interviewed a woman who said Savage was added to the Brits' list because they needed to add some non-Muslim white guys to offset the heavy representation of Muslim undesirables on it.
 
I think liberal ideas make it impossible that the "poor little victims" can be wrong.So they have to add some white people because they are racist and you are racist if you treat people differently because of their race.
 
On the one hand, this is getting into "thought police" territory.

On the other hand, it's Michael Savage, and I wouldn't let him in my house, either.
 
bhkad said:
I think O'Reilly interviewed a woman who said Savage was added to the Brits' list because they needed to add some non-Muslim white guys to offset the heavy representation of Muslim undesirables on it.
Click to expand...


As dorky as that sounds.
It is more likely then not in today's loon world.
 
If the US now unbans Amy Whinehouse then maybe we can talk about it :2razz: And you claim this is about PC and the US bans Amy Whinehouse.. I see.....
 
PeteEU said:
We as in a general term of course.. time to take of your nationalistic glasses for once.
Click to expand...

Your implied that if the US did this "we" would return the favour, but if your not British then what does it have to do with you.

This is matter of national sovereignty, Britain has the right to decide who comes to it.
 
Wessexman said:
Your implied that if the US did this "we" would return the favour, but if your not British then what does it have to do with you.
Click to expand...

/shrug you see conspiracy at every turn it seems.

This is matter of national sovereignty, Britain has the right to decide who comes to it.
Click to expand...

No ****, at least we can agree on it. All I wanted to show was the typical hypocrisy involved here. People are up in arms over Savage and yet their own government bans millions from its shores and a public face is Amy Whinehouse.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
/shrug you see conspiracy at every turn it seems.
Click to expand...
No you quite clearly implied you could speak for us Brits. Then when I object I'm told not to be naturalistic. If you couple this with your username and agenda one can quickly see a pattern.

No ****, at least we can agree on it. All I wanted to show was the typical hypocrisy involved here. People are up in arms over Savage and yet their own government bans millions from its shores and a public face is Amy Whinehouse.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
PeteEU said:
If the US now unbans Amy Whinehouse then maybe we can talk about it :2razz: And you claim this is about PC and the US bans Amy Whinehouse.. I see.....
Click to expand...

!

“They only released them after they signed a form, which they were told was a release form. It was in Norwegian. It was actually a confession, so this is being dealt with now by the Norwegian authorities and the British Consulate because the ramifications of that are that she now can’t get into the States and she was meant to go next week.”
Click to expand...
Amy Winehouse denied US visa after cannabis arrest Celebrity gossip, news and pictures on Fametastic

LONDON - Amy Winehouse's work visa was approved after all, but the State Department's change of heart Friday wasn't in time for her to make the trip to Sunday's Grammy Awards.

Instead, the rehabbing British singer will go ahead with the backup plan that was concocted while her visa was still in limbo: a live performance, via satellite, from a studio in London where she will also accept any awards that may come her way. Winehouse and her acclaimed "Back to Black" album are nominated for Grammys in six categories.
Click to expand...
Amy Winehouse gets her visa, but not in time for her to make the trip for the Grammy Awards

:2wave:

Whatever the comparison might have been between this and the UK banning Savage's speech is long gone.
You can take solace in the fact It bothers me more that I even knew enough about Amy Winehouse to shoot you down. :2fog:
 
Triad said:
!


Amy Winehouse denied US visa after cannabis arrest Celebrity gossip, news and pictures on Fametastic


Amy Winehouse gets her visa, but not in time for her to make the trip for the Grammy Awards

:2wave:

Whatever the comparison might have been between this and the UK banning Savage's speech is long gone.
You can take solace in the fact It bothers me more that I even knew enough about Amy Winehouse to shoot you down. :2fog:
Click to expand...

Did not shoot me down one bit. She was denied at first, and thanks to the usual pressure in such cases it was over turned. How about the millions of HIV sufferers then? Or the million or more on the no fly list? Funny how they are not mentioned but when it comes to one of your own on the right then it is "OMFGS!"... where was the outrage when Snop Dog was banned from various European countries?
 
Rememerber a girl from my university that wanted to study one semester in USA a couple of years ago. She send in her student visa application, months before hand. She heard nothing from the embassy, called and ask, the only answer she got it was till process, she phoned some more times and got the same answer. She didn't get a flat denial of her application our even told to come for a interview, they just drag out the proceeding to it was to late for her to go.

That at the same time me other sweds got our visa very quickly and easy. So that was her big crime? Well she was from Iran, but lived her entire life in Sweden, gone back one time to meet relatives their, also she had been on a vacation trip to Tunisia. That yes she understod that it could be some problem with the visa because of the reaction after 9/11. But what she couldn't understand why do it that way? Why didn't they call her to an interview so she could answer some more question? Why didn't they just deny her visa, if they their too suspicious? That it actually nicer this they that Savage don't have to live in false hope over the possibility to go to UK.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Did not shoot me down one bit. She was denied at first, and thanks to the usual pressure in such cases it was over turned. How about the millions of HIV sufferers then? Or the million or more on the no fly list? Funny how they are not mentioned but when it comes to one of your own on the right then it is "OMFGS!"... where was the outrage when Snop Dog was banned from various European countries?
Click to expand...

Well lets see the "ban" was almost non-existant it stemmed mostly from criminal action in of all places Norway.

Her "speech" was never silenced.

So failing to make even a remotely apt comparison you instead dismiss the lack of any comparison and throw out some lines to dismiss that lack.

Not only shot down but now running around on fire...and your USA hate is exposed.
 
Last edited:
Jacqui will soon be on job seekers allowance.
Besides, the MP's have a slightly bigger issue than this one person.
 
PeteEU said:
If the US now unbans Amy Whinehouse then maybe we can talk about it :2razz: And you claim this is about PC and the US bans Amy Whinehouse.. I see.....
Click to expand...

she is not banned. She was not granted a travel visa in time for the grammy's, but eventually was given one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom