The Booker Prize

If anyone is eligible for this prize it must surely be he with the forename of Christopher. For yonks, his column in the Sunday Telegraph has dissected the nonsense that politician’s emit coupled with what passes for news in the MSM.

In tomorrow’s column in the Sunday Telegraph two sentences – one a question, the other a statement – lay bare the fact that we the people of this country are lied to, misled and generally taken for idiots – which unfortunately, in respect of the latter, we appear to be.

On the subject of the same-sex marriage bill Booker asks:

“But why weren’t we told more honestly and openly why it has all happened?”

On the question of our energy policy, he makes a statement that is not just pertinent to that policy but one which is pertinent to every policy that our politicians pursue:

“We need to wake up to just how dangerous a game they are playing with our future.”

By that question and by that statement Christopher Booker has shown that the sooner the demands of the Harrogate Agenda become known, the sooner they are explained and thus become accepted, the better for this country and especially where democracy per se is concerned.

Just saying…………


8 Responses

  1. thespecialone says:

    The majority of the loathesome pile of crap in Westminster will have “researchers” reading Booker’s column and those “researchers” may or may not pass on the truth. But hey, when was the truth important to the political class?

  2. Peter Melia says:

    Doesn’t the final phrase of the EU oath refer to loss of perks and pensions?

  3. A K Haart says:

    I don’t know what we’d do without people like Booker. It’s worrying to think how few there are like him.

  4. graham wood says:

    Quite agree about the value of both Booker and North.
    On the issue of SSM. Have you noticed that government ministers have dropped use of this term for the more favoured, and loaded, “equal marriage”?
    Quite deliberate of course, and will deceive the gullible.
    The ONLY reason for SSM put forward by government ministers rests upon the false “equality” argument (there are minor additional absurdities such as SSM would “strengthen marriage”). Thus they perpetuated the myth that the redefinition of marriage is somehow a re-balancing towards “equal” marriage.
    It now transpires that it is anything but equal because:

    1. It would not necessarily, as for normal marriage, include any committment to fidelity and a lifelong indissoluble union.

    2.SSM cannot of necessity include a legal or a biological provision of consummation. Such a “union” by definition would be barren and sterile

    3. SSM has no provison for separation or divorce on the grounds of adultery – as by law enjoined for heterosexual couples. (homosexuals are known to be the most promiscuous group above all others in western societies.)

    4. By definition SSM cannot fulfill one of the most important essentials of normal marriage (except by intervention of one or more third party), namely the ability to beget and raise children in families.

    5. SSM would be a genderless union – unknown in any society or culture past or present. Therefore not marriage in any sense, since all species reproduce through the biological union of male and female.

    6. Likely participants in SSM are known to be a very tiny minority of an existing minority of people in the UK. (less than 1%). By contrast normal and exclusively heterosexual union is the experience of countless millions of people.
    Not much equality there then.

    One cannot have totally different sets of rules for those who are ‘equally’ married, and by so doing entrench REVERSE discrimination.
    By definition therefore if homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in the relevant sense, then homosexual ‘marriage’ is itself a form of unjust privilege for a tiny minority.

    Government is only just beginning to wake up to the legal can of works that SSM is spewing out!
    Back to top

    • david says:

      Nice summation gw. You talk of a can of worms – but what policy has any government introduced that has not been a can of worms?

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012