Translate

Saturday, 31 October 2015

This is Dildoween!

Feminazis don't know the difference between a threat and an expression of opinion

Kate Smurthwaite
Hi, I’m writing an article, I’d like to talk to you, would that be possible? DM me. Kate
Oct 27

Claire Khaw
May I know what this article is about?
Oct 27

Kate Smurthwaite
People who send me abusive tweets. Any explanation as to why you do so?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
I bet every single tweeter has received an abusive tweet at one time or another if they ever tweet about politics.
Oct 28

All I can find of any tweets from me to you is at https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Antfem%20to%3ACruella1&src=typd and there are only two. I would not describe either as being "abusive".

What "abuse" do you remember receiving from me?

I am sure the worst I have ever been guilty of is saying things you disagree with. You really must get out of this "Me, me! I am a victim too" state of mind. This is not feminist liberation, it is reversion to type. Women tend to rely on their victimhood to get their way. It is another exercise of soft power.

The other kind is being so sweet and good and delicate and feminine that men just want instinctively to protect you.
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
So when you've effectively threatened me with violence?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
When have I ever threatened you with violence??

Do please tell me, in case I did ever threaten you with violence, and then, God forbid, FORGOTTEN ALL ABOUT IT. I like to think I would remember if I ever threatened you with violence and if I did actually threaten you with violence and then FORGOT ALL ABOUT IT, I need to get in touch with my memory doctor pronto!

No threats of violence in this tweet at


No threats of violence at https://twitter.com/cruella1/status/554007135978553344 either.


https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/521236074916753408

[Re Kate Smurthwaite's appearance on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m0mxh]


may be closer to your definition of violence, but expressing an opinion on a course of action one does not expect to be acted on by the government before we are both dead is not "threatening with violence"


is neither abusive nor violent.

Where and when will this article be published?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
And you really think that tweets like calling for me to be placed in a scold's bridle are not threatening or violent?
Oct 28

Claire Khaw
Yes, because it is not at all likely very likely that you are going to be put into one, is it?

For a threat of violence to count, it has to be CREDIBLE. How likely am I to change the government from what it is now to one that would put you in a scold's bridle on a scale of 1 out 100?
Oct 28

Kate Smurthwaite
Oh so unlikely threats of violence are ok? Do you not see that these sort of messages are still abusive?
Oct 29

Claire Khaw
 If I want to say things that others may find offensive, then I would have to accept the right of others to say things that I would find offensive. In any case, the police will only act on CREDIBLE THREATS of violence. It is the price of free speech we all have to pay, my dear.

I expressed only an OPINION, not an INTENTION. I am sure you are capable of distinguishing between the two. Abuse should be defined as "You are a %$£*&." Threats should take the form of "I will do X to you."  I merely expressed an OPINION that I neither intended to act upon or expected anyone to do so.

I suggest that this is how you categorise the tweets that offend you, into (1) OPINION YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, (2) THREATS or mere (3) ABUSE.

A curse - eg "I hope your children die of cancer" - is merely an expression of OPINION.


Wednesday, 28 October 2015

Europeans arm themselves to protect themselves against migrant swarm crime wave


Guns Sell Out As Europeans Arm Themselves For War After Treasonous EU Governments Abandon Their Safety And Borders

Many in Europe now wish they had a 2nd Amendment that gave them the right to bear arms.

The situation in Europe underlines the importance to survival of the right to bear arms. If your government deserts the personal and family safety of citizens in favour of foreigners, you are a hapless victim as the video below proves. Only the fact that the man had a weapons stopped the savages from attacking.

EUROPEANS NOW SCRAMBLE FOR GUNS

Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.

A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.

And those arming themselves are primarily women.

“If anyone wants to buy a long gun in Austria right now, too bad for them,” the Czech newscaster says. “All of them are currently sold out.”

He cites the Austrian news outlet Trioler Tageszeitung as the source of his report.

“We cannot complain about lack of demand,” Stephen Mayer, a gun merchant, told Trioler Tageszeitung.

He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes.

“People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”

They are also buying pepper sprays, which Mayer said are in big demand among those who can’t get a gun.

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he recently returned from a gun rights event in Europe, where he sensed a change in attitude toward firearms.

“I just returned from a gun rights meeting in Belgium, and I can attest that all over Europe people now want the means to defend themselves,” Gottlieb told WND. “Self-defense is no longer a dirty word. In countries like Austria, where it is still legal to own a firearm, gun sales are at record levels. I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a Second Amendment.”

More potential new customers are entering the market than ever before, according to the Czech report.

Video: http://news-headlines.co.za/guns-sell-out-as-europeans-arm-themselves-for-war-after-treasonous-eu-governments-abandon-their-safety-and-borders/

Until the refugees started flooding Europe, it was mostly hunters and sport shooters who purchased firearms. Now, people are seeking weapons for self-defense because they are worried about their personal safety. Most have never used a gun before.

So-called “projectile weapons” are available in Austria under two classifications, C and D, which are rifles and shotguns. Every adult Austrian is legally able to apply for a weapons permit but must disclose to the government their reason for wanting to own a gun.

The news outlet then interview a sociologist and an Austrian journalist, both of whom said the weapons purchases were based on unfounded fears about foreign migrants.

‘Something is very wrong here’

The Viennese sociologist, identified only as Mr. Gertler, said no such fears about migrants should ever be published by any Austrian news outlet.

A journalist named Wittinger said “something is very wrong here” if Austrians are buying guns to protect themselves against migrants.

“Shotguns will not, after all, solve any immediate problems, quite the contrary,” he said.

The Czech TV station then reported that Islamists are promising: “We will cut the heads off unbelieving dogs even in Europe.”

“Look forward to it, it’s coming soon!” the Czech newscaster said.

ISIS-trained jihadists are now returning as European citizens or they are trying to infiltrate as migrants. In one propaganda video an ISIS operative informs his comrades back home in Germany to slit the throats of unbelievers in Germany, Czech TV reports.

“Overall, the ministry of interior stated that Germany is in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists but that he does not have any indications of specific threats,” he said.

Bracing for another Islamic invasion

The Czech site reflects awareness of a major event in Western history, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

“Polish King Jan Sibelius defeated the Muslim invaders at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Another Muslim invasion is underway and Austrians are alarmed, hence their run on gun stores,” Pratt told WND. “Women are right to be concerned in view of the Muslim view of women that they are good for raping and little else.”

The Czech TV report cited the Arab Spring as the root cause for the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe.

“More and more, the whole thing is turning into the situation that we will experience the much-touted Arab spring from very close up – right here at home,” the reporter said. “What’s more, many European are alienating large part of their own populace with unfortunate social and multicultural politics, merciless removal of children, unfair seizures and trading on traditional European values and with policies which are usually less friendly toward conservative and traditional native inhabitants and leans toward that portion of inhabitants who have little trouble with globalization and nonchalant liberalization, removal of traditions and Islamization. Yet we will not be able to rely on it, that portion of (population) once the Arab Spring comes here. And that will probably be, as they say, closing the barn after the cows are gone.”

http://news-headlines.co.za/guns-sell-out-as-europeans-arm-themselves-for-war-after-treasonous-eu-governments-abandon-their-safety-and-borders/

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Feminists hoist by their own petard when they say men cannot be women

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287810/Germaine-Greer-accuses-Caitlyn-Jenner-wanting-steal-limelight-female-Kardashians.html

The petition, which was started on Change.org by Rachael Melhuish, women's officer at Cardiff University students' union, alleged Greer has 'demonstrated misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether'.

1. You cannot be guilt of misogyny if the people you are supposed to hate are not even women.

2.  Someone born with a penis can never be a woman and someone born with a vagina can never be a man. The reasons are rooted in biology. Males have XY chromosomes and females have XX chromosomes.

3.  Saying someone who is not a woman is not a woman is not hating them. It is only telling the truth and telling the truth may cause people who want to deny the truth to hate you.

4. Why is the state or anyone telling us whom we may not hate?

5. Telling people they cannot hate you is very likely to make them hate you.




The question Kirsty Wark should have asked Germaine Greer:

"If gender is indeed a construct then surely a man doesn't need to have a vagina to become a woman? He just needs to feel that he is a woman and have the outward appearance of a woman convincing enough to make other men think he is a woman and/or want to have sex with him under the impression that he is female."

On this matter, it would appear that the trans have the upper hand in this argument, if it is the case that gender is merely a construct ie our assigned gender roles are imposed on us by society which we are free to transcend at will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender_difference

That would have been the really interesting question for Kirsty Wark to ask, so it was really too bad she missed this golden opportunity. It would be fun to hear Julie Bindel attempt to answer it too.


Tuesday, 20 October 2015

Robert Plomin is denounced by the left and feminists who hate his ideas

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2013/07/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/


I predict feminists will have fits of the vapours over this and denounce Robert Plomin for his "dangerous ideas", especially if they are sluts, Slut Single Mothers with variously fathered bastards like Suzanne Moore. All sluts are by definition stupid, and all men who refuse to denounced sluts are MCSFs - Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers. That would be the majority of voters in the West, which is now dying a well-deserved death. This is because sluts make less rational reproductive decisions than lower animals. Western governments knowing this, but refusing to correct this, demonstrates conclusively that neither feminism nor democracy is morally or intellectually defensible.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/

Should feminist mother be allowed to deprive conservative father of access to their children over a political disagreement?

https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/secret-trial/


Indeed, a malicious Muslim ex-wife could say that her ex-husband is a Radical Muslim, plans to join ISIS and take their children, urging the court to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The answer to both questions is NO because otherwise a malicious wife could deprive her husband of his children over a difference in opinion about gay marriage, abortion or any other policy that departs from government policy. This means fathers in effect have no rights over their children at all. If this is the kind of society the British judiciary is happy to live in and perpetuate, then we will all know by the end of the three-day trial in December 2015.


Would this make a difference?

I would say yes, because a married couple with legitimate children should have more rights over each other and their children than unmarried parents over their illegitimate offspring. That is, if the government is minded to support the institution of marriage. Western governments, drunk on the sexual licence promoted by feminism have been instrumental in desecrating the institutions of marriage and family for decades. They now run Big Sister government and their voters, also addicted to extramarital sex as an inalienable human right, seem happy to go along with this.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/


But not all corruption is financial or money-motivated. Spiritual corruption is even more dangerous as it erodes the character of people. Once people’s concerns do not go beyond themselves and their own feelings, a culture is dead. 

Monday, 19 October 2015

The admin of the Facebook page of UKIP Local and me




https://www.facebook.com/ukiplocal?fref=nf

Claire Khaw

Are you sure it is a good idea to use a dead white male in the leave campaign?

UKIP Local

Why does it make the message any less true?

Claire Khaw

You think a message being borne by the dead or elderly and dying men will have any resonance with the voters of the 21st century who do not already agree with you? It just reveals the cluelessness of the leave campaign.
May I know when this video was made? Last century?

These comments have been deleted and I have been predictably disabled from posting by some elderly Facebook poster. These old codgers and crones can't take any criticism at all.

Sunday, 18 October 2015

The Bible is obviously more extreme than the Koran. Why won't Christian chauvinists admit this?


Professor Charmley is a Catholic academic.





Monday, 12 October 2015

Keir Starmer's "victim's law" has undermined the requirement for a criminal standard of proof to convict




There is an easy way to solve this problem.

All complainants should satisfy the condition of being able to stand up in court and satisfying the criminal burden of proof.

The civil balance of probability is 50+%.

The criminal standard of proof is 75+%.

If you have a complaint ask yourself these questions:

1. Were there any witnesses or is it uncorroborated testimony?

2. Are they still alive?

4. Can you get hold of them?

5. Are they of good character?

6. Are they credible witnesses?

7. Might they have an axe to grind with the person who are thinking of accusing?

8. If there were no witnesses and your testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone else, do you have any other evidence against the person you considering accusing?

If your answer to 7 is YES and NO to all the other questions FORGET IT.

 If you still go ahead you should be done for wasting police time.

Policemen who proceed with this kind of dodgy evidence should be found guilty of malicious prosecution.

DPPs Keir Starmer and Alison Saunders should be forced to apologise for causing so much injustice by diluting the requirement of the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probability in sexual assault cases.

Alison Saunders should resign for allowing this nonsense to carry on under her watch and immediately review Rolf Harris's case.

Keir Starmer should be named and shamed for his "victim's law" which started all this nonsense because it undermined the principle of the criminal standard of of guilt beyond reasonable doubt which has resulted in so many probable miscarriages of justice.  Keir Starmer heads Labour's victim treatment review 

Degrees of radicalisation


One then has to consider whether state-sponsored terrorism is always evil, if it is indeed the case that one man's terrorist is another man' freedom-fighter.


All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists.
All sluts are women, not not all women are sluts.

It is possible to be a man without being a rapist.
It is possible to be a woman without being a slut.
It is possible to be radicalised without going on to become a terrorist.
It is possible to be a terrorist without being Muslim.

Questions for MPs:


  1. Does radicalisation only apply to Muslims?
  2. Would you say that Anders Breivik was radicalised?
  3. If your answer is NO, is it because he is not Muslim?
  4. Have you considered changing UK foreign policy to deal with the problem of terrorism? 
  5. Have you considered why Muslims might get upset, angry and violent if you bomb, invade and impose regime-change on Muslim countries for no good reason that they can see?
  6. Have you considered having an honest debate about UK foreign policy?
  7. Is the reason why you refuse to have a full and frank debate about UK foreign policy is because the UK does not have an independent foreign policy and/or that it is in fact indefensible?
  8. Is the reason why the UK does not have an independent foreign policy because it is a vassal state of the US?
  9. Have you considered whether now might be the time to leave NATO so as to break it up and make the Americans withdraw into isolationism, leaving the world a more peaceful place?
  10. Have you considered that the possibility that US foreign policy is actually insane?
  11. Have you made the link between destroying Muslim countries at the behest of Washington for no good reason and the migrant swarms heading your way?
  12. Have you heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
  13. Have you considered that the victims of the Wolfowitz Doctrine ie Muslim countries toppled by the West might wish to object to it in the strongest possible terms and use terrorism to do so?
  14. If you are an MP and have not heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, should you be whipped by your party into voting to bomb Syria?
  15. If you are a Labour MP, are you grateful that Jeremy Corbyn is allowing you a free vote on whether to bomb Syria?
  16. If you are a Tory MP, dare you demand a free vote for Tory MPs over voting on whether to bomb Syria if Labour MPs are getting a free vote?
  17. If not, why not?
  18. Is it cos you are too scared or stupid to challenge UK foreign policy of "bomb first and wring our hands later"?
  19. Does UK foreign policy promote the British national interest?
  20. How would you define the national interest?
  21. What is the point of supporting a foreign policy that provokes terrorism that you cannot explain to your constituents?
  22. Does it make sense to support a foreign policy that provokes terrorism and responding to the terrorism you provoke with increasing restrictions on the liberties of your citizens?
  23. Do you know why so many citizens in NATO member states like, admire and support Putin, as Iain Dale said on the Sky Press Review?
  24. Do you know why non-establishment politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump admire and like Putin?






Because sane people can understand what Putin is doing, why he is doing it and seeing that what he is doing works while explaining current government policy both domestic and foreign is like trying to explain the motivations of an imbecile or a lunatic, that's why we like Putin so much.


Paul Craig Roberts explains the evil of US foreign policy.



Claire Khaw championed in vain Helen Goodman's right to speculate on Jeremy Hunt's wife's reasons for coming to England

My tweet in response to Helen Goodman's asking "If China is so great why did Jeremy Hunt's wife come to England?"on Sunday evening 11 October 2015.


Deborah Orr:

"Of course, what Hunt admires about China and the US is not the superior character of its citizens, but the fear of absolute penury that forces them to survive on the wages that the market declares them to be worth. Self-respect, for him, is simply acceptance of the low financial value that capitalism places on your time and your skills. Self-respect, in Hunt’s book, is actually respect for him, for the system that he champions and for the judgments that system makes on you."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3qyw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cambridgeshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8530000/8530168.stm




Feminism, the welfare state, and insane foreign policy that provokes terrorism from Muslim radicals are trashing the UK.




Sunday, 11 October 2015

Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS

God, marriage and Western civilisation

The Roman birth rate fell when the Roman Empire was declining and falling. A falling birth rate is a signifier of a decline in the ability and numbers of married men available to exercise good husbandry over their women.

Make no mistake, a lower birth rate is the consequence of degeneracy, and degeneracy is the consequence of prioritising the right to have recreational sex over the duty to have legitimate offspring as well as producing a heir and a spare. Degenerate societies are invariably senescent and effeminate.

Even if we all replaced ourselves and all married and had a son and a daughter, women would eventually predominate because women live longer than men, unless this is dealt with using sati - the Hindu tradition of widow burning.

Those who are concerned about immigration should note that in Calais there are hardly any young people and certainly more old women than old men. This explains the inability of Calais to repel invaders.

The purpose of marriage is to have legitimate offspring, so that the quality of the next generation is maintained and not worse than the current one, and therefore the best they possibly can be. This duty to have legitimate offspring is linked to the attempt by a nation's government to maintain its ability to fight a successful defensive war.

While there are some who blame the increasing feminisation of society to material causes such as oestrogen in the water, feminisation is caused by policies tolerating extramarital sex. Extramarital sex is of course forbidden in both the Bible and the Koran which treats it as a sexual offence attracting corporal and even capital punishment.

We can most easily understand God by knowing what His laws are, and we can most easily please Him by obeying them and divining their purpose. Even if we do not really believe in the literal existence of God, we should have no difficulty identifying the evils His laws were intended to discourage and prevent ie degeneracy. The problem of degeneracy will always remain as long as the next generation require sexual reproduction to come into being.

We are degenerate if we are morally, materially, intellectually and physically inferior to our parents. If we are legitimate but our offspring are illegitimate, we are degenerate. If we are gay and cannot bring ourselves to marry a spouse of the opposite sex with whom to have legitimate offspring, then we are also degenerate.

God if He exists intended for us to obey His laws and rewards those who most faithfully and rationally obey His laws with success in warfare. It is the Koran that states His laws most briefly and clearly compared to the Old and New Testament.

Only Christian and Western chauvinism prevents degenerate politicians who have been marinating in porn and morally corrupting feminism for decades. This degeneracy they already suffer from also prevents them from acknowledging that their society is degenerate. This means they cannot bring themselves to discuss, let alone implement policies that would bring about the moral regeneration of the West because democratic politicians already know that the overwhelming majority of their voters do not wish to give up what they regard as their inalienable human right to have extramarital sex and are too cowardly to persuade them otherwise.

The Abrahamic God is also the Roman God of War as well as the synthesis of the deities of the Greek and Roman pantheon. While Mars was the Roman God of War, Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of Wisdom and War. In the end both the Greeks and Romans broke their own rules. The Greeks who prided themselves on their reason lost their reason when they succumbed to ruinous wars and warmongering, and the Romans who prided themselves on their hatred of kings and autocrats in time began to worship their emperors.

Great civilisations breaking the rules that made them great are of course well advanced in their journey on the road to perdition. Liberalism is no longer about free speech and rational discourse but about gay marriage and labelling anyone opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage as extremists and potential terrorists. Gay marriage is really no more than sanctifying a sexual offence, and analogous to repealing criminal laws to "solve" the problem of rising crime.

The West has now strayed so far from the baseline of morality that it has redefined both the institutions of family and marriage for the purposes of making their perversions legitimate in the eyes of their law. It is laughable that a family is now defined as capable of existing in any form other than children and their biological parents. The right to marry has now been extended to couples patently incapable of sexual reproduction with each other.

Gay marriage is conclusive evidence of degeneracy because its existence proclaims the government's intention of conferring equality on couples obviously not capable of sexual reproduction with each other and only interested in recreational sex with those who have taken the trouble of getting married before having legitimate children staying together to bring them up. As Aristotle said, the greatest injustice is treating unequal things equally.

Those who don't respect the rules of traditional marriage are invariably degenerate and will eventually defeated by people who do see the benefits of marriage and family and the necessity of enforcing a system of laws that protects these institutions.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Will Panorama succeed in stopping the witch-hunt on elderly and dead white men of the establishment?

THE CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF
THAT PANORAMA PROGRAMME

"Mark" looks gay and is the most compelling interviewee. He was the one abused in the Grafton Close care home by the owner of it and his friend the Catholic priest. He has never been to Elm Guest House. It was in his own care home where the abuse took place.

He was a pretty boy, small for his age. He and another boy were the owner's favourites.

Man who worked at Elm Guest House briefly in the 1980s didn't recall any high profile visitors. He said he would have recognised him.

Chris Fay - the old man who insisted he had seen the compromising photographs of Leon Brittan in an apron was previously convicted for fraud connected with shares.

Peter Saunders appears to trust the CPS which is run by an unashamed feminazi implicitly.

But then Peter Saunders is from the National Association of People Abused in Childhood.

Lord MacDonald former DPP 2003 - 2008 speaks out against these police investigations and doubts their impartiality.

No reports of murders or runnings over of schoolboys in Kingston at the time.

http://barristerblogger.com/2014/11/16/exaro-news-playing-dangerous-game-paedophile-murder-story/

" ... and a first name and .... "


"David':
"I could never be 100% sure it were Dolphin Square, not really, no. I can only be ... I can only be sure about ... I can only think I'm sure ... in my mind if people say 'Yes, you're right, it is, it is Dolphin Square, so really it came from other people, not from me, because I never said properly back in 1990, being honest, I never said Dolphin Square." 
What about the man 'David' identified as one of his abusers Leon Brittan?

"The surname came out of Chris Fay's mouth, and I just went along with it. I identified him with a photograph, but there again, he were a well-known MP and I might have seen him on TV through the years and stuff and I might have just gotten confused."
The police interviewed David for 50 hours but didn't pursue the case. They didn't consider Darren's evidence to be significant either.

Then a WOMAN called Jane accused Leon Brittan about an alleged incident in 1967. She claimed she had been raped in his basement flat; Leon Brittain lived in a top floor flat. Tom Watson took on her case even though she wasn't one of his constituents. All who could have corroborated her evidence contradicted it.

Watson says the evidence he gave to the police has resulted in three successful prosecutions. Appeal, appeal!

Ian McFadyen who was sexually abused and went to the same prep school as Francis Wheen, Deputy of Private Eye says:

"Do I think some people have used us a step politically upwards? Yes, I do."

Ends with Peter Spindler saying they all can't be making it up.

Lord MacDonald criticises Tom Watson's risky behaviour.


I know most people want to think they did it, and would happily punish them even if they actually knew they didn't do it. That is how much politicians are hated and held in contempt. This is something they should reflect on as they go about their business.