Freedom of speech is an ulitmate ideal. A cornerstone of true democracy. The benchmark by which nations are judged.
And the only thing standing between me and a prison cell.

England allows free speech, in virutally every circimstance, unless that speech is inflammatory or inciting to violence or other crimes.
America has free speech in its constitution. Most European countries allow such a liberty. North Korea doesn’t. There you don’t even get to choose your own haircut any longer, the President does it for you. Though in exchange for Kim Jung Un telling barbers to restrict the number of different hairstyles allowed, the North Koreans get plenty of other rights.

They get the right to be impoverished. The right to do exactly as their trumped up little shit tells them to do whenever he tells them to do it. They get the right to be run by an insane and ugly little tyrant who controls their atomic weapons and tests his regular missiles and artillery on his neighbours.

Russia does freedom of speech along with the corresponding freedom to die/disappear/end up in Siberian gulag.

So what about limits? There have to be limits. We allow monster raving loonies to stand for Parliament. And long may they waste their deposit money in doing so. We allow football managers to posture, lie, make excuses and wind each other up, but only those very few who can speak a little English. And right at the edge of our tolerance we even allow UKIP to spout their right wing xenophibic rubbish.

Yet now, the MP who chairs the Commons Science and Technology Committee, one Andrew Miller, has said that climate change sceptics should not be given air time to spout their views. Thus the BBC are wrong to interview them without some kind of ‘nutter alert!!!!!!’ before they speak. Just something subtle like: “WARNING; THIS PERSON IS AN ARSEHOLE WHO KNOWS NOT WHAT HE SAYS”. And they shouldn’t be devoting so much time to the dissenting few.
Well, Andrew Miller, I think we also need a ‘tosser alert’ whenever you speak.

The climate is changing, there is no denying that; it is a scientific fact, according to statistics, which never lie. Unless they do. But the question of to what extent adjusting ‘man’s’ evil ways will effect this phenomenon is indeed open to debate. Vast debate. Much like Darwin’s theory of evolution was denied as so much insanity by the church and the then Parliamentarians. Much like Galileo being imprisoned for suggesting that the world was round in the face of populist thought. So now those who disagree with ‘the consensus on climate change’ are to be ridiculed, pilloried, banned from speaking by this new, Labourite Joseph Stalin.

The dinosaurs didn’t hold a debate on their protracted and sustained effect on mammals. They just ate them. That was called ‘evolution’. No-one suggested they change their diet from their 9-a-day bison habit to something more sustainable. No-one told them to drive round in a Toyota fucking Prius. They were dinosaurs. For 400 million years they just did. Who was gonna argue?

Well we’re modern, we’re post-technical, we’re advanced. Phah. But we still exhale carbon dioxide (you should hold your breath you selfish, planet-killing bastard!!!), we fart methane, we fly on planes, we drive cars. We cut down trees so Ikea have something to flat-pack. We live. But putting up 7 thousand wind farms in Trafalgar Square is not going to make one bit of difference to anything.

Flat earth? You bet.

Happy wednesday

A xxxx