Over-compensating by turning pro-Israeli
My old psychology dictionary of terms informs me that overcompensation can be ‘a Freudian defence mechanism, whereby an individual attempts to offset weakness in an area of their lives by focusing on another aspect of it.
I thought back to those English Defence League marches, where 2 things are promised every time; that an Israeli flag will appear to show solidarity with Israelis over Muslims (like it was a simple choice between the two), and a couple of beered up scummies will produce the fascist salute (for examples see here and here).
It came up again when Nick Griffin stumbled over his words on Question Time tell the audience that his party was the only one to give full support to Israel and their right to exist during its clashes with Gaza, or more precisely:
[National Socialists in UK] loathe me because I have brought the British National Party from being, frankly, an anti-Semitic and racist organisation into being the only political party which, in the clashes between Israel and Gaza, stood full square behind Israel’s right to deal with Hamas terrorists.
Right-wing attempts to legitimise BNP policies
The BNP’s Question Time appearance has led to two predictable responses from the right.
First, they’ve been whinging that Nick Griffin was singled out by the audience. After declaring for years that ‘no platform’ was wrong and it was better to expose the BNP publicly, most now seem to think even exposing them on national TV is a step too far.
Apparently if the BBC invite a Holocaust denier and avowed racist on to TV we should just ignore their past and talk about his views on the Royal Mail strike. Pathetic. Nick Griffin repeatedly lied during QT. Why aren’t right-whingers talking about that?
The second predictable response is to play up a ’surge’ in BNP support following the programme.
A Telegraph poll following BBC-QT said this:
The survey found that 22 per cent of voters would ’seriously consider’ voting for the BNP in a future local, general or European election. This included four per cent who said they would ‘definitely’ consider voting for the party, three per cent who would ‘probably’ consider it, and 15 per cent who said they were ‘possible’ BNP voters.”
The 4-3% is not unexpected and is within the margin of error for the 2% that BNP voting intentions lie along.
continue reading… »
Spot the difference…
The Daily Mail’s support of the BNP policies is descending into parody. Sod subtle machinations, spotting their strategy is as easy as piss.
Step 1. Its top columnists write entire tirades about the immigrants swamping the country, “ZaNu Labour” inflicting social engineering upon Britain, the nasty Muslims, the welfare state and all the rest.
Step 2. As suspicions of inflammatory content begin to surface, any of the above mentioned opinionators writes a token word or two against “the racist BNP”- better if garnished with adjectives such as vile, ogre and odious. Because: how can you say that the Daily Mail is racist when they’ve just badmouthed the BNP?
Step 3. See Step 1, only more virulent, with three quarters of the paper’s content resembling Nick Griffin’s shopping list.
Look no further than today’s paper for evidence. While the entire country saluted the way Question Time exposed the fascists’ appalling ideas, Nick Griffin complained that:
- the BBC is “hard left“;
- Question Time was “a lynch mob“;
- The programme should have been filmed elsewhere as London is “not my country anymore” and [the audience was] “dominated by ethnic minorities“.
Did Griffin lie about his father’s ‘war’ record?
On last night’s Question Time, Nick Griffin twice made the claim that his father, former Conservative councillor Edgar Griffin, had served in the RAF during World War II.
Griffin’s exact comments were:
Finally my father was in the RAF during the second World War while Mr Straw’s father was in prison for refusing to fight Adolf Hitler.
“Mr Straw was attacking me and I’ve been relentlessly attacked over the last few days, my father was in the RAF during the second World War, I am not a Nazi. I never have been.”
However, yesterday’s Suffolk Evening Star carried an interview with Griffin’s father in which its stated that:
Mr Griffin, who moved to Suffolk shortly after Nick was born in Hertfordshire in 1959, joined the Conservative Party when he returned from two years national service with the RAF in India.
Although the reintroduction of conscription into the armed forces was reintroduced, in 1939, by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act service during World War II, and in any armed conflict, is always referred to as either ‘War Service’ or ‘Military Service’.
The term ‘National Service’ did not come into use until 1948, three years after the end of World War II and ceased to be used, at all, with the end of conscription in 1960.
If, as the Evening Star’s article suggests, Griffin’s father undertook National Service, rather than War Service or Military Service, then he cannot have served in the RAF in World War II.
UPDATE – THE PLOT THICKENS
First things first – we can rule out the suggestion that Griffin’s father served in the RAF in India under, specifically, National Service (i.e. later than 1947)
The one concrete fact that I have been able to establish is Edgar Griffin was in the UK on 13 May 1947, the date on which he was invested a Freemason in Barnet.
Given that RAF AHQ India was disbanded on 15 August 1947, this would preclude Edgar Griffin serving in India during the period of National Service, which would indicate that he was in India at some point during the period from 1945-47.
As far as wartime RAF activity in India, by the beginning of 1945 the majority of RAF India squadrons were operating from forward bases in Burma, but for two squadrons based on Cox’s Bazaar and one base at Kumira, near Chittagong in what is, today Bangladesh.
What we also have, via Cath in comments, is a 2001 article from the Independent which gives this description of Edgar Griffin’s time in the RAF.
Edgar Griffin served in the dying days of the British Raj in India, in charge of 20 local aircraft mechanics. “I got on very well with them,” he says. “The Indian ladies also used to invite us to tea and were most kind to us.” How, he asks, could he possibly be racist with such a splendid record of racial integration?
On the basis of that description, if Griffin was in India with the RAF before the end of WWII (August 1945) then its highly unlikely that he was stationed with any of the RAF squadrons that played an active part in the final stages of the Burma Campaign.
The brief picture that the Indy paints is, however, consistent with the ‘Indianisation’ of those elements of RAF AHQ India that were due to be transferred to the Royal Indian Air Force on India becoming an independent state in August 1947., during which British personnel trained their Indian counterparts to take over control of the airforce.
Now it gets very interesting because this helps us to date Griffin’s service in the RAF in India specifically to 1946 – before that things remain uncertain – which could place Griffin’s father into some very interesting historical events.
Churchill, as is well known, was implacably opposed to Indian independence and even after the 1945 General Election, the new Attlee government resisted moves towards independence.
This stance began to change in January 1946, when RAF servicemen stationed in India mutinied – they actually went on strike – in protest at the slow pace of demobilisation and the use of British shipping facilities for transporting American G.I.s, although papers released later, under the 30 year rule indicate that the government were deliberately keeping troops in India to control civil unrest should this break out in connection with the independence movement.
This mutiny/strike helped to precipitate the Bombay Mutiny of February 1946 which, in turn, led to the British Cabinet Mission 0f 1946 and to an agreement that India would become an independent state in 1947.
The Indianisation of the facilities and aircraft of RAF AHQ India could therefore not have started until May 1946.
That leaves a couple of sizeable but as yet unanswered questions.
Edgar Griffin was born in 1922, and would have been 17 years old at the start of WWII and ordinarily would have been eligible for conscription at the age of 18 unless he declared himself a conscientious objector, as Jack Straw’s father did, entered a reserved occupation – and many conscientious objectors took that route out of military service to avoid the stigma of being openly labelled a ‘conshie’ – became a clergyman, or was deemed medically or mentally unfit for service.
By 1942, when he would have been 21, he would have been eligible not only for conscription but for a posting overseas.
Yet, it would appear that Edgar Griffin may no have entered military service until 1945 – so what exactly was he doing during the other five years of the war when he could easily have been called up?
Then there’s business of his actual service history, where Griffin claims to have served for two years but was also definitely back in England by May 1947 and could, therefore, have left India no later than April 1947 in order to make the four week journey, by sea, via the Suez canal.
If we take this two years as accurate, then Edgar Griffin must have been in India by April 1945 at the latest (which means that he did manage to serve in the RAF for all of four months of WWII) but also that he must have been stationed in India in January 1946, during the time of the RAF mutiny, which began at an base near Karachi but, according to a Channel 4 Secret History documentary broadcast in 1996, spread to 60 bases, including bases in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma and Singapore – the Air Ministry, however, only ever admitted to 22 bases having gone on strike.
So was Edgar Griffin, perhaps, one of the RAF mutineers?
Right now, we can’t be sure because we lack access to the kind of military records that would enable us to fill in the blanks although what we can say is that Griffin’s my dad was in the RAF jibe at Jack Straw looks likely to be considerably less impressive, once the facts are known, than Nick Griffin would like us to believe.
Edgar Griffin was certainly not a pilot, does not appear to have seen service anywhere near the front-line, even if he was stationed in India while the Burma campaign was still under way and may even have taken part in the second largest mutiny in the history of the British Armed Forces, one topped only by the Indian rebellion of 1857.
NATIONAL SERVICE
To reiterate the point about the date on which National Service began the British Armed Force and National Service website notes that:
The requirement for a peacetime force larger than that made possible by purely voluntary recruitment led the post-war Labour Government to move towards establishing a national service system in 1946. The National Service Act was passed in July 1947 after considerable opposition from some Labour and Liberal politicians. The Act was to come into force at the beginning of 1949. The Act initially required a period of one year to be served in the Armed Forces followed by a liability for a possible five years in the Reserve. Financial crises, the advent of the Cold War and the Malaya emergency led to the National Service Amendment Act in December 1948, increasing the period of service to 18 months. This enabled National Servicemen to be used more efficiently and effectively, particularly overseas.
The demands of the Korean War (1950-1953) led to the length of service being extended to two years, surpassing even the Service Chiefs’ original wishes. Liability to further service in the Reserve was reduced with each of these extensions. The period of service remained at two years until the end of National Service.
So the earliest date at which Griffin’s father could have joined the RAF under National Service, and served two years, was around 1950.
How much will the BNP vote drop by?
For many years, people have argued that if only the BNP were taken on and debated against in public, they would be exposed and their support would collapse. We can now start to do a bit of an evaluation of how this approach is working.
In 2007, a team of debating champions, by their own fantastically modest account, defeated Nick Griffin in debate in the Oxford Union by forcing him to speak “the angry, racist language of demogoguery”. And last night, 8 million people watched him debate on Question Time, in a performance which every single newspaper reported on their front page today was a complete disaster for him.
According to the theory, this should lead to a fall in support for the BNP. Admittedly, there is weak evidence so far for this, in that the BNP got nearly 1 million votes a year and a bit after their arguments were “demolished” in the Oxford Union. But that only reached a tiny audience, and presumably the effect of Question Time will be much greater.
So would anyone like to venture a prediction about how we could measure the damage that this has done to the BNP?
continue reading… »
How can the left deal with the BNP?
The BNP’s appearance on Question Time has prompted a wave of revisionism on the political right – with some going as far as saying that the right is better at dealing with the BNP and apparently the left is to blame for the rise of the BNP. And then there are some who say we should not heap abuse on Nick Griffin and instead need to deal with the concerns of BNP sympathisers. Let’s address this head on.
It’s farcical to watch right-wingers now adopt anti-racist credentials and pretend they don’t have a deeply racist past. This isn’t the party of anti-racism, this is the party with a history of opposing Nelson Mandela and supporting apartheid, the party of ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour’, and the party of Enoch Powell (who is still widely revered).
There is a key difference between the left and right on anti-racism: the right actually believe and perpetuate many of the lies that have fulled the BNP’s rise. They may not be racist, or see themselves as racist, but they implicitly agree with the BNP’s concern that immigrants are “swamping” Britain, that they are getting preferential treatment, that most Muslims are dangerous etc.
The right is not only unwilling to take on the right-wing media which has created the conditions for the BNP to thrive, by pushing lies on immigration especially, but they support it. For example you won’t see them challenge the Daily Mail on the view that immigrants get special treatment.
In that sense the BNP has become a trojan horse for the right: they keep condemning the party while claiming hysterically that the concerns of those voters must be addressed. Funny, they never say that in relation to Muslim extremists, only white extremists.
continue reading… »
White riot: welcome to mainstream fascism
It’s ten days before the next election and Nick Griffin is on walkabout when a white leftist with a history of mental health problems plunges a breadknife through his heart before the skinhead heavies can stop him. The British National Party leader is pronounced DOA at the hospital.
Or maybe it’s ten days before the next election and a huge bomb goes off at a mosque during Friday prayers. Some 19 Muslims are dead, dozens injured. Nobody claims responsibility, although police inquiries centre on the theory that this is the work of a lone wolf white supremacist.
Or maybe an Islamist cell gets lucky once – to coin a phrase – and blows a nightclub-load of dancing slags to kingdom come or brings down a couple of transatlantic airliners.
Or maybe an English Defence League march kicks off big time, with a punch-up between the boot boys and the counter demonstrators drawing in passers by until cars are overturned and shops are looted.
20 questions we should ask the BNP
The Guardian is reporting that the BNP is going to face more problems tomorrow when a website publishes its membership list again. Of course, I can only observe internal in-fighting and trouble at the BNP with glee.
I disagree with Peter Hain’s objection to the BNP appearing on Question Time tomorrow Thursday because it’s too late and just looks like an attempt at censorship. The BBC has been toying with giving the BNP primetime slots for quite a while and keep making excuses for their journalists’ sloppy questioning: so in one sense this is no worse than what has already happened.
Tomorrow night I’ll be running a live debate here and posting on Twitter during QT. I feel Nick Griffin will do well. But to help the others, and as a reference point for journalists in the future, I’ve prepared a list of 20 questions aimed at the BNP.
continue reading… »
BBC’s BNP Question Time panel is a travesty
Here is now the final panel: Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Bonnie Greer and Nick Griffin.
The panel is not only shockingly weak, but is very likely to fail to persuade anyone wavering towards the BNP to come back. I’ve tried explaining why before, but let me try again. Nick Griffin may have middle-class origins but he speaks to a very working class constituency who feel deeply disenfranchised from politics, or feel that the middle-class establishment are screwing them over in different economic and social ways.
To undercut that you need people who speak the language of the people Griffin is trying to reach out to, and point out that his is a politics of hatred that will not and cannot deliver any solutions. After all, BNP councillors have shown themselves to be even more incompetent, corrupt and lazy than those of other parties.
Unfortunately, other than Sayeeda Warsi and perhaps Jack Straw – none of the others will be very effective at undercutting that message. Chris Huhne and Bonnie Greer might even reinforce it.
continue reading… »
Why was Radio 1’s BNPgate ignored earlier?
Why did the BBC’s soft BNP interview take so long to become a national story? – asks Roy Greenslade at the Guardian.
A bit of background. Last week or so Radio 1 ran an amazingly soft and pathetic interview with two BNP members. It was helpfully titled ‘Young BNP members explain beliefs‘, but later hurriedly changed to ‘BNP members challenged on beliefs‘, once it became a bit obvious the first headline wouldn’t do them any favours (h/t Sarah).
There was outrage on many blogs over the interview, and the editor of the programme published a pathetic defence of the show which was further taken apart.
Greenslade has, helpfully, a good run-down of how the story slowly evolved until it went all over the press once the Mail on Sunday picked it up and ran a three-page splash. So why didn’t it happen earlier?
continue reading… »
Tory attempts to protect Kaminski keep failing
Sunny adds: In the Observer today, whitehall editor Toby Helm and foreign secretary David Miliband let rip into the Tories over their EU allies. Wonder how long the Tories will keep defending them.
—
This month’s Total Politics magazine has an “exclusive” interview with Polish MEP Michal Kaminski. Mr Kaminski has been offering a lot of ‘exclusive’ interviews lately in order to clear his name. Unfortunately for him these keep raising more questions than they answer.
Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, Martin Bright says, Kaminski’s opinions should ring loud alarm bells. The Fabian’s Sunder Katwala states out that, “not all of Kaminski’s [recent] statements seem to stand up well to scrutiny”, and offers four questions that Kaminiski would do well to clear up if he is to avoid further scrutiny. The former Tory MEP Edward McMillan-Scott has also offered several inconsistencies in what Kaminski has recently said.
Put that aside in this case. Also bat aside the spectacle of Mr Dale letting Kaminski get away with opposing gay adoption without offering any concrete reason other than stating he’s not homophobic but opposes it anyway. Iain Dale has been conspicuously silent on Soho Politico’s investigation on their ally from Lithuania.
Let’s focus instead on the politics of Europe.
continue reading… »
Miliband shouldn’t back down over Cameron’s EU friends
It annoys me about lefties that they get scared too easily by the media. David Miliband is likely to be the latest victim of Tory faux-outrage and he shouldn’t back down. He said in a speech:
Last week on the BBC, and you should go through the transcript, Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans, because they were only following orders.
It makes me sick. And you know what makes me sicker? No one in the Tory party batted an eyelid. What do they say? All you need for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent. I tell you conference, we will never remain silent.
All this is factually true. But the Tories have gone on the offensive, calling it an anti-semitism row.
continue reading… »
BNP: a very British Berufsverbot
Police officers and prison workers are already banned from becoming members of the British National Party. Now the government is considering the addition of the teaching profession to a growing list of jobs covered by Britain’s slowly expanding backdoor Berufsverbot.
But should the left support the introduction of a softly-softly version of the German system, which forbids members of all organisations deemed by the state to be extremist from holding public sector employment?
Is such legislation somehow OK if it applies to sensitive positions only, keeping the fash out of the classrooms and the cop shops while still allowing them to Sieg Heil to their heart’s content while emptying our wheelie bins? continue reading… »
Questioning the BNP
Well, it’s happened. The BBC has announced that British National Party leader Nick Griffin MEP will appear on political discussion show Question Time on 22 October. Facing him (among others) will be Justice Secretary Jack Straw, a man believed by frequenters of far-right web forums to be a key part of the International Jewish Conspiracy.
I mention this partly because it will be interesting to see if Nick Griffin manages not to mention it when he faces Straw. Griffin, of course, is the author of the 1995 pamphlet Who Are The Mindbenders, which catalogues in some detail how Jewish (and in many cases “Jew-ish”) people control the media.
continue reading… »
More Daily Mail bollocks on immigration
There are people out there who still refuse to accept the poisonous role played by Britain’s tabloids when it comes to race and immigration.
Many blogs have repeatedly pointed at the most blatant examples of inflammatory red top churnalism. When a concoction of outright falsehoods and half-baked myths is regurgitated and interiorised by millions of readers everyday, it’s not surprising that social cohesion is going out of the window and right-wing extremism is on the rise.
Yesterday came another spectacular example. The Daily Mail features a long piece by Harriet Sargeant titled ‘Feral youths: How a generation of violent, illiterate young men are living outside the boundaries of civilised society‘.
continue reading… »
How the tabloids feed right-wing extremism
contribution by 5 Chinese Crackers
The relationship between tabloid reporting and the increase in the BNP’s popularity is an interesting one to look at. We know tabloid nonsense gets churnalised over on the BNP’s website, we know the party advertises and sells Melanie Phillips’ book via its website, and we know the policy of attacking Muslims rather than any other group is based on the prominence of negative stories in the news media, so it seems the tabloids are at least contributing to an environment where far right ideas may seem more attractive to some.
But does tabloid coverage cause people to vote for the BNP, or are the tabloids merely reflecting a rightward shift in public opinion? Let’s take the English Defence League to drum up support for an upcoming event in Manchester.
The video’s a bit rubbish, and amounts to a series of still images juxtaposed against each other to stirring music. Rumbold at Pickled Politics has pointed out the pisspoor crusader imagery, but there is a series of 22 images in the video that are of particular interest to this article.
continue reading… »
The rising tide of xenophobia on our streets
Yesterday two groups were planning a demonstration in Harrow, London: Stop Islamisation of Europe and the English Defence League. Their aim was clearly to incite some trouble given they had deliberately chosen the newly open Harrow mosque as the venue on the aniversary of 9/11.
Up to 1,500 people were expected according to some but in the end about 20 showed up. The counter-demonstration by United Against Fascism on the other hand was massively boosted by text messages circulating among Muslims calling on them to defend the mosque.
But with the ‘enemy’ failing to materialise, inevitably some elements of the counter-demonstration ended up throwing things at the police. To be sure, there were many people from the mosque trying to keep the crowd calm and telling them to go home.
But I think yesterday’s event was pyrrhic victory.
continue reading… »
Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal
contribution by Left Outside
Carl Packman recently wrote of the left’s problem on immigration. However, it is not the just the left which has difficulty discussing immigration. The right does too, because they just can’t help themselves distorting the truth or outright lying.
As I began to discuss here, talk about immigration in this country is tainted by decades, indeed centuries, of prejudiced stereotypes that are difficult to escape. Unfortunately some papers extend so little effort to escape this regrettable history that numerous blogs have been created to monitor them.
A lack of originality, a surplus of bile
What I want to create is a crib sheet for any article you see on immigration, migrants, refugees or asylum by looking at the history of that discussion. Our modern debate on migration has not developed out of a vacuum.
In fact, we are forced to watch tedious reruns of discussions concerning Huguenots in the 1680s, Irish migrants in the early 19th Century and Eastern Europeans in the late, Jews in the 1930s and West Indians and South Asians in the 1960 and 70s.
As Paul Gilroy describes in There Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack “the wearisome task of dissecting the rhetoric is not helped by its lack of originality: ‘they’ are taking our jobs and houses, using up local resources and undermining ‘our’ culture and, in return, offering ‘us’ disease and terrorism.” However, dissect it we will, again and again, until they fucking learn.
Any immigration story you read in the above papers will be shaped by the groundless assumptions under which the anti-immigrant polemicist operates. These do not pop out of thin air, they are drawn from the past. Pick an article; I will guarantee that it will contain a combination of the below:
continue reading… »
The BNP and our sick democracy
The question of whether the BNP should appear on Question Time raises a worrying question for the health of our democracy.
Matthew Syed thinks the BNP should appear, on the Millian grounds that:
The more oxygen they are given to publicise their views, the more the British people will choke on their bigotry and hatred.
But this runs into Paul Sagar’s objection – that QT is not a platform for debate but merely a zoo in which soundbites are vomited into an audience who clap like hyperactive seals.
There’s a danger that Nick Griffin could actually emerge well from such a show.
continue reading… »
BNP on Question Time: a farce made in heaven
The BBC has to let Nick Griffin appear on Question Time, for at least two reasons: legal and prudential. The legal reason is that the BBC is constitutionally sworn to treat all political parties equally. The BNP now has two MEPs; for the BBC not to allow it to speak would be a clear case of politicised partiality. It has to invite Griffin.
The prudential reason is that excluding the BNP will play into the party’s myth that it suffers from a conspiracy perpetrated by liberal elites stifling the opinions of “ordinary” people. If the BNP operated a no-platform policy vis-a-vis Griffin, this would substantiate the myth of persecuted outsider underdogs his party has crafted with effective electoral results.
Taking the prudential point, one could go further and argue that the best way to tackle the BNP is to debate them: putting them on a platform makes them easier to shoot at. On this point, I’m convinced of the classic liberal arguments espoused by Mill in On Liberty: the best way to destroy a pernicious opinion is to publicly expose it; the most counterproductive way of tackling such an opinion is to try and stifle it.
Except – and here’s the irony – QT is highly unlikely to achieve that, for the simple reason that QT is not a platform for debate. It’s an opportunity for political figures to sound-off their own prejudices without being subjected to scrutiny. And its format necessarily makes this so.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
|
66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments 16 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » damon posted on Complete tits » Sunny Hundal posted on Complete tits » Lee Griffin posted on The Labour leadership's token contender.. and it's not Diane Abbott » dan posted on Defend the urban fox! » Richard W posted on Boris rise for Living Wage left of Labour » Julian Swainson posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Bob B posted on Complete tits » Nick posted on Complete tits » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Mr S. Pill posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits |
