HA HA HA
what a twollop
i kinda hope the goverment just ignores him now !
would be best course of action
The Home Office will robustly defend itself against any legal action brought by US shock jock Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner. But it has yet to receive any mail from Savage's lawyers. A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: "As the Home Secretary has already said, he was excluded for engaging in unacceptable …
I trust he'll have the sense to sue in the UK rather than the US? Or if he doesn't, that the US judge will dismiss his case. Although, think of the US witnesses that Wacky Jacqui would be able to call to testify as to his character...
She's called his bluff, let's hope he doesn't waste any more of his (or our) money on it.
And so judges would not side with her. Seriously what an intolerant bitch she is that she can't tolerate dissenting view. People like that have no business in position of power.
She should be free to spout her claptrap, but which idiot put her in a position where she could act on it uncontrolled. It's nutty that one dysfunctional woman decides who can enter the UK.
He has his radio show and website. His presence in or out of the country doesn't affect those mediums in which he can talk, it's just that she happens to control entry to Britain, so its what she can misuse and so she banned his physical presence, without being able to ban what he says.
.. this happened just before the expense scandal. Now, Mr Shock Jock, I know what you're going to talk about. And you could use that in your legal argument.
I consider the whole shock jock concept a perfect excuse for tossers to go live, but I'm not terribly in favour of the New Labour government either (let's call that an understatement, which is an understatement in itself), so it's a hard choice.
For entertainment value I'd prefer the shock jock. The other lot is just plain annoying.
"A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: "As the Home Secretary has already said, he was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence."
Oh, ok, that would be fair and reasonable. What then would one like to do about the following blatant provocation .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8076611.stm
I wonder if the Priory has room for one more, for the following is delusional ..."He told BBC Radio 4's Today he was not "arrogant" or "unwilling to listen" but would "stay on to do the job" before calling a general election.
"I'm the best person to clean up the political system," he added.
Mr Brown said: "I think the cleaning up of the political system is best done by someone who has got a clear idea of what needs to be done - and I have."
Quite why it is accepted and IT tolerated is one of the Great Mysteries of the Artificial Brainwashed World of Real Dumb Humanoids.
Enough is enough is enough already, surely? How about we Play A.N.Other Game with much Better Beta Players?
"If we didn't have such spectacularly over-reaching libel laws over here he wouldn't be able to sue."
I think you mean:
"If we didn't have such a spectacularly over-reaching Home Secretary over here nobody in the UK would even have heard of this a-hole and he wouldn't have this great opportunity for self promotion"
Paris 'cause she's knows how to make something out of nothing too.
"he was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence."
Talk about open-ended. Given the crime statistic studies I've seen, wouldn't voting for expanding more social programs be tantamount to the same thing? Or if fostering hatred through words is a crime, shouldn't all politicians of all stripes be thrown in jail?
If the Home Office had merely published a list of names "Under the authority given to the Home Secretary by the Doofus and George Act 2008, Sec. 413(a)(iii)(alpha), the following individuals are prohibited from entering the United Kingdom:" all would have been well. Sovereign nations have every right to say who's allowed in and who isn't.
But, no, dear Jacqui had to state a reason and *that* is challengeable.
It's somewhat like disinheriting someone in your will. Many lawyers (not all) are of the opinion that it's better not to give a reason for disinheriting someone because then there's no basis for a challenge. "To my daughter, Felitzia, I leave nothing."
(Of course, if the person being disinherited has a statutory right to part of the estate, you're on entirely different territory.)
that both sides are very unlikely to disappear, notwithstanding that most of the country would love to see it.
But there is a certain fascination in watching two thoroughly vile specimens circling round each other and hissing. We'll have to content ourselves with applauding each hit and praying for maximum damage all round.
A nice sideshow to watch while Western civilisation falls apart.
Might I direct your attention to the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect). You've just given this guy an all-mighty shitstorm of publicity and media attention. Yes, we know he's a bigot and an arsehole but the basic premise of free speech is that in order to have any meaning at all it must be an absolute and inviolate right of every individual whether you like their opinions or not.
And so Ms Wacky I conclude with a big Fuck You, you are the cancer that is killing /b/ritain. Please do us a favour commit a serious act of an heroism.
Paris, cos she knows all about undue media attention.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019