Sandra Uttley - Dunblane Unburied - Radio Interview

[3070dan]

Why would he?  Do you notice everything when you walk into a room?

In a situation like this, I would think that one would notice anything that is relevant to the situation.

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

In a situation like this, I would think that one would notice anything that is relevant to the situation.

Then you think wrong.  People don't suddenly become Jason Bourne in high stress situations where they magically notice absolutely everything.  In fact usually the opposite.  High stress induces a kind of tunnel vision where you fixate on small details.  It also interferes with recollection after the fact.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/2/173

Eyewitness testimony and recollection is variable and unreliable.  It is also extremely susceptible to badly phrased questions, for example those delivered by an interviewer with an agenda.  Uttley quite obviously has an agenda.

http://www.holah.co.uk/summary/loftus/

[gun touting lefty]

If you look back in history most if not all citizen disarmament programs originate in the leftist camp. Perhaps this country has been subjected to a slow moving insidious attack for ideological reasons.

now you're just makeing me feel guilty because most of my family votes labour 

[UltraBruce]

If you look back in history most if not all citizen disarmament programs originate in the leftist camp. Perhaps this country has been subjected to a slow moving insidious attack for ideological reasons.

now you're just makeing me feel guilty because most of my family votes labour 

I'll be honest, I'm not likely to vote for the Labour party in this or any other life time. Generally speaking, I think the premise is correct - These nannying, statist solutions eminate from the left. However, the bravest and most outspoken of MP's on the subject of the handgun ban has been the Labour MP Kate Hoey.

I actually wrote to her a few years ago and congratulated her on this matter.

[triple-sod]

now you're just makeing me feel guilty because most of my family votes labour 

Let?s not forget though, both the main handgun ban and the semi autos ban were passed by tory governments......

I'll be honest, I'm not likely to vote for the Labour party in this or any other life time. Generally speaking, I think the premise is correct - These nannying, statist solutions eminate from the left. However, the bravest and most outspoken of MP's on the subject of the handgun ban has been the Labour MP Kate Hoey.

I actually wrote to her a few years ago and congratulated her on this matter.

While I you?re correct in what you say, I a lot of the problems we face are largely down to the inherent spinelessness of the ?right wing?.   

[Ali3nat0r]

Let?s not forget though, both the main handgun ban and the semi autos ban were passed by tory governments......

I personally despise the Tory party. I would rather Labour than them any day. However, as I've always said, the main three (Labour, Tory, Liberal) are all basically the same authoritarian party with slightly different economic policies. Another party needs to come to power and I will support anyone except BNP or Green.

[gun touting lefty]

I personally despise the Tory party. I would rather Labour than them any day. However, as I've always said, the main three (Labour, Tory, Liberal) are all basically the same authoritarian party with slightly different economic policies. Another party needs to come to power and I will support anyone except BNP or Green.

well i would vote green IF they changed their stance on hunting and shooting... which they will never do.

[PhilM]

If you look back in history most if not all citizen disarmament programs originate in the leftist camp. Perhaps this country has been subjected to a slow moving insidious attack for ideological reasons.

now you're just makeing me feel guilty because most of my family votes labour 

Nothing personal mate. It's just the way I see it. Here's a couple of ditties from Prof: J.J. RAY's site  Dissecting Leftism.

Leftists think that utopia can be coerced into existence -- so no dishonesty or brutality is beyond them in pursuit of that "noble" goal.

And..

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

 

[Ali3nat0r]

I don't know how American "liberals" can call themselves that whilst trying to ban guns. That is one of the most non "liberal" things to do IMO.

[triple-sod]

I personally despise the Tory party. I would rather Labour than them any day. However, as I've always said, the main three (Labour, Tory, Liberal) are all basically the same authoritarian party with slightly different economic policies. Another party needs to come to power and I will support anyone except BNP or Green.

It Labour, the Tory or Liberal are not the problem, it?s the entire system. In fact I would go as far as to say, it?s the whole idea of government itself.  You could have another party with the noblest of intentions, but somewhere down the lines it would be corrupted.

 I?m not talking about some grand conspiracy either; it?s just the nature of the beast. Whilst for the majority of people a political party is means of achieving change, to others it is simply a vehicle for their own power. This really gives them an advantage when it comes to getting into positions of leadership and so that?s where they end up.                      

[PhilM]

I don't know how American "liberals" can call themselves that whilst trying to ban guns. That is one of the most non "liberal" things to do IMO

That's exactly what a Liberal will do. They belong to the same socialist family tree.

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

I don't know how American "liberals" can call themselves that whilst trying to ban guns. That is one of the most non "liberal" things to do IMO

It's exactly what a Liberal will. They belong to the same socialist family tree.

Liberalism is a very noble tradition.  Modern "liberals" have nothing whatsoever to do with it.  Modern liberalism is in fact Fabian Socialism.  They call themselves Liberals as part of Fabianism's doctrine of "gradualism" i.e. a socialist revolution brought about by means so concealed and gradual, by the time anyone notices it will be too late.

Classical liberalism would be better classed as Libertarianism or even old-school conservatism.

Classical Liberalism was concerned with freedom from tyranny and being able control your own life.  Modern "liberals" claim they too are concerned with liberty, but liberty to something rather than from something.  Instead of freedom from being spied upon, or freedom from being attacked,  modern liberals claim to work for the "freedom to be given a house" and the "freedom to have equality".  They call this new kind of liberty "positive liberty" to differentiate it from that nasty old "negative liberty".  They want to make it sound like an evolution of the old idea.

It isn't.  This is an intellectual trick.

Conservatism was also very noble, but the last "true" conservative prime minister the UK had was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marqeuss of Salisbury.  He was an old school aristocrat who was deeply unconcerned with "equality" or even "social mobility" and deeply concerned with liberty and keeping out of people's lives.  He epitomised the Laissez-faire school that British conservatism used to embody.  He was also the last Prime Minister to lead his party from the Lords.  Shortly after this time, Parliament started the now almost complete task of totally hamstringing Britain's second house.

Some think there has been a calculated rewriting of history in that he is not taught about or discussed.  Given that he was Prime Minister for 13 years, it is shocking how little we hear of his legacy.

[triple-sod]

This is where I love been an anti statist...... liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism its all the same to me...... 

Classical liberalism is a bit of a misnomer if you ask me though, because it suggests that this mode of liberalism came first when in fact early liberalism probably had much more in common with Marxism, this notion of applying logic and science to create a utopian society. It was in opposition to this that real ?old school conservatism? emerged.

On the subject of conservatism, I've never got this fetishization  of the past. The fact is that for 99.9% of people the past was shit.....

I mean sure Scottish Voluntaryist, you can wax lyrical about 'the good old days' but the chances are that if you were born back then you'd have been a peasant same as your dad and his dad before, and as your sons would be after you. You'd be illiterate, dim witted and live a monotonous life of gruelling hard work, until you dropped dead at 40.....

[duns]

I think all labels like left and right or conservative and liberal mislead and confuse. Also, we have a lot of US as well as UK members here and the names mean different things. Why can't we just discuss specific policies and whether we like them or not? BAN LABELS!

[Scottish Voluntaryist]

I mean sure Scottish Voluntaryist, you can wax lyrical about 'the good old days' but the chances are that if you were born back then you'd have been a peasant same as your dad and his dad before, and as your sons would be after you. You'd be illiterate, dim witted and live a monotonous life of gruelling hard work, until you dropped dead at 40.....

Perhaps, but I would be free to own a weapon to defend myself, the government would be less than 1/5th its current size and I'd be free to rise or fall by my own merits.  Seems like a good trade to me.  I do not need society to do me any favours.  I'm not looking for a handout, I'm looking to be left alone.  Incidentally, Rabbie Burn's father was a farmer who worked hard to give his son an education......

I never understood this demonization of the past.  Full of evil capitalists, innit?

And Classical Liberalism is at the very opposite end of the political spectrum to Communism.  Old school conservatism was very close to classical liberalism with the exception that they were less socially permissive.  But the conservative party of the 1890's would run as a libertarian party if they were to run now.

Communism's central tenet is that the world can be forcibly remade into utopia.  It states that the leaders of the revolution do indeed know better, and from this they derive the right to force their opinions on everyone else.

The central doctrine of Classical Liberalism is minding your own business.

Of course it's still government, which I have some problems with at a philosophical level, but I don't think there can be any question that the government of the late 1800s was a million times better than what we have now.

You know why?

Because they still understood that for something to get done it was not necessary or just for the government to do it - indeed usually the opposite.

Now when you talk about ending benefits for example you are told you are throwing the poor on the scrapheap.  When in the absence of the welfare state the church voluntarily performed many of its functions.  Free hospitals were established by wealthy philanthropists.  There were workhouses for the homeless which gave room and board in exchange for labour.  They are demonized today, but you have to ask yourself why if they were so bad was there queues going round the block to get in them?

In those days if you had a problem with something you went and sorted it yourself.  Feel for the plight of the poor?  Roll up your sleeves and help them.

These day's you'd write your MP and ask him to tax the evil rich some more, then establish a huge, bloated department to waste the money they've stolen.

[PhilM]

I think all labels like left and right or conservative and liberal mislead and confuse. Also, we have a lot of US as well as UK members here and the names mean different things. Why can't we just discuss specific policies and whether we like them or not? BAN LABELS!

I see no confusion as there is no comparison between the "Classical" Liberal and the modern day "Leftist" Liberal, who?s lineage can be traced back to the Progressives of the early part of the last century. Here?s a short piece from Jonah Goldberg?s ?The Liberal Fascist.?

Before the Holocaust and Stalin?s doctrine of social fascism, liberals could be honest about their fondness for fascism. During the ?pragmatic? era of the 1920s and early 1930s, a host of Western liberal intellectuals and journalists were quite impressed with Mussolini?s ?experiment.?  More than a few progressives were intrigued by Nazism as well.

Liberals of today are not the nice people they?d have you believe and they've done a good job of creating distance between themselves and a dictatorial ideology that butchered millions. Yet, they would have you believe that Liberty is best kept safe in their hands.

In fact it is their insistence upon it that has created websites like this. Puts it all in perspective I think!                       

[Spike]

 

All summed up in one well used sentance...."You've never had it so good!"

And the people saw, and believed!

Spike.

[triple-sod]

 

I never understood this demonization of the past.  Full of evil capitalists, innit?

Well for my part it?s not demonization, simply an expectance that the past is the past. Even if some aspects of it were marginally better than today, it doesn?t mean that tomorrow won?t be far superior to both.

It?s like if you sit back and think about your life, for most of us our mid to late teens were a brilliant time. Yet it would still be pretty daft to imagine that we should try and revert back to that existence as the solution to our current problems.....Especially since when we look back at the past we are all prone to distorting the reality in order to fit our desires of how things were.

       
And Classical Liberalism is at the very opposite end of the political spectrum to Communism.  Old school conservatism was very close to classical liberalism with the exception that they were less socially permissive.  But the conservative party of the 1890's would run as a libertarian party if they were to run now.
Communism's central tenet is that the world can be forcibly remade into utopia.  It states that the leaders of the revolution do indeed know better, and from this they derive the right to force their opinions on everyone else.

That?s my point, ?classic liberalism? had much more in common with ?Old school conservatism? than it did with the origins of liberalism which emerged in the late 18th- early 19th century. It?s all so convoluted that there is very little to be gained by spending so much time arguing semantics. It?s like Duns says can't we just discuss specific policies. I might add in relation to the here and now and not the bygone past.....

I mean I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Anglo-Saxons yet, I thought they would be right up your street.....

[triple-sod]

I see no confusion as there is no comparison between the "Classical" Liberal and the modern day "Leftist" Liberal, who?s lineage can be traced back to the Progressives of the early part of the last century. Here?s a short piece from Jonah Goldberg?s ?The Liberal Fascist.?

Before the Holocaust and Stalin?s doctrine of social fascism, liberals could be honest about their fondness for fascism. During the ?pragmatic? era of the 1920s and early 1930s, a host of Western liberal intellectuals and journalists were quite impressed with Mussolini?s ?experiment.?  More than a few progressives were intrigued by Nazism as well.

Liberals of today are not the nice people they?d have you believe and they've done a good job of creating distance between themselves and a dictatorial ideology that butchered millions. Yet, they would have you believe that Liberty is best kept safe in their hands.

In fact it is their insistence upon it that has created websites like this. Puts it all in perspective I think!                       

oooooooooo Godwin's law!

It's safe to say that no one who buys into a statist ideology can really claim 'none of us ever liked those nazi bastards'. The fact is that admirers of Hitler came from pretty much everywhere. Which quite is unsurprising, when you consider that he was everything to every man. 

To the Liberals and socialists the man was a great reformer, a visionary who was one of the first to grasp John Maynard Keynes theories and put them into practice. Where as to the conservatives especially in Germany he was a crusader against communism who was going to brush away the weak Weimar liberal state and return Germany to its roots. It's not even a great stretch to imagine how many say him as Scottish Voluntaryist ?noble autocratic monarch?....... 

[PhilM]

I see no confusion as there is no comparison between the "Classical" Liberal and the modern day "Leftist" Liberal, who?s lineage can be traced back to the Progressives of the early part of the last century. Here?s a short piece from Jonah Goldberg?s ?The Liberal Fascist.?

Before the Holocaust and Stalin?s doctrine of social fascism, liberals could be honest about their fondness for fascism. During the ?pragmatic? era of the 1920s and early 1930s, a host of Western liberal intellectuals and journalists were quite impressed with Mussolini?s ?experiment.?  More than a few progressives were intrigued by Nazism as well.

Liberals of today are not the nice people they?d have you believe and they've done a good job of creating distance between themselves and a dictatorial ideology that butchered millions. Yet, they would have you believe that Liberty is best kept safe in their hands.

In fact it is their insistence upon it that has created websites like this. Puts it all in perspective I think!                       

oooooooooo Godwin's law!

It's safe to say that no one who buys into a statist ideology can really claim 'none of us ever liked those nazi bastards'. The fact is that admirers of Hitler came from pretty much everywhere. Which quite is unsurprising, when you consider that he was everything to every man. 

To the Liberals and socialists the man was a great reformer, a visionary who was one of the first to grasp John Maynard Keynes theories and put them into practice. Where as to the conservatives especially in Germany he was a crusader against communism who was going to brush away the weak Weimar liberal state and return Germany to its roots. It's not even a great stretch to imagine how many say him as Scottish Voluntaryist ?noble autocratic monarch?....... 

In other words you agree with Jonah Goldberg. 

[triple-sod]

In other words you agree with Jonah Goldberg. 

I don?t know I?ve never read any of the man?s work.......
All I'm saying is that pointing out that 'some liberals liked Hitler' is like pointing out that 'some liberals cheat on their wives', i.e It wasn?t exactly something exclusive to them.....

[3070dan]

where they magically notice absolutely everything.

I'm not saying that he magically noticed everything.

[3070dan]

I'm prepared to accept that Uttley has got somethings, if not nearly all things wrong. I have taken an interest in Uttley's website before because if there is one thing that p***es me off, it is that there is something suspicious about the Dunblane incident, and yet the antis have been beating us over the head with it ever since it happened.

[Morpheus]

The only good thing that came out of the Dunblane murders was every primary school in this country had security fences installed costing many tens of thousands of pounds at each school. Money well spent if you ask me, but it shouldn?t have taken a lone murderous idiot to make our counsels adequately protect our children. The cost of the handgun ban in compensation to us filthy undesirables was around 500m. I wonder the true cost if you include the school security? And to those who think guns kill people, they are very wrong, what kills people is not wearing a vest.

[bogbeagle]

I agree.

I always wear my vest ... well, until the blossoms appear on the trees, anyway. "Ne'er cast a clout, 'til May is out." And all that stuff.

Long Johns, too. Can't be too careful. Cold winter mornings can play havoc with one's appendages as you  make the lonely pilgrimage to the dunny at the bottom of the garden.

Oh, how I pine for the days when a man would be sewn into his winter suit of under-clothing ... and have to be cut free after about 5 months ... or 6, in a bad year.






As to political labels ... meaningless. There's only two types of person, Libertarians and Authoritarians.

There is no third option, that I can see.

Politicians, without exception, fall into the category "Authoritarian".

Each and every one of them means to gain power, so as to use the violence of the State to impose his will upon others.