MP quizzed over sex assault claim

[Steven]

It is believed to be Leicestershire North West MP Andrew Bridgen.

 

[spionfox]

It is believed to be Leicestershire North West MP Andrew Bridgen.

Get in quick before the injunction is taken out!

 

[Mawsley]

Aside from the allegation itself, he really is a smug twat.

Not helped by slagging everybody who didn't agree with the proposed reforms to the health service as Stalinist. There again, by simply being a Tory MP means he's a bit of **** anyway.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

He was a Royal Marine Officer. Mediocre officer by all accounts, completed his training but did not stay around long after that. Wants the Empire back please.

 

[jb5000]

I'm a Liberal, but I had nothing but respect for David Taylor, his predeccessor, this chap is the worst kind of dim-bulb Tory **** however.

 

[David Gwilliam]

He was a Royal Marine Officer. Mediocre officer by all accounts, completed his training but did not stay around long after that. Wants the Empire back please.

Mediocre people do not complete their training. I do not know what Chuck's military background is but as someone who never wore his country's uniform I am reluctant to criticise those who have.

I have never met anyone who seriously wanted the empire back. I have met a few who thought the empire was a good thing although they all had reservations. I have met a lot more who simply thought the empire was bad and had no reservations.

The British Empire lasted many centuries went through three maybe four important phases and involved many different countries. This makes it very useful. If you ask someone about the British Empire and they have a simple view either for or against you are talking to a bigot. Hopefully neither Chuck nor John Bridgen fall intom that category.

 

[Mawsley]

f you ask someone about the British Empire and they have a simple view either for or against you are talking to a bigot.

Really?

That's me categorised then.

 

[Macky]

Really?

That's me categorised then.

Yep, that's me pigeon-holed too

 

[David Gwilliam]

Really?

That's me categorised then.

You do not say which side your bigotry is on.

Surely you would agree Mawsley that the experience of the Empire by someone living in the Caribbean was very different from that of someone living in Gibraltar.
Surely the experience of the average New Zealander was very different from that of the average Ghanaian.
Certainly the majority of educated Hindus were pleased at the the prospect of the British Empire ending whereas the majority of educated Moslems in India were horrified at the idea.
Surely only the most bigoted would defend some of the behaviour of the Empire in Ireland or Kenya or at the time of the Indian Mutiny.
I would guess that most people would be horrified at British involvement in the slave trade while praising British involvement in ending the slave trade and not only in the Empire.
Equally most people ourside France and Germany would be thankful for the part played by the British Empire in the defeat of Napoleon and the Kaiser - not to mention the defeat of Hitler.

Surely Mawsley you would agree that the British Empire in the 1650s under Cromwell (arguably at its worst) was very different from under Baldwin or Ramsay MacDonald in the 1930s. Certainly the average Australian in the 1930s found life in the Empire very different from the average Australian in the 1830s.

From the evil genius of Cecil Rhodes (not to overstate) who combined the vision and the callousness of a Julius Caesar to the doctors who at the very same time lost their lives treating Africans there was a myriad of different strands to the British Empire.

A lady once told me that Oliver Cromwell was her hero (she believed him to be some sort of 17th century Neil Kinnock) I replied with uncharacteristic irritation "that is because you don't know anything about him" I am tempted to make the same reply to anyone who can simply dismiss the British Empire as "good" or "bad".

 

[Jeff]

A lady once told me that Oliver Cromwell was her hero (she believed him to be some sort of 17th century Neil Kinnock) I replied with uncharacteristic irritation "that is because you don't know anything about him" I am tempted to make the same reply to anyone who can simply dismiss the British Empire as "good" or "bad".

I think going to other countries and forcibly taking them from the indigenous people is wrong. Always.
Whether by doing so we may have gone on to do some good things is irrelevant. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Yep, that's me pigeon-holed too

Apologies for not including you in my reply to Mawsley's post as your comment came while I was writing my reply.

As an Irishman you will know better than I do that Pope Alexander VIII supported the Protestant William at the battle of the Boyne against the Catholic James II. I mention this to show how complex the British Empire could be.

The Irish experience of the British Empire was unique - partly because of the religious divide and partly because it was seen as vulnerable to French invasion. Perhaps nothing in the history of the British Empire is as repellant as the behaviour of Cromwell in Ireland. However, Ireland perhaps never had a better foreign friend than Gladstone - both were part of the British Empire. The British can equally point to the Irish view that Napoleon or the Kaiser would have wanted an independent Ireland while Devalera's belief that Ireland would be safe if it did nothing to help Britain against Hitler shows a breathtaking naivety. The Queen with her mention of things that should have been better done or not done at all and Mary McAleese comment on Irish soldiers who fought for the British Empire in the First World War:But they were Irishmen who also fought for the defence of small nations, and they should be remembered with honour both showed the complexity of the situation.

I do take it Macky that you would accept that the irish experience was very different to say the Canadian and that in turn was different from Singapore or Nigeria.
Therefore I maintain any naive comment on the British Empire simply reflects the bigotry of the person making it.

I have always found that if I thought I understood any major force in History from the Roman Empire to feudalism to the Industrial Revolution to the British Empire I turned out to be deluding yourself..

 

[Mawsley]

You do not say which side your bigotry is on.

I'll let you guess, it'll be a fun little game.

Afterwards we can both go on a cruise across the Atlantic in a ship's hold, contract scurvy and debate 'Slavery: A solution?'

 

[David Gwilliam]

I'll let you guess, it'll be a fun little game.

Afterwards we can both go on a cruise across the Atlantic in a ship's hold, contract scurvy and debate 'Slavery: A solution?'

You are right that the work of Wilberforce and others in ending the slave trade was a fine moment for the British Empire. However while the British Empire in the 19th century led the fight against slavery you might remember that the British Empire in the 18th century was the leading slave trader. This complexity is why simple comments on the British Empire whether for or against tell us nothing about the Empire but a great deal about the prejudices of those commenting.

 

[spionfox]

I think going to other countries and forcibly taking them from the indigenous people is wrong. Always.
Whether by doing so we may have gone on to do some good things is irrelevant. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I agree with you.

What pisses me off though is the need for the present generation to apologise for the sins of the past that were actually nothing to do with us in the present.

Posturing and gesture politicking of the highest order.

 

[Siouxsie]

Therefore I maintain any naive comment on the British Empire simply reflects the bigotry of the person making it.

Doesn't it just reflect their naivety /ignorance rather than bigotry? Not everyone has the benefit of your education and knowledge.

 

[Macky]

I do take it Macky that you would accept that the irish experience was very different to say the Canadian and that in turn was different from Singapore or Nigeria.

Yes, of course. That's an obvious, but irrelevant, fact.

Therefore I maintain any naive comment on the British Empire simply reflects the bigotry of the person making it.

You're making a logically fallacious argument. Your argument consists of, the evil of British imperialism, and in some cases outright tyranny, manifests in many forms, therefore any opinion on it is invalid unless you've examined all of its complexities because there may have been some perceived benefit to some minority elite at some point in history at some place on the globe. I'm sorry but that doesn't stand up.

I'm opposed to British imperialism in all its forms, both historical and current, I find it disgusting. If you wish to label me as a bigot for that, then please, go ahead. I'm sure it'll help you to justify your worldview.

 

[Mawsley]

This complexity is why simple comments on the British Empire whether for or against tell us nothing about the Empire but a great deal about the prejudices of those commenting.

What about the prejudices of those who falsely attribute opinions to others without any knowledge regarding their true feelings on the matter?

 

[The Major]

You're making a logically fallacious argument. Your argument consists of, the evil of British imperialism, and in some cases outright tyranny, manifests in many forms, therefore any opinion on it is invalid unless you've examined all of its complexities because there may have been some perceived benefit to some minority elite at some point in history at some place on the globe. I'm sorry but that doesn't stand up.

I'm opposed to British imperialism in all its forms, both historical and current, I find it disgusting. If you wish to label me as a bigot for that, then please, go ahead. I'm sure it'll help you to justify your worldview.

To accept your point you'd have to believe that these places weren't under a tyranny before we arrived or that if we hadn't entered these countries nobody else , probably worse than us, would have conquered these places instead.

Things are never as black and white as some people would have you believe.

 

[Macky]

To accept your point you'd have to believe that these places weren't under a tyranny before we arrived or that if we hadn't entered these countries nobody else , probably worse than us, would have conquered these places instead.

No, that's another logical fallacy. Other tyrants and imperialists exist, therefore Britain is justified.
Fail.

Things are never as black and white as some people would have you believe.

Indeed they are not

 

[David Gwilliam]

I'll let you guess, it'll be a fun little game.
Afterwards we can both go on a cruise across the Atlantic in a ship's hold, contract scurvy and debate 'Slavery: A solution?'

What about the prejudices of those who falsely attribute opinions to others without any knowledge regarding their true feelings on the matter?

You asked me to guess. The only clue I had was the words "Slavery: A solution?" which suggested that you were supporting 19th century abolitionists like William Wilberforce; 18th century slave traders like David Tuohy did not see there as being a problem to be solved.

Of course if people want their "true feelings on the matter" to be clear it might be more sensible not to begin with the comment "I'll let you guess".

I may be doing you an injustice and your second quote may be aimed not at me but at Chuck where it is perhaps more pertinent. In the original post Chuck claimed that Andrew Bridgen "wants the empire back please." Presumably we would both hope that Chuck has some reason for this claim Hopefully Chuck has not decided to in your elegant phrase " falsely attribute opinions to others without any knowledge regarding their true feelings on the matter." I eagerly await Chuck's evidence.

Having done a number of long posts that are not really relevant to the accusations against Mr Bridgen I will leave the thread to others. However, I will enjoy reading any further posts on the subject.