Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cameron went on jolly to apartheid South Africa

i wonder if there's going to be some return fire headed in his direction along those lines?
I doubt it - the contradictions of it being obligatory to love Mandela and condemn terrorism simultaneously would make most journalists' heads explode, let alone the readers. And the Tories have only just accepted that the ANC were the good guys!
Muhammad Ali: "A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life".
You're right - if instead of sticking to his beliefs, Nelson Mandela had changed his mind about apartheid in 1968, he wouldn't have wasted his life! Oh, wait, that makes no sense...
 
Yet when asked by the authors if Mr Cameron wrote a memo or had to report back to the office about his trip, Alistair Cooke – in 1989 his boss at Central Office – said it was "simply a jolly", adding: "It was all terribly relaxed, just a little treat, a perk of the job. The Botha regime was attempting to make itself look less horrible, but I don't regard it as having been of the faintest political consequence."

Nice. So it's OK to go on am expenses paid jolly if the alternative interpretation is supporting apartheid. That's the thing that struck me. I'm quite happy to accept it doesn't prove Cameron to have ever supported apartheid, but it clearly shows he's as corrupt as anything he's currently complaining about.
 
You're right - if instead of sticking to his beliefs, Nelson Mandela had changed his mind about apartheid in 1968, he wouldn't have wasted his life! Oh, wait, that makes no sense...
I'm not sure how you're applying this; is you're argument is that (a) Cameron was pro-apartheid and (b) he is now?
 
Actually there are plenty of Tory 'rising stars' who were members of the FCS and wore 'Hang Nelson Mandela T-Shirts, or 'Support The Contras', as well as Tories, RW libertarians like Paul Staines(Guido Fawkes) also supported these sentiments.

That sounds very much like one of McBrides' previous attempted smears against Staines.
 
Politicians are mucky and anyone with a rake can smear them. It's still all so much gamesmanship and entirely irrelevant to reality.
 
Paul Staines writing in 2000:

I never wore a "Hang Mandela" badge but I hung out with people who did. Why? What did we gain from doing so? Did we make ourselves more popular by calling for the death of a man who was fighting injustice by the only means available to him? Did this "shift the parameters of debate" in our direction?

Smear?
 
Paul Staines sporting his "Victory to UNITA" t shirt alongside a representative of the the UNITA mass murderers:

staines.jpg
 
Must admit that the idea didn't surprise me in the slightest when I saw this, but I already thought he was a cunt anyway. The primary positive purpose seems to be in reminding people what cunts the Tories were back then, and that the "new breed" are nothing of the sort, just the same old.

I don't believe for an instant that the Indie care about that shit mind, it's done for entirely partisan motives.

Incidentally I visited South Africa during the apartheid years, and not for "fact-finding". I was only about ten though so I don't think I was supporting the regime a lot.
 
Speaking of repugnant regimes that really should be subject to an international boycott campaign, did anybody see this horrendous story about the UAE in Observer today? This really is stomach churning:

A shocking videotape showing a wealthy prince from the United Arab Emirates brutally torturing a man in the desert has brought a sharp focus on western dealings with the oil-rich Gulf state…

The video is especially shocking because it also shows a man in police uniform helping to tie up the victim and hold him down in the middle of the desert. At the start of the torture session, which is believed to have happened some time before 2005, Issa stuffs sand in the victim’s mouth and fires a machine gun into the sand around him as the man screams helplessly.

At one point, Issa tells the cameraman to get a close-up. “Get closer. Get closer. Get closer. Let his suffering show,” the sheikh says.

Later the sheikh beats the man with a wooden plank with a nail protruding from it, and pours salt in the bloody wounds left by his blows. He also inserts an electric cattle prod in the man’s anus and turns it on, and pours lighter fluid over the man’s testicles, which he then sets alight. Finally, the man is held down in the sand and a Mercedes is driven over him. The sound of bones breaking can be clearly heard.

The victim, an Afghan grain merchant called Mohammed Shah Poor, apparently survived the experience, because the government later justified taking no action against the sheikh by saying the matter had been settled privately between the two men and each had agreed not to press charges against the other.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/26/manchester-city-torture-tape

Barbarism (how the poor bloke actually managed to survive I don't know) - boycott the UAE!
 
Speaking of repugnant regimes that really should be subject to an international boycott campaign, did anybody see this horrendous story about the UAE in Observer today? This really is stomach churning:

Fucks' sake. You're not wrong. There isn't really a phrase that expresses just how stomach churning that story is.
 
Fucks' sake. You're not wrong. There isn't really a phrase that expresses just how stomach churning that story is.

An old topic on urban, yes.

The Arab states are centuries behind the rest of the world when it comes to things like this. To such an extent homosexuals Palestinians have even been accepted by Israel more than once. In the UAE it's self there was a law passed in 2005 that was clearly racial-segregation. If you are interested in it, although it be a macabre subject this is a good starting point. If I was a woman, gay, black or Asian I wouldn't want to live in an Arabic state.

Not a popular opinion on urban with some of the people who post here but bite me.

Sorry for the derail.

And don't forget India:

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/racism/010828.caste.html

And Yemen:

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=25634

etc etc

Back on topic...
 
Paul Staines sporting his "Victory to UNITA" t shirt alongside a representative of the the UNITA mass murderers:

staines.jpg

classic Staines photo -

I knew people who knew him in the rave era when he was mixed up with Tony Colston Hayter / CFB / David Hart and Freedom to Dance - he was definitely living the libertarian lifestyle to the full back then .
 
An old topic on urban, yes.

The Arab states are centuries behind the rest of the world when it comes to things like this. To such an extent homosexuals Palestinians have even been accepted by Israel more than once. In the UAE it's self there was a law passed in 2005 that was clearly racial-segregation. If you are interested in it, although it be a macabre subject this is a good starting point. If I was a woman, gay, black or Asian I wouldn't want to live in an Arabic state.

Yeah. I'm sure the videoed torture of some poor bastard in an Arabic state by a member of the astoundingly privileged elite indicates that they are "centuries behind the rest of the world". I bet everyone in the country was queueing up to approve of that because, you know, he must have been gay or something.

What a twattish thing to say.
 
Not that I would defend Cameron on anything, but it seems a little unfair.
I have to say, there were a few Labour MPs, who visited the police states of the Eastern Block, and those who have visited the military dictatorship of Cuba.
No mention of them.

Cameron is a hideous individual from the upper class, who was a member of some snobby group while a student, who thought it was fun to trash restaurants and abuse the staff, but pay for any damage later.

On the subject of this thread, he was no worse than many others visiting dodgy nations.
 
classic Staines photo -

I knew people who knew him in the rave era when he was mixed up with Tony Colston Hayter / CFB / David Hart and Freedom to Dance - he was definitely living the libertarian lifestyle to the full back then .

And there is, I hope, video? :)
 
Because they were not states that organised their citizens by race, that's why not.

There is a fundamental difference – a person's status under the law in these states was not determined at birth by racial, or any other, characteristics.
 
Because they were not states that organised their citizens by race, that's why not.

There is a fundamental difference – a person's status under the law in these states was not determined at birth by racial, or any other, characteristics.

Are you saying men and women get equal treatment in a lot of ME countries?
 
Because they were not states that organised their citizens by race, that's why not.

There is a fundamental difference – a person's status under the law in these states was not determined at birth by racial, or any other, characteristics.

And whilst they were obviously deficient in terms of some political and civil rights they didn't deny their people rights across the board in areas of healthcare, education etc in the same way.
 
Back
Top Bottom