Censorship and progressivism is okay (until it's something I like)

Populist right winger Nigel Farage has just announced that his bank is closing his accounts. He's tried 6 other banks all of whom have declined him a banking service.

One has to ask why, many pundits are pointing to Chris Bryant hiding behind parliamentary privilege to make some outrageous claims against Farage

Behold

Did he or didn't he? Politicians and activists get paid all the time in order to secure influence and favour. But until conclusive proof is supplied, they remain nothing more than a rumour. The fact Bryant daren't repeat his accusations outside of parliament suggests to me he has zero proof of anything. Much like conspiracy theorist Caroline Cadwalladr, if you want to claim something, make sure you can back it up, or in the case of Bryant, don't hide.

But influencing banks to shutdown accounts of people you don't like is not uncommon. Politically exposed people (PEP) come under much more scrutiny than the likes of the common man (or woman) in the street. Unless you're driving a truck in Canada and the Prime Minister gets involved to persecute you.

It's censorship by any other name. And while it may be funny to some people such as former treasury employee Susie Symes

Or some may just scoff and deny reality itself like David Aaranovic. Who seems to be currently obsessed with what Florida governer Ron De Santis may or may not have seen on January 6th during the capitol protests. For some people, the very thought that De Santis may have been doing something other than watching a Tv on Jan 6th is beyond them. He does have a family after all.

Censorship is perfectly okay, until it comes for you that is.

But this is not just about plausible deniability, neither is it about feeling joyful when a political activist you do not like experiences censorship (with zero proof) things run much deeper than that.

What if you just don't like something simply because you find it distasteful like professor Deborah Sugg Ryan lamenting that Portsmouth council have given a license for a Jack the Ripper themed horror bar

Note how she doesn't just "not like" it, she's appalled by it. Now why would that be? I suppose you could argue its not in good taste, but its hardly a celebration of crime. People have always had an interest in the gruesome and the criminal. But at what point does it become okay to have a Jack the Ripper themed bar? I reckon our prof would probably say never, but anyone connected to the crimes of Jack the Ripper have long since shuffled off this mortal coil. around Whitechapel, there are quite a few regular "Ripper walks" where someone can literally follow in his footsteps. I went on one many years ago, there was around 30 of us, yet mostly women, go figure!

The campaign against the bar is getting a fair bit of support, one protestor pontificated jokingly that anyone using the bar may get some inspiration for the journey home.

But Sugg Ryan is perfectly okay with attending a conference aboard HMS Warrior. You might think the comparison ridiculous but I only make it as an example of censorship is okay until it comes to something you like. Such as her former tenure as a curator at the V&A. Surely she would be aware of the atrocities undertaken in the name of Queen Victoria, no, it seems this is ok because this is something she likes.

HMS Warrior was designed to force a fleeing ship to return to battle stations. Similar to the way a bully would continue to attack someone weaker than themselves so they could further humiliate them. Again, this is just to point out the glaringly obvious, censorship is okay, until it comes to something you like. Holding a meeting on a ship you know has killed hundreds of terrified people fleeing for their lives is ok, having an interest in the macabre is not.

As Labour MP Lisa Nandy found out. Refugees are welcome here, until "here" is uncomfortably close to where you are.

Unsuitable

Of course its unsuitable, every hotel we have in the UK is unsuitable to house refugees, but the one in Nandy's constituency is much more unsuitable, dare I say it's because the mugs who voted for her might actually notice how woefully out of her depth she is.

Its the hypocrisy of censorship I dislike the most, the NIMBY'ism of it all. 

James Holland (another liberal lefty) who loves to welcome refugee's also found out recently that his welcome has it's limits when it comes to things he likes

Spend 300 million instead, because I like this thing

Someone has to put up with having 300 migrants living near them as long as it doesn't affect a historical site that Holland personally likes. And what of the local communities who have to absorb swathes of people coming from a completely different background to them, people who will dramatically change the dynamic of the whole area?

Holland (or indeed Nandy) don't care so much about them.

Society, history and the arts must be protected (yet only when its something I personally like) this is the mantra of the left. Not to put too fine a point on it but it's narcissism. A view of the world that makes their individual feelings much more important than empathy.

At time of writing this, I've just noticed that the judiciary have struck down the governments Rwanda plan. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I would suggest we start by building proper migrant centres right in the middle of all MP's who support refugees constituencies, after all, they would have the most empathy towards helping these poor souls. And of course, wherever these MP's have their primary homes, like the US lets start declaring some sanctuary cities among the Liberal elites country estates.

I'm sure they have the space.