A Tory councillor has provoked outrage on Twitter for urging Sir David Attenborough to “take a one way trip to Switzerland”, a term perceived to encourage the 87-year-old presenter to commit euthanasia.
Ealing councillor Phil Taylor, responding to an article by the broadcaster blaming too many people and not enough land for Africa’s food shortages, tweeted: “I do wish this silly old fart would take a one-way trip to Switzerland. Practice what you preach.”
And the problem is? After all, Attenborough and his fellow Malthusians are quick enough to suggest population control, so why not lead by example? Oh, yeah, that’s right when progressives propose misanthropic solutions to the world’s ills, they mean other people. Silly me…
As for the puerile, facile, brain dead and idiotic Twatterati, why don’t we learn to tell them to just fuck off and be done with it? Why does anyone take this nasty little mob seriously?
The London councillor was met with a barrage of criticism. Julian Bell, Labour leader of Ealing council replied: “You can agree or disagree with Sir David Attenborough but your comments are shocking & disgraceful! Apologise or resign!”
To which the correct response is; go fuck yourself sideways with the rough end of a pineapple wrapped in razor wire, you pompous self-righteous jerk. Whatever Taylor does, he most certainly should not apologise as that will only encourage the bastards further.
Photographer Jane Salisbury also replied to the Tory councillor. She tweeted: “What a horrible thing to say. Unnecessary.”
Actually, no, very necessary and not at all horrible as it illustrates the Optimum Population Trust’s inherent hypocrisy. Attenborough’s views are riddled with hypocrisy, so why not tell the old bugger to go practice what he preaches? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. That he is a BBC luvvie shouldn’t shield him from robust criticism. And, let’s be clear here, while I disagree with Attenborough’s views, I am not rushing to Twatter to demand his resignation. He may say what he pleases as far as I am concerned, but that means others who find those views vile, get to tell him to go practice what he preaches. That’s how this freedom of speech thing works.
Responding to a request to clarify his comments, Mr Taylor told the Independent: “David Attenborough has for many years been a patron of the Optimum Population Trust which now calls itself Population Matters. My tweet reflected my frustration with Attenborough repeatedly using his “national treasure” status to promote a set of views that see people as being a problem. His prescriptions seem always to apply to other people.
Precisely.
all I can really say to that is LMAO sideways and bugger me with a sharp pointy pineapple wrapped in barbed wire, I gather Sir David has upset you dear 😀
Actually, it’s the Twitterati demanding that Taylor apologise or resign that has attracted my ire. Once again, the hard of thinking seem to feel that when someone says something that offends them apologise or resign is an appropriate response – whereas, “suck it up” is more fitting.
oh if only people still did suck it up….I remember those halcyon days, when people had moral fiber and freedom of speech was…well free and didn’t come with a price tag.
It all seems such a dim and distant memory these days.
In Germany they can be VERY sensetive. Flip the finger, and they will call the police to have you done for “Beleidigung” (Personal insult, basically).
I would LOVE to take them all, with the Guardian liberal scum types, for a weekend in back street Glasgow pubs before the smoking ban.
Lets see you complain to wee mad Harry Mc Nutter the unemployed and psychopathic (although, to be fair, in Glasgow, it is hard to tell,) Ex Govern ship yard riveter that his “You lookin’ at mae Pint Laddie, FUCK OFF!” is “being offensive,” and you demand an apology!
This attitude was summed up for me by the response of my MP to my complaint that they wasted time debating Jade Goody in India, “Intolerance is totally unacceptable”.
Can’t be long before e-mail and Twitter (does it have a purpose?) come with drop-down lists of “acceptable” words or even “better” restricted to the option to “Like” or “Might Like”. Rather like the way large organisations welcome “diversity” in ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. but panic at any variation from ‘group think’ and then they wonder why ‘lessons’ are never learnt.
i felt very sorry for Jade over all that, especially as she was not even being racist, that was another totally unnecessary can of worms
‘…drop-down lists of “acceptable” words or even “better” restricted to the option to “Like” or “Might Like”…’
Of course the trendy ‘liberal’ PC brigade love it, Jim.
They learned from ‘1984’ that ‘Newspeak’ can render ‘Thoughtcrime’ impossible.
They learned from ’1984? that ‘Newspeak’ can render ‘Thoughtcrime’ impossible.
Spot on observation!, the funny thing is that the drones can`t see that they are being manipulated!!
I my short blogging career I was on the OPT/ Population Matters case repeatedly. There is actually what they consider a valid answer to the question, ‘Why don’t they practice what they preach?’ which can’t, however, be retailed in public.
It goes like this; since the goal is to drastically reduce the human population and most people are resistant to the idea of being reduced (killed) they are not worthy and do not possess sufficient will to ensure that it is carried out properly, whereas OPT types do. Therefore it is they who must stay behind to complete the task.
Simple and unarguable. So by that logic if you want to stay alive get on board with the programme, become a eugenicist scumbag and be the one doing the killing rather than the one being killed.
Attenborough and his cohorts are dangerous, nasty and deluded and if their ideas ever get a hold future generations will once again wonder and ask, ‘How could such a thing happen?’
I find your suggestion double plus good
WRONG
L-R
Attenborough is past breeding age.
What he was ACTUALLY asking for is for people to limit their families to 2 children, which will then automatically stabilse the population…. & then lead to a slow, manageable decline from a peak.
The tory councillor is an ignorant, bigoted twat, who could probably do with retroactive contraception – I wonder if he is an RC?
So, bollocks to all of you, just this once, I’m afraid ….
No, Greg, you are the one who is wrong here. Firstly because you have completely missed the point I was making – it was about freedom of speech, not population – and secondly, because Attenborough is a rank hypocrite. It is none of his business how many children other people have and his comments about over population and scarcity of land in Africa is so wrong headed it is laughable.
WRONG again
It is everybody’s business that those “children” whether they be ours or someone else’s. have a liveable planet to inhabit – rather like making sure your landed state is fir to be passed on, rather than wasted – it is a property responsibility.
And the tory councillor is free to express his bigoted & ignorant opinion – as the rest of us are free to tell him that his is still a twat
People need to be free to decide for themselves how many children is appropriate. We have four and, if I had my time again, I’d certainly not have less, maybe one or two more (only last weekend I was bemoaning the fact that out of four kids we don’t have a plumber).
What people don’t need is people giving them unasked for advice based on Malthusian ignorance.
I am not wrong (and there’s no need to shout). Telling other people how many children they may have is morally indefensible as it is no one else’s business, Not mine, not Attenborough’s and not yours.
We know from our own history that birth rates decline with an increase in prosperity and affluence. Therefore, we know what the solution is, and it isn’t some Malthusian nightmare where people like David Attenborough and Jonnie Porrit tell brown people how many children they get to have.
Taylor’s opinion is hardly bigoted – unless you use the Guardian definition of bigotry, which is “disagrees with me” – it was a perfectly rational and reasonable response to Malthusians – go practice what you preach and lead by example. Funnily enough, they never do.
What sort of ignorant, bigoted tosspot thinks that someone who believes that “we have to work out how to make sure that the 9 billion people who will populate the world by 2050 all have a good life” is an ignorant, bigoted twat?
Well DocBud, I’m the type of ignorant, bigoted tosspot who thinks misanthropic totalitarians should lead by example. Apologists for eugenicists should be careful when mounting their haughty steeds!
Try and keep up, Buck.
Greg Tingey referred to Phil Taylor as “an ignorant, bigoted twat”.
Phil Taylor stated on his blog that “we have to work out how to make sure that the 9 billion people who will populate the world by 2050 all have a good life” which doesn’t sound to me like the view of someone who is either ignorant or bigoted.
In another comment above I observed that “people need to be free to decide for themselves how many children is appropriate” and “what people don’t need is people giving them unasked for advice based on Malthusian ignorance” which might indicate that I’m not an apologist for eugenicists.
My second comment was a rhetorical question, “ignorant, bigoted tosspot” being a reference to Greg Tingey.
I would suggest that poor food supplies in Africa are due to a lack of efficient farming methods rather than a shortage of usable land. As LR said, birthrates decline as prosperity increases. Women’s rights probably play a part as well.