Blogging from the Highlands of Scotland until I return to the Murcia region of Spain in the Autumn for a month or so
'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step' - Diderot

Saturday, 2 January 2010

What a blessing this deplorable, awful excuse for a human being is standing down from Parliament!

I've never particularly cared for Ann Widdecombe, nor indeed for the object of her 'affection', Michael Howard, but I was shocked at the vile nature of this revealing insight into this despicable woman's character. And she calls herself a 'Christian'?! And she seems pleased with herself, too. Words fail me. Awful, awful awful! What a dreadful, spiteful creature she reveals herself to be. And in my opinion a pretty blatant anti-Semite, too (mind you I came to that conclusion about her use of the phrase 'something of the night' a LONG time ago - she knew precisely what she was about then, as her recent admission about her tactics shows quite clearly).

I rarely get angry about the behaviour of others supposedly a part of normal respectable society (I'm not entirely pure in thought or deed myself, after all), but I do feel depressed when I learn that I must share the same country, or even the same planet [frankly] as such disgusting creatures as this person. Mr Howard is, I think, basically a decent person, even if I certainly don't share all of his views. A lot of people don't care for Margaret Thatcher either (I think she is one of our greatest 20th century politicians, 'warts and all'), but I'd stake my life that her ethics, indeed those of most British politicians of whichever political persuasion, are a whole lot more palatable than those of the soon-to-be ex-MP, Miss Ann Widdecombe.

2 comments:

  1. Excuse me for being ignorant but I don't even know what "something of the night" is meant to mean.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi James

    Well you'd have to ask the good Ann precisely what she meant, but it is generally interpreted that she was making covert allusions to Howard's Romanian ancestry (Dracula and all that) and possibly also to his Jewish background, rather than blatantly coming out and saying what she did mean. I do not think it was an accident that she used those precise terms to describe him; as she herself now says, it was done with the deliberate intent of damaging him - so it could not be interpreted in any positive way.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to my comment area. Whilst all comment is welcome you are requested to respect the views of others. To read full terms for use of this facility, please visit my 'Terms of Use' section, linked to under the 'About this Blog' heading at top right of the blog. Note added 12JUL2010 - All comments will now be pre-moderated before they appear in this blog; this is a measure to prevent 'spam' commenting, which has become frequent of late. Thank you.