Today’s first letter was sent in by our contributor and correspondent Ceri Jayes. It is making the rounds, so she (and we) thought you might enjoy this as well:

Sir,

I don’t know the source of this text, but hope you’ll share it on UKIP Daily anyway:

“I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to you, but it is difficult in today’s world to know exactly what to say without offending someone what with all the Human Rights, Health & Safety and Race Hate Laws that are now in force.

So I met my solicitor yesterday, and on his advice I now offer you all the following greeting -“Please accept (with no obligation, implied or implicit) my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2018, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures, whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that the UK is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms and conditions

Best Regards (without prejudice),

Name withheld (In accordance with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 [UK recipients] and The Privacy Acts of 1974 [US recipients]; as amended 2010 [Australian recipients] and 1993 [New Zealand recipients]).

Footnotes:

i. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal;

ii. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting;

iii. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wishee or any other person(s);

iv. It is void where prohibited by law;

v. It is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher;

vi. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.”

Respectfully, Ceri Jayes

Our correspondent Roger Arthur sent us some arguments useful when talking to remainers:

Sir,

remainers hate the question “why pay well over £10bn pa net for access to that market, when it is not generating a need for more UK business and jobs?” Here is a recent challenge to them:

“There is no need to worry about Foreign Direct Investment, which has not fallen since the referendum. That is because the vast majority of UK businesses which don’t export to the single market, are going to be freed from the burden of EU regulations. They will be free to innovate, raising productivity in the process, which is far more likely to sustain FDI than one-size-fits-all EU regulations.

A recent Forbes’ Survey found  Britain to be “the world’s best country in which to do business in a major vote of confidence” It is the first time this country has taken the top spot in the Forbes annual survey after rising from fifth last year.

As seen from an Oxford Economics graph, the single market has been taking lower volumes of UK goods and services. So why pay well over £10bn pa net for access to that market, when it is not generating a need for more UK business and jobs? Why?

Then consider the indirect costs of our EU membership and the liabilities that we would carry by remaining in the EU. If we remain in the EU we will be expected to contribute to Eurozone bailouts. (Also remember that by 2025 all EU members will be expected to join the Euro).

City entrepreneur Jim Mellon warns UK to quit EU before Eurozone ‘implosion’. If we don’t escape, then he puts our potential liabilities at over £1tn, which only reinforces the need to escape the EU sooner rather than later.”

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Finally, here is an important letter from our reader and correspondent Ann Farmer, on the curtailing of free speech generally, not just in our universities:

Sir,

speaking of a ‘“worrying” trend of students seeking to “stifle” opinions that are counter to their own’, which is ‘now gathering pace at British universities’, universities minister Jo Johnson has warned that ‘“Safe spaces must not stifle free speech at universities”’ (Telegraph, December 26, 2017).

He is apparently unaware of the ‘worrying’ trend of militant campaigners seeking to ‘stifle’ opinions with which they disagree, who are demanding ‘buffer zones’ outside abortion clinics, citing harassment of pregnant women and staff for which they offer no evidence, under ‘anti-social behaviour’ laws; they themselves routinely harass pro-life vigils seeking to offer practical help and moral support to distressed women. This trend began in universities against pro-life representatives who were routinely drowned out by a barrage of noise – and it is still continuing, even at Oxford University, seen as a bastion of free speech.

Those who seek to silence the pro-life argument claim that it demonstrates ‘hatred’ of women, thus they exploit the ‘hate crime’ loophole to suppress free speech – but Mr Johnson adds that universities must also ensure they provide ‘no place for hatred, discrimination, extremism or racism.’

And yet abortion campaigners regularly display hatred for anyone who dares to criticise them, including politicians who would introduce legal protections for women and the unborn; they would discriminate not only against the right to free speech, but the right to life of the innocent unborn, including the female and disabled; they demand extreme measures, most notoriously the complete decriminalisation of abortion, and the dangerous ‘home abortion’; they ignore forced abortions in China and the fact that rates of abortion for ethnic minorities are appallingly high.

The suppression of free speech is a pet project of the Marxist left, and Mr Johnson must not fall into their trap, or we will simply end up with the status quo – allowing hate speech against Israel because it is an ‘apartheid regime’, while ignoring lethal threats against it, and suppressing the arguments of those who would save unborn life. The Marxist left respects neither the right to free speech, nor the right to life; the only safe space they desire is a buffer zone for their own opinions.

Respectfully, Ann Farmer

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email