David Cameron as an individual, writes Charlie Moore, throws up no insuperable barriers for the majority of voters by his class background. He is patently an able, presentable, decent representative of the well-off, well-educated, mainly southern, upper middle classes who have helped preserve our national stability for two centuries or more. You may not particularly like the type, but you would have to be quite bigoted to say that he was not fit to be prime minister.

Bigoted? Is that the best he can do?

View full article here

A 'bigot' was once the term applied to a group of people who knew the most important secret of the Second World War; namely the beaches, the dates and the forces involved in the planning of Overlord, the greatest invasion ever envisaged.

These people were considered worthy of trust; they walked with the knowledge that the slightest mistake could and would cost thousands of lives, and possibly lose the War into the bargain. All the Bigot's delivered; they kept their word, their promises and their solemn oaths, of duty, service and loyalty to the Allied cause, and so helped to win the War

David Cameron could not possibly be a 'Bigot'.

Call me a bigot then.

bigot begot bigot by God

It isn't his background that makes him unfit to be prime minister, but his performance. Lack of principle doesn't help. but even that is not a disqualifier. It's just the sheer tony blair slick arsehole show with no solid backing, the willingness to say anything to get through one more day and the increasingly intrusive bumbling incompetence. That'll do for now.

How can these supposedly intelligent people on their high salaries not realise the difference between stockpiling coal in 1984 and the current fuel crisis?

A key difference is that only people who were actually involved in stockpiling the coal in 1984 actually knew it was going on. It was not public knowledge and the public wasn't involved so there was no panic.

So you think, apparently, that the Only Ones and your Betters should be the only people to have fuel? Because after all, surely you realize THEY have stockpiled for themselves. But then Mere Citizens do not have anything worth using fuel on now, do they? Unless, perchance, they could deliver some cocktails to the Only Ones and your Betters through their bedroom windows in the middle of the night...

Dr. N said: Indeed, the term betrays limited vocabulary: 'verbally challenged' users have no better way to express themselves. These puppets throw PC terms around the way their 'perceived' serfs use swearwords!

I'm so sick of "bigot" that I checked the etymology. Both the OED and Chambers suggest froggish origins for the word. OED gives an earliest English example from 1598 - they add: "It is uncertain whether the Middle French word shows a direct connection with Old French bigot, attested in the 12th cent. as an offensive name given to the Normans (and also attested in both England and France as a byname, earliest in the 11th cent.). " ** Ah well, ever closer 'attestation' of our ever closer union.

Interesting, though, that the term harks back to kermits ... like those other sounds that ring out so well in froggish: "xenophobe" "europhile." Like all that franco-german claptrap theory, in fact.

So I say 'bigot' suits blancmange chops well; he should take it and wear it with his shirtsleeves, instead of trying to turn it back against us. Not that one would suggest that he and Moore have ever dined together

**"bigot," n. and adj. Oxford English Dictionary Online.Third edition, September 2008; online version March 2012. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/18890>; accessed 31 March 2012. An entry for this word was first included in New English Dictionary, 1887.

Me - bigot.

Charlie Moore - fuckwit.

Political Correctness, as in all other things it would appear, has its exceptions. In the US, which goes from madness to madness by the hour, the black community has described the alleged killer of one of its brothers as a 'White Latino'....he could well have been a Native American but he would have had to be a 'White Native American' in order to justify that Whitey is at it again.
Here, the 'race card' is, mostly, not played by the indigenes as it is deemed rather stupid. But that leaves us without a scapegoat on which to vent our dislike? No, not really....there are always the Toffs...as easily identified as by skin colour...too much money, Public School, Oxbridge & a whiney accent which is offensive to our ears.
None of these things has any bearing on the intelligence, leadership qualities & other attributes we require of those who are supposed to lead us. Both Toffs & hoi polloi produce brilliant folk in equal quantity but, if there's any mud-slinging to be done the target is always the Toffs who cannot run squealing to the Race Relations Board claiming discrimination.
Just thinking.

You're missing the point. Our political "leaders" think that the two things are comparable but they are not. This would not be a problem if it weren't so obviously guiding their strategic decisions.

I.e. technocractic appointments. How EU. These skills should exist within the civil service. If necessary, imported from the private sector. Although, as that becomes increasingly corporatist, they will also become politicians rather than doers.

I am glad you picked that up. From where does this absurd idea come that these people are not political?

The word technocratic doesn't imply any technical competence ability does it ?

Normally I dont want government interference in what one does but ; Cameron , Clegg , Blair . A good argument to close public schools .