Posted on 08/11/2009 8:33:20 AM PDT by whatisthetruth
The government in the United Kingdom has dispatched a letter to talk radio icon Michael Savage that he must "repudiate" the views the government has attributed to him before he even can be considered for removal from a banned-in-Britain government list.
"It was emphasized that the onus is on your client to publicly renounce the statements which formed the basis of the decision to exclude him," said a recent letter from the Litigation and Employment Group at the Treasury Solicitor's Department in London.
"Any such repudiation must be genuine and comprehensive, and persuade my client that this is a true shift of position, in which case, my client would be prepared to consider this," said the letter signed only "Treasury Solicitors" on the stationery that included the names Simon Harker, head of division, and Anne Werbicki, team leader.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ordinarily, terse is better than not. But in this case, I would have taken the risk of adding just one more sentence: “Alternatively, Her Majesty’s Government can go screw itself.”
Savage should laugh in their faces and tell them to insert their commie country in a dark orifice. He should be proud of his banning instead of trying to get it rescinded after they came out with this utter nonsense. As if they will be keeping their country anyway. They’re letting the moose limbs take over just like the rest of Europe.
Full disclosure: I’m not that fond of Dr. Savage, but I am very, very fond of freedom and liberty.
Just curious, do they have a right to free speech in England?
We in American need to be careful when politicians proclaim new rights out of thin air, especially when those rights infer certain economic equity that only the government can by ensure by force. Such an example is the rhetoric of the right of health care. By proclaiming such a right, the government can slip in a regulate inalienable rights such as life and liberty for the phantom right to health care. This is exactly what is happening with the death panel and force coercion into a single payer system.
one of these days he is just going to pop up on British soil and force the issue in a very messy and public way.
Exactly, once you concede that the government can give you a given right, you’ve conceded that they can also take it away. That’s the real problem with DeathCare—not the costs, who’s covered, etc. It’s the concession that the government should have any say in life and death decisions of a free citizen.
Good post. And I’m surprised to read comments here from conservatives like “Who cares.” First they came for Savage...who will be next? I believe the Brits found out about Savage from sources inside the U.S. government. Why would they care what a talk show host from here says, one who isn’t even heard in the UK? It was a warning shot to others in this country who dare to speak up.
Savage has irked the radical Muslims big time! There will be riots if he tries to enter England and the government is plenty scared of the radical Muslims
Iran gets in on the Michael Savage bashing.
Not in decades has a media personality taken on America's foreign enemies the way Dr. Savage has. While other talk show hosts deserve our thanks for outstanding support of our military and their mission nevertheless national talk show hosts are lacking in taking on the enemy of America the way Dr. Savage has. IMO. To be fair I did hear Mark Levin dare CAIR to come after him. A few tepid remarks from time to time just don't cut it.
If there are other radio personnel targeted by the Islamic Republic of Iran or other radical Islamist enemies I am not aware of them.
I think Savage deserves the recognition despite his severest critics.
Well at least the tyrants in Iran have a cute little name for him, Dajjal. A little classier than the Savage-haters here in the states, like $#&^! *(#%^! Yeah, like those.
Wow, the leading cause of terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has taken offense at our own Michael Savage!
What other talk show host can boast that? There is one: Rusty Humphries -- but that turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. The Islamists confused Humphries with a blogger with a similar name.
Savage has made many, many comments about radical Muslims in the context of our war to defend against them.
Savage, like me, is old enough to remember W.W.II. Thus his comments are directed to winning the war and that means killing the bastards by the hundreds of thousands.
He was not talking about Muslims in general but he was talking about the Islamist enemy. Our enemies have used his comments, out of context, as a weapon.
The UK banned him for several statements he’s made over the years taken out of their context.
It has been revealed that he was primarily chosen cuz the UK wanted to have other nationalities on their ban list besides Muslim extremists. Savage took his inclusion on the list as a columny against him, and furthermore, he was given no due process: essentially was charged and found guilty and sentenced. He’s suing for slander to his reputation primarily to extract an apology from the govt.
Savage is not broadcast in UK, yet specific cherry-picked soundbites were used to make the assessment. Savage is also suing to find out who sent the soundbites from US broadcast to the Leftists in UK.
The latest revelation is that the UK said that Savage would be let back into the UK provided he repudiate the statements they claim he made. Savage pointed out that that was the MO in the Soviet Union to suppress those the state had in their crosshairs. Anyone succumbing to pressure to renounce things they never said later used the repudiation as proof they had said it. Catch 22 typical of statists.
How come the rest of the Savage Nation here at FR can’t seem to answer these questions?
Thought crime.
Eff the UK!
These words cannot be coming from a free country. These words are coming from a socialist or communist country. Instead of having an intelligent discourse in connection with Savage's words, the vermin in England are asking Savage to repudiate what he did not say. This is beyond mental illness.
I, for one, would like to see a listing of the views the government has attributed to Savage, and then a discussion of each one.
My opinion is that Savage was put on the list to balance the murderous Islamofacists. After all, it is only fair to include at least one Jew so England cannot be accused of profiling. Of course the US government was consulted and agreed. They have other talk show hosts ready for other kinds of lists I strongly suspect.
And why was the Phelps family of ‘Godhatesfags’ fame put on the list?
It’s relieving to find that I’m not alone in answering that question. I sometimes wonder how good Savage is when the his supporters can’t seem to recount some of the details of either what his latest views are, or provide a recap or sampling of the attacks as you and I have done today.
I almost never feel the need to call the Doc because he covers my views close enough. But I am dismayed at how few times anyone ever writes about what he has discussed on each daily thread. I’ve done so when I’m able, but I rarely am available. Why others don’t do it leaves me disappointed.
They are also on the same list with Savage.
Yes, and as is often said about the few talk show hosts who are a few notches above the rest, ya gotta listen to 'em for a couple of weeks (or more) to "get it."
Rush Limbaugh started locally here in Sacramento back in 1983 (if I remember right). My first reaction was, who is this guy? He'd replaced a conservative host who'd been kicked off the air for -- well, number one he was conservative in the era of the "Fairness Doctrine" and number two he said "Chinaman" on the air.
Rush said from to start that you have to listen to him for at least two weeks.
.. and in Savage's case, it almost has to be on-going because he says so many "outrageous" sounding things.
I listened to virtually very minute from almost his first day on KSFO (1994?). So I believe that "I get it." It doesn't mean exactly as it sounds out of context of the months of prior broadcasts.
I have to add, in all the years listening to Savage he's not changed -- except for IMO the addition of the nasty habit of calling his competitors names and maligning them. I don't care how vicious he says that the competition is in his business. I've been listening to radio since the early 1940s and I've heard nothing like the enmity that Savage claims exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.