An interview with Peter Hitchens

The following is the text of an interview with Peter Hitchens from ‘Relevent’ magazine last year.





In contemporary journalism, few figures have as compelling a backstory as Peter Hitchens. Raised in a conservative Christian environment, Peter and his older brother, Christopher, came to adopt a ferocious atheism. Blazingly intelligent and piercingly articulate, they gained notoriety for their winsomely contrarian styles.


But while Christopher would go on to become one of the modern age’s most famous atheists—or, to use his phrase, anti-theists—the younger Hitchens brother followed a different path. Peter left the Trotskyism of his teens and became one of England’s most noted conservative voices, winning the Orwell Prize for journalism in 2010, in which one of the judges called his writing “as firm, polished and potentially lethal as a guardsman’s boot.” More importantly, and perhaps more surprisingly, Hitchens returned to the faith of his younger years. He writes eloquently and forcefully about the need for Christian morality in the public sector.


Tragically, Christopher passed away in 2011 from esophageal cancer. But Peter continues to work as an author and journalist, with a regular column for the Mail on Sunday. He took a little time to talk with us about his journey back to faith, religion’s place in civilized society and what he sees ahead for the next generation.


Q: So, when did you first become a Christian?


A: I was brought up in an explicitly Christian society and taught by teachers whose assumption was that Christianity was the religion of my people,  that I held, and held before I came to school   … Christianity was still, in my upbringing, what you might call the default position of the English person. So I don’t know if the word “become” really applies.


Q: Was there a definite moment when you decided you didn’t believe in God anymore?


A: Oh, there was definitely a moment when I decided it wasn’t true—in my early teens. I was never indifferent to [Christianity], nor was it ever not a force in my life and in my surroundings and in everything in England. From the architecture to the music, to the shape of the towns, to the language, to the songs that we sang, were all Christian in their nature. You couldn’t have escaped it if you wanted to. But what you could do, which I did do, was deny it and say you no longer believed in it. That was a definite moment, identifiable and clear.



“The fundamental proof of the goodness of our belief has to be the fruits of it.”

Q: Was there a moment where you reverted back?


A: No, no, nothing so identifiable. It was a process so gradual that the moment at which I might have been said to be a believer again cannot be clearly distinguished from the moment when I didn’t believe. I can’t remember a specific moment. It was a very gradual, imperceptible thing and at some point it was necessary for me to acknowledge to myself and to other people that, that was the case.


Q: Do you feel that the time of places like the U.S. and the U.K. being Christian nations is completely a thing of the past?


A: I fear it is, yes. The only thing that’s holding up the recognition of that is the afterglow of Christianity. There is a continued assumption in people’s lives, even though they aren’t specifically and explicitly Christians themselves … People are still governed by assumptions that are Christian, but they no longer acknowledge the roots from which they come. In the end, if you separate any plant from its roots, the plant will die. But there will be a period, depending on the size and age of the plant, during which it will appear to be still alive. But it has undoubtedly died at the roots. I think as the originally Christian societies of the world become less so, it’s going to be harder to believe. That will just be the case. And it will take considerably more courage than anyone in my generation ever had to face.


Q: Some people would say it might be a good thing if we stop being a Christian nation—that we can still hold to the truth, that we don’t have to legislate our own morals on a larger group that doesn’t necessarily hold to them. Do you agree?


A: I think society has to have a fundamental agreement about what its morals are and what the origins of those morals are. You can have a more or less chaotic and lawless arrangement, or you can have a sort of armed truce. But what you can’t have is a functioning, inventive, lively civilization unless it has pretty much agreed on a shared foundation for what it believes is good.


Q: So what do you say then to people who would say—and a good many of them do—“Who are you to tell me that your morality is more right than mine?”


A: I would say the source of morality is not me. I’m merely informing you of another authority that seems to have a good deal more force than I could ever command. But in the end, of course, the illusion of self-authority—which has been one of the major developments of the past 100 years—has persuaded people that they need no such thing. And not only that they don’t need the concept of the deity, but that they actively want there not to be such a thing, which is one of the reasons the new atheism is such a passionate, intolerant and in many cases, rather unpleasant phenomenon. The people who have adopted it actively want there not to be a God. They know that if there is a God then that God must be a source of authority. If a purposeful creator made the universe in which we live, it would be idle to imagine that you could ignore that creator’s desires as to how you should live.


I’ll put this very crudely: It’s like buying a very expensive piece of equipment and trying to work it by actually looking at the manual and doing the opposite of what it says. It won’t work. If you don’t acknowledge that there is a manual or that anybody else knows more about it than you do, all kinds of things will happen which you might even conceivably think are good but they wouldn’t be. You wouldn’t know that because you would have tossed aside the very concept of there being an absolute right or wrong way to use this incredibly complex, delicate, finely engineered piece of equipment.


Q: But many people will point at religion, particularly Christianity, and all the harm that’s been done in its name.


A: Ah, but this is sort of schoolboy stuff, isn’t it? One of the fundamental points about the Christian religion is that it asserts that man is himself fallen and, without aid, is bound to fail.


Q: But people will look at widespread corruption—like some of the abuse scandals that came out of the Catholic Church—and say religion is the common denominator to all that.


A: I find all of this rather tedious. It’s not a proper argument. If you want to dispute the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, by all means, do so. I dispute some of them myself. But dispute them on that basis. Don’t attempt to smear it by the actions of some of its officials, members or hierarchy, who have broken its own rules … Any large organization is human, and again, you have the problem: We’re fallen creatures. If we are in charge of any large organization, even if its aims are fundamentally good, there will be failures. But this isn’t an argument against the institution.


Q: There was a survey taken here in the States stating that something like 90 percent of people outside the Church consider those inside it to be judgmental.


A: Opinion polls and devices generally are for influencing public opinion rather than measuring it … I’d be interested to hear how the question was put. But it wouldn’t matter to me how many people said something was true if it weren’t true.


“It’s often the case what is right is not easy, and it’s always the broad primrose path that leads to destruction.”


Q: You would say that the public opinion isn’t so important as that what we’re doing is right in our own eyes.


A: I don’t see what is to be gained by being ashamed of what you believe because you’re afraid that some indoctrinated person – who has been a victim of conventional wisdom and received opinion – has been told to believe what you say is, in some way, wrong. The fundamental proof of the goodness of our belief has to be the fruits of it. Look at what the Roman Catholic Church does worldwide. The amount of good it does hugely outweighs the amount of evil that is done – in contradiction of its own principles – by some of its officials.


This is a period of great material wealth and the worship of economic growth – and the century of the self, in which religious belief is going to be in trouble. The best metaphor for the state of mind in which we find ourselves is:  this is the first generation of the human race which doesn’t generally see the stars at night. It has blotted them out with street lamps and car headlights and everything else. You simply can’t see the stars in most places where human beings are concentrated, and, in the same way, the triumph of consumerism and growth and the temporary joys of pleasure as a substitute for happiness,  have blotted out the metaphorical stars of religious faith. It’s very hard to expect people who can’t see the stars to examine the significance of the stars or see their beauty.


Q: There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to fix that.


A: Sometimes there is no easy way. There’s an English hymn which goes … (slowly recites)


Father,  hear the prayer we offer; Not for ease our prayer shall be … But the steep and rugged pathway May we tread rejoicingly …


It’s often the case what is right is not easy, and it’s always the broad primrose path that leads to destruction. There’s nothing new about that. If it’s easy it’s probably wrong, if it’s difficult it may be wrong, but it’s also quite likely to be right.


See :



31 thoughts on “An interview with Peter Hitchens

  1. I thought not. Lots of tumbleweed. I only dropped by after a google search for something provided a signposts02 article. Had a quick look at some of the archives and there has actually been a huge number of very interesting posts.

    Also a huge number of very vitriolic ones. See ya Q.

  2. Hope everything’s going well with you and your family Mr Wazza. Disagreed with you on most things lol but I miss the conversations.

  3. Funny Wazza – your utterly self-inconsistent worldview and inability to meaningfully interact with opposing ideas relies on “censorship” – your just too dumb to realize it

  4. well I cant argue with that Comrade , If I’m too dumb to realize then I will just have to take the word of a higher intelligence than mine.

    Everything is going fairly well now thanks Q. I’ve moved to London because I couldnt get a job in IT in Australia – waited for 6 months and hardly a bite. Got off the plane on Wednesday and now on Friday I’ve got a job. Am enjoying London very much so far. Its hard being away from the kids and wife but I’ve got little choice and hopefully they will join me at the end of the year.

    All the best to you and your family.

  5. Censorship? No…poisonous hatred and vitriolic argument killed this site…I know, I was the main problem. Don’t try to claim you were censored because that’s just bullshit.

  6. I dont claim I was censored. i dont have to its an easily verified fact.

    There was an article posted here about a European ‘artist’ who was censored because of her anti-muslim stance. The article was critical of this censorship, as were most of the conservative bloggers here.

    I posted a number of her art-works and her writings. Immediately from the same people there were calls to take the pictures down, due mainly to their sexual or provocative nature. I voluntarily removed some of the pictures.

    So, quite ironically on a thread about the necessity of free speech, I was immediately asked to curtail my own speech – which was merely repeating the speech of the original subject – the one who the article claimed was suppressed.

    Then there was a whole lot of confused argument, and then you pulled the plug.

    If some people want to fly the flag for free speech, especially when it is anti-muslim then thats fine. But they cant then cry ‘take it down’ when I put up some other uncomfortable speech by the same artist. You are only an advocate for free speech if you support speech that you don’t like – it is easy to support speech that you like.

    If you were the main problem then you should go away, not censor others

  7. In fact, there were some pretty meaty and intelligent discussions on this site, in between the slap and tickle, which covered some interesting and often provocative ethical issues.

    I don’t think censorship brought about the recent drop on interest, rather a few bad tempered and ill-advised comments which failed to demonstrate anything Christlike and bordered on abuse. I guess we went into a corporate sulk. LOL!

    I think Greg mostly let things roll along pretty well, allowing some of the heat to ferment and create a few intoxicating debates. But the avid reader had to sift through the grunge to find the gold on occasion. If anything, Greg’s eventual lone ranger approach to posting articles dulled the site by creating a cyclopean view of the world. More variety could have made things interesting again, but those who pull the strings play the tune.

    However, this site still beats to a pulp the stale and one-sided fare served up at the sub-sites which came about as offshoots. For instance, for sheer censorship and bias, the prime examples are the watcher sites started up by the former moderator of this site, specksandplanks, which are recently reaching epic derisory proportions in terms of content, accuracy and commentary. At least this site was spared that kind of ridiculously obsessive drudgery when specks ran off with his ‘tales’ between his legs.

    Who knows, maybe this site can be revived and renew its contribution to the blogosphere as an emotive outlet for questioners of ethical faith issues.

    But I would agree that it would require some kind of moderation, if there was a lack of self-control by contributors, to avoid the kinds of slurs bandied about in the past. Self-moderation is always preferable to censorship, don’t you think?

  8. Hey, wazza, if you’re in London, feel free to drop me a line through Greg if you ever want to go for a coffee sometime.

  9. …..(.)….
    ….\—/ O

    Can you see the point now?

    Hey Steve, yes would be great to have a coffee will send my email through

  10. Greg, how is it that you have closed off the discussion on R C Sproul Mangles Pentecost?

    I have been waiting for reformedspock to respond to his claims on 1 John 5. I have some more information for him which also references R C Sproul, who has been taken to task by others on his claim that regeneration is sans faith.

    ‘1 John 5:1

    A final verse Dr. Sproul references to support his view that regeneration precedes faith is 1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” He cites the verse, but provides no explanation.

    Traditional later reformed support from this passage is based on the Greek verbs in this passage. The verb for believe is present tense: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ…” It’s also a participle; a more literal translation is “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ…” The second verb for “born,” is perfect tense: “…has been born of God.”

    According to later reformed exegesis and interpretation the perfect tense carries with it the idea of past action with continuing results. Being born of God produces results continuing into the present. When the present participle, believing, is coupled with the perfect tense verb, being born of God, faith is the result of being born again. The voice is passive; God alone accomplishes this birth. Faith is the result of regeneration; regeneration produces, and hence precedes, faith.

    This interpretation, however, is unwarranted from the tense of the Greek verbs. There are at least two examples in John’s writings where, rather than the present tense participle resulting from the perfect tense verb, the perfect tense verb results from the present tense participle.

    One example is John 3:18. “Whoever believes (present participle) in him is not condemned (perfect tense).” Believing removes, and hence, precedes, not being condemned. Expressed positively: “Whoever believes (present participle) in him is has been justified (perfect tense). Believing is not the result of having been justified; rather, faith precedes justification. 30

    A second example is 1 John 5:10 “Whoever does not believe (present participle) God has made (perfect tense) him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.” The perfect tense, making God a liar, is a result of the present participle, not believing.

    The most you can conclude from the Greek present participle and the perfect tense verb is that the actions occur contemporaneously. There is regeneration and there is faith. The Greek tenses do no more to establish the order of salvation than the conjunction “and” in the previous statement.

    Most Calvinists also resort to the use of the Greek word, gennaô, to be born. They teach that whenever this word occurs as a perfect verb, it produces a range of results expressed as present participles, of which faith is one.
    “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” (2:29).
    “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (3:9).
    “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (4:7).
    “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him” (5:1).

    We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb “born” (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.

    Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (3:9), and loving God (4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ. 31

    If this were the only passage in Scripture that references regeneration and faith, I would favor the later reformed position, but I could not be dogmatic about it. It’s the strongest argument of many Calvinists, but it is not without its problems.

    1. The raw text of 1 John 5:1 carries more weight than the context of word association; in exegesis context is king, but sentence structure trumps context. Let’s examine the two verses above side by side:

    “Whoever believes (present participle) in him is not condemned (perfect tense).” John 3:18. (A then B)
    “Everyone who believes (present participle) that Jesus is the Christ has been born (perfect tense) of God.” 1 John 5:1 (B then A)

    The perfect tense provides no support for regeneration preceding faith.

    2. From John’s use of gennaô it would be appropriate to suggest that regeneration might precede faith, but to write, “It follows, then . . .” is to grasp an opinion that rests on thin ice. The conclusion is unwarranted.

    3. John’s uses of gennaô nowhere preclude the possibility of faith preceding regeneration. You can argue for regeneration preceding faith, but you can’t argue against faith preceding regeneration.

    4. John’s use of the verb gennaô allows for at least four scenarios in which faith precedes regeneration.

    First, a sinner believes, he’s born again, and he continues in the present believing. John’s reference could be to the ongoing faith of those who have been born of God.

    Next, if faith and regeneration occur simultaneously, there’s no time gap between faith and regeneration. Everyone who believes has been born again and everyone who has been born again believes. It’s impossible to be born again and not believe; it’s impossible to believe and not be born again.

    A third scenario has to do with John’s terminology. He uses the phrase “born of God” to designate “Christians,” a term he never uses. The phrase, “born of God” can be substituted with the term, “Christian.” Look at how the emphasis shifts.

    Everyone who practices righteousness is a Christian. (2:29)
    No one born of God keeps on sinning because he is a Christian. (3:9)
    Whoever loves is a Christian. (4:7)
    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a Christian. (5:1)

    John is not laying out here an ordo salutis. He is characterizing Christians, those who have been born again. 32 It’s inappropriate to force results from the perfect tense.

    Consider this fourth scenario.

    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. (1 John 5:1)
    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been justified. Is this true?

    According to later reformed ordo salutis, being born of God precedes faith which precedes justification. (Rom.5:1)

    If the same grammatical structure that places being born of God before faith can also allow justification after faith, then the grammatical structure of the verse does not really address the order of salvation. John could have been writing from the same time-order orientation.

    5. The broader context of John’s writings. John would not teach here that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere present faith as a condition for life. “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31) You cannot have life without regeneration; birth is the beginning of life; it is part and parcel of life: faith then life (regeneration the beginning of life and continuing through eternity). Calvinists separate regeneration life from eternal life: regeneration life then faith then eternal life.

    John’s statement here not only supports the view that faith precedes regeneration, but it also precludes the possibility of regeneration preceding life.33

    The argument from the Greek tenses is without merit. When examined in the context of John’s first letter, the argument from John’s use of gennaô is, at best, tenuous. When examined in the context of other writings, the belief that regeneration precedes faith is without merit and it is precluded by clear Biblical statements contradicting that view. ‘

    Dan Musick Theology.

  11. Shit, bones…don’t sneak up on an old man like that!

    Wazza….actually I believe it was more that this site had had its day, it was really a one trick pony, a one horse town, a one politician senate, a one sperm ejaculate…it was doomed to die because all we could ever talk about was how wrong Steve and his team were and how right myself and bones were…you popped up every now and again with a stupid article that didn’t really add anything to any discussion and so your authorship rights were taken away…but then you whinged and cried and pooped your nappies, and I, the soft father figure, gave in and allowed the petulant child to have his toy back…good to see what you’ve done with it.

    Muslims are bad.
    Gays are good
    Religious conservatives are wrong
    Christian progressive theology is bang on the money

    They were what each and every article (just about) essentially boiled down to.

    The only article that I am proud of, and interestingly, the article most read by visitors to this day, was my article (as opposed to the cut and paste mush mash we all delivered and called blog-worthy) called The Scream Which was about my the churches response to mental health in the light of my sisters suicide. I loved that post and still treasure it…I’m going to turn it into a book I think.

    Anyway…stop being a sook…waaaaa waaaa censorship killed the blog…nope…it died.

  12. You really are one of the most uncharitable people who ever ‘contributed’ to this blog. And that is saying something.

    You trashed some of my writing, absolutely cursed it – I never responded back in kind, merely asking you what your problem was. You never gave any reason why you didn’t like it.

    Even now you’ve painted it as “a stupid article that didn’t really add anything” before you go on to praise your own article.

    One of the things I used to like about this blog was that people could discuss things from very different points of view. We would very robustly debate issues but there was still some sort of respect for each others view, and indeed each other.

    You’ve gotten really personal now and disrespectful. And whatever great writing you have done and however artsy-fartsy or spiritual you get, the way you have treated others will colour that.

    You can still apologise.

  13. [i]I find all of this rather tedious. It’s not a proper argument. If you want to dispute the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, by all means, do so. I dispute some of them myself. But dispute them on that basis. Don’t attempt to smear it by the actions of some of its officials, members or hierarchy, who have broken its own rules … Any large organization is human, and again, you have the problem: We’re fallen creatures. If we are in charge of any large organization, even if its aims are fundamentally good, there will be failures. But this isn’t an argument against the institution.[\i]


    Anatomy of a Hitchens Hatchet Job

    Almost exactly three years ago, I rang Peter Hitchens, the Mail on Sunday columnist, who is a friend of a friend, to ask his advice. A right-wing, anti-Islam blog had edited together, totally out of context, various quotes from me speaking in front of a group of British Muslim students in Manchester and made me look like an ultra-Islamist loon. Would the right-wing tabloid press jump on this “story”, I wondered? Would I end up appearing on the pages of, say, the Mail, under the headline of ‘Extremist!”? Don’t be silly, replied Hitchens, I don’t think anything you’ve said is worthy of publication in a national newspaper. You’ve got nothing to worry about so you should just calm down.

    Fast forward three years: imagine my surprise to discover that a man named Peter Hitchens has produced a column in the Mail on Sunday attacking me over those very same out-of-context quotes.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so personally offensive. I’ll deal with Hitchens in a moment but first let me deal – again! – with those damned “quotes”.

    Did I, invoking a verse from the Quran, refer to unthinking, incurious non-Muslims as “cattle”? Yes but – and here’s where context matters! – if you listen to the full speech, you’ll hear me refer to unthinking, incurious Muslims as “cattle” too (“We are the cattle that Allah condemns in the Quran,” I said.) Peter omitted to mention this key point.

    Then there’s the quote in which I seem to refer to non-Muslims as “animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire”. Again, I was quoting from the Quran and, in fact, if you listen to the full speech, it is very clear that I was referring to those human beings, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who live their lives without a clear moral code, without an ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

    In hindsight, I accept in this particular case that my phraseology was ill-judged, ill-advised and, even, inappropriate, but it is a bit of a stretch to claim I was attacking non-Muslims when the entire 45-minute speech is primarily an attack on Muslim extremists who try and justify violence against non-Muslims on an “ends justify the means” basis. But, I suppose, the whole point of a “gotcha” quote is to that it is totally and conveniently context-free.

    I’ve been a victim of plenty of right-wing hatchet jobs but I guess I naively expected more from Peter – who has known me for almost 10 years and knows full well that I am not anti-Christian or an extremist of any sort. I was especially shocked when he admitted to me, over the phone on Friday, that he hadn’t bothered to listen to the two speeches in full in order to discover the proper context of those remarks. “Where would I find them?” he asked, apparently having never come across

    He also admitted to never having read any of the articles that I’ve had published in the New Statesman, the Guardian and the Times, over the past three years, on the subject of Islam, Muslims, secularism, extremism and the rest; he preferred to base his entire column on a 45-second quote ripped, out of context, from a four-year-old, 45-minute speech in which, ironically, I not only praise non-Muslims but also encourage Muslims to learn from non-Muslims and, in particular, the West.

    The inconvenient truth, for Hitchens and for the right-wing trolls who mimic his smears online, is that I have published hundreds of thousands of words in the afore-mentioned publications; countless articles and columns and blogposts in which I have decried Muslim extremism and intolerance and declared my support for religious pluralism and a secular, multi-faith society.

    Here I condemn Iran’s anti-Christian apostasy laws; here I unconditionally condemn all forms of suicide terrorism; here I criticise British Muslims for “our navel-gazing and victim mentality”; here I denounce those Muslims like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad who engage in Holocaust denial; here I praise Muslim diplomat Abdul-Hossein Sardari for saving Iranian Jews from the Nazis during the Second World War; here I attack Anjem Choudary for his intolerance and bigotry.

    Do these sound like the views of a Muslim extremist or reactionary? And is it too much to ask to be judged on my large body of published works rather than spurious “gotcha” quotes from ancient and dodgy YouTube videos?

    The claim that I view non-Muslims as somehow inferior or unequal is not just absurd and offensive but would come as a bit of shock to the hundreds of non-Muslims I have worked with in the British media over the past decade and who I count among my friends, including Jonathan Dimbleby, Jeremy Vine, Dermot Murnaghan, Kay Burley, Eamonn Holmes, Jon Snow, Dorothy Byrne (head of Channel 4 current affairs), John Ryley (head of Sky News) and Jason Cowley (editor of the New Statesman). Ask them if they think I’m an extremist or a bigot.

    A few months ago, I received a letter from a man who warned me that “there will not be one live Muslim left in Europe when we have finished” and then threatened to drown me in “a large expanse of water, like the Thames”. What had prompted him to contact me? Yep, you guessed it: it had come to his attention, he wrote, that I had referred to non-Muslims as “cattle” and “animals”.

    Dear Peter, words have consequences. Your recklessly inaccurate, inflammatory and irresponsible column only indulges the Islamophobic fantasies of the UK’s violent, far-right crazies – and encourages them to make their vile threats. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Mehdi Hasan
    Political director of The Huffington Post UK

  14. Greg : March 22

    ” Don’t try to claim you were censored because that’s just bullshit.”

    Greg : April 24

    “…you popped up every now and again with a stupid article that didn’t really add anything to any discussion and so your authorship rights were taken away…”

    I didnt really want to argue with you, but you are spouting contradictory statements that reflect your own internal confusion and then trying to cover it all up by spurious put-downs of myself.

    You got a very small amount of authority – ownership of a minor blog – and you turned into Hitler.

    And then you did the “Waaa Waaa cry-baby” thing which is the last resort of scoundrels throughout the ages, from the playground to the battlefield.

  15. Be fair, Greg. Wazza, despite our differences, said some intelligent and articulate things and generally with a reasonable level of civility and poise. I didn’t always agree with his point of view, and sometimes he was over inquisitive at a personal level, but nothing particularly offensive.

    Removing authorship and going solo has basically left the site near redundant. If you dig, there’s a great amount of excellent debate in between the raucous stuff on the site, which was occasionally fast moving, lucidly expressive, and a great deal of slap-stick fun, if a little hairy at times.

    The main problem has always been with overbearing reactionary rudeness towards others which is often a sign of a lack of effective debating ability.

    I think we’re long past ripping each other to shreds on a blog. Or we should be. Grown-ups, anyone?

  16. Thats another problem with bullying, you get the copy cats

    You’re a bit late to the party RS – live long and prosper

  17. Just read this now.

    Good luck in London Wazza!
    Hope you and Steve got together. If you did how did it go – after all that online jousting?

    Tough being away from family, but maybe Steve can be a bodyguard and keep those Brit girls away from you.


  18. Okay, i get it now. WHen I turn up everyone leaves…..?

    So that means I can say anything I want because I’m the only one here…..

    OKay……… wow, who can believe that Bono guy! What a disgrace!
    And Isis? Looks like everything I ever said about Islam was right!

    I say bring on the referendum in Oz. WIth referendum voting being compulsory it will never pass – though Bono, and the rest of the entertainment industry will throw all the money, time and effort at it – if the sane people get out and vote the gay agenda will finally be stopped.

    And maybe they’ll all go to Ireland.

    hmm just what I always wanted to hear – the sound of my own voice!

    but I’ve been away so long I can’t even remember who reformed spock is.

    just in case anyone reads this……..Greg, are you still going back to study?
    If so, hope you are having fun.

Comments are closed.