Muammar Al Khadafi

The persecution of the humble golliwog, much hated and discriminated against by politically correct officialdom, continues as council equalities staff ban them from sale at a Bournemouth market.

Viv Endecott, who sells merchandise inspired by childrens author Enid Blyton, has removed her stall from Boscombe Vintage Market rather than comply with the order from the councils equality and diversity officer.

As an added twist, Miss Endecott herself is of mixed race, lucky for her else it is likely the allegations of racism would fly.

According to Miss Endecott the councils equalities and diversity officer accepted that she was not racist, but said that the toys could cause offence to overseas students and spark public order problems.

No mention of a complaint received, sounds very much a case of a jobsworth taking it upon themselves to decide what will and will not offend others, the normal modus operandi for the gestapo of race and equalities.

After all, we must remove everything that may offend minority, and accept everything that minority does to offend majority.

"It is widely accepted in modern society that golliwogs are acknowledged as having racist connotations" said Carol Maund, art development officer for Bournemouth Council, "We have spoken to Ms Endecott on a number of occasions, and, whilst we are not suggesting she is in any way prejudiced, we have asked her not to sell golliwogs at the Light Night event"

In a very telling comment, Miss Endecott commented that "It seems to be part of the English psyche to avoid dialogue about race rather than to explain the cultural background of something, and nigh on impossible to challenge those who set themselves up as anti-racists".

It's not part of our psyche, it's part of the political correctness and racially motivated witch hunt which has been forced upon us.

And, it is nigh on impossible to challenge those who set themselves up as anti-racists - racism is the ultimate crime, to challenge the anti-racists is to be racist, their word decides your guilt, your disagreement with them proclaims your guilt.

If you weren't racist you'd agree with every word they said. It's the ideology of the oppressive dictator, all actions other than total agreement and acceptance are an admission of guilt.

Political correctness is the new witch hunt, it is as simple as that.

We'll rewrite literature from our history to comply, as is being done with Enid Blytons books, we'll rewrite Mark Twain, we'll even change the Dambusters in case it offends some.

The guardians of racial equality - which in fact amounts to inequality with a positive slogan - will allow us no other alternative.

There is no truth but theirs, there is no history but theirs, you are not allowed to think anything save for what they tell you to think.

Get used to it. If you are reading this, if you find yourself nodding in agreement, you're racist.

Await the day when the thought police come for you, they're working through the list, and everyone British is on it. You will conform to their insanity, or you will be punished.

Anything can be racist so long as someone decides that it is so - and there are a whole lot of people out there busily deciding that anything and everything is racist.

This is the new witch hunt, with our self appointed witch finders, and a state with eagerly subscribes to the whole insanity.

Equality and prevention of racism has become the most oppressive and discriminatory tool of the 21st century, a modern refinement on something which would have been best left as a note in the history of the middle ages.

Witch hunts and witchfinder generals? They're still with us, it's just the form which the unprovable witchcraft they are burning people at the stake for has changed, it's still the same old superstition, hysteria, and self serving agendas.

Golliwogs are the thin end of the wedge, it's far bigger, it's the destruction of every freedom we know, it's the creation of a society where offense or perceived offense is the sole deciding factor.

It's the society of hysteria, a society where law and common sense are on the back foot to personal interpretation.

They call it equality, those who can see name it inequality, it is the creation of a state based on hysteria, it is the witch hunts of the past given a modern spin and cloaked in the rhetoric of equality and diversity.

Football pundit Tony Cascarino is in trouble. He said the h word - yes, holocaust. To quote him exactly :



"Poor Traore at right-back is having a holocaust because he's finding himself against Nani, who's literally running him from everywhere and Arshavin's just not tracking his runners"



The resulting storm is predictable. Newspaper headlines scream their outrage. Fans call for him to be sacked on the spot. Sky Sports instantly apologises.



Even the - quite often fairly sensible - Daily Mail gets in on the act with "'He's having a holocaust': Shock as Sky Sports pundit compares Arsenal's defending to Nazi genocide"



What is it with our society today that we seemingly seek to make elements of language taboo, to allow pre-existing words to be monopolised to express only a single thing. Gay would be another example.



Holocaust is a word. It may have been adopted to refer to those events, but it existed long before those events took place and did not originally refer to them.



It may have acquired additional meaning because of its usage relating to those events, but it did not originate from those events, it was simply applied to them.



Even the dictionary tells us that, among other things, holocaust refers to a large scale devastation or destruction - which would, surely, be an apt description of the football match Tony Cascarino was commentating on.



There would have been no objections had he said Arsenal player/s had been completely destroyed and devastated by Manchester United - which, in fact, is what he did say, using a word which expresses those meanings.



He didn't refer to anything else, didn't imply it, he just used a word that is a legitimate part of our language. Had he added to it with other references then the furore might have legitimacy, but he didn't, he simply used a single word which is in the dictionary, and was in the dictionary and in common usage, long before the events of World War 2.



Yet he is pilloried, the headlines scream of outrage, fury, outcry - all for using a word, admittedly awkwardly and clumsily phrased, in roughly one of the contexts for which that word was created and became a part of our language to express.



The baying lynch mob of those keen to take offence at every opportunity is upon him, common sense or the actual meaning - both literal and intended - of his words doesn't matter to them one iota, they want blood.



We see the same often, a remark made in all innocence suddenly twisted to become a hateful outrage and fodder for the PC moral guardians of thought and speech to work themselves into hysteria over. Actual meaning and intent are no barrier to their frenzied attentions.



We walk a dangerous road when words can become enchained like this, can suddenly become utterly off limits, and can have their meaning completely reduced from the original intent to become a monotone expression only allowable to refer to one thing.



By enslaving words like this we enslave thought and expression, it is as simple as that.