Shock jock Savage to sue Smith

Jacqui Smith's list of undesirables included the shock jock, Michael Savage. She doesn't like what he says and he doesn't like what she does, or has done. So he's going to sue her and the government for defamation. Good luck to him, I say. Not because I think anything he says is right or wrong, but because he has a right to express himself, so long as he does not break the law of this country or his own.

The Americans have the right approach. They ban people from obtaining visas if they have a criminal record and they exclude people if they are wanted by their own countries. Jacqui Smith has just publicly announced that this chap Savage is a persona non grata in the UK because she finds his views objectionable. So she links him with terrorists and torturers. "To link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with Hamas murderers who kill people on buses is defamation," he said. Sounds like it to me.

Get yourself a good QC, Mr.Savage, and sue the woman big time! After all she's been pocketing cash from dubious expenses, so will be able to afford it. Have you thought of mentioning that on your show?

Banned for thinking?

Jacqui Smith has been popping up all over the TV screens this morning talking about why she thinks it's OK to ban certain people from the UK. Now on the surface, I may say well done to her, but then I had a further thought process and it doesn't seem so clever after all. Ms Smith is well placed to judge others for thoughts. It's the actions of people that count. And from her recent actions we know she is not so keen to adhere to all the standards of decency she is now trying to uphold.

I don't hold much time for the Muslim Council of Britain as I do not believe it is a truly representative body. However, one can always agree at times with those that we may often disagree with. Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB says what is absolutely right for me. He says, "If they step over the line and break the law, it's at that moment the law should be enacted, not beforehand. If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds." Could not agree more!

These are odious views but then some people do have them. The UK has laws which should be obeyed by all entering the country. Some years ago the government banned George Raft, the Hollywood actor, from entering the UK because they said he had Mafia connections. The same was said by others of Frank Sinatra, but he was never banned.

I am concerned by the tone and implications of all this. The Government has introduced a "presumption in favour of exclusion" which means it would be up to the individual concerned to prove they would not "stir up tension" after arrival. Now what sort of Alice in Wonderland nonsense is that. You could no more prove that than prove you had a dream! It's the insidious control of it all that shocks me. And will it end there? What if some views that are now deemed offensive but not illegal are notched up to the banning level? Already the New Labour regime has tried to control the Christian Church over gay adoption, same-sex unions, and other issues.

Maybe we should have extra controls fitted at airports which can read our minds. "Sorry, sir, do mind emptying your brain over there. A lady from Redditch is going to read your mind!".