Milo: Well, Would YOU Let This Dangerous Radical Near Your Vulnerable Schoolchildren?


Milo Yiannopoulos has been banned from speaking at his old school, Simon Langton grammar in Kent.

Not by the teachers –  who were naturally eager to hear his views on Donald Trump, free speech and the alt right (quite topical at the moment…). Not by the children, more than 200 of whom had already signed up to hear his talk. But by a hitherto unknown section of Britain’s Department of Education called the “counter-extremism task force.”

So secretive is this “counter-extremism task force” that it is now denying responsibility for the ban which it effected.

Here’s the weaselly statement issued by the Department of Education:

When concerns are raised by members of the public following media coverage in advance of an event, the department would contact the school as a matter of routine to check they had considered any potential issues. The decision to cancel the event was a matter for the school.

Hmm. That isn’t what the teachers are saying. They wanted Milo to come, apparently, but were overruled by this mystery section of a government ministry which presumably – to judge by its name – was established mainly to protect children from dangerous terrorists.

It’s true that Milo does advertise himself as “dangerous”. But he is using the term ironically in order to mock the hypocrisy and hysteria of the regressive left – and its ludicrous belief that anyone who doesn’t share its political outlook must therefore be a fascist and a menace to society.

The real problem the liberal-left has with Milo – and I entirely understand this fear – is that he is so eloquent, charming, well-informed and articulate. They cannot rebut his arguments so instead they demonise him.

His recent encounter with Channel 4 newsreader Cathy Newman is a case in point. For the last few days, Cathy – an ardent feminist – has been crowing about all the tweets she has been sent congratulating her on having performed so well against this terrible person.

Here are some examples:


You do wonder what programme these people were watching. (Especially the one who talked about “journalism gold”). I know Milo isn’t everyone’s cup of tea and that some people are jealous of his success to the point of sphincter bursting apoplexy. But have a look at the interview and form your own judgement. I think on any objective level this was surely a win for Milo: he kept his composure; he made some perfectly reasonable points. Cathy on the other hand came very close to losing her rag. (Though she does look very pretty when she’s angry, I can’t help noticing, the minx!). She only kept it together by dint of the fact that she was in the interviewer’s chair and was therefore able to call the shots by repeatedly interrupting him so that he was never able to develop his argument.

In fact, I’d say that the Newman interview was a textbook case of the liberal-left’s subtle censorship. Channel 4, just like the BBC – and indeed, just like the civil servants at the Department of Education who made that warning call to Milo’s old school – is largely in the hands of doctrinaire progressives who have never quite recovered from the fact that Britain voted Brexit and have now been blindsided by the double whammy of Donald Trump’s glorious victory in the US presidential election.

Do you think these members of the liberal elite, having set the political agenda with their progressive values for at least the last three decades, are about to give up the fight now that fortune’s wheel has spun and the tide of history has turned against them?

Dream on.

This censorship of Milo by the apparatus of state and by the left-wing media is just a tiny taste of the whining, the bullying, the sabotage, the double-dealing, the passive-aggression, the outrage, the ugliness, the dishonesty and the trickery we on the right can expect from the defeated liberal elite in the coming years.

We won. But the real battle only just started…


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.