Now what? Some retorts and replies

In no particular order. Bert, with the pretentious and grandiose Greek pseudonym (well, at least it wasn't 'Pericles'), shows twice in one post that he is not reading what I say with any care. Persons with pretensions should be specially wary of this. First, he remarks: 'Thought Police? Nonsense. Gray and Keys were sacked by Sky, for goodness' sake, from the same stable as Fox News, not some PC-gorn-mad local council.'

Now, what did I say? Here it is: 'Many of those who sang in this sanctimonious chorus are the sort who often complain in pubs about "political correctness gone mad". But when it comes to it, they cravenly take part in the madness.' This is a large part of my point. Those who rely on the supposedly 'anti-PC' sections of society will find that they are a broken reed in any serious frenzy of this kind. And the effectiveness of PC depends almost entirely on its rules being adopted way beyond the GLC and the London boroughs where it was originally adopted in this country 30 years ago. It is amusing to go and read the cuttings in the newspapers on those times, and find most of the papers involved now fully signed up to, or mortally afraid of about 80% of the policies of Ken Livingstone. Those who mistake the noisy neo-conservatism of the Murdoch Empire for real conservatism surely haven't been reading this weblog or my column with any attention, either.

The crucial thing about the Thought Police is that we recognise them for what they are when they appear. Does 'Bert' imagine that they will always arrive in blue uniforms, with 'Thought Police' in big black letters on their high-viz jackets? No, what they want is for there to be agents of thought policing in every workplace, every school and broadcasting studio, and ultimately in every home. Mr Charrington and his colleagues are reserved for the hard cases.

Now here comes the Greek genius again, with this smug piece of half-informed loftiness: 'The EU is not responsible for fortnightly bin collections. I know this because I am currently living outside Britain but still in the EU and my bins are collected every week. The EU – including the UK – has indeed issued directives aimed at increasing recycling. Is that so bad?'

What did I say? This: 'Tory promises of a return to proper bin collections have turned out to be garbage, as I knew they would. Why? Because the EU's landfill directive forces councils into recycling projects which mean fortnightly collections'.

The 'UK' has not issued any directives because the British government does not govern by directive. It still pretends to be a Parliamentary democracy and so it has to enact these directives, as Acts or Statutory Instruments, pretending that they are the will of Parliament. What our grandiose Greek friend does not grasp is that these directives have different effects in different countries, which is one of the reasons why they are pernicious, and why sovereign independent countries are better in all ways than supranational units such as the EU. Britain is more heavily dependent on landfill for the disposal of its rubbish than other EU countries, which is why this particular Directive was adopted without difficulty in Brussels, where our voice is weak and getting weaker.

As a country, we had no serious difficulties with landfill and could happily have continued disposing of our rubbish in this way were we independent. But this option is now closed to us because we are subject to EU power. The Landfill Directive, devised to suit the needs of the Low Countries, imposes huge and growing fines on countries which continue to use landfill, regardless of local conditions or desires. Thus councils in this country are under immense and growing financial pressure to dispose of their rubbish in other ways, and have resorted to recycling (and the fortnightly collections which this requires) to try to stay solvent.

About five minutes of research would have revealed these details to the man who uses the name of a great Classical historian to give himself airs. But, perhaps inflated by his own pseudonym, he reckoned he didn't need to trouble with such a thing as research. He just knew I was wrong, and couldn't even be bothered to read carefully what I had written The person whose name he so ridiculously borrows would not, I think, have behaved in this fashion. I suggest he now lays down this appellation non-controlee and adopts the more modest soubriquet of 'Bert' which I long ago awarded him.

On the question of boundary changes, my thanks to the thoughtful contributors on this subject. But please keep thinking. It is a large step from acknowledging that existing boundaries are unfair (they always are, and in 1951 this worked very much in the Tory interest, never let it be forgotten), to accepting that the proposed cure is the best way to deal with it. I am not sure that the plan for strictly equal constituencies will actually benefit the Tories much. Some recent studies have suggested that the main effect of the change will be to deprive the Liberal Democrats of many long-held seats based mainly on strong local organisation, which will be irrevocably broken up by new boundaries.

What I dislike about the plan is its almost Cromwellian nature - there is no proper appeal against the newly allocated boundaries. The old rule that there should be an effort to match a constituency with a recognisable or historically-existing community will be abandoned (and then there are the blatant and wholly inconsistent exceptions given to two Liberal Democrat seats, and actually, amazingly written into the Bill). But above all I dislike the fact that it has barely been debated by the very chamber that is most affected by it - to the extent that I don't think most Tory MPs really understand that every single one of them will face a reselection battle, as every existing seat will disappear. The Lords are simply insisting that it be given proper consideration, not crammed through in an evening by the whips, and repented at leisure by the country.

James E. Shaw comments: 'The important thing about The King's Speech is that it remains true to the spirit of what happened, Peter.'
Thanks, Mr Shaw, I know what my name is, even today. Matron is not yet needed to let me know. But as for 'remaining true to the spirit of what happened', does it?

Absolutely not. In fact, I thank Mr Shaw for helping me to clarify this point. The suggestion is strongly made that it was Logue's jaunty Aussie irreverence that cracked the Royal carapace of repression and excessive dignity, and cured the monarchical stammer. This is egalitarian wish-fulfilment. And it appears to be wholly untrue. Far from being true to events, it imposes the prejudices of our own age on a past which we prefer to misunderstand than to study (this is the reason why it tramples on the far more interesting truth about Winston Churchill's role in the Abdication).

Mr Shaw adds: 'Yes it takes liberties with the truth, as do most works of historical fiction. Shakespeare's Richard III being a classic example.'

Yes, quite, and I once again recommend Josephine Tey's wonderful detective story 'The Daughter of Time' to any breathing person as a necessary corrective to Shakespeare's fine old pack of lies which has helped to twist English history for centuries. Shakespeare's denigration of Richard is Tudor propaganda, crammed with falsehood. It is better to know this before seeing the play, than not to know it.

I am told that 'objectivity is crucial 'in a football commentator's job. Really? I thought one of the glories of sports journalism was that all pretence of objectivity could be chucked aside.

I thought the comment from John Dunn deeply instructive. He accuses me of: 'A complete misunderstanding (I hope it's not just blind ignorance) of Equality and Diversity' He then reveals that he is himself a 'qualified Equality and Diversity Advisor in the RAF'.

This is hugely interesting. Mr Dunn plainly genuinely does not grasp that there are actually people who do not agree with the 'Equality and Diversity' programme. He thinks the question settled beyond doubt. And he works for the Royal Air Force. I promise him that I am by no means ignorant of it. He more bizarrely does not grasp that I am one of those (more than he thinks, I hope) who doesn't agree with it, indeed that it is one of the main things that I do, disagreeing with it. He might also check the index under 'Political Correctness' and 'May, Theresa.'

I do also very much recommend him to read my book 'The Cameron Delusion', in which I seek to explain that the categories he uses (in which all forms of 'discrimination' are considered identical and equally reprehensible) is factually and logically untenable. He will at least then be introduced to the idea that his beliefs are not universally held (believe me, I know that mine aren't) and shown why this is so.

As for his self-description as a 'qualified Equality and Diversity Advisor in the RAF', I think that (provided he is not winding us all up) the existence of this post goes to confirm my often-made point that 'Equality and Diversity' is now the official state dogma of this country, reaching even into its formerly most conservative areas, and that political correctness is a not a passing joke but a project to change the world. He isn't in the slightest bit embarrassed to be such a thing, and doesn't (I suspect) realise how funny and/or absurd the combination will seem to many readers here. We should learn from this that the day is far spent, and it is far later than we believed.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click here and scroll down.