The BBC gave a platform to someone who was allowed to make an extreme comparison between Nigel Farage and Hitler and who dramatically claims Farage is fomenting racial war….all without any challenge from Dimbleby…..so only fair to have a look at the hypocrisy, lies and McCarthyism of Charlie Bloom…….According to whom the views of Farage, being popular with the Public, are ‘Dangerous’ and unacceptable….so what does that mean about Bloom’s view of the Great British Public?…
‘I expressed view why he had popular support. Dangerous. I’m blocking you.’
So you’re all ‘blocked’ for your dangerous thoughts….you’re all Nazis if you want to control immigration and have a working, representative democracy.
I wonder who is more ‘dangerous’…Bloom or Farage?
Bear in mind Bloom’s opinion and response aligns perfectly with the BBC’s views on immigration and Europe….which is why they ‘manage’ the debate on those subjects so closely….they too are very keen on the ‘warning from history’ ploy, painting UKIP as dangerous far right fanatics.
Farage is genuinely seen, and perhaps rightfully seen, by the vast majority of British people beyond W12 (and N1) as being “in touch” and speaking their language – not just regarding Europe, but also, I suspect, immigration and even the events in Ukraine. The BBC no more understands this than do the major parties.
Channelling ‘Charlie’ in his own words slightly amended for the circumstances……
‘Perhaps, [Charlie], you would like to choose your words more carefully in future. Perhaps you would also like to apologise for your ill-considered and insulting remarks concerning the views of the majority of people in this country.’
So let’s take a look inside the mind of Charlie Bloom……
Charlie Bloom, a member of ’38 Degrees’, is the man who accused Nigel Farage of being the new Hitler and who is enjoying his new found infamy immensely.
To all my new followers! I am very flattered. Watch this space. Got to sign off today. Back soon!
The Charlie Bloom who thinks UKIP’s immigration, pro-Democracy and pro-British parliamentary sovereignty stance is going to lead to another world war, the Charlie Bloom who said this:
@rupertmurdoch I do wish that our politicians had the bottle to only allow British citizens to own our media. Hacks me off!
Seems a little bit of ‘racist nationalism’ is OK by Charlie Bloom when it suits.
The Charlie Bloom who boasts of his rant:
Was on #questiontime tonight. Gave it to NF with both barrels. #UKIP is a terrifying concept in a democracy.
And despite Bloom’s expressed desire for democracy thinks that for Farage….
‘…a life sentence in wormwood scrubs would be good!‘
That’s right Charlie…lock up all those whom you disagree with…that’s how democracy works….in the Soviet Union!
The Charlie Bloom who makes a false, or just ignorant, claim about who makes the laws in Europe:
15% of all uk laws come from Brussels and have to be passed into uk law. Other 85% are ours.
In fact around 70% of our laws are made in Europe...and the rest have to be EU ‘compliant’…that is…if they do not comply with EU standards the EU can force the UK to amend them to suit….EU law is deemed to take primacy under various treaties that we have signed up to……
“The most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament – because it is co-decider with the member states on EU laws.
“Seventy per cent of the laws in this country [UK] are co-decided with the European Parliament.”
The same Charlie Bloom who claims we must be in Europe because it means more business and jobs but who doesn’t want them in his own backyard:
EXTRAORDINARY COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING – 13 OCTOBER 2011
Charlie Bloom – private resident Gravel and Sharp Sand Extraction at Hamble airfield – disruption to schools, families & roads caused by machinery noise, increased lorry movements to/from Hamble Airfield and effect on Hamble Lane etc and access to Blackthorn Medical Centre
The very same Charlie Bloom who said this:
‘…a pathetic attempt to defame by the ignorant of facts. McCarthyism is alive and well!!!’
Well yes…McCarthyism is alive and well…and Charlie Bloom is the man who epitomises it today…trying to shut down debate using exactly the same techniques that McCarthy used…..McCarthy tried to paint his opponents as Communists, Bloom tries to paint them as Fascists….
Bloom, (Any relation to Godfrey? Would be funny) makes a startling comparison of Farage to Hitler and dramatically claims Farage’s desire to control immigration and have representative democracy is leading to war…‘his methods have been used before with dire consequences. Ye gods!!!!’….…..Bloom ironically demands ‘rational debate’ and whilst he is allowed to compare Farage to a man who killed 6 million Jews other people aren’t allowed to insult him……try it and you will be ‘silenced’
I am reporting all who use foul or abusive language, threats or attack my family. Rational debate yes. Anything else, be careful.
Seriously? You are mentally unstable. Be careful. There are legal non violent ways to silence you. No more threats.
Indeed one Tweeter has already had their account suspended for his comments to Bloom…..
Account suspended
The profile you are trying to view has been suspended.
McCarthyism alive and well?
Bloom himself thinks he should always have a say:
Am I not allowed an opinion?
The Charlie Bloom who thinks closet gays are dangerous?
Like J Edgar Hoover, Putin is probably uncertain of his sexual orientation. Makes him doubly dangerous. Yes?
The Charlie Bloom who calls Margaret Thatcher Evil:
#Margaret Thatcher. I’ll not mourn her death. That’s for her family. I’ll not celebrate her life/death. It’s the end of her. She was evil.
Destroyed lives of millions of uk folk!
If you have another view of Margaret Thatcher he’s not interested….‘You’re blocked’:
The Charlie Bloom, with such a desire for intelligent debate and a horror of abusive, insulting language who says this:
James Naughtie had it right with his Hunt spoonerism!
Hislop may be short and ugly but Piers Morgan is nasty. You choose!
Another of Charlie Bloom’s comments reveals all about his real mindset:
‘Ignorance is bliss.’
‘How about a blast on The Now Show!!‘
Charlie Bloom has a very high opinion of himself and his own intelligence, and a very low one of everyone else:
A UKIP supporter! Nasty.
My daughter is more intelligent than you. Neither of us resort to insults in debate. Just facts.
I’m intelligent & articulate. Why does that scare the trolls here? I hit a cord. Live with it!
[Shame the intelligent, articulate Bloom can’t spell ‘chord’]
Intelligence over fear.
brighter than you! Trust me, I AM telling the truth!
Bile without substance.
Stop the insults. Beneath contempt.
try intelligent debate not swapping insults.
your arguments are based on intolerance!
I don’t argue with people who insult me or my intelligence. Bye
intelligent? No you’re not. Debate with you not possible. Bye
I don’t argue with people who insult me or my intelligence. Bye
it’s none of your business. It is the one thing I do not have to share in public.
Some of us are articulate.
Troll!
politically illiterate!!
That is the real fear! The prejudiced rants of Farage are similar to those that he admires.
Just who is the real ‘Nasty Party’?
Might be somewhat ironic that Bloom compares Farage to Hitler when Bloom’s own family is so closely connected to a party that has so many deeply unpleasant people with deeply unpleasant views:
The real nasty party
I’m all in favour of banning the adjective “swivel-eyed” – unless we’re talking about the one party that merits it. I refer, of course, to the Liberal Democrats. This week Sir Bob Russell MP equated the plight of the Palestinians with the Holocaust. And this just after David Ward compared Israelis to Nazis. What is it about Lib Dems and Jews? Remember Baroness Tonge suggesting they were harvesting organs? They go for non-Jewish conspiracy theories, too: Norman Baker, transport minister, has loopy views on the “murder” of Dr David Kelly. What weirdos. Swivel, swivel, swivel. If you look closely, you can see their contact lenses popping out during PMQs.
Your first quote is:
‘I expressed view why he had popular support. Dangerous. I’m blocking you.’
Why did you only include half the tweet? The full comment was:
You’ve resorted to being insulting. I expressed view why had popular support. Dangerous. I’m blocking you.
Your selective editing of that tweet speaks volumes about how you want to spin this. If you had left in the full tweet contents, that would have given some clue about the man has actually been engaging with people on Twitter, and only resorted to blocking in a few cases. In all those cases, UKIP supporters have resorted to the sort of “ad homs” that Biased BBC commenters always whine about if someone challenges them, while indulging in themselves all the time.
Tell me, why is it okay for pseudonymous little trolls to behave worse on Biased BBC than Charlie Bloom has done on his own Twitter account? Why do you do nothing to hold them to account for behaviour far worse than him? Is it only because you rely on their comments to con yourself that you know what you’re talking about, or are their other reasons too?
Scott:
This all defeats the the origins of this particular post, in that, once again BBC Question Time has been found to be stage managing audiences, in line with their own political ethics and beliefs. So yourself and the BBC don’t like UKIP….So what?
However, you just don’t seem to get that the public have had enough of a political class that are seen by a good majority as out of touch with reality.
I think Farage is an idiot – but he’s a likeable idiot, and a man that resinates with the public, especially on the subject of the E.U. superstate. Which other current British leader is seen as a credible face of ordinary peoples aspirations and dreams?
Miliband? Clegg? Cameron? Perish the thought.
Tell me Scott are you for the EU or against it? Try not to insult. Also you do a very good job at diverting attention on this site from the subject at hand i.e. the BBC.
“…once again BBC Question Time has been found to be stage managing audiences”
Scott has nothing to say about that, I see.
Selective edtiting Scott?
Funny how you miss all these quotes:
I am reporting all who use foul or abusive language, threats or attack my family. Rational debate yes. Anything else, be careful.
Bile without substance.
Stop the insults. Beneath contempt.
try intelligent debate not swapping insults.
your arguments are based on intolerance!
I don’t argue with people who insult me or my intelligence. Bye
intelligent? No you’re not. Debate with you not possible. Bye
I don’t argue with people who insult me or my intelligence. Bye
” If you had left in the full tweet contents”
I wish that BiasedBBC had shown the comment for which Bloom wanted to block someone. It was a funny comment, and apparently what Bloom didn’t like was being mocked and it be demonstrated that Bloom’s hyperbolic performance on QT was groundless: Bloom was talking up his performance on Question Time, and the Tweeter shot him down mercilessly. That’s the most obvious explanation for Bloom banning him/her.
One has to wonder what kind of “Liberal Democrat” Bloom is, when he will instantly seek to censor those who mock him before his tiny handful of followers. Compare that with Bloom’s concerted effort to make outlandish and insulting comments about Farage in front of millions of voters. As is clear to anyone who has studied the history of Nazism, Farage’s policies and Farage’s appearance bear no resemblance at all to the those of Hitler. Bloom was indulging in the very scare-mongering of which he accused Farage.
No. Farage’s use of a scape goat (the EU) to stir up patriotic fervour, his “us and them mentality”, his stigma against outsiders (and don’t even try to deny that his repeated comments about the population of Europe aren’t representative of this), with only one dramatic solution (please don’t confuse this with the final solution, that’s not what I’m referring too), his charisma, his twisting of the facts, his “identification” with the people, his promises of a better life in a more nationalistic state.
There are many comparisons between Farage’s politics and Hitler. No one is comparing him to Hitler in power. How could they? Farage isn’t in power (not that I’m saying he would be like Hitler in power). The traits mentioned above can be closely attributed to both Farage and Hitler, there is the comparison but there it also ends.
The problem is all those comparisons seem deeply stretched and tendentious.
What you have if Farage appealing to national sovereignty, identity, and feeling against those who would ride roughshod over them. It is true that Hitler did the same. But so have many, many politicians and statesman (almost all politicians make use of a us and them argument at some point). The differences in both the nature of national sovereignty and feeling they appeal to, and the ways in which they do, between UKIP and the Nazis, are so wide as to be a gaping chasm – meaning the comparison is simply unhealthy , especially as Hitler and Nazis have particularly evocative connotations.
If one can get away with this sloppy comparison, then one could certainly get away with comparing Miliband or Clegg to Lenin or Stalin or Pol Pot or even Hitler. But these would be silly too.
I do agree it would have better to post the full comment. I do think, though, that it is a bit rich for this Bloom character to complain about being insulted when he made such a hyperbolic attack on Farage.
Scott….
Not surprised you defend a man who calls Thatcher evil and compares Farage to Hitler…..you are remarkably similar to Bloom….
Intensely impressed and convinced by your own ‘intelligence’, bigoted to the nth degree whilst being completely unaware that you are, you constantly whine about insults and ad homs whilst being the person who is in fact the instigator of such exchanges constantly indulging in habitual and zealous abuse of other posters on this site.
The truth is that you even had to apologise on your own website to people in your own life for being unpleasant to them.
Sort yourself out before coming onto this site pointing fingers.
Scott’s in the wrong line of work….Surely a fledgling career at Hope not Hate, with it’s half truths and smears and one sided propaganda would be perfect for him….
Apply on a postcard to Nick Lowles immediately Scotty boy.
you constantly whine about insults and ad homs whilst being the person who is in fact the instigator of such exchanges
Bollocks Alan, and you know it. Still, never mind, eh, you get 40+ people clicking a thumb icon underneath your post, and that’s more important than telling the truth, isn’t it?
bigoted to the nth degree whilst being completely unaware that you are
Funny how you claim that as a fault in me, yet you and your fellow travellers exhibit those exact traits and exhibit them in far greater ways, isn’t it?
The truth is that you even had to apologise on your own website to people in your own life for being unpleasant to them.
Not even close to the truth. I can’t work out if you’re deliberately lying or are just being very, very dense. It’s always so hard to tell with you.
The reason Farage has to have protection is because people like you, the UAF, Libs, Labour, SWP do not like and support free speech when it opposes their view of the world.
The left have a long history of denying free speech, this Bloom idiot is just another example.
It looks as though Bloom instantly deletes any critical reply on his Twitter ?
people like you…do not like and support free speech when it opposes their view of the world.
Well thank you for telling me what “people like me” believe. If only there were a grain of truth to what you say, eh? Still, never mind – Biased BBC commenters don’t care about the truth, so they won’t object to one more fictioneer in their midst…
Time for bed young Scott.
The reason Farage now needs 4 bodyguards, is that in 2002 the fascist Left murdered gay Dutch communist and PM in-waiting Prof. Pim Fortuyn.
As with UKIP, the Dutch media spent a couple of years whipping up the hatred towards Pim, comparing him to Hitler and saying the gentle Prof. was going to commit genocide.
http://4freedoms.com/group/dutch/forum/topics/the-demonisation-of-pim-fortuyn-how-the-media-kill-the-canaries
So, an “animal rights” protester decided his historical destiny was to be the person to commit the 1st political assassination in 350 years of the most liberal country in Europe.
Fascism is socialism (Mussolini was a socialist until the day he died). The west has been socialist since WW2 (Thatcher was a blip). So, as the crisis caused by the “social democrat” elite in Europe worsens, they will become more fascistic. Including attempting (and sometimes succeeding) in prosecuting people in cases where the judges state “the truth is irrelevant in this case” (Nick Griffin, Geert Wilders, and now a Swedish Democrat).
If the fascist Left succeed in stopping UKIP from fixing this problem democratically, then the future will be outright Nazism and civil war.
Glad to see at least one person who hasn’t bitten into the dogma that we see coming out of UKIP Scott.
In reference to the article. This man is clearly just trying to stem the flow of bile being spewed at him.
He just made a comment on a TV show and now he’s having to deal with the dogmatic and ignorant supporters of Farage. He is well within his rights to block people. He is facing a wave of hatred which you are fuelling by the way Alan, good job on that. How can he defend himself against trumped up charges, claims made out of context because you went and bloody edited what he said!
What was wrong Alan? Couldn’t take legitimate issue with his statement? It wouldn’t garner enough attention for you? So lying to your readers is clearly the right course of action right? Any one can see that, no worries Alan, just go about your day in ignorant bliss of the hatred you stir up.
He is a normal guy probably wanting to get on with his life and he now has to deal with the shit storm people cook up and sell to their gullible “in the know” audience.
You have all been lied to. The fact that Alan edited out the defensive nature of these quotes is evidence enough.
I understand that it is more comforting to think that you understand the economics and political system we see in Europe, as opposed to wallowing in the vast and complicated void of unknowing. But accepting that people dedicate there lives to understanding and running this system and that it’s simply not possible for us to have that indepth grasp of it is ok. Behave like the adults that you are. Stop buying into this dumbed down, nationalist fervour. It’s baseless and when it all goes tits up you will have egg on your faces, worse than that I will have egg on my face too in the eyes of the international community.
Who cares if he was a plant? The BBC slipped up, he still made a valid point, the show went on. Stop grasping at pathetic little straws to try and discredit his views or the actions of the BBC.
Where in the article does it prove that he is a plant instead of a libdem that wanted to be on the show?
In the article Alan links to a BBC page regarding Farage’s 70% figure for EU policy decision. In that very article they reference “A non-partisan, rigorously independent analysis of UK laws by the House of Commons Library found that between 8 and 14% of Britain’s laws are made in the EU”. Whom is the more reliable source the politician or the non-partisan librarian? Now think about that carefully because it could well be the answer to whether you should commit yourselves to an asylum or not.
Ah, Scott under a different name … for a change.
Seriously, If you want to see a wave of hatred matey just follow the vile abuse spewed out from left wingers on any blog, any twitter, any “protest” organised by UAF, etc against those they hate or views they don’t like.
As for your truly pathetic comparison of Farage with Hitler (below), well that just shows you to be one of that desperate crowd of pro EU cheerleaders that people have rumbled. But I do like the line “don’t even try to deny” – nice touch to close a line of debate and dress your opinion up as fact. Well, I do deny your allegation.
And what is the “one dramatic solution”? You state it is not the “final” one – so what are you getting at.
Your comments are typical of those of sock puppets of the progressive elite when running scared.
But thanks for making two “rare” visits to this site. I’m sure we will all be looking out for you in the future (under whatever name you post).
Any way, have a good kip after your night shift at the BBC.
There are many comparisons between Farage’s politics and Hitler. No one is comparing him to Hitler in power. How could they? Farage isn’t in power (not that I’m saying he would be like Hitler in power). The traits mentioned below can be closely attributed to both Farage and Hitler, there is the comparison but there it also ends.
Farage’s use of a scape goat (the EU) to stir up patriotic fervour, his “us and them mentality”, his stigma against outsiders (and don’t even try to deny that his repeated comments about the population of Europe aren’t representative of this), with only one dramatic solution (please don’t confuse this with the final solution, that’s not what I’m referring to), his charisma, his twisting of the facts, his “identification” with the people, his promises of a better life in a more nationalistic state.
You are being blocked. The political slogan of the left. See the FB pages of UAF and Loach’s pathetic Left Unity, when any criticism or mild questioning is blocked. Try to open a discussion on Venuzuela on Left Unity’s site, try on the UAF site to describe UKIP as other than a racist party, and try to call them out on the SWPs commitment to violent socialist revolution and get blocked.
Hope not Hate are no different anymore…They’ve attempted to carry out the same line of attack on UKIP as they did on the BNP, and as it’s going tits up so to speak, any opposition is now met with the block button.
‘You are being blocked. The political slogan of the left’
And BBC staff (any comparison politically coincidental) on twitter.
While their employer (until shafting-time in the sack ferret world that is Aunty) of course likes to fancy it up a bit and call it ‘expediting’.
And all it takes is a licence-fee payer having the temerity to ask a force-funded public sector media monopoly questions they can’t answer on matters of accuracy, objectivity or integrity.
Does that make David Vance a “leftie” then:
“One of the great delights of Twitter is knowing the legion of sad demented stalkers pouring over my tweets, knowing I have them blocked! :-)”
Stop the War Coalition: Time to go to war with Israel:
http://stopwar.org.uk/article/time-to-go-to-war-with-israel-as-the-only-path-to-peace-in-the-middle-east
You could not make it up.
Remind me again!
This LibDem supporter( or candidate is it?…I`ll not bother to check) somehow supports the party of Thorpe, Big Cyril, Hughes, Oaten, Laws, Huhne and Rennard?
And thinks it somehow more virtuous, more reasoned and a nicer party for the rest of us than UKIP?
Boy…what a world the likes of Chaz live in….and only the likes of the BBC give him his fifteen minutes or so.
Another bearded drag queen for the days celebrity square-in the guise of the usual angels of light!
Well said, ChrisH! The hypocrisy of Lib Dems screaming abuse at UKIP is so profund that it belongs in a psychiatrist’s consulting room.
If they cannot understand the illogicality of howling abuse at UKIP while supporting a party that has been riddled with corruption of the most wicked kind, then it is they who deserve to be driven out of politics.
The Liberal Democrats.
So called, to borrow from Voltaire, because they are neither Liberal nor Democratic.
And another nice quote from the man which seems to chime with the times:
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong”.
How true
Ah Huhne, former MP for Eastleigh. Must have rubbed shoulders with the notorious Lib Dem supporter.
His family/friends earn a lot of money out of it follow the money – they are paid for being so caring, and in tune with the poor and disadvantaged in their community. Not that they give a damn – they just klike the money and the ‘power’ – gauleiters all
Why are you people so rude to my Scott?
Actually we’re surprised he’s not hung over from last night’s Eurovision party and celebrating such a diverse winner …
Bitch!
Leave my Scotty alone you Jezebel, He’s mine!
The good news is that the more the liberal left attack UKIP for being , in their view racist, in my view sensible, the more people will rally to UKIP’s cause. It is quite correct that millions of Brits think that UKIP say what we have long thought, but which no politician has ever said. We have had no voice in British politics for 20 or 30 years, in fact since Lady Thatcher.
The BBC thought that their long campaign to change what we think , to make us part of the liberal left utopia, had worked, well they are getting a rude shock. We were just cowed by the liberal left elite and their anti liberal laws and suppression of free speech . But now we have a party which is sticking up for us and we are rallying behind them.
I have to correct you. I don’t believe it’s racist in their view. It’s just a convenient way to shut down debate. Or was until recently.
It never fails to surprise me how ugly the left have become:
1) It is ok to berate the non violent British people as racist bigots while defending violent immigrants as only victims
2) It is ok to berate British people as uneducated simply becasue they have a different view from you.
3) It is ok to berate the whole Jewish faith as Nazis down to a few bad apples, but not ok to do likewise with Muslims over to a whole cartload of terrorists.
4) It is ok to use violence to get your message across, but anybody who defends themselves is a thug.
Today we read in the news that a bBC DJ was sacked due to playing an old version of a song which contained the word “Nigger” yet the very same bBC which sacked him has a pure black station BBC Radio 1Xtra which has no problem airing songs by artists who litter their songs with the very same ‘Nigger’ ,homophobic and sexist views and they allow this to continue.
So what we have here with this leftwing Mafia is that they feel they have the right to dictate to others how things should be and if you don’t agree with their POV then you can only be a NAZIS. Charlie Bloom is a classic example, note how he uses the age old technique of raising his voice in which to drown out all others, in a one to one postion these bullies usually raise themselves up in which to present a larger intimidating presence.
Scott follows the same frame of mind. His posts promote this vision of an holier than thou and morally superior person, who knows not only better than you, but his farts smell nice as well. In the real world a smack in the mouth usually does the trick of putting these jobs worths back in their place.
I am at a loss, and have been for some time, why correspondents on here engage this ‘Scott’ in debate.
He is obviously a BBC troll, and very probably a paid one.
By all means allow him to post, but just ignore him.
+100
Obviously.
If by “obviously”, you mean “believed to be by people who care not for facts, who then repeat it so often they convince themselves it’s been true all along.”
But that’s Biased BBC’s way – they say they want reasoned debate, but will go out of their way to be unpleasant to anyone and everyone who ever offers an alternative viewpoint.
In the real world a smack in the mouth usually does the trick of putting these jobs worths back in their place.
Ah, the threat of physical violence. The last refuge of the desperate man.
Scott a few years ago I found myself in an art shop a friend of mine owns. While there she asked me what I was reading . I explained that I was reading a book
on the six day war and that it revealed so much I didn’t know. Out of the blue this smartly dressed gentlemen ingrained himself into the conversation and proceeded to push his version of the Israelis onto all to hear. I foolishly tried to correct him with facts, but he was having none of this and in front of the whole shop he raised his voice in the way of the righteous in which to say that louder is right. As I couldn’t get a word in sideways I walked up to him and softly whispered into his ear if he would like to continue the discussion outside. His smugness changed at the drop of a Hat and he informed me he was Lawyer, I explained that I didn’t give a shit what he was and that if he continued acting the prat he would be sporting a fat lip. He left.
Now on that note, I have also stood up for a small driver at Heston services getting grief from a fat taxis driver, a gay bloke by a bunch of blokes and funny enough a Pensioner by a bunch of youths.
I don’t do bullying and I will stand up for the rights of the victim. Unlike you, I understand only too well what is right and what isn’t.
But that’s it isn’t is, you come on here, sprouting your shite that black is white and white is black simply to antagonise the posters here, in which to substantiate your view that everybody here is a racist bigot. Tell me dick splash, how easy is it for you tpo wonder round East London knowing full well the local community not only despise you for your sexuality, but would have no problem ensuring the last thing you heard is…Allah Ackba.
The so called bigots here are the ones demanding that those peaceful people abide by the rules of the law and thus allow people like you the right to live as you please. in safety. However the idiot you are, you don’t see that, instead you defend the very people who want to hurt you.
Turkeys,Christmas and dickhead comes to mind.
I don’t do bullying
So telling me to fuck off and calling me a cunt, as you did yesterday, is you being a gentleman, is it?
You may not be a bully. But you try to be one. And what seems to wind you up more than anything is that your intended victim doesn’t fall for it.
Scott wrote:
“So telling me to fuck off and calling me a cunt, as you did yesterday, is you being a gentleman, is it?”
Listen Dickhead, for such a gobby prat, who love nothing more to wind up folks on this blog, getting an apology out of me would be like getting the bBC to admit it is biased. You’ve got two hopes and sunshine , one of them is Bob. Maybe if you tried treating people as you demand they treat you, then maybe people may be (Including myself) be more civil to you.
Now as I keep telling you. You can hide your minority status. (well maybe not in East London) I as a packy, have you thought for a moment that there’s a reason I learnt to fight, that there’s a reason I can’t stand bullies and a reason I don’t like gobshites like yourself.
Bit of advice Scott, there’s a lot of nutters out there. Be careful whom you piss off, for a start they know what you look like. You’ve nothing to fear from me , but then not everybody treats abuse on a the net as a joke.
P.S
For someone who is so sensitive, you do have a bad habit for coming back for more.
The guy comes on here because he is a masochist. He contributes nothing these days, just indulges in tit-for-tat abuse with people who have contempt for his values. Of course he is just as bigoted as the people he condemns for same and just as intolerant.
He would be well at home in UAF and Hate Not Hope* if he is not already a paid up member.
* Sorry – of course I meant Hope Not Hate. Silly mistake…
What I’ve come to realise over the past few Months, is that Hope Not Hate are composed of little else than union types and hard core Labour reps, who trawl around universities relentlessly, to indoctrinate students who are wet behind the ears, and “want to change the world” They’ve got no widespread appeal, it’s just a small(ish) group of people that will “assemble” on call and at the drop of a hat…
I feel sorry for poor Scott at times.
Bipolar , passive aggresive tendencies-and seems intent on winding people us all too often.
If he stuck to the arguments, and answered the questions asked re double standards and his monocular view of things, we could all have more of a debate.
He`s like a stunned butterfly who seems intent on hopping into the hornets nest with no offer to help with anything but generating rubbed legs aimless controversies for himself.
Then off he flies.
Pounces argument is valid above…that he actually DID things to shaft the gobshites or to defend the helpless makes him far more credible than the poseurs , voyeurs and liberal theorists who only talk and deflect.
Hope Scott begins to argue a bit, not just throw red herrings and old canards at the pelicans here…some of em bite lad!
Aimless controversist….sums up much of the elite, their wasting of the times…no answers at all, but God has His plans I s`pose!
Bipolar? Passive-aggressive tendencies?
All utter fiction, of course. But then I’d expect nothing less. ChrisH is another of those relentless posters on Biased BBC who seem to believe that if they type it, it must be true.
What a poor soul you must be, Chris, to have to make things up in order to feel like you’re speaking with authority. Thankfully, there are plenty of other people on Biased BBC who can empathise.
No one is listening Scott, you are a liar, and we all know it.
Even if anyone had a modicum of sympathy for you before, they don’t now…
What else have you been lying about?
Come on Scotty, you might as well spill the beans now, it’s out in the open…..out of the closet, so to speak.
Don`t like labelling do you Scott?
Of course I don`t speak clinically-just as a concerned and compassionate fellow seeker after truth.
Don`t like being patronised either I`d imagine.
Now you know how WE feel when we see your posts…feigned ,imagined, judgemental ill-informed, aimless controversies, majoring on minors( not in the Savile sense, let me add) and a general windup.
Poor soul?…not at all, very rich-for I know Jesus.
No authority whatsoever, but that of my Lord and Saviour!
When you fear Him, you tend to fear no-one else…let`s discuss this further, my fellow-wayfarer!
Scott reminds me of when I was at primary school , there was an 8 or 9 year old who thought he could hang out with the 10 or 11 year olds, but kept teasing them , the older boys decided they would teach the little upstart a lesson , which he didn`t like , so he ran off crying & telling tales to the headmistress ,when she came out to tell the older boys off ,he hid behind her skirt . So that is Scott that, little pest who will run off crying , once he realise`s he can`t be one of the big boys.
“Maybe if you tried treating people as you demand they treat you, then maybe people may be (Including myself) be more civil to you.”
You were the one who started effing and blinding, pounce, not me. You have no one to blame for your shortcomings but yourself. Stop pretending that it’s other people’s fault that you keep flying off the handle.
“Maybe if you tried treating people as you demand they treat you, then maybe people may be (Including myself) be more civil to you.”
You were the one who started effing and blinding, pounce, not me. You have no one to blame for your shortcomings but yourself. Stop pretending that it’s other people’s fault that you keep flying off the handle.
Apologies for the double post there: had to switch devices due to battery running out and hadn’t realised this one remembered the persona I had to adopt while Alan has having a hissy fit and deleting all posts I was posting under my real name (the one and only time I’ve resorted to using a pseudonym on here)
Ooooops….Scotty, the man who squeals that he does not use multiple signins just posts a duplicate message under one of his many pseudonym.
FAIL!
Dick head.
Wrong – I’ve been accused of persistently using multiple pseudonyms. I have always been open and honest that I used one in that period, and that that was the only time I have.
The reason I mentioned it now is that the idiots who tried to use such false claims to derail discussions have had Pounce among their number in the past.
I would much rather no-one used pseudonyms. The really vile stuff on this site comes from people who hide behind anonymous names. Funny, nobody questions their behaviour: I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they happen to share the common Biased BBC prejudices…
Scott, go away, you have lost the argument, you have always said you do not use alternative sign in’s.
You quite clearly do, so, who are you going to accidentally sign in as next time?
Well, let’s have a look at the names of all the other “Fellow travellers” that Pounce, amongst many have long suspected to be you shall we?
They obviously pay well at the BBC for trolling, as you can afford multiple devices to attempt to hide your ip…seemingly without any other work, considering the time you, and your alternative accounts spend on here…or are you going to deny that you do that as well?
You have exposed yourself to be what we all knew…
A liar.
Very left wing.
you have always said you do not use alternative sign in’s.
No, I’ve said I don’t use alternative IDs except for that one. And even when I was using it, I acknowledged who I was.
Well, let’s have a look at the names of all the other “Fellow travellers” that Pounce, amongst many have long suspected to be you shall we?
It doesn’t matter how many Pounce or anybody else has suspected me to be. Their suspicions are just that – not facts. They’re baseless suspicions, too.
They obviously pay well at the BBC for trolling, as you can afford multiple devices to attempt to hide your ip…
I have a laptop, an iPad and an iPhone. All paid for by myself. I don’t work for the BBC, never have, have never received a penny of BBC money.
considering the time you, and your alternative accounts spend on here
Like I said, no alternative accounts. Just one used in place of my main one for a temporary period.
You have exposed yourself to be what we all knew…
A liar.
I’m not the one lying here. But you carry on telling yourself that you’re right, if you want. Give yourself a pat on the back for concocting a fiction that makes you feel superior. Knock yourself out. Won’t make you any less wrong, mind.
What always surprises me about the “Waaaaa Scott has loads of aliases” comments… is that while Scott clearly posts honestly as himself (bar one login used when Alan started waving his tiny ban stick about) Pounce clearly has TWO logins. One with an icon and one without. And they’re obviously two people. One fairly sane if stupid and the other the big internet tough guy army fantasist character (which goes down soooo well with Guess Who). You people are the worst.
No one is forcing you to hang around here, plus you aint being charged…
Tell you what Scott, put down whatever BBC owned device you are using to try to hide your IP with this time, and stalk someone else’s site who cares about your thoughts…I have personally lost patience with your constant bullshit.
Do one please.
put down whatever BBC owned device you are using to try to hide your IP with this time, and stalk someone else’s site who cares about your thoughts
Thing is, Chop, repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t magically make it true. It just makes the liar reveal how much of a jerk he’s being.
No one cares what you say any more, empty vessels and all that.
A proven LIAR.
You know the one thing that I hate, it’s liars…
love the way that the liar then tries to make out I am lying….it must be some sort of freaky left wing genius at work here lads.
I’d say all your mates who post on here will be applauding your genius…
and they will….
because there is only one set of hands clapping….
Yours…
Mr multiple ID.
love the way that the liar then tries to make out I am lying
Well it would help if you provided any evidence to backup your claims. I’ve been open and honest from the start. Whereas you have just flung the word “liar” as if that’s evidence enough.
You know you’re not telling the truth, you’re just too cowardly to admit it. So now you’re trying to front it out. And the fact it’s not working seems to be making you even more mad.
Do you actually know what you are writing about or is it (as most would believe) just crap.
But just to return the sentiment – you and your type are the worst – and sooooo boring.
“Long time watcher”, I’ve noticed the duality of behaviour from Pounce – but I’ve always put it down to his very short fuse. I don’t think they’re two people, just one who has a tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest opportunity.
As for other pseudonymous users of this site, I do wonder why some people are so quick to assume the use of multiple identities. I’ve always assumed that it’s a practice with which they have more than a passing familiarity…
“You people are the worst.”
—
Historically, that phrase has not reflected well on those using it.
I am of course shocked, shocked I tell you, to see a new name from the Borg box deployed here, now, in such a way.
But the psychoanalytical approach is a new one.
And also does highlight a more than unsatisfactory failing of the site registration system. Acquiring the name My Site (click to edit) for a while, this got confusing when others had the same. This then became Guest, but after a long strong-string nickname suggested this was not as honest as theirs (I know for certain who few here really are, or frankly worry if the argument is sincere or sound) ended up with Guest Who. This of can be homaged with slight tweaks or added numbers. Or of course simply mirrored.
The net result is I seldom have a clue who really is who, making things more than tricky. Even murky.
Unless of course there’s a clear, unintended cock-up broadcast to the world showing who does have the time, means and desire to mess around with proxy servers and IP addresses to fulfil an obsessive desire to clog up threads with anything but sensible discussion on BBC accuracy, objectivity or integrity.
And as with the BBC and its staff being outed by clear written, page-captured evidence vs. what they claim over and over, in incanted hope that that their unique version of truth may become true, such delusion being laid out in black and white for all to see is the absolute best.
Sott….All of the “physical violence” of late has come from groups such as the hilariously named Hope Not Hate and their UAF counterparts…Or do they not count because they hold the same ideological viewpoint as yourself?…
Where UKIP are concerned, the left are about to lose the debate with the British public, hence the physical violence because they wont get their way.
You don’t offer an alternative viewpoint Scott, you try to shout down everyone else with your own.
Guess what?….we don’t really care for yours.
Do you know why?
Because yours is immovable, no matter how often it shows itself up to be bigoted and vile.
You, and your like are intolerant of anyone else’s opinion.
All we do on this site, is redress the balance.
If you don’t like it, why not go wallow amongst your lefty chums…
Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any, do you?
Even lefties hate lefties.
Funny that Charlie Bloom saw nothing ironic about claiming Farage and UKIP spread a climate of fear… before going on to compare Farge with Hitler and insinuating supporting UKIP would lead to war in Europe. No fear-mongering there, eh, Charlie?
(And didn’t Bloom also “fear for British industry” if we left the EU? Surely not more fear-mongering?)
And as for to dismissing Farage as “bombastic” – Bloom should try looking in the mirror some day.
I marked him as a plant before he spoke – he clearly knew he was going to get the chance to make his little fear-mongering diatribe.
Just watched this Question Time myself.
For large parts I listened without pictures-and the % interruptions, ad hominem abuse, sly little comments from the likes of Williams and Ummuna( you know-the “polite nice and virtuous parties) towards Farage-the only bloke they all feared and hated-was unreal.
Very Owen Jones-shout over, slyly slip comments in and let the Dimbo do the rest to help you.
Very dangerous all this-reminds me of Freisler and the coming lime=green and pink coalition of the willing conformists as represented by all the political class.
Vote UKIP-get ready for it all to kick off in the next few years.
The liberal elite are as venal and evil as Boko Haram-without the guts to get their own sandals dusty, without any principles I can find-even in the Allahawful Koran.
At least I can track Islamic evil and reference it-must I always go to Savile or the Cyrils gymnasium/laundry hampers to examine current BBC-liberal holy vests…sorry writ!
It will soon be either us ;or the f***In liberal elite and their gobshitting BBC…win that one, and we`ll be battle hardened for Islam.
You have to be very careful when arguing facts with some lefties as they can be very thin-skinned and will block you in an instance.
“will block you in an instance.”
Seems to be a common problem. A quick search of the tweets of one @dvatw
1 Apr 2014 – One of the great delights of Twitter is knowing the legion of sad demented stalkers pouring over my tweets, knowing I have them blocked! :-).
21 Apr 2014 – @liamnorris1001 I’m not but it’s a shame you are on Twitter. Bored now, blocked.
4 Nov 2013 – @braceposition He believes in you too, but i don’t. Blocked.
22 Oct 2013 – @Andyfizz69 Are you on medication? If not, you should be. Blocked.
30 Jan 2014 – @LouiseeeeM Cheers for alerting me to your presence! Blocked, halfwit
23 Mar 2014 – @jmc_64 I supported the other black lady who opposed the Victimhood hustler. Is that wayyyyycist too? Blocked,.
19 Nov 2013 – @gareth_mellon OK, I have had enough of you. Blocked.
18 Dec 2013 – @UltraFreq Debating with leftards never worthwhile, pal.
21 Nov 2013 – @Yourrightwrong You need to clear you mind up before making silly comments. I’ve wasted too much time on you. Blocked.
2 Nov 2013 @brucie67 Republican scum. Blocked
I did a quick search, Hope not Hate are also involved with 38 Degrees.
38 degrees was initiated by David Babbs who was closely associated with the Guardian.
Hope to go and have a listen to what my local UKIP Candidtates got to say in Hove on Tuesday:
But last Summer at Hove Town Hall a ton of GMB, UAF and associated left wingers gave me and others trying to exercise our democratic right to find out what the new kid on the block had to say, a right old barracking time
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3710/anti_ukip_protestors_disrupt_another_farage_event_this_time_in_sussex
Just checked – UAF mobilising the troops again:
http://brightonuaf.org/
Meanwhile Nick Lowles is squealing like a stuck pig, because his empire is crumbling..
http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/were-not-responsible-bleats-lowles-as.html
There is heckling and planned disruption. The video shows the latter, which is a policy supported by the unions, and is found in the stated policies of the UAF, Hope not Hate, and the SWP, together with several Labour MPs, who speak regularly at UAF meetings. The idea is to prevent ordinary people, whom socialists regard as gullible and stupid, from being influenced in directions that do not tie in with the socialist objective. It is not always necessary to disrupt meetings as in the video. UKIP are forbidden to speak at a number of university campuses who have adopted the no platform policy against them, thus depriving many students of access to debates concerning the future of Europe. Expect more, expect a surge in violent tactics, noting that the SWP define themselves as a revolutionary party committed to a violent overthrow of capitalism. Of interest, and rarely discussed, is why a conservative Prime Minister who is a founding supporter of UAF, continues to provide tacit support for them.
Need to stop the Scott baiting and look at these issues more as some good points are brought up
Well said, Simon. Scott and his ilk are nowhere to be seen when cast-iron evidence of BBC bias is brought up on here – 28gate being one of the most obvious examples. They go awol for weeks on end then suddenly pop up out of nowhere to argue a minor point. Best ignored if you can.
Jaw Jaw is obviously better than war war, on a sticks & stones basis (unless your career is bound in any way to the BBC, in which case words can actually harm a lot, mortgage and school fees-wise, if on the wrong end of some colleagues keen to see you gone and with the new means to see that happen).
But it still involves jousting.
So I tend to wince when I see a very good point here by authors or posters expose an Achilles Heel with a stray ‘I see the BBC never…’. Because out of the sun will dive a Flokker and pick that off with ease. No matter the actual topic remains valid, a ‘gotcha’ is a palpable hit, and score. And often, no matter how minor, it’s enough to throw off the whole thing as smoke in the sky attracts all the rest to try and claim a piece of the prize too.
The topic of censorship is an interesting one, perhaps because it is also complex, from modding through to blockings and bannings.
I’d have to agree frankly that reacting to counter-view with any of these is not exclusive to an ‘ism, or ‘ist of any hue.
The Telegraph now frequently obliterates its blogs with a pre or quickly reactive ‘comments are closed’ just as easily and in equally draconian ways, as Graun CiF.
But then there’s the BBC which, lest we forget, is the actual topic of the blog.
So as the newly-emboldened Staffel veterans who have suddenly re-appeared toast winging one of their prey on a free, independent blog I look back at the empire they so stoutly defend.
Does the BBC offer un-premoderated blogs? Initially, where they (erratically) are enabled, mostly yes.
However, they most certainly get post-moderated, and often on very dubious bases, without explanation, with the nuclear option of an early closing or even obliteration.
Now on an individual basis, if things have descended into abuse, there is perhaps justification (though in free speech terms what that is becomes akin to defining the actual little bit that is a little bit in pregnancy), but to any witness to what has existed briefly, it very often is nothing more than a view ‘others’ (all it takes is one; ask David Lowe) don’t like, the BBC don’t like, or both don’t like, and it is toast.
And so it is with those quaint ‘Views my own but I work for the BBC’ twitter pages. Editor/Producer/Talent/Cubicle warrior says ‘X’, and being their twitter page is decorated with the BBC logo, folk who think this might mean there’s a connection pay attention. They might agree, RT, or chip in. Or they may express a counter view, or concerns.
This can see a blocking take place quite fast, and happens often. If this fact is going to be argued, the attrition will make the Western Front look like a Wimbledon Women’s Final rally.
Then there’s BBC CECUTT. It pretends to exist to address complaints, but really it is just there to make them go away and for sure not make it past the secret log to an actual admission that folk outside may see.
The BBC oversees itself on this.
Rather quaintly, amongst many self-penned and serving rules, regs and guidelines they try and pretend are as impartial as the folk using them to judge input from non-BBC colleagues, they have concocted the notion of expediting. This is where they can decide, on whim, in secret, internally, that if folk keep confronting them with stuff they can’t explain rationally, that person is banned.
Given there are several familiar names here today preening away about censorship, would any care to explain why they are still here, visible and able to do so, often abusively, off topic and or vexatiously, when some compelled to fund and/or concerned with the services of a public service are denied the opportunity to even raise them?
Even if the blog owners decide to pull an ‘off topic’ per BBC modding policy and delete some above I see that inspire this post, my question stands.
Because this blog is private, and can do what it likes.
The BBC is public, and only thinks it can because it has to now be allowed to.
Just saw the series of excavations that got posted above as I was writing this, and as karma is clearly the capricious mistress of much more poetic unintended consequences, with a tear in my eye I retire to chuckle away quietly over dinner before my battery runs out too.
One wonders if, with Mr Bloom, there isn’t just the slightest bit of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome (too stupid to realize just how stupid you really are) mixed in with a bit of Rothbard’s Law (“A person’s greatest interest is in their field of weakest expertise,” i.e., the stuff they know best doesn’t interest them, nor do they well understand the stuff they are most interested in).
Joe McCarthy was a grandstanding self-serving opportunist, but he wasn’t wrong on the facts of what catapulted him to national notice in the US– the fact that it had been brushed under the carpet by the US State Department and complaisant news media that there were altogether too many security risks in the US Government whose presence was known and tolerated (from a report of three years previous that had gone virtually unnoticed) till he brought it up. McCarthy may later have gone far afield, and brought his legitimate issue into disrepute thereby, but it doesn’t negate his initial veracity on the subject. One must bear this fact in mind anytime one cries “McCarthy”; it ain’t a witch hunt if there really are witches.
Enoch Powell- ah, yes, let’s bring up old Nucky, shall we? The so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech, which in context is about the city of Rome allowing itself to be overrun by barbarians, and spoke to the practical question of the assimilability of large numbers of Third World immigrants to Britain, is trotted out anytime one wants to invoke the image of racial violence– even though Powell himself merely referred to the phenomenon of becoming a stranger in one’s own homeland.
Mr Bloom’s apparent greatest interest is in teaching the public lessons from history– his Rothbard’s Law greatest weakness (Sadly, not his Orwell’s Law weakness: “Whoever controls the present controls the past– whoever controls the past controls the future.”)
Very good post – thanks
When Charlie Bloom started his rant – blatantly abetted by Dimbleby – I thought to myself “Yes, I remember The Enoch Powell speech. Powell did not set out to be a rabble-rouser, he was one of the greatest Parliamentarians of my lifetime. Looking back, his warnings and themes were very very prescient. He told us what the EU would develop into, he resigned Ministerial office over excessive state spending, years before Maggie’s time.
Powell did not seek to have crowds of dockers outaside Parliament.. But they were at the sharp end of immigration. And where did so many of those dockers live ? In Tower Hamlets, where Bangladeshis were already jumping the queue for local Council housing. Now look at it !
Years later I was involved in a Cabinet Office exercise called the “Population Panel”. I remember very clearly how every effort was being made to skew the long-run population forecasts to try to minimise the impact of immigration. And even at that time, to try to question the figures was verboten – not good for one’s career.
Supplementary.
“A prophet yet an outcast: 100 years after his birth Enoch Powell has been vindicated on a host of crucial issues.”
By SIMON HEFFER
(2012).
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158958/Enoch-Powell-A-prophet-outcast.html#ixzz31RFNzm5A
“No, I’ve said I don’t use alternative IDs except for that one. And even when I was using it, I acknowledged who I was.”
Liar
It doesn’t matter how many Pounce or anybody else has suspected me to be. Their suspicions are just that – not facts. They’re baseless suspicions, too.
Liar.
“Like I said, no alternative accounts. Just one used in place of my main one for a temporary period.”
Liar.
“I’m not the one lying here. But you carry on telling yourself that you’re right, if you want. Give yourself a pat on the back for concocting a fiction that makes you feel superior. Knock yourself out. Won’t make you any less wrong, mind.”
Liar.
And that’s all that matters, aint it Scott? what is in your mind….to hell with anyone else’s concerns, matters, fears….you are left wing, thus always must be right, eh?
Do I feel superior?
Not normally, but today I do, I caught you with your IP’s down, and you do not like it.
You are a liar, and you have not one single shred of credibility left on this site any longer.
Tell you what, why not go stalk some UKIP supporters over on The Mails site?
I have seen you posting over there too, with alternative names and IP’s.
Bless.
Knob Ed.
You can call me a liar all you like. Alan can delete my rebuttals in his temper tantrum way of his all he likes.
But I’ve been telling the truth, and you’ve been making stuff up. Repeating yourself ad nauseam won’t ever change that.
I caught you with your IP’s down
No, you said I was hiding behind IP spoofing and offered no proof. If I’m doing what you say I’m doing, prove it. Or shut up and learn some manners.
I have seen you posting over there too, with alternative names and IP’s.
Oh, and I missed this gem, too. I have, of course, done no such thing, and Chop’s little fantasy world is just that – a fantasy. Of course, the poor man doesn’t have any evidence to back this up (none exists, after all).
But that won’t stop Chop from lying. Because even though he knows he’s in a hole, he’s going to carry on digging – while accusing others of operating the shovel.
Scott is protesting too much. Being caught out and called out on it has really got under his skin. His obvious discomfort is a joy to behold.
I think, Scott old boy, you should retire to your own website and spend the rest of your days counting the tumbleweed blowing across your comments section as you wait for your rare visitors.
Caught out? Hardly. Chop repeating lies over and over is hardly caught out.
I’ve followed your retorts through this – er – debate; and as an outsider may I say that you have dug yourself so far in that you must be half way to my country by now [Australia]
I’d like to stay around and see if you can extricate yourself — however, I should go and put the kettle on. I have a feeling you’ll be dropping by sometime soon.
We’ll have a nice chat then!!
E.U. elections, Thursday, 22 May-
“European voting intention figures both have UKIP narrowly ahead of Labour. YouGov/Sunday Times has CON 22%, LAB 28%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 29%, GREEN 8%. YouGov/Sun on Sunday has CON 23%, LAB 26%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 29%, GRN 7%. Note the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems in the Sunday Times poll – the first time we’ve seen that. Looking at the multiple YouGov Europe polls this week the broader picture seems to be that UKIP and Labour are neck-and-neck in first place, Conservatives are third, Lib Dems and Greens are neck-and-neck for fourth place.”
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/europe
All very interesting but the central fact is this. Did the BBC know that this man was a Liberal Democrat activist and did the BBc deliberately ensure he was allowed to rant at Farage.?Completely ineffectually by the way.
If so then the BBC is guilty of political chicanery at the least. Knowing the track record and duplicity of the liberal elite nothing would surprise me.
As for engaging with this man. As I have said repeatedly. Discussion time is past and pointless The liberal elite needs to be defeated. After what they have done to England there can be no compromise.
It seems to me that the establishment has proved UKIP’s case perfectly
From the far Left (like the BBC and Guardian) to the faux-Right (the Mail and the Telegraph) there has been a concerted series of feeble attacks, mostly little more than muck-raking, that have varied remarkably little, regardless of the nominal politics of the source.
If they are all defending the same status quo with such dedication, what significant difference is there between them?
They are like wolves arguing among themselves how best to slaughter a lamb.
It’s time we were rid of all of them
Don’t forget Bloom’s daughter tweeted about her father’s appearance on Q.T. BEFORE the programme was recorded. She later tried to explain that she tweeted as the programme was being recorded before actual broadcast. She’s obviously as intellectually challenged as her dad, forgetting that tweets bear the time and date of their posting. I think THAT is evidence enough of the Beeb’s collusion.
Well done Andy…a right couple of thickheads they are.
The sad fact for the BBC is how few people are surprised now at the audience rigging and infiltration which goes on. Remember the QT audience with a 100% show of hands for sacking Jigger Clarkson?
I think both Dimbledores are innocent of this rigging, but are aware it’s happening.
I think you’re being very generous. If they’re aware it’s happening and say nothing, they are just as guilty in my eyes.
Flexdream – think you mean Any Questions (not QT – in respect of audience 100% in favour Clarkson sacking) – I re-complained about that after receiving an unsatisfactory answer:
Historical Evidence Any Questions Audience Bias:
Full Complaint: Thank you for your reply to my complaint and your apology regarding ‘swaying audiences on BBC 4 Any Questions (your Reference CAS-2688658-26BZ8J). I have further looked into what you say in your answer about having a balanced political programme ‘over a period of time’ and understand the practical difficulties you face to achieve that. However, notwithstanding your apology and that you have pro-rata the highest paid human resources public purse recipients in the land to rectify such statutory non-compliant political balance, from my research you have repeatedly not resolved this serious democratic issue for years. Please see just a few of the other historical media highlights of this unresolved problem going back to 2009: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100007144/any-questions-yeah-why-is-british-broadcasting-so-incorrigibly-liberal-left/ http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/any-questions-yes-why-is-this-programme.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2447357/DOMINIC-LAWSON-My-question-panel-DOES-BBC-partisan-audiences.html http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/how-the-bbc-fixes-the-political-bias-of-any-questions/ Please could you let me know if you have any plans in the future to rectify this democratic deficit, which will include also taking into account the views of the majority of those that pay for your service?
———-
Thank you again for contacting us.
BBC Complaints
I’m afraid it’s gone past the conspiracy theories stage with the bBC, the whole thing is rotten to the core and I despise having to pay for it.
On May 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm Pounce wrote in reply to Scott on the ‘Killing the Enemy board’:
I am more than happy to communicate in a civilized way. The problem is when trolls like you litter the pages of blogs you claim to dispise, with your many IDs and your vapid comments.
On May 10, 2014 at 12:33 pm Scott replied:
And don’t go on that “multiple IDs” nonsense again to me, either. You know you’re talking rubbish. You’re just not man enough to admit that you’re wrong.
Scott, In light of your faux pas in posting under an alternative ID, would be be so kind as clarify your position in the post above where you clearly state you have never used another ID. The thing is Scott no matter how many times you deny it, and try to dodge the bullet. The facts remain you….exposed yourself and publicly got caught out.
Pounce, I have on several occasions, to you and to others, stated that I used *one* alternative ID for a brief period.
This was after you had accused me of not only posting repeatedly on here under multiple IDs, but also of going to your blog and posting comments under David Vance’s names.
Niether claim was true, of course, but that didn’t stop you getting as hot under the collar as usual.
Douglas Murray in The Spectator…
Are you fit to be a Liberal Democrat?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/04/are-you-fit-to-be-a-liberal-democrat-a-response-to-nick-cohen/
He missed one:
Do you conspire to pervert the course of justice?
Or another
Do you conspire to commit murder?
Or simply
Have you arranged to shoot any dogs?
Reed – Thanks great link – Douglas Murray get it dead right, quote:
“It is the whole party that is rotten. …………. the only conclusion I can possibly come to is that the Liberal Democrat party is a homophobic, lying, Muslim-bashing, bomb-planting, child-abusing party. Time to get rid of the whole thing. Right?
I thought something was up with that nasty looking man at the back and now I know why!
What I love about Vance is that he boasts about blocking people on Twitter (how many thousand now David) but leaves the back door open here.
So he when he removes the posts, he still have to read them.
What an own goal!
Back of the net!
And as if on cue, a new friend appears.
Welcome, Seventy Seven of Nine.
As a debut, it is noteworthy, if unsurprising that it is as off topic as it is deliberately provocative and unpleasant.
Maybe now would be an opportunity to confirm what BBC policy and practice is on posts of such nature, and what they warn will happen to those who do so repeatedly?
GW wrote:
“And as if on cue, a new friend appears.
Its Pathetic is it. We all know who the little shit behind all these IDs are, and yet like the typical leftwing bigot he plays the Bart Simpson card.
I don’t often disagree with what you say, especially when meticulously researched and backed with substantiation and URL support.
And in those cases I am one (of many) more than happy to add a ‘like’, FWIW (not much, given the cubicle groves and server tinkering that can be used to add false support. That the BBC also has a mark-down facility on their blogs still very much abused).
Sadly one word, which I feel added nothing and detracted much, again prevents me from doing so here. I doubt you could give a flying fig, which is also cool. What you and your colleagues fought and still fight for means that we can agree and disagree… and it should not matter.
But yes, the inevitability of the off-topic interference attempt by a yet another burner name from the Borg Box in such cases does err on pathos.
I must say that not being super-techy or privvy to the address data of these posters (any more than I presume… hope… folk are to mine, or yours), I can only go as far as suspicion on what is going on and by whom.
Given someone was earlier clogging up the thread having an-off-topic conversation with themselves under two identities, is surely however enough to be highly suggestive.
I still maintain that the site system has a serious deficiency that this can still take place so easily, though it did serve to trip up one prone to abusing it rather poetically.
Back on topic – while Alan got hot under the collar about not being able to tweet someone (oh, the infringement of civil liberties!), a rather more serious tactic was under way in Cambridge. Someone tweeted a picture of a list of UKIP policies with links to sources – and somebody complained to the police:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626218/MP-condemns-police-sending-two-officers-home-Twitter-user-criticised-UKIP.html
I’ve used the DM link here, although the story’s been covered by the local press upwards, if only to illustrate how this story seems to have miraculously passed George R’s link-dumping schedule by. I wonder why that is?
And this yours Scott
http://birmingham.tab.co.uk/2014/05/12/ukip-u-cant/
what was that about context?
Matthewman you disgusting excuse for a man, what the fascist green party politician done was produce a fradulent document pretending to be from UKIP, and the UKIP politician rightly complained to the police, but politicians exempt themselves from the law so they can do nothing
if we here produced a document pretending you drafted it making outragous claims then you would rightly complain as well u pathetic little sad excuse for a man
Was it necessary to wade in with the insults straight away is that what we accuse Scott of doing?
Perhaps all that was necessary was to post some thing like this
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/12/police-visited-green-party-campaigner-over-impersonation-fears
Matthewman you disgusting excuse for a man
u pathetic little sad excuse for a man
The true face of Biased BBC commenters: cowards hiding behind pseudonyms in order to lash out with impunity.
I don’t doubt you’re a regular poster on here. No wonder so many people are insistent that others use multiple IDs: it’s clearly common practice amongst the manners-challenged.
Although the link explains the context, you yourself seem to have passed that over. This was not really an attempt at censorship unless one thinks that candidates and parties should be able to make all sorts of fake literature for their opponents. That is a legitimate debate, but it is clearly not a radical attempt at censorship if one doesn’t think it legitimate.
I have no doubt that some here get carried away in their attacks on those who disagree. That is unfortunate, but you yourself need to make sure you are not being disingenuous.
This was not really an attempt at censorship
It’s a shame you think that “getting the police sent round after an obvious, attributed and valid political point was made” is somehow less serious than “self-righteous people get miffed when Twitter user uses the block facility granted to all users”.
Firstly, I said nothing about twitter. I can’t stand twitter and think no one should use it. So, that is just a blatant non sequitur.
Secondly, what you linked to was a possible example of producing fake campaign literature for one’s opponents. It is hard to say if it was worthy of investigation or not. There are two issues involved here, it seems to me. One is whether it is okay to produce such literature and the other is whether this includes such an example.
Now,, perhaps you are arguing that there is nothing wrong with this; that our free speech should include putting up fake election posters for our opponents and sending out fake literature. Personally, I’m quite happy with current restrictions on such behaviour and speech.
I think this incident was not an example of fake campaign literature. Whether or not it warranted investigation, I do not know. I’m inclined to think not, but I’m not overly concerned.
Firstly, I said nothing about twitter. I can’t stand twitter and think no one should use it. So, that is just a blatant non sequitur.
Well no, it was a reference to Alan’s original post. Which, I grant you, do tend to be chock full of non sequiturs themselves, but even so…
Secondly, what you linked to was a possible example of producing fake campaign literature for one’s opponents.
It wasn’t “fake campaign literature” – it was never pretending to be official UKIP literature, it just parodied UKIP’s visual design style to make a point. Furthermore, the user who posted the version which prompted the police visit didn’t create the original – he annotated it with URLs that provided sources for the assertions. And, in some cases, clearly labelled where he could not find a factual basis for some of the anti-UKIP statements included.
that our free speech should include putting up fake election posters for our opponents and sending out fake literature… I think this incident was not an example of fake campaign literature.
So you’re concerned about protection against fake campaign literature, but you don’t think this instance is fake campaign literature – but you’re still unconcerned that someone saw fit to involve the police? That’s both inconsistent, and a little odd.
So you’re concerned about protection against fake campaign literature, but you don’t think this instance is fake campaign literature – but you’re still unconcerned that someone saw fit to involve the police? That’s both inconsistent, and a little odd.
Well this doesn’t make sense. How can you conclude I’m inconsistent here, from the premise I’m concerned over fake literature. It is literally a non sequitur that this would mean I’d concerned about this case, which is about an overzealous police inquiry.
I’m well aware that the police can sometimes not make the wisest decisions in whom they investigate or how they do it, but in general they have vaguely reasonable motives for investigating people and events. As the police did decide to investigate, it does seem they thought it worthwhile to see if a law had been broken. The police are not passive objects that someone can involve in an affair. They make their own decisions.
.
Yes, the police were probably overzealous but all they did was pay a visit to this man to follow up inquiries. So, I’m struggling to see what great wrong occurred on this occasion. There was no censorship. What is the great wrong that has happened here?