Andrew Marr’s not having a good week.

I’ve just been watching ‘Kick-Ass’ [WARNING SMOKING AND DRINKING], the movie in which an everyday geeky kid dreams of being a super hero and saving the world.  Has Andrew Marr not grown out of that phase yet?  Clearly Paul Mason (You can’t keep a good man down…yep he’s back) hasn’t as he tells us of his bizarre utopian child-like dream of a world where capitalism is banished and lovely things happen and everything is free….and oh yes those nasty far-right people are saved from their dreadful little lives and turned into decent, latte quaffing Guardianistas who just want to love and be loved, and oh yes, do good things.

Sounds like I’m joking don’t it?  I’m not, it’s just another day at BBC Central and Start The Week.

Marr is looking towards a dystopian future where the digital world means we’re all redundant, nobody wants to pay for anything, which is just as well because the only people with money are the masters of the digital universe….and capitalism is history.

Paul Mason is brought on as the prophet of doom with a narrative that is jammed packed with excruciatingly left-wing socio-techno-psycho-babble, as inventive and outlandish as any comic book heroics and more deserving a place in the BBC archives filed under satirical comedy than serious comment on the economy….was he really Newsnight’s economics editor?

Just a few examples of his crazed mind….apparently Apple, Google and Facebook aren’t capitalist…they’re not producers but ‘rent-seekers’  Hmmm….The utterly ruthless Apple with more cash in the bank than the US government not capitalist?  Google and Facebook worth billions and selling billions?  Not capitalist?   They sell hardware, software and services.

The Uber app is apparently something anybody could have thought up and produced….except of course it’s not just an app, not just a few lines of software…..just like the Black Cab ‘Knowledge’ is what you might call an app and yet is so much more…anybody could do that…if they put the work in….and yet it is treasured and highly valued skill.  Uber is worth $50 billion on paper but is making losses as it invests to buy market share (as Saudi Arabia slashes the oil price to kill off the Frackers) …capitalism dead in the digital economy?  Don’t think so.  Apps, Mason might have noticed, sell for millions if successful…..Internet entrepreneur sells app firm for $30million – just three months after he founded it

Mason dismisses software as if it is worthless and meaningless.  Tell that to Microsoft.

He mentions Linux as free and an example to be emulated…and yet it’s not..it’s a billion dollar business….just as Wikipedia and Firefox are ‘free’ but always ask for donations to keep going or live off the goodwill and free services of its users.

Mason then tells us that the car-wash is the perfect example of how the machine takes over from the man….except of course people still flock to the hand-wash…usually done by East Europeans on a low wage.  There’s one down the road from me and its always full of customers…..so there’s always a place for the human and the vinyl record, as Northern Soul fan Mason should know.

Even more bizarre than Mason’s fantasms is the shoe-horning into the programme of a narrative about the Far-Right….seemingly Marr just wanted to attack the Far-Right and thought up a great excuse to do so conjuring up a wonderfully convenient line that only had a passing connection with reality and the subject under discussion.

We heard that groups like the EDL were angry white people, working class, left behind people, marginalised outsiders who were really protesting about economics. This is of course the same narrative that the BBC uses to explain Muslim extremism…it’s not Islam but economics…never mind most extremists are from good families and highly educated. The EDL most definitely weren’t up in arms about Islam (why would they be?)…. some were racist scum…it was all a consequence of industrial decline….a decline of the utopias based upon work (Mason™)…and oh yes…they were adopting the identity of ‘white Christian’ as the only way to stake a claim and a place in society.

Let’s think what the BBC are trying to do here……firstly by saying this is all about economics they are attempting to dismiss the claim that the likes of the EDL are protesting about Islam and the Islamification of Europe which we know is exactly what they are protesting about…in other words the BBC wants us to believe there is no real problem with Islam in the West….it’s all a front for racist losers wanting to be noticed.

Second…trying to label them as ‘white christian extremists’ is trying to equate them with the Islamists and in drawing such a parallel tries to say ‘look Christians are extremist too…so therefore Islam isn’t the only religion that spawns terrorism and extremism’.  Except of course Christianity doesn’t tell you to kill the unbeliever or charge them protection money.

We also heard that the government is victimising immigrants and refugees…all in order to pander to the Far Right….so anyone who wants to control immigration is Far-Right then?  The usual BBC toxic narrative.

Marr tells us the Middle East and North Africa is full of young people, and we need young people to????…to do those jobs that Marr and Co just spent 45 minutes telling us were history.

As always fantasy and wishful thinking overrides reality with the BBC lefty dreamers.

The phoney war is over and the BBC’s pretence of maintaining a neutral stance on the EU referendum is over.  That pretence of neutrality was always straining for credibility even before Cameron’s ‘win’ as the BBC managed to fill the airwaves with people who ‘just happened’ to support staying in the EU. Now however the gloves really are off and the BBC discussions that are supposed to inform us and bring both sides of the story to us are stage managed to appear to discuss the issues but remarkably end up with the conclusion that staying in the EU is the safest bet….and the BBC’s frontpage headlining story?…from a Michael Fallon interview…given prime spot on the Today programme at 08:10….

EU referendum: Leaving EU ‘big gamble’ for UK security

Strange how soon the BBC forgets that Cameron was described as a diplomatic irrelevance in regard to pressurising Russia over Ukraine….and it wasn’t ‘Europe’ that put that pressure on Putin but France and Germany.

David is right about the immediate attack on Boris, presaged of course by Nick Robinson’s attack on him on the Marr show.  Boris is being set up as a calculating, unprincipled man out to further his own career…based on what evidence?  And why look so closely at Boris’ motivations when others like Cameron get off scot free?

5Live brought on Sonia Purnell (at around 12:10), a former colleague and biographer of Boris…..apparently Boris and Purnell do not get on….but you weren’t told that by the BBC who presented her somewhat poisonous comments as gospel…….she claimed Boris was a fraud, secretly wanting to stay in the EU and his 30 years of writing Euro-sceptic columns was all a front….this is all about being PM she suggested.

• Sonia Purnell ‏@soniapurnell Feb 20  So, what exactly is the price Boris is holding out for for going against Brexit?

Some comments about her biography which might indicate she is no friend of Boris….

Sonia Purnell’s Just Boris is an indispensable examination into the mind, ambitions and deep insecurities of London’s mayor; Boris hates it because she dares speak truth to power.’

(Nicholas Lezard Guardian – Best of 2012)

‘Through fast prose and a vast array of interviews, Purnell … portrays better than any predecessor the arrogance, opportunism, and irresistible buffoonery of our most celebrated politician.’

(Independent on Sunday)

No wonder the BBC chose her…..as did the Guardian for numerous hatchet jobs on Boris and the Tories.

Looks like she is pro-EU as well……

  Sonia Purnell ‏@soniapurnell 5 hrs5 hours ago

Later on on 5Live we had a discussion about security (9 mins 30 secs) asking would we be more or less secure if we left the EU?  We had on the ‘independent’ think tank Chatham House.…independent but of course not necessarily without its own ideas and indeed what we got was an assessment that we would be safer to stay in Europe…no one put up to oppose that view as it was given.  I can’t see too much, if any, pro-Brexit comment on the Chatham House site and indeed here is the head of Chatham House, Robin Niblett, giving his own editorial comment which is pro-staying in Europe…as this line makes clear…

The risks to Britain’s position in Europe and, therefore, to its international influence are inescapable in the next parliament, irrespective of who wins the election.

Other comment from the Labour party on the site is clear on which direction we should go…

Making the Case for Britain in Europe

Hilary Benn will make present an internationalist case for Britain remaining in the European Union. Drawing on his experience in government, he will contend that being in Europe strengthens the UK’s voice on major international challenges such as regional conflict and climate change.

Britain’s Place in Europe: Why the Future Lies in the EU

Alan Johnson MP, leader of the Labour In For Britain campaign, will set out why in an increasingly interconnected world, Britain is stronger as part of Europe.

Chatham House may be ‘independent’ of government or any other vested interest but it looks like it has a line to take and that is to stay in Europe so for the BBC to present it as completely neutral is not entirely true and adds to all those other commentators the BBC drags in that are supposedly neutral but turn out, funnily enough, to support the EU.

The same 5Live programme (15 mins) went to some length to dismiss a claim by hairdressers on a previous 5Live programme that their businesses were being effected by EU regulations on the power of hairdryers…..the BBC told us this was rubbish….not having heard the hairdresser’s original claim I can’t comment on the reasons for them but it is interesting the lengths the BBC go to to try and undermine criticism of the EU and bolster its reputation by disproving ‘myths’.

Trouble is the EU may not have actually banned such hairdryers at present but it really did want to ban such high power machines, and will no doubt try to in future...as the BBC once told us…

High-powered hairdryers are on a list of household electrical items the EU is considering banning in an attempt to curb energy consumption.

A study, commissioned by the European Commission, has identified up to 30 appliances including toasters and kettles which could be restricted.

The study forms part of the EU’s energy efficiency directive aimed at helping to tackle climate change.

From the Telegraph:

The power of hairdryers could be reduced by as much as 30 per cent in order to be more eco-friendly, a draft study commissioned by Brussels suggests, threatening many of the models favoured by hairdressers and consumers for speedy blow-dries.

Günther Oettinger, the German EU energy commissioner, said that legislation preventing consumers from buying high-wattage appliances was necessary to fight climate change.

“We haven’t got round to these devices yet, we want curb power consumption,” he told Bild newspaper. “All EU countries agree that energy efficiency is the most effective method to reduce energy consumption and dependence on imports and to improve the climate. Therefore there needs to be mandatory consumption limits for small electrical appliances.”

From Salon Magazine:

Celebrity colourist and NHF past president Mark Coray, who uses a 2,100-watt dryer in his Cardiff salon, warned the plans could be deeply damaging to the UK industry: “You have a salon environment and somebody in their lunch-break wanting to have their hair done; you have time constraints,” he says. “The more powerful, the faster the blow dry – it’s as simple as that.”

All of which goes to show that the EU does want to ban such products and that such bans would have an effect on hairdresser businesses….so not so laughable after all.

Here you go on this fine Monday morning a NEW Open Thread. Detail the bias from the BBC right here!

Well then, it didn’t take the BBC long to start the undermining of Boris Johnson. I listened to the Today programme this morning and within ten minutes we had two very hostile interviews conducted by Nick Robinson. The first was with Lord Lawson and the second with Boris Johnson’s father. Both interviews were full on assaults on a/ The basis for Brexit and b/ Boris’s character. Between now and June 23rd, Project Fear will be the main weapon in the pro EU camp. The BBC will be a primary delivery mechanism. Why?

Is Andrew Marr pandering to the Prime Minister and his pro-Europe stance or has Marr just lost his cutting edge as a journalist?

Watching Marr this morning and you have to ask why the BBC put up Nick Robinson against the pro-Britain Kate Hoey…is Nick pro-Europe then as he seemed to be putting the case for the Inners?

Here we have a rather patronising piece from Robinson in which he tells us how important the referendum is for us…really?…He comes up with a clever ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario as he explains the referendum to us…

There won’t, of course, be any space on the ballot paper to say, “I’d like to stay if only there was less interference from Brussels or bureaucracy or immigration, or if only there was more democracy”.

There won’t be an opportunity to say “I’d like to leave if I could be sure the EU won’t make it harder or more expensive to sell our goods, or force us to allow Europe’s people to move here freely if we want our goods and services and money to move freely there”.

One choice he gives us is for staying, the other is disaster if we leave…..both lean towards staying…..Robinson says the choice is black and white…out or in…Boris thinks not…

‘…significantly he suggested that a no vote might not necessarily result in the UK pulling out of the EU altogether instead, creating a “new relationship based upon trade and cooperation”. 

Curiously, or not as the BBC always does it despite allegedly hating the Mail, Robinson chose to concentrate on the Mail’s frontpage claiming to have exposed a secret plot between Boris and Gove….why not concentrate on Boris’ ‘secret’ plot with Cameron which was on the frontpage of the Times as Robinson actually noted in passing?

Why has Boris not declared his position on Europe yet?  Robinson has worked it all out  He asks if it is due to a process of careful consideration, or one of pathetic procrastination, or one of cynical calculation as many Tories Robinson says he knows have told him?

Hmmm….’pathetic procrastination’?  Very perjorative comment.  As for those Tories feeding Robinson the anti-Boris poison…any chance they are from the pro-Europe camp?….Robinson didn’t bother to reveal his sources.

Hoey said that Boris was touring the UK visiting constituencies talking to the locals…Robinson decided that this showed Boris was more interested in currying favour for his leadership bid…coldly calculating…..never mind contradicting that immediately by quoting Boris himself saying he was ‘veering all over the place like a shopping trolley’ in regards to his decision….doesn’t really sound like a cold, calculated process does it?  That is backed up by his announcement that he is on the ‘Out’ side in which he said it had been an ‘agonisingly difficult’ decision to make and one made with a ‘huge amount of heartache’.  [Just heard Pienaar say Johnson not a man for detail …(isn’t that just a well known public persona?)…and this is all about Johnson’s bid for party leadership….not going to credit him with making an informed and reasoned decison then.]

We heard that the core of the referendum would be about ‘control’ or sovereignty…oddly Marr finished off by then interpreting this as the Brexit campaign being based on a ‘visceral, emotional appeal’.   No…This time it is a cold, practical calculation…people want to take control of their country and lives back from the faceless bureaucracy that is Europe.

Marr went on to interview Farage who pretty much wiped the floor with him as Marr kept coming up with inaccurate claims about Europe and what would happen on Brexit.  Marr then moved on to interview Cameron and told us that Cameron had been doing ‘important work’ as he negotiated with the EU monolith.  That’s of course not the view of most people from Corbyn, to Sturgeon, to Farage, to Gove, to Boris, to, well to many many people.  Cameron was engaged in smoke and mirrors negotiating about very little but trying to generate as many headlines as possible giving the impression he was bravely battling the EU bureaucracy.  The real issues such as immigration and control were left unresolved.

Most of the interview was pretty anodyne with Cameron allowed a free run as he claimed Britain would fall apart economically, that we would not get cooperation on crime and terrorism from Europe, and our firms would suffer discrimination if we left Europe…no challenge from Marr at all.

Marr then came up with this ...’David Cameron may go down in history as the man who saved Britain’s membership of Europe…..’

Really?  Saved us from leaving the EU?

Marr told us that Cameron had busted a gut on these negotiations, he’d worked very, very hard on them….Marr asked if the PM felt that he was being stabbed in the back, betrayed by a very carefully coordinated Brexit campaign out to get him?

No taking sides there then…curious how the Brexit campaign is now a ‘carefully coordinated’ one when the BBC spent the weeks before the EU negotiations painting the campaign as a disorganised rabble ….’rats in a sack’ I think was the actual phrase.

Watch the news clip on Marr and note how the Brexit ministers are described as ‘slipping out the back of No 10 and heading immediately to banks of phones at the Brexit campaign HQ’…..no sly dig there then?

So now the Brexit campaign is some slippery, sinister operation out to do down the heroic PM who ‘bust a gut’ for the UK?

Marr asks what if Brexit happens, these are dangerous times economically and otherwise, what will happen to Europe?

A leading question feeding the PM the chance to paint a bleak picture of a Europe in ruins with the UK not being there to stabilise the emotional, hotblooded Continentals.

He finishes with a pro-EU note….’Let’s take us back to the unhappy prospect of Britain leaving Europe and everything is on a knife edge…..’

So to wrap up…Marr thinks Cameron could ‘save us from leaving Europe, an unhappy prospect which would lead to dangerous times and a Europe in ruins.’

No bias there then.

From February 11th:

BBC governance needs radical overhaul, Committee report finds

Well, the BBC is hyping up Cameron’s play-acting in Brussels, giving us the predictable soap opera spin on whether Call me Dave can pull off a one minute to midnight victory for Blighty! As if. Anyway, there’s going to vast coverage in the next 48 hours so detail the bias HERE!

The law in regard to ‘joint enterprise’ has changed…and the BBC was very excited…it just loves a ‘wrongly convicted’ prisoner set free.

Got the impression listening to the BBC yesterday morning that their initial reaction was rather joyous and that they could foresee plenty of ‘exclusive’ BBC stories down the line about injustices being righted as prisoners put in appeal after appeal all of which the BBC would happily devote much campaigning airtime to.

Only later, as surely the emails and texts rolled in to put a different perspective on things, did I hear the BBC presenters start to give a more sympathetic hearing to the families of the murdered.

Odd how times and opinions change…here’s the now current state of affairs….

The law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases if defendants “could” have foreseen violent acts by their associates.

However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test.

Delivering the judgement, Lord Neuberger said it was wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder.

“The court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right,” he said.

Strange how previously the same Lord Neuberger thought that not only was foresight of intent to kill worthy of a murder conviction but that even if the accessory only foresaw ‘serious injury’ he was still guilty of murder by reason of joint enterprise……

Lord Neuberger set out why the appeal was rejected:
‘Accordingly, in the absence of special factors, and subject to any good
reason to the contrary, I consider that, even if the primary perpetrator
intended to kill the victim, an alleged accessory should not escape a murder
conviction simply because he only foresaw or expected that the perpetrator
intended to cause serious injury. The mere fact that the perpetrator intended
to kill does not render his actions ‘entirely’ or ‘fundamentally’
different from what the alleged accessory foresaw or intended.’

The Hyde principle and the ‘fundamental difference’ rule
In R v Hyde the Court of Appeal set out the basis of secondary liability for
the collateral offence to a joint enterprise.25 The House of Lords in R v
English qualified this basis with the fundamental difference rule.26 In R v
Rahman this law is restated by Lord Brown as follows:

If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill
or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless continues to participate
with A in the venture, that will amount to a sufficient mental element for B to be guilty of murder if A, with the requisite intent, kills in the course
of the venture unless (i) A suddenly produces and uses a weapon of which B
knows nothing and which is more lethal than any weapon which B contemplates
that A or any other participant may be carrying and (ii) for that reason A’s act is to
be regarded as fundamentally different from anything foreseen by B. . . .27
Lord Scott, Lord Rodger and Lord Neuberger endorsed the restatement
of the law proposed by Lord Brown. The law can be summarised as
follows: if a secondary party participates in a joint enterprise in which
the principal commits murder, the secondary party will become liable
for that collateral offence if he contemplated that there was a real risk
that the principal might act with the mens rea for murder in furtherance
of the common purpose unless the English qualification applies. The
qualification requires that the principal suddenly produces and uses a
weapon of which the secondary party knows nothing and which is more
lethal than any weapon of which the secondary party was aware. If this
qualification is satisfied, there is no secondary liability for the collateral
offence.

The BBC’s foody programme ‘TheFood Programme’ is what you might typically think of as a perfect example of BBC think, that middle class do-gooding ‘something must be done’ touch of snobby arrogance that doesn’t brook any opposition….at least in this programme ‘First Bite’.

In her new book, First Bite – How We Learn To Eat, Bee Wilson takes a deep and reflective look at how food choices and habits are shaped, and how they can be changed.

Sheila Dillon is joined by Bee Wilson and special guests to discuss the book’s surprising findings, and how to make positive changes where positive change is needed.

Sheila and Bee are joined by Rosie Boycott, who advises the Mayor of London on food and is Chair of the London Food Board, as well as father and son Geoff and Anthony Whitington who star in the just-released film Fixing Dad, which documents Geoff’s struggles with type 2 diabetes and his two sons’ efforts to help him.

The presenter, Sheila Dillon, is ‘wowed’ by Wilson’s book which is ‘remarkable’ and the whole programme doesn’t put up much, if any, fight against Wilson’s thinking…..people are apparently confused about food and why they eat what they eat…they just don’t realise they are all victims of a conspiracy….presumably by that ‘industrial food system’ which Dillon shows so much disdain for and which has apparently destroyed the British food culture.

Geoff Whitington has diabetes, he was 20 stone, a lorry driver who used to stop at fast food outlets 6 or 7 times a day…but you know what?  His weight and subsequent diabetes….. not his fault.

He tells us (22 mins 30 secs) that he kept telling himself that it was his own fault, he was the one putting this stuff in his own mouth…but he learnt the truth…he’s a victim, it’s not his fault, he was ‘forced’ to eat in that manner by clever marketing by those nasty fast food outlets.

MacDonalds got the blame for this one…so the usual BBC prejudice against the US corporate….no mention of all those greasy spoon truck stops he must also have graced with his business….just how much clever marketing do they do?  Clever buggers at them roadside caffs….. such a magnetic draw…irresistable.

We are told that we live in a dysfunctional food environment, we aren’t clever or educated enough to feed ourselves properly…..the government must do something…it is nothing to do with ‘willpower’ or our own actions.

No voices in opposition, no voices of reason to bring a bit of sense to the discussion, no one to tell the trucker that it was his own damned fault he bulked up.

I imagine there is a reason supermarkets sell fresh fruit and vegetables (so cleverly marketed as the first thing you see when you enter a store…..shocking how they force us to eat our 5 a day!) and fresh meat along with all those wholesome ingredients for homecooking.   Somebody must be buying all that good stuff….can there really be so many know-it-all BBC presenters out there buying it all up whilst the rest of us ignorant plebs gorge ourselves on pizza and oven chips?

Yes, no one knows how to, or has the will to, cook anymore.  No one is interested in the slightest about food and cooking.  Which is why the BBC has so many programmes about…cooking and food.

The Guardian is becoming less of a newspaper and more and more of a campaigning, issues led vehicle for the green ink brigade.  The BBC isn’t far behind especially with its highly inaccurate and one-sided ‘reporting’ of Race in America….even today it tells us that its programme about OJ Simpson was more concerned with racial issues than the murder itself.

The Guardian gives a platform to just about any disgruntled black person to say the most ridiculous rubbish and present it as truth….a ‘truth’ I suspect most black people wouldn’t subscribe to it being the result of a mind that sees everything in terms of race because that is how it has been trained to see the world…everything that you fail  at is because of racism in society not because of your own limitations.  Articles in the Guardian, and BBC, just reinforce that way of seeing the world and reduces the black person to a victim unable to help themselves….it is a self-fulfilling prophecy…but one caused not by the usual suspect racists but by do-gooding white progressives who think black people can’t achieve success without their help…and it makes those white progressives feel very good about themselves as they go about their ‘missionary’ duties to the adopted ‘natives’.

Here’s one such black ‘victim’ given a platform by the Guardian to vent his grievances…

I’m tired of being around people who feel intimidated by my blackness

In our society, black is seen as negative and white as successful, leading many to reach for a cultural mask. It’s time we stopped trying to fit in

[The] psychological coping mechanism, the “cultural mask”…the layering of identities that a black person takes on to cope.

As a black person you almost automatically learn to use this this mask in order to survive in a society predominantly catering to a white audience. It shows in different forms – from extremes of self-hate, where all things black are rejected, to coping strategies such as not wearing braids to a job interview in fear of being deemed “too ethnic”. These compromising adaptation strategies help us feel included, avoiding the fear that if one was to show blackness in its entirety there will be alienation and confusion from one’s counterparts.

We are taught that to be black in our society is to be negative and to be white in our society is to be successful, elegant and all those other positive, sophisticated terms. This negative position has conditioned some of us to not only reject our blackness but to become submissive and not speak out about our experiences of prejudice.

Complete nonsense…‘taught that being black is a negative’?   Since when?  There are many, many high profile, successful black people in the UK.

‘.. compromising adaptation strategies help us feel included‘…you mean like going to a job in a suit or not having a mohican or a crewcut or covered in tattoos or bits of metal thrust through parts of your face?  Nothing to do with race, more to do with corporate culture and general rules on what is acceptable business presentation.

The real racists are people like VV Brown who wrote this whinge…..for in reality it is nothing more than a long attack on white people stereotyping them and ‘their culture’ as racist…..white culture, black culture…..can you have a culture based on skin colour….VV Brown is mistaking the origins of differing cultures….it is not skin colour that defines a culture but where that person, or his predecessors, came from and brought their culture from….White Germans could have a vastly different culture to Brits and yet they are the same colour.

Here’s another mad message from the Guardian..this time its a disappointing rant from Nick Cohen who gets it badly wrong…

Farage’s vile views are dominating the Europhobe pitch

The case for leaving Europe could not be racist. If Farage gave us a referendum about immigration, he would turn it into a culture war. Voting to leave would mean voting against racial equality and gay marriage and in favour of confining women to the kitchen and bedroom.

We got a taste of the Trumpish politics that are about to hit us during last year’s general election campaign. Farage announced on a TV debate that he would stop people coming “into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retro-viral drugs that cost up to £25,000 per year per patient”.

In one sentence he managed to “signal” to his “core” that he was against gays, foreigners and scroungers. It wasn’t so much dog-whistle as wolf-whistle politics. Farage was leering at prejudiced voters and telling them how much he fancied them.

Astonishing and highly inaccurate protrayal of Farage and his policies….he wants to limit immigration…therefore…he’s Hitler reincarnated?  Cohen has lost the plot……his raging, liberal, intolerant arrogance is fully on show here…..a perfect example of the true mind of a ‘liberal’ who speaks grandly of free speech and democracy but when put to the test shows his true colours….all those UKIP voters….prejudiced, bigoted, racist losers who must be defeated….

Our unfair electoral system may have denied Farage a seat. But nearly 4 million people voted for Ukip. They were the “left-behinds” – the losers, who have been hit by conservative economics and liberal multiculturalism. Their secure jobs have gone and so has their sense of national identity. They didn’t retch when Farage conjured the bogey of HIV-infected foreign scroungers. They cheered, and said: “Here’s a man who isn’t afraid of political correctness… Here’s a man who tells it like it is.”

They want their prejudices verified. They want a stage-army of villains to boo and jeer. Whether the Eurosceptics dog whistle or wolf whistle, they will come, and they won’t care that their behaviour wrecks their own cause, and disgraces their country.

It is for this reason, above all others, that they must be comprehensively defeated.