You’d expect all the dirty tricks in the book from LibLabCon – they’re degenerative, corrupt parties who see the game as keeping them in second homes and on expenses. Cameron’s debate shenanigans are simply pathetic.
However, for the Electoral Commission to approve FUKP is simply astounding for a supposedly neutral body. Commenter at the Spectator, of all places:
It appears the Electoral Commission hasn’t read, or are ignoring, their own guidelines on registering political parties:
We will also look at how the proposed name, descriptions and emblems interact with each other. This is to ensure that in our opinion it is not likely that voters would be confused when a party’s identity marks are considered as a whole.
Under PPERA (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000), we will refuse any party name that:
• is likely to result in voters confusing it with a party that is already registered
I’ve many friends who were Tory and many of them gaze upon these really dirty politics, especially from the supposedly neutral Beeb and of course the EC and they must be wondering just whom they can report the commission and the corporation to. Who has higher authority?
Usual Tory trolls tried to make out there was nothing wrong – and that in itself speaks volumes for them – to which the answer came swiftly:
“Murray’s party use an upside-down version of Ukip’s logo for the FUKP motif.”
If that’s not emulating, what is? Another commenter:
Quite apart from the confusion issue, it is astonishing that the Electoral Commission should allow a party called “FU…”. If I were to stand against the incumbent in Camberwell and Peckham under the banner of a party called, say, Screw the Harridan, I don’t think this would be allowed, simply on grounds of taste and decency.
A glance at the bio of Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission, 20 years a quango queen, 100,000 GBP for three days a week, renowned for incompetence since at least 2010 but glued to her chair by the usual forces, might suggest that sympathy with any problems UKIP might have will be in short supply.
And on the Climate Scam and the BBC’s bias, Delingpole on the latest programme:
Here was a programme so lamentably biased, so completely uninterested in counterarguments, so blatantly determined to pull the wool over its viewers’ eyes with straw men, false analogies and calculated misrepresentations of the real points at issue, that it constituted a flagrant breach of the BBC’s statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality.
In short, this programme broke the law.
Under the BBC Charter 2006, the BBC is legally obliged to “do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”
Not only did the BBC fail to do this with Climate Change By Numbers but it has also failed to do this with every single documentary it has made on the subject for well over a decade.
What’s more, as Booker noted in his 2011 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – called The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal – the BBC has been doing so quite deliberately.
The bias (though it actually dates back much further) was formalised in 2006 at a secret meeting, co-organised by the BBC’s house climate activist Roger Harrabin, in which the BBC’s senior executives were briefed by the “best scientific experts” and reached the conclusion that the ‘consensus’ on climate change was now so rock solid that there was no longer any need for the BBC to cover it with even a semblance of impartiality.
I wonder if I’m the only person who noticed that the two male “climate experts” were shortish men and the female standing between them was tall, young and pretty. Sheer accident at the Beeb? Sheer coincidence?
Again and again, it’s not the dirty politics by the opposition which is the issue, it’s not the issues themselves so much – it’s the underhanded tactics of the taxpayer paid “unbiased non-aligned”.