Deliberate, defamatory lies from the Mail on Sunday


On June 1st, the Mail on Sunday published what purported to be a report on my interview with their Political Editor Simon Walters.

In fact, the piece bore little or no relation to our interview, and appears to be simply a pre-cooked hatchet job, packed with deliberate and defamatory lies.  I have written to Mr. Walters in the following terms.

Simon Walters – Political Editor, Mail on Sunday

Dear Simon,

A few days ago I took time out of my busy by-election schedule for an interview with you.  You raised the issue of homosexuality.  I was reluctant to spend time on it, as it is not high on my agenda and it certainly doesn’t seem to exercise voters in Newark — it has never once been raised with me in the street or on the doorstep.  And I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the media’s relentless obsession with a few tangential remarks on social issues from years ago, and reluctance to address the real issues of either the euro-elections or the Newark campaign.   Nevertheless I answered your questions clearly and honestly.

So I was shocked to read your subsequent story, in which you assert that I “called for gay cures on the NHS”.  This is a deliberate and defamatory lie.  I said no such thing.  You have deliberately and knowingly published a false and defamatory statement a few days ahead of a critical by-election, with the prima facie objective of influencing the outcome of that election.  I understand that this represents an offence under electoral law

The question arose because of a minor furore in the media three years ago over therapists and/or religious groups who claimed to be able to reverse an individual’s sexual orientation.  There was a great deal of strident and aggressive criticism from the gay lobby at the time, both against those offering such “treatment”, and against individuals who sought it.  I felt that this criticism was deeply illiberal, and that if an individual believes that a course of treatment would help him, or might help him, then in a free country he should be entitled to pursue it.

I also made a comparison with homeopathy, another therapy about whose efficacy there is widespread scepticism.  I don’t know whether a person’s sexual orientation can be changed, and I don’t know if homeopathy works.  In both cases I doubt it.  But as a libertarian I defend the right of those who think either might work to engage with them.

Let’s be clear: I have never said that homosexuality is “an illness”, or that it can be “cured”.  I have never asserted that homosexuals can be “turned”.  I have never advocated “gay cures”.

In particular I would vehemently oppose any move to offer “gay cures” on the NHS.  No treatment should be offered on the NHS unless it is of proven clinical efficacy and demonstrable cost-effectiveness.  I am not aware of any proposal to offer “gay cures” on the NHS — this appears to be a figment of your imagination.  But if there were any such proposal, I should oppose it robustly.  Your suggestion that I “called for gay cures on the NHS” is a downright and preposterous lie, and a deliberate attempt to damage my reputation.

In fact you have not written up our interview at all.  You have simply written up your own preconceived stereotype of what a UKIP candidate might be like, and you have totally ignored what I actually said to you.  This is nothing less than a deliberate hatchet job.

Nowhere is your trashy journalism more evident than in your description of me as “a retired colonel”.  Had you asked, or had you done a scrap of relevant research, you would have found that I am not a retired colonel, and that I have never served in the Armed Forces at any time.

Will you please now issue an immediate retraction and apology, ahead of Thursday’s by-election.  If you fail to do so, I shall certainly refer the matter to the Press Complaints Commission, and I will also consider what legal remedies may be available.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

233 Responses to Deliberate, defamatory lies from the Mail on Sunday

  1. Nivek Ecyoj says:

    full retraction next sunday then (in small print on pg 23)

  2. Linda Hudson says:

    That is most dishonourable of the Daily Mail, and it’s political editor, it lacks morals, and truth, which is vital for a healthy newspaper,
    The Daily Mail was one paper I used to enjoy!

    • Rod says:

      Correct Linda. I see this as a deliberate diversion from Roger’s principal and sound arguments against renewable energy subsidies, as UKIP’s energy spokesman. To hear Roger speak on energy is to listen to reality, as he actually knows what he is talking about, unlike Ed Davey and Tim (trougher) Yeo. I seem to recall the Daily Mail making many of Roger’s sound points themselves on wind energy and the flaws in the, so called, climate change agenda as supported by the LibLabCon and the horrendous costs on our energy bills!

    • clairethinker says:

      Write to them and tell them you won’t be buying it now because of this nasty attack on Roger.

  3. David A Gunn says:

    Start recording your interviews, then sue for liable when you get mis-represented, the party needs to start challenging the media in court.

  4. catalanbrian says:

    But you did tweet “Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual?”

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      An unbiased question, was there an answer?

      Political correctness is the mark of weak yes men, often without much intellect currying favor for reward.


        Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
        illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth
        the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

    • Right wingery says:

      Indeed he did. And, having been involved with East Midlands Conservatives for many years and having attended a good number of fundraisers with Mr Helmer present, I can honestly say that those tweets and the other comments he has made are but the tip of the iceberg.

      He has made numerous incredibly incautious remarks when assuming the audience is sympathetic to his views. What was said in private will remain so, but believe me the things I have heard with my own ears, as well as the testimony of others, makes me think that these reports in newspapers are actually rather tame.

      • Jon Shaw says:

        How about putting up or shutting up rather than these hints

        Or are you frightened by libel laws ?

        I have heard some terrible things concerning the parachuted in Tory Candidate

        Easy isn’t it

      • George says:

        I notice you’re making that claim anonymously.

      • Val Ingram says:

        Sorry Right wingery but when you hide behind a made up name it makes me wonder how genuine your post is, if you wont add your real name and stand up and be counted, they these are just hollow words. If you knew Mr Helmer from the past this sounds just like sour grapes to me because he decided to no longer represent the Conservatives. This is just what is wrong with politics these days and the biggest turn off to electors, all the sniping behind the scenes.

      • Mike Smith Gloucester says:

        So did you make a fuss when he was still in the Conservative Party — or just wait until he saw the light and joined UKIP?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      If both are on the NHS neither are OK. Same as IVF in my view.

      • clairethinker says:

        That is a stupid comparison. IVF for married couples (and I mean of course proper married couples one man one woman) is a compassionate treatment and a health treatment as two healthy adults of the opposite sex should be able to conceive. Yet in many parts of the UK they have to pay, while the NHS squanders money on cosmetic surgery and stupid sex-change treatment.
        Private patients should be able to pay a therapist for whatever reason they want. Homosexuality is NOT innate – that idea has been scientifically disproved over and over again beyond any dispute, So if people choose to go to therapy, and pay for it, it is not the business of the snooping Gaystapo to interfere.

    • Rod says:

      That is a liberterian question. The transexual has choice as is right and proper so why not the homosexual/lesbian who is unhappy about his/her sexual orientation? As Roger said the latter may not be an effective treatment but liberty is about freedom to try it as long as any treatment is safe of course.

    • clairethinker says:

      And Roger was quite right to do so. Sex change operations are a fraud.Nobody can change their birth sex, they can only cut off their organs and become a pitiful eunuch. It is ridiculous to believe that people can be “born in the wrong body”. It’s pseudo-science. Sex is innate and fixed – sexual orientation is not innate, it is not genetic, and it may be influenced by many things such as childhood trauma, so if people wish to take some sort of private therapy to deal with it THAT IS THEIR RIGHT IN A FREE SOCIETY.

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      I was going to reply, but Brin Jenkins has said it all. I simply asked a question about different public perceptions of arguably comparable activities. I did not endorse any particular activity or course of treatment.

  5. Carl Maguire says:

    I too will no longer read a newspaper which adopts such vicious and insidious tactics. His attitude, low morals and downright deceitfulness needs airing in public, and if litigation is appropriate it should be commenced forthwith.

  6. Maureen Gannon says:

    Roger they have waged war on UKIP from the begining of campaining for th EU elections so it comes as no surprise to me , their retraction will be if it comes will be minimal at the bottom of one of it’s pages, sue and expose them as trash fodder .

  7. Brin Jenkins says:

    The media have sunk to a common purpose all time low, using their own buzz words, “They are no longer fit for purpose.”

    These wicked, politically motivated liars should be punished by jail sentences, and confiscations of all illicit gains along with all of those who influence and manipulate them.

  8. ps3person says:

    Quite right Roger. Is it impractical to carry a digital dictaphone device with you, so that you can use it during any interview, particularly at important times, like the run up to an election, so that you have proof of what you have and have not said?

  9. Brin Jenkins says:

    Amazing how one can use an tiny iphone.

    It is not illegal to video or record in public places in spite of what is often inferred.

  10. ancientpopeye says:

    Have you a recording of the interview or a witness?
    If so sue the liar, whether they retract or not.

  11. tony leatham says:

    So glad you sent this, Roger. It seems to me that the press seem to think they can print whatever the hell the choose and that there will be no consequences. All too often, they are correct and they do get away with it – as you say, this is clearly an attempt to influence a bi-election which is surely anti-democracy

  12. Francis says:

    Oh dear, Roger when will you ever learn? Refuse to give interviews to these journals and then they cannot misquote you from direct comments at least. You know that they hate you and the party you represent, you know that they are filled with bias and lies. So why oh why put your head in the lions mouth and then be surprised when you get bitten? Please don’t think this will do you no harm because there are some people out there who do believe everything that is written in the newspapers.

    Good luck on Thursday.

  13. Me_Again says:

    I wonder sometimes who the enemy actually are. This level of defamation should not slide by with no recourse to the law. I was at Newark yesterday and proud to be out there posting leaflets with a surprisingly large and eclectic group of people.
    The swine only print this sort of thing because they know how ruinously expensive retribution through the court is. Are there any ‘no win no fee’ solicitors who handle defamation.

    PS did you record your interview? In future perhaps all those in UKIP called to give a press interview should quietly record it. That would make it so much easier to sue.

  14. barrymx5 says:

    In 2010 on the eve of the General Election the Mail printed the lie that I had stood down as Ukip candidate in Somerton & Frome in favour of the Tory. Again a blatant lie. But one which cost me votes. The subsequently after the Election printed a very small apology.

  15. Joseph Croft says:

    most mobile phones have a recorder , best to use it in future

  16. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Yep…I skimmed that article as with most news outlets. The Colonel piece was rather ironic since you are going for election in Newark due to a retired Army officer having a hands in the till problem. He was truly arrogant I thought.

    To think that too many of those in Gov are of the journalist trade. Just cannot call it a profession really.Tends to point at a lot of problems, largely of contemptuous/mischievous behavior.

    Best of luck with the election. Am not sure what you can do with Worcestershire woman as regards turning to UKIP….more luck, time and effort required.

    Am keeping an eye on Spain’s problems with renewables as it seems the money is being throttled off – a lot…the MSM again. In Scotland we still seek causal for the failure of supply this year to 200,000 customers in the NW region due to a relay failure..allegedly. Question put to Scot Gov and weak reply received. I think Nat Grid events maybe classed as Nat Security and as such details of Grid events cannot be released to the public…..checkmate !

  17. Anne Palmer says:

    Always record ANY interview Roger, and then you can take them to Court if they print or twist something you said. Place the recorder on the table where they can see it, for you have nothing to hide-make that quite clear too. Anne

  18. mendipman1 says:


    Today’s news is tomorrows fish & chip paper; what would you expect of the MAIL!
    There’s a public tide ‘running’ strongly against the ‘media’ disinformation.pace Corbels!


  19. Bill Esslemont says:


  20. I am so sorry that you have to waste time and psychological energy on such outrageous publications. I have never read the Mail and now never will but some sage advice in the above Comments might well lead one to consider the purchase of a portable recording system on your person which can be easily activated and if needs be you can mention its existence when giving an interview. Or don’t give interviews at all to publications which have no intention of reporting what you say.

  21. Graham says:

    Don’t bent journalists make you spit. I used to read the Mail and finally cottoned on to its warped agenda and stopped. A lesson learned, hopefully, but it could be an expensive one so close to the election. I hope the good people of Newark are politically astute enough to see it for what it is. I’d chip in a small contribution to legal fees if UKIP decides to sue. But it’s probably a lost cause due to the timing. Good luck on Thursday, Roger; For Queen and Country!

  22. Garry Lelliott says:

    I’ve got to agree with the comment posted by Anne Palmer on this one. Making it clear that the interview will be recorded to eliminate any ‘misunderstandings’ will soon weed out the journalists from the hacks. I think ALL UKIP officials should follow the mantra of ‘No recording, no interview.’ to safeguard the party from future falsehoods.

  23. Alex says:

    Take legal action against the mail. What they’ve done is disgusting and is indeed the laziest form of journalism. Sue them.

  24. anon says:

    This is what you would expect from a press completely dominated by leftist anti-UKIP forces and LGBT gutter journalists. SUE them.
    Roger is of course completely correct that in a free society anybody who wants therapy is entitled to seek it and those who stand in their way are being authoritarian. His logic was impeccable when he asked “Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual?” WELL SAID ROGER. The LGBTs says it’s wrong to tinker with your “orientation” but OK to cut off vital organs and mutilate yourself under the delusion that you can alter your birth sex. Roger is right and the queers are wrong. They are wrong and crazy. We must immediately stop the NHS from performing so-called sex changes and make the mad people who had them pay back the money. We need politicians who are not afraid to speak out against the whole vile LGBT agenda and we need newspapers that are free from their rubbishy propaganda.
    UKIP should turf out its LGBT group as they are superfluous.
    Today’s news is NOT tomorrow’ fish and chip paper – its stays on the internet forever and its effect on the election result is irreversible.

  25. anon says:

    PS Virtually all our major newspapers now employ journalists trained by ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association). The Mail is only the last in a long series to succumb to their control. Their LGBT aparachniks control the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky news, Huffington Post etc etc. TV news is all filtered through teams of LGBT political-correctors, who censor it or put their own spin on it. They also have a network feeding editors “news” in a highly distorted and selective fashion to their ILGA journalists. What you read is what they want you to think. There is no free media apart from private blogs.

  26. Pat Varnam says:

    Let’s face it Roger… you were daft enough to believe that the press were able to tell the truth in the first place…. The press wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked them in the face… and in fact even if you wrote the news article for them… they would still get it wrong. It is my impression that if it was not for papers being accused of Bias… they would ignore UKIPS very existence lol

  27. Henwood says:

    As a piece of facile banality this piece only goes to prove that the readers of such newspapers will never be able to be properly informed, as editors such as Taylor are incapable of writing anything but their own ignorant and pre-formed opinions. Accuracy and truth are foreign languages quite alien to the MoS.

  28. Andy Robertson-Fox says:

    I seem to recall that quıte recently you had a similar problem with The Sun(?) over something you said or did not say when using a car phone. I suggested at the time you sue and you said you were indeed thinking of taking legal advice. Did you and are you now?
    It was suggested then by several contributors (as they are now) that in future you make sure you record comments and interviews with the media. Havıng not accepted that advice, while acknowledgıng that any deliberate lies and defamatory statements are out of order, do you not thınk that your own neglıgence has brought this on your own head?

    • Thomas Fox says:

      Well Mr A hyphenated —- Fox I am Mr plain Thomas B Fox and I have the greatest respect for Mr R Helmer MEP his policies ring true with the majority of voters he is a man with much common sense ,a rare gift that can not be taught !

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Whether one’s surname is hyphenated or not has no bearing on the issue but your raising it does suggest some form of ınsultıng prejudice on your part….is that part of Ukip poliıcy or just your personal failing?
        I asked Mr Helmer two very straightforward questions – whether he chooses to reply ıs for hım to decıde but he has as yet not responded.
        Whatever your views are on Mr. Helmer they do not detract from my observatıon that in his lack of caution in overlooking what advice had already been given was, perhaps in hindsight, somewhat careless.
        His policies and that of his party, incidently do not “ring true with the majority of voters” as is born out by the recent EU voting figures. Just 9% of the total electorate supported Ukip and the other 91% either voted for other parties or did not vote at all.
        Neither did Ukip obtain over 50% of those votes that were actually cast…..around 27% if my memory serves me right.

      • Graham says:

        Whatever proportion of the electorate voted for UKIP, it was considerably more than for Labour and even more again than for Conservative. As in any election, the greatest number of votes/seats wins and in this case, UKIP won, proportional representation notwithstanding. Yes, there was a low turnout as in the rest of Europe overall. Those choosing not to vote cannot complain when a party they don’t favour wins. It’s often said the electorate get the government they deserve.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        I fully agree that if one does not vote one should not complain but my point was that given all the hype surroundıng Ukip and claims on new membership to only pick up 9% of the total electorate is not earth shattering in ıtself. What I have yet to see is any analysis of the EU results that would reflect seats in Westminster in a UK General Election when the turn out wıll be somewhat higher.

      • Me_Again says:

        So Andy, if ours was 9% of the total vote was was the Tory share in the same election?

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        I have in effect already covered that in other replies….Ukip is the new kid on the block and I, for one, would have expected a larger proportion than the 9% of the elecorate, given all your new members and the hype, to have supported them. It seems however that 91% of the electorate chose not to.

      • Graham says:

        At the risk of getting into ever-decreasing circles, UKIP’s 9% was greater than Lab or Con. It does not translate to an indication of a win in a GE due to the different types of poll but to make any serious prediction that rules out a very good UKIP result next year when 82% did not vote Labour or Tory is misguided. We just don’t know what will happen during the next year in terms of policy announcements, dirty tricks, blackmail with our own money (aka tax cuts) and serendipity.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Agreed Graham – my point was that, for what is in effect a new kid off the block to only muster 9% of the electorate should be a matter of concern and disappointment. No doubt the other partıes are equally concerned but at the back of my mind the complacency that seems to have affected their missing voters should not be evident ın an emergıng party.

      • Me_Again says:

        You may as well say it was only 1.2% of the whole EU vote. But the point is and has been made that it is disingenuous to say 9% of the population when clearly a very dispirited and disillusioned 70% did not vote. Numbers of voters have declined over the decades from the high 60’s and 70’s in those decades. This is no accident and it makes the three usual suspects quite happy because it indicates a steady decline in our faith that our politicians and system are working. I voted Tory in 1997, not because I am a Tory or even thought they were good, but because it took me 4.2 milliseconds to see through the slimeball Blair. It took only 3.3 microseconds to see through Cameron -mainly because he truly is heir to Blair, he even borrowed hand gestures and words. I didn’t vote again until 2009 euros when I voted UKIP and it felt good. Since then I have voted UKIP at every and each opportunity and will continue to do so.

        When so many people see no reason to vote because they can see that all of the politicians ‘normally’ on the ticket, are cloned with just a different coloured rosette, it isn’t a big surprise that numbers are low.

        I think there’s been an awakening, I haven’t thought that before so don’t say that we say this every time because I haven’t said it before.

      • Me_Again says:

        Disingenuous and you still didn’t answer.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        I did….but who were you addressıng graham or myself .

      • Me_Again says:

        Andy, I asked you to state the percentage of vote for the Tories, and add in Labour too, calculated in the same way you calculated UKIP’s vote. you haven’t done it.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        If you know the answer already why bother askıng the questıon? You mıss the poınt of my comment.
        I have stated that the major political parties were no doubt just as disappointed but given the hype, new membership claims one would have expected the complacency that affected them would be somewhat less wıth Ukip.

      • Me_Again says:

        Yeah I think I have missed your point. Our membership is approaching that of the Lib Dems at the moment and all three of the usual suspects have their membership in terminal decline.
        I doubt those at the top of the other parties are disappointed with the turn out, it’s something they’ve been aiming at for decades. Only their useful idiots with be disappointed. people like yourself hide away their allegiance simply to make mischief, sorry Andy, you were sussed by about your third post.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Then, not for the first time I suspect, you sussed wrong….my third comment makes no reference to any particular party.

      • Me_Again says:

        That you allude to no particular party and merely criticise UKIP leaves only two possibilities really. One you are an EU-troll, [one of the new box opened to counter UKIP and others who don’t want ever closer union] which makes you a willing and self serving accomplice, or two, you are a Tory agent provocateur, which is about all Cameron and his pals can think of to counter us. Both prostitute themselves in order to keep the people down. Neither is an honourable activity.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Or the third possibility that I am apolitical and simply want what ıs best for my country and seek balanced argument to fınd the best polıtıcal party to accomplısh that. The fact that so many on here seem to resent constructive criticism and are intolerant of others contrasting views does not, I will admit, currently put Ukip in pole position of all the contenders.

      • Me_Again says:

        Yes, you need to get up early to fly that one by with any expectation of getting away with it.
        Sorry, don’t buy it. You aren’t questing you’re poking. people come on here and poke then go away. Trolls come on here and keep poking because that’s what they’re paid to do.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Sorry you don’t buy ıt – you have just confırmed the valıdıty of my comment just recently about Ukıpper tunnel vısıon….and I’m also sorry but walkıng around dısplayıng a polıtıcal favour ın an area where there ıs a forthcomıng electıon ıs canvassıng. Perhaps you are confusıng street canvassıng wıth door to door canvassıng…

      • Me_Again says:

        Disagree, but then I use the Oxford dictionary. Nowadays all words seem to be subject to misuse at the convenience of the PC brigade, I just don’t feel the need to agree with them.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        My we are being pedantic but consider….Canvassing – “Persuasion of Voters” – like by walking around wearıng a rosette and talkıng to them…?

      • Me_Again says:

        Canvassing implies verbal communication. Or is the postman canvassing when he delivers your mail?

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        You admıtted that you spoke to them and answered their questions, Please don’t expect me to belıeve that you dııd not promote what you see as the case for Ukıp….canvassıng.

      • Me_Again says:

        Difficult as it may be for someone of your limited intelligence to grasp, sometimes you need not promote anything. I spoke to a small number but only when spoken to first. at no time did I attempt to influence anyone’s opinion because that would go against my beliefs as stated previously. I’m not trying to convince you or Brian, I don’t give a Castlemaine XXXX what you guys think because you’re just useful idiots in the pay of the status quo gang. I would need to be significantly naive to have a hope of turning deliberate opposition.

        No I’m just having fun and you’re helping me to crystallise my views and giving me the opportunity to think of responses to the other nonentities who will oppose me in a year’s time on the hustings.

        Should be fun but it would be unfair to call it an intellectual challenge.

      • catalanbrian says:

        Once again the same old tosh – those of us who disagree with UKIP’s views are paid by the establishment, or whoever, to do so. If only……..

        Do not judge others by your own grasping standards. Some of us do things because we believe in them, not because there may be any pecuniary advantage in doing so.

      • Me_Again says:

        You are quite correct Brian, i should not have included you in the ‘paid’ aspect. You talk rubbish for free.
        However the remarks stand otherwise.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Ah the fınal weapon! Resorting to insultıng the intelligence of a fellow contributor. Is this Ukip policy or just a personal failing?

        It has been fun watching you jump from one topic to another and avoidıng the issue but ıf you can’t brıng a civil touch to the keyboard ıt is best to conclude the exchange…something I would do regardless of whichever political party was involved.

        Happy Days!.

      • catalanbrian says:

        This is of course typical of the Ukipper. This party is a muddled mess with no coherent policies, and supporters who resort to insults as soon as this is questioned.

      • Me_Again says:

        …………more as a result of complete boredom actually. Besides I love to see your prejudices come out and your feathers ruffled ………….

      • Me_Again says:

        Well you started off poorly, went downhill in the middle and tailed off towards the end. What other conclusion could I draw from a poorly paid troll?

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        How about drawing the correct conclusıon rather than makıng assumptıons based on no evıdence?
        As ıt was, ın your case, a questıon of startıng poorly at the bottom of the hill and spendıng the rest of the day diggıng aimlessly.

      • Me_Again says:

        nah, don’t do aimlessly…….

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        But ın that reply you have just dısproved ıt!

      • Me_Again says:

        Hey Kimosabi, white man speak with forked tongue….or is that no longer allowed. Gosh a quote from an old series censored……what a world we live in.
        Bye Andy, have fun.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:


      • catalanbrian says:

        A typical Ukipper response. Everybody who disagrees with UKIP, or what Ukippers say is trying to make mischief? What nonsense! You Ukippers really should stand back and watch and listen to yourselves sometimes.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        catalabrıan – surely you can appreciate how difficult it is for Ukippers to stand back and watch and listen when they demonstrate all the symtoms of tunnel vision?

      • Me_Again says:

        That’s really quite amusing coming from the status quo.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Amusing – true but, in my opinıon, sadly only a reflectıon on many of the views expressed in this blog.

      • Me_Again says:

        Well no one is forcing you to stay here against your will Andy, so if you do it is because you have an agenda. If you have an agenda I have a good idea what it is.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Yes, I have an agenda. It ıs of course to know what dıd Roger do about the Sun and has any progress been made on the atrıcle ın the Mail?

        Which, bearing in mind the content of Roger’s original posting suggests that it is you, having not discussed it…that has the other agenda, .

      • Me_Again says:

        Gosh you mean you didn’t read my erudite posting on the subject in question?
        Andy I’m mortified. So much so that I’ll have to go and get the chicken out to defrost for tonight’s meal……..

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Sorry, now you come to mention it yes I did see your piece but ıt couldn’t have left that great an ımpressıon!
        but I am more intrigued but thıs frozen chicken….you can afford chıcken? I knew these claims about austerity were overstated! Reared on a free range farm ın the heart of England, I trust!

      • Me_Again says:

        No sadly it was run over the last time I backed out the range rover. I mean you expect it of pheasants but such is life. Best to bone them when they’re warm really. Food austerity only applies to muppets that live in concrete and tarmac islands. Proper people go shopping in the back garden for meat or veg………………

      • Me_Again says:

        Hi Brian nice to cross words with you again.
        You do need to come up with a new theme though this one is getting boring. The biggest generalisation of all is to say ‘you UKIPpers’ as if we’re all alike. anyway I was having a pleasant debate with Andy, without insult and rancour then you come along with your old UKIPper drum. Do me favour and beat it will you? Then I can get on with fencing with Andy without unnecessary distractions.

      • catalanbrian says:

        But you are all the same. All deluded and dreaming of the good old days when Britain had an empire, ruled the world and Johnny Foreigner knew his place. Most of us have decided to live in the 21st century, but you Ukippers can’t get to grips with this. If you think I am making this up just read what you Ukippers on this blog write.

      • Me_Again says:

        Really? Is that what I believe? Well there you are, what a saviour, thanks for that B, I was lost but now am found…..

      • Rod says:

        Spot on there, Mr Thomas Fox. Roger Helmer tells it how itis.

  29. Percival Jenkins, Newark says:

    Are you saying you are now pro-gay Roger? I was going to vote for you due to your Christian stance on the gays but now I will be voting BNP. Have you been turned?

  30. Robert Dobbins says:

    You obviously have not met my family or you would have been asked. Also why you come across as a racist Terry Thomas.

  31. Joy Sharman says:

    i am absolutly fuming over this garbage written about Roger Helmer . he is a very honourable man and dedicated to ukip.i hope you get sued to the max .your dirty tricks campaign i hope backfires on you big time .if thats the kind of bile you can write about someone then your paper cannot be trusted with anything .and believe me you will give us many votes for this .YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

  32. Anne says:

    This kind of thing re the papers is going to happen more and more Roget for “THEY” are getting desperate. This is only the beginning of what may, or “IS” to come, for they have “FEAR” in their eyes and even a rabbit when caught in the glair of headlights will “hit out”. Be prepared for “more of the same”.

  33. Linda Hudson says:

    U.K.I.P. had around 27% of the Europe vote.
    Labour and Tory governments have been formed with less, and attracted an appalling voter apathy for years.
    What have they got to say about that?

    • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

      Please see my reply to Thomas Fox which, I think, puts the Ukıp vote in the EU election into perspective. I believe Mr Cameron has expressed his respect for the leader of Ukip but not his policies as being right for the future of the UK. There is some danger, too in seeking to equate or readıng too much ınto the EU vote as a guide to voters intentions in a General Election…the proportional representation voting system in the EU elections favoured the Ukıp candidates but the first past the post system is not necessarily in their favour in UK elections.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Seems a rather poor perspective and only your ill informed opinion of Mr Helmer. Our choice is simple really, Internationalism or Nationalism. One leads to a Communism, the abolition of all I hold dear and a New World Order.

        The other to self esteem, self sufficiency and control over our destiny. A vote for Labour, Liberal or Conservative is Internationalism, and to be out of the EU’s best bet is UKIP.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        In your opınıon my comment reflects my poor perspectıve. In my opınıon your comment reflects your poor perception.
        My opinion of Mr Helmer’s inactıon on counterıng the possıibilıties of being misquoted is based on the actual events that he reported.
        There are some aspects of what Mr Helmer reflects in his bulletins that I have sympathy with and support and there are some that I do not. The same applies to the three major political.parties

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Your perception is that there are more then two choices. This is not so, only UKIP might see us out of the EU.
        We have been sleepwalking into our destruction and its probably too late to save us by the ballot box.

      • Me_Again says:

        Absolutely Brin it has become ever more obvious that there are only two options. Get out or stay in. UKIP represents the get out faction and the other three usual suspects represent the stay in and continue bullshitting that we are actually running the country.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Your perceptıon is that there are only two alternatives – Vote UKip into government and leave the EU or don’t vote Ukip and leave things as they are.
        Wrong. The choıces are:
        Vote Ukip and see what happens…overall majority?….coalition in a hung parliament?…limited opposıtion powers….small minority group?…no MP’s at all…
        Vote – Conservative with renegotiatıon of some terms and an “In/out” referendum in 2017
        Vote Labour – with no referendum unless the EU seeks to withdraw more powers from the UK government.
        Vote LıbDem – leave things basically as they are
        There are also othe partıes lıke the Greens but I am not convinced thay have a polıcy.
        There are many more considerations and policies than simply “in or out of the EU” that influence my voting intentions…I take a wider perspective..

      • Me_Again says:

        You see that’s just where your argument falls flat on its face Andy. There is no re-negotiation, that is just facile. So in the absence of facile option/Tory-1 it’s back to sensible, but gamble option 2.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Then if there is no renegotiation we can happily wait until 2017 for the referendum, can’t we?..
        that is where your argument falls on its face….or are you kidding yourself that there will be a Ukip government after 2015?
        I am not a gambler by nature and would certainly want much better odds…to some Ukip may be the answer to the maiden’s prayer but only ıt seems to 9% of the electorate at present….for a new dynamic party I would have expected somewhat better support…so my vote stays firmly in my pocket until nearer the date.

      • Me_Again says:

        I’m a pragmatist Andy, if we get a dozen MPs next year then we’ll have done very well. Cameron will not give an in/out referendum, ‘events’ will find a way to let him wiggle out of that is my opinion. Like when he did his ‘veto’ for the monetary union. That wasn’t him saying NO to Europe that was him saying NO to a UK referendum which would have automatically ensued had he not, he path of least resistance for him.

        I’m sure that if UKIP keep hammering away then somehow, somewhere, something will give. We are like an exponential curve at the moment, we’ve had 20 years of the low slopes and now we’re on the steep slopes. The others have no answer to our arguments about Europe and people are getting bored listening to folks calling us racist [even in the modern broad sense of the definition] and it makes them vote for us, not against because deep down they know when someone is feeding them BS and they resent it.

        We are making a big grab for the non voters too, no hiding that. Many of them gave up voting because it made no difference and simply seemed to encourage Lab/Con when they flipped the power switch every few years. They are looking for a difference and they’ve found it in us. I know we won’t rake all of the ‘Don’t Voters’ up but we could get enough to tip the balance.

        My most optimistic parliament is one where there is no overall majority and we have about 30 MPs. The damage we are doing now is significant, the ball is rolling and this time it is a snowball. I’ve been tramping the streets in some serious labour heartlands and getting a good response, very good. I’ve also been tramping the streets in recognised Tory areas with the same kind of well wishing.

        On Sunday in Newark, out in the villages, there were quite a number of folks saying ‘Already voted for you in the postal vote’, another one said ‘Save the leaflet for someone else’ and I said OK, sorry to disturb, and she said No, I didn’t mean that, I meant I’d already voted for you by post. others were saying good luck for Thursday. I never encountered a single negative.

        So I’m actually quite happy that the three usual suspects underestimate us time and time again. We may not win in Newark, I don’t know, but we are going to get a healthy slice of the vote.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        As a canvasser in years gone by in constituencies of varying political hues I experıenced much and learned that it dıd not make any dıfference what one’s ideaologıes and aspıratıons were the electors would use all sorts of tactics to get rid of you…even agreeing with you!

      • Me_Again says:

        I wasn’t inviting myself for dinner, and I’m long enough in the tooth to know when someone’s not interested. I wasn’t canvassing, they didn’t need to offer support or even the time of day, they chose to.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Sorry, I thought you were canvassing…seems rather pointless being out in the villages last weekend armed with leaflets and people volunteering their views to you unsolicıted and not take the opportunity to canvass for votes….
        Still we have come a long way from Roger and his defamation allegations…I wonder what further he has done or is going to do?

      • Me_Again says:

        There’s where we differ most strikingly.
        I don’t canvas because I think that’s an intrusion and that’s what the others do. I’m all for choice which to me means reading the information presented and making a semi-informed choice. I say semi because very little information from any source nowadays is ‘unspun’ in some way. When people pass the time of day and offer an opinion or ask an opinion I will of course be polite. I will pass the time of day happily not mentioning politics because the rosette tends to be a give away anyhow. I will do my best to answer any question in a direct and concise manner using brevity as a yard stick.

        This is probably why UKIP people in general are so different from the known clowns. I’m a libertarian, I don’t wish to impose my views on people, I wish to present them with information which allows them to arrive at the same conclusion. If they do not then I’m happy to go on my way, simple. I’m not a zealot but I do believe the path UKIP have chosen is the correct one -at the moment. I say at the moment for if ever I doubted that then I would leave. I constantly reassess UKIP as I go along and I’m pleased to say that after Lord P it has turned away from the right and moved towards a broad church approach. This suits me because ideology is what got us into this shit for a start. Again that’s another thing I like about UKIP, we’re so different to each other and don’t do the ideology of the right any more than we do the ideology of the left. They are the anachronism not us.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Andy all of our legislation is now from the EU.

        Westminster has very little power, only the ability to refute the unlawful EU.

        Only after re gaining our independence can we govern ourselves. Voting UKIP might get us out, but any other vote see us still governed by the EU. (Look at the roots of the EU and the deceptions)

        Cameron has made promises before, cast iron ones and they shattered. Trust him, I think a crocodile is more reliable. Cameron remains a founder signatory on the UAF membership along with Peter Hain and other Bolsheviks. Do you not understand about the 1926 Frankfurt School and their recommendations to further the New World Order? The formation of Common Purpose and its published aims of training leaders to lead beyond their authority?

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Brin, what this has to do with Mr Helmer alleging he has beee defamed by a newspaper I am not seems someone is exercising their hobby horse ın the wrong yard.
        However, let me say,having been involved in the political scene for many more years than I care to remember I am not even going to bother to try and refute, in my humble opinion, such rubbısh.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Then you remain ill informed on what is really happening. Smoke and mirrors did the trick for you.

        I too was a Tory supporter, and for many years a sported a Vermin badge. They sold us out a long time ago.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Not ill ınformed but able to make a balanced judgement based on many years experience.
        You make a very basic mistake in saying, ” I, too, was a Tory supporter..”. By including the word “too” you make another assumptıon when I have never admitted any political allegance.

      • Me_Again says:

        Well if the EU elections were first past the post we still won, but outright rather than having Tories dribbling in on our coat tails.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        But they were not fırst past the post so seeking to equate those results with general election intentions is flawed. Even so I am sure there are those that have tried but I have yet to actually see any predictions as to how many or how few parliamentary seats would be won by Ukip. .

      • Me_Again says:

        I responded to your post Andy and brought no new speculations into mine. Unlike others I do not see clearly into the future and therefore cannot predict it. Those that claim to are the ones wearing bandages……………

      • David says:

        If any other Party than UKIP had gained the same number of MEP,s and same number of total votes they would be hailing it as a great victory, and a pointer to there future election success, only when UKIP achieve a result is it described as not really anything to go by or other negative comments.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Maybe they would…and that,too, would be unjustifiable, in my view.

  34. Anne says:

    I have the Mail on Sunday Roger, and people that know you, or people like myself that know how you work, even though I have never met you, I knew right away that what was in that paper was mostly wrong. I can only suggest what I have written above, because I firmly believe as the weeks go by, matters from every direction from those that want to have their pay and expenses yet want foreigners to Govern this country-forever, will try every dirty trick in the book and invent more for themselves. Me? I just remember all those that gave THEIR lives for us in that last war-which I remember very well, and I will continue fighting once more for this Country’s Freedom. This is why I have suggested using the General Election in 2015 as the REFERENDUM we have been denied and as we know-WITHOUT DOUBT-all three major Political Parties want to remain in the EU-forever there is absolutely no point in voting for any of those three, so, only vote for those Political Parties or Organisations that want to be FREE FROM FROM FOREIGN RULE-as long as their name is UKIP.

    • David says:

      My conservative local councillor has written in his blog that 2 UKIP candidates in their wards used lots of money and had leaflets delivered in one case he claims an Eastern European he followed round our village was delivering these leaflets, it is totally untrue, the candidate and his wife delivered all his leaflets , and I delivered over 200 postal votes on my own for him. The other candidate had help from a relative from Grimbsy, East Coast, not really near East Europe at all.

      We shall be informing him shortly of his “inaccuracies”
      Many other comments in his article show how worried he is about UKIP.


      • Graham says:

        You appear to feel that paying for leaflets to be delivered is cheating. While I spent time delivering UKIP leaflets for EU and local elections around nearby villages, those I received from all the other parties arrived in my mailbox courtesy of Royal Mail. As for postal votes, I wonder why you were involved in delivering those. My understanding is they are posted to voters and completed forms are returned by post, not by party supporters which clearly is open to abuse. There would be an opportunity for a sympathiser to ‘lose’ the postal voting forms from an opposing party. Have I misunderstood you on this?

      • David says:

        Hi Graham,
        Perhaps I did not clarify sufficiently. I know its Ok to pay for leaflets delivering within the expenses rules of elections, its that this conservative councellor has accused us of not doing the work using shoe leather which we did in spades, and he uses the phrase “throwing money” at it, instead of delivering using UKIP members and friends who wish to help, so it is he who has it wrong. Regarding postal votes being delivered, it was UKIP local election leaflets specifically addressed to those who are registered as a Postal Voter, not the voting forms.

  35. Chris says:

    It could be the time where UKIP have to record all media interviews, to stop them from doing hatchet jobs, and if not, to publish the recordings on the UKIP website.

    You’d think the press would be on good behaviour after the Leveson enquiry.

    • Me_Again says:

      Absolutely Chris. They have no shame, no honour and fat wallets.
      Like the idea about the recordings on the website. Nice one.

      Come on Mr O’Flynn, you’re supposed to be the media expert, get it sorted.

  36. The Mail has been in decline for a longtime now I would urge all who supported UKIP at the last two elections never buy that rag again.Best of luck Roger at the Newark by election if you win it will send a shudder through the corrupt political establishment

  37. Linda Hudson says:

    Wait for a 2017 E.U. referendum means 3 more years of more E.U. diktat, rules, regulations, immigration, and billions of £s paid into the E.U. coffers,
    The referendum will not happen, Mr, Cameron will not be in government!

  38. Anne says:

    This was for last years Remembrance Day, however, here it is again.
    We will NEVER forget, THEY gave their lives for US. 11.11 2013.

    So many gave their lives for us
    Fighting in two World Wars,
    Yet when “Peace” came at last
    We ask, “What was that war for”?
    Where is that peace we fought for?
    Did we pay to give it away
    To foreigners once more to govern us?
    Did the people ever have a say?

    We were asked once in 1975
    To remain in the then EEC,
    But what is it now in 2014,
    It is nothing like we thought it would be.
    Our Common Law Constitution
    Ignored and deliberately cast aside,
    A new Flag and EU Anthem
    That no Brits can truly abide.

    Yet according to our Constitution,
    We must be free to govern our selves?
    To betray those that gave their lives for us
    Would be like living in a permanent Hell!
    We are forbidden to obey foreigners
    Our Constitution makes that quite clear,
    So use the 2015 General Election,
    As the REFERENDUM Governments fear.

  39. The Daily Mail has been one of the worst offenders for what amounted to a daily smear against UKIP. I am surprised that any prospective UKIP candidate would give them the time of day. I gave up buying the paper after the treatment meted out to UKIP in the past few months. It is difficult to find a newspaper that doesn’t dance to the tune of the anti – Ukip faction: the Express is anti EU and , of course, has their ex political editor in the UKIP camp now. I hope Roger wins in the by election but any drastic diminution of the Tory majority will in itself be a victory for UKIP.

  40. Me_Again says:

    Whinger it doesn’t work. Homosexuality is a choice. People make choices all the time some of them good some of them bad. Sadly in our current society it is not de rigeur to take responsibility for them.
    You can bash on about homosexuality all you like but Roger neither advocates nor opposes them. I think he mentioned them not being high on the agenda, like deforestation in Brazil doesn’t seem high on anyone’s agenda. I think deforestation should be but hey I am not the elected MEP here. I don’t think something which affects a tiny proportion of the population should be high on the agenda either, so long as no one is being persecuted we can get on with more important things.

    • Right wingery says:

      Oh dear. You appear to be as ill informed about homosexuality as you are about, well, pretty much everything else I have seen you present an opinion about on Roger’s blog. How can a genetic inheritance be a ‘choice’?

      Do you actually know any gay people?

      • Me_Again says:

        It isn’t genetic and that is a scientific fact. Speaking as a scientist of the medical variety I can say that with some confidence. Do I know any homosexuals?
        Well as a matter of fact I do. After council I often go down to the local hostelry for a jar, there I meet with a number of folks several of whom are labour councillors and despite this I like them as people. They, two of them anyway, are homosexual. BUT unlike your experience they are are quite content not to get it tattooed on their foreheads and can happily agree that to go as far as single sex marriage was probably a bit OTT, I think one said.
        You are the one making a bit deal of this, no one else.

      • Right wingery says:

        As there are currently 105 comments, easily Helmer’s most talked about posting, then I would say there is quite a substantial interest.

        You are a scientist of the medical variety?!? Good for you – really pleased for you. How on earth does that give you any credence to comment on something you clearly have no clue about.

        Being a Man U fan is a choice. Liking roast beef instead of roast chicken on a sunday afternoon is a choice. English breakfast tea or Earl Grey? That is definitely a choice.

        Homosexuality is not a choice. It is as real and present as your obvious ignorance on the matter. And I speak as someone with first hand experience, shall we say!

      • Me_Again says:

        It is choice, but the choice may be induced by experience and or environment. The scientific bit is easy, genetics studied to a high level. Hence the reference and many moons ago the self same discussion with the genetics tutor.
        So if you are homosexual then you are one of the kind who wishes everyone to know and no doubt would be proud to have your sexual preferences stupidly tattooed on your forehead or worn as a badge. Such things suggest an insecurity in your make up -and that wasn’t intended as a pun.
        People who are confident and secure in their sexuality do not need to parade it for everyone else to see. I really wonder about the stability of those who feel the need. No doubt hysterical responses to this will show me true.
        I enjoy my exchanges of a political nature with my homosexual friends who are quite comfortable with their lifestyle, and I’m very comfortable with that, in fact sexuality of any kind seldom rears itself as a topic, except by the females with us who are better at hilarious double entendre than I ever was.

      • Right wingery says:

        I’m still intrigued how you, as a scientist of the medical variety, can say with confidence that homosexuality is a choice and not imbued in ones DNA.

        No one is tattooing anything anywhere here., We are having a discussion where, as is frequently the case, you open your mouth (figuratively speaking) without having any concept of what you are trying to say.

  41. clairethinker says:

    But someone is being persecuted. Roger is being bullied and anybody who dares to question the LGBT agenda is being persecuted by their teams of rabid rottweiler journalists. They sense that he has seen through their lies and they are trying to scupper his election campaign. We really must get them out of UKIP because they will always betray other party members and they are only interested in pursuing their own agenda (in this case, destroy any free choice of access to sex-orientation therapy), They are a tiny les-than-2% minority of the population who have got a stranglehold on the media, but their votes don’t matter. Every political party should learn that.

  42. clairethinker says:

    NB @ Right-whinger. Homosexuality knocks about 20 years off your life expectancy, compared to heterosexuality or celibacy. So to regard it as a disease is perfectly logical.

    • Me_Again says:

      Look Claire you don’t need to rise to the bait. Your opinion on homosexuality male or female, is yours by right. However I think UKIP’s only policy is about single sex marriage, and said something like ‘We don’t see the need to change the rules’. Consequently the mock outrage brigade label us as homophobe in the same silly way as they label us racist. We have any number of party members who are homosexual who didn’t and don’t see the need for a law change or re-definition so it isn’t a UKIP high priority thing.

    • catalanbrian says:

      I am astonished that even a Ukipper believes this to be the case.

    • Right wingery says:

      Where is your evidence to support this claim? Surely given the loss of the stress and strain of being married into a family, typically, with kids coupled with the extra cash saved to spend on good food and holidays, the average gay person should actually live longer.

      Thought I bow to the inevitable slam dunk piece of authoritative research you are about to present.

  43. Stuart Bell says:


  44. Kirk Dickenson says:

    I never was that keen on the Daily Mail….but I quite liked the crossword. I certainly won’t be buying it again. I think I will support the Express & Sunday Express… lest they give us a fair crack & don’t twist things. The Mail have only just been successfully sued by Kristen Farage………….what a scummp paper!

  45. Thomas Fox says:

    I have drawn a conclusion from all these comments that Mr Catalandbrian plus Mr A R Hyphenated Fox are a plant from some opposition party to discredit UKIP thus wish to disassociate myself from their bias !

    • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

      And not only will you have drawn the wrong conclusion as far as I am concerned and not only do you continue your insulting misuse of my surname name but you cannot even get my second initial right!.
      Do not bother trying to disassocıate yourself as I would have no wish to have any connection with you but do remember by your very posting it is you that is showing the bias.

    • Jane Davies says:

      A very entertaining discussion which leads me to think some bloggers here have way more time on their hands than me! I will say one thing, for what it’s worth, that Andy Robertson Fox is a friend of mine and in no way is he a ‘troll’ but he has his opinion and the fact that he does not agree with all of you in no way makes him ‘troll like’. Sorry Andy, I know you can stand up for yourself but I had to add my ten pence worth. We as friends do not always agree about our allegiance to political parties and he knows my views on UKIP and so we agree to disagree, but we are still friends.

      Thomas Fox…your unnecessary comments about Andy’s hyphenated name says a lot about you and the comments are not becoming of you. Get over the fact that you are a Fox without a hyphen, it does not make you a lesser person.

      • Me_Again says:

        Interesting Jane, why does he come on here and bother people I wonder? He wasn’t here to make a statement he was here to denigrate but plainly not as crudely as Brian. If he is just an innocent then I apologise only for suggesting he was a paid troll, that is all.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        He was here to ask a question of Mr Helmer. I am sorry if asking Mr Helmer a question bothers people – perhaps you and he need as the sayıng goes “to get over it”..

      • Me_Again says:

        aah a question was it? Well there are questions and questions you see.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Oh, I am mortified! Did you not read my erudite initial comment? It was a perfectly straıghtforward request.

      • Me_Again says:

        Squawk, pieces of eight!

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Touché – and good nıght!

      • Right wingery says:

        I think you are either a) a paid officer of UKIP, or b) someone who aspires to be a paid officer of UKIP. What other explanation for your total and utter subservience to Roger’s blog posts?

      • Me_Again says:

        Was that hyperbole?

      • Jane Davies says:

        Me_Again as this is an open blog and anyone can comment. All Andy was asking was had Roger done anything about the previous defamatory comments made in the Sun newspaper seeing as it has happened again this last week in the Mail. A perfectly reasonable question, I thought, and it would be good to hear if Roger has done anything about it. But then it all kicked off and you boys, being boys, had a bit of a scrap and butted heads! But it’s all good to let off steam, and I’m glad it did not get too personal this time although Thomas Fox (no hyphen) came close to getting a red card!

      • Me_Again says:

        Without checking I cannot guarantee but I could have sworn there was the odd barb in his questions the Roger which seemed to indicate platform.
        But hey ho, you’re correct, no pint in going off on one.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Well spotted Thomas. Trolls are circular in argument and rarely back up with logic and facts.

      Our preferences are miss labelled as bias, prejudice and bigotry, who cares? I don’t, so let the opposition get over it.

      Political Correctness is a way for those with little talent to advance higher than their pay grade, in return they prostitute truth, science, and logic.


      • Me_Again says:

        Well Jane says Andy isn’t and I believe her though not sure why he was on here and can’t be assed to go back through the thread to find out but Brian has been a bad penny for many a moon -unpaid bad penny he says.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Already answered that Brın and corrected Thomas…read on and learn.

  46. Kirk Dickenson says:

    To be quite honest I find all this talk about homosexuality frankly boring and tedius. I really don’t care one way or the other about homosexuals. They seem to get an inordinate amount of press for no reason. I am as tolerant and understanding as the next person……I just don’t care enough to have endless discussions about the subject. It has no more relevance or interest to me than whether it is raining in Australia or not!

  47. Going back to the original thread of this discussion, there never has been the slightest evidence that homosexuality is innate and the idea is a joke from the scientific point of view. Genes exist to breed. Fact. Eight independent pieces of research have been done into this at universities and research institutes around the world, taking pairs of identical twins who obviously have the same DNA and everything else. When one is homosexual there is very little likelihood that the other is too. Only about 10%. If it was genetic, the statistic ought to be 100%. Go and ask Jason and Jarron Collins, one of the most famous examples of this in the USA. Identical twins, one straight, one homosexual. So it is a choice, or the result of some environmental factor.
    If doctors are not allowed to operate unless someone has a disease, then all sex-change and cosmetic surgery would be illegal wouldn’t it?

    • Right wingery says:

      Hmm, I’m not sure all of those extremely scared and confused kids going through puberty would agree with you that being gay is a choice. They would, perhaps, agree that it is a disease, but if it is so then it is one that will ‘afflict’ them for the rest of their lives.

      The concept that you somehow chose your sexuality is about as absurd as the notion that you chose to be 6ft 5 rather than 5ft 4, or chose to be bald at 16 etc.

      • Me_Again says:

        Height and hair density are most certainly genetic whereas sexual preference is not.

      • Right wingery says:

        Is that your medical experience as a professor of universal knowledge in everything talking, Me_Again?

        Afraid you are wrong. You are just completely wrong.

      • Me_Again says:


      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Don’t just tell him he’s wrong, tell him why he’s wrong, we are all waiting in eager anticipation!

        My closest chum in the RAF (1955) had difficulties in female relationships, he later came out and decided he was queer. I still view him as my old chum, and I believe he made a conscious choice to ease his frustration. Of course he will have no offspring so I fail to see how any genetic sexual disposition might be carried forward.

      • Right wingery says:

        Good on your ‘queer chum’, Brin. Assume that this experience of one person who ‘decided’ he was of a certain sexual persuasion has influenced your general view of the issue?

        There is not a great deal else to say, other than the rather vast amount of empirical evidence published. A lot of it is online. However, rather like the Mensa candidate, until you are actually able to experience something that is a character trait you cannot really engage in the argument as you have no empathetic understanding of it.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Not the only one RW, I know and have known a number. One spent several days with us 12 months ago and he was good company.

        Most are quiet, and minding their own business, its the promotion of what I see as a perversion thats offensive to me. Telling youngsters its OK when they are vulnerable is damaging society, but I know why its promoted. The intention is to break civilisation, as discussed by Frankfurt School intellectuals in 1926.

        They are unfortunately succeeding.

      • catalanbrian says:

        You Ukippers never cease to amaze me with your crackpot assertions!

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        I’m not a UKIP member, but no one else speaks as much common sense!

        I’m also amazed that centuries of moral understanding can be overturned in less 50 years, and so many sheep think thats OK.

        Unless you are an International Communist they regard you as a useful idiot.

        Are they right Brian?

      • Me_Again says:

        I’m pleased Brian that we are amazing you. That’s twice in two days I think.

      • Right wingery says:

        Perversion?!? Jeez, Brin, the 1960s called, they want their prejudices back. If this is the face of modern UKIP I welcome all the additional scrutiny it will have in the run up to the general election.

      • Me_Again says:

        He’s not a UKIP member so your post is as usual lacking in factual accuracy. Regardless, he is entitled to his own opinion.

      • Right wingery says:

        I didn’t say he was, now did I Me_Again? Clearly you Master of the Universe, Knowledge of Everything Medical qualification (whatever it was) didn’t require any reading competences.

      • Me_Again says:

        Your implication that he was, was implicit in your sentence structure. Perhaps you are the one who should return to the classroom.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        We see one who tells untruths, causes dissension by innuendo, and tries to deny opinions and preferences.

      • Me_Again says:

        That’s all he does Brin. Apparently one is not allowed to be content with being friends with someone without discussing sexual preferences. Apparently it is not allowed that laws are made for the majority with special consideration built in. Apparently you have to accept the whole ‘thing’ or there is something wrong with you. Apparently with the stroke of a pen, you are allowed to unwind a custom which pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by thousands of years.
        Of all the ill-thought out pieces of legislation this single sex marriage bill is probably the silliest, given civil partnerships already existed.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        The Common Purpose is always promoted, a deliberate undermining and destruction that amounts to pure evil. It really is useful to Google and research Common Purpose and Frankfurt School. Brian Gerrish is a mine of information on this dreadful educational charity run by Ms Middleton.

      • Me_Again says:

        Brin I’ve been aware of these things for quite a while. It is along the lines of the Jean Monet, start of EU stuff. The problem I’ve always found with things like these is that most people immediately think you’re a whacko if you cite them in conversation. The truth may or may not be buried in these documents but it is entirely possible, like the ‘Elders of Zion’ stories, that they were cooked up in a KGB office somewhere in the 80’s.

        However, whether they are following an old plan or not, whether someone like the Bilderburgers are pulling the strings [I think, they probably think they are], and indeed whether all these people are actually singing from the same hymn sheet [this I doubt as they are likely to be ‘out devious-ing’ themselves] or not, is somehow not as important as waking the people to their danger, making them aware of how they’ve been manipulated AND how they are being manipulated now.

        To do this we must try to keep it simple and stark, I believe, without pointing to dark plans from the past. That some of us are aware of these is enough I think to quote them without citing them, to use them without citing them seems the best way to benefit from the knowledge they provide. I also think that a lot of people have woken to the way the politicians and media, without the slightest hesitation, lie and spin to their hearts content, but still not yet enough. We as a people seem to be in a semi-drugged state. Those working silly hours in the treadmills have no time for thinking about their country and its future. Again, it could be argued that this is itself part of the plan.

        There is a real danger for those of us who look at things from a different perspective to the herd. That danger is disbelief and ridicule, these in themselves are not actually the issue, what is the issue is whether or not such things retard the advance of awareness by the general population.

        I believe that in 2010 a blue baboon wearing a Tory rosette would have gained slightly more votes than Cameron, this is because there was an uncanny similarity between Cameron and Blair, with the other clone Clegg thrown in as an afterthought. It took me 4.2 nanoseconds to see through the slime that was Blair, it took a nanosecond less to see through Cameron because he used all of Blair’s gestures and words as often as possible [there’s some great compilations on utube].
        Anyway sorry to rant on. I hope for a miracle today but will be content with a Tory egging instead.

      • Right wingery says:

        I’m not entirely sure what you mean, Me_Again (not for the first time). I am talking about the theme and subject of Roger’s original post. You see that’s what you do on blogs… someone posts a blog and people comment on what he/she says.

        And what ‘custom’ are you talking about?

        Brin – I know what you are referring to as you have written about this before. If you are bound by conspiracy theories of the 1920s, never mind the UKIP paranoia of the 2010s, then you are crazier than I first thought.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Not at all, if politics are converging all over the planet one should ask why.

        What is the cause of these changes? Are they just coincidence? Now any Law officer will tell you twice is a coincidence, more than that has been probably been planed.

        Why ? If you can’t be bothered to find out you are not informed.

        In 1926 a group of intellectuals in Germany considered why the Marx Revolution had stalled and how to revive it. The solutions they came up with are recorded and many of these ideas are now promoted by Governments around the World. Are you a co-incicidence theorist perhaps.

  48. Brin Jenkins says:

    I felt Thomas should be supported and did so. You must please yourself but I find you ill informed, a ducker and weaver intent on causing a ruckus. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

      Your comment does not make it clear who you are seekıng to insult, Brın..

      But to save you askıng the coffee is just fine where I am.

  49. Mike Stallard says:

    The reports on you in the press which I receive (Telegraph/BBC Radio 4/Evening news) have all been pretty off hand. This is a shame and actually they must be pretty hurtful.

    Mr Cameron’s behaviour over the choice of the new EU Commissioner has been simply disgusting. So has the reporting by the Telegraph. The BBC has not even noticed properly.

    About the gay thing: I wonder myself if it is not simply a London phenomenon. Certainly round here nobody is that interested. We have a couple of men living together and holding important places in our society even in our village. It really is not an issue. Using it as a test of orthodoxy seems to me to be rather bad manners and slightly suspect.

    A lesbian friend of mine tells me her son had his head put down the girls’ toilet in the local Comp recently though. Not good.

    May I wish you all the very best for the election which I hope you win.

  50. The incident with the toilet may indicate that it is a very bad school but has nothing at all to do with his mum being a lesbian. And neither of them are genetic. You need to go and study Darwin and the science of evolution.

  51. WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
    Another earlier study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: It almost exactly mirrors the findings of the latest research.

  52. Stuart Bell says:

    My last comments don’t seem to been printed. I just stated that the public have turned the tide,Roger, you were voted in as an MEP and this will continue in tomorrows voting. We in Dorset have Swiched to party and members who realise, that in spite of all the unfair sniping, smearing etc, REAL PROFESSIONALS, LIKE YRSELF DON’T HAVE TO RESORT TO THAT BEHAVIOUR AND THE VOTERS WILL VOTE FOR YOU AND NOT THE AMATEUR OPPO WHO ARE DEVOID OF IDEAS AND UNLIKE ME, A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS PERSON, WHO, LIKE YR GOODSELF, OFFER THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO OUR UK PREDICAMENT! On the 14 th November 2014 QVM IS PUT INTO PLACE BY THE EU AND WE WON’T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A REFERENDUM!! That needs a massive think and those OPPO not in this ‘loop’ are the obvious negative types WHO DON’T HAVE OUR COUNTRY AT HEART!!

  53. An attempt to outlaw sexual orientation counselling in Massachusetts USA has just been rightly defeated, by those who realize it is an attack on freedom. Meanwhile, one of the pests (“gay activists”) who testified in court in favour of the ban many times has now admitted that he is HIV. Whoops…
    Bill in Massachusetts to ban counseling on homosexuality for youth — derailed after MassResistance lobbying push!
    National effort by homosexual movement to ban counseling. Bills filed in state legislatures across America. Being stopped by pro-family outrage.
    2. Major homosexual activist in Mass. Legislature resigns to lead AIDS group. Reveals he has HIV. Carl Sciortino disrupted a Catholic Mass in 2003 over Church’s marriage stand
    Sciortino testified at State House public hearing on Aug. 12, 2013 for bill — which he sponsored — to ban counseling for youth on sexual-orientation issues.

  54. willia blake says:

    keep up the good work Roger ! The best of luck to you today !!!!!! Vote UKIP everybody !!

  55. Anne says:

    To bring you ALL back to reality, and what will happen if you continue to vote for your Political Party in the 2015 General Election instead of those that want out of the EU”-yes I mean UKIP and i am not even in it. Proof here for you what joing the EEC/EC/EU is all about.
    FRom old HANSARD. On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with “reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people–M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty—and it looks as though this government might—they are on their way towards complete political integration”.

    “I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—”

    Mr A. C. Manuel, “A Council”.

    Mr Shinwell, “I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led”.

    On 16th November 1966, Column 446, I quote just a couple of comments from the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown on the subject of joining the EEC, “The issue today is not do we join Europe– (who does he remind you of?) we have always been there. The issue is can we play such a role that from here on the continent shall be unified and we shall be effectively a leader of it?” And a little later on (488) he says, “We could clearly play a much greater role from within the Community, in influencing these affairs than we can play from outside”.

    • Right wingery says:

      Good case for an exit, Anne. Therefore supporting a party that represents a material electoral threat to the securing of a majority by the only political party that can win the next general election committed to the in/out referendum is, surely, madness?

      Irrespective of what you think about the prime minister, and disregarding the personal animosity of a lot of UKIP towards the Conservative party (Roger only defected because he disliked the ten Tory Chairman), you must surely understand that the only party able to give you the exit from the EU that you crave is the Conservative Party.

      Surely you must concede that any party containing the likes of John Redwood, Douglas Carswell, Philip Davies, David Davies (the Welsh one) etc is going to ensure the manifesto pledge for an in/out referendum is kept.

  56. Brin Jenkins says:

    My last mail is awaiting moderation, probably because I posted links.

    • Right wingery says:

      I think perhaps even Roger is horrified by the choice of language you have been using in this discussion about a whole section of society.

  57. Anne says:

    To Right wingery. ALL THREE MAJOR pOLITICAL PARTIES WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU-PROBABLY FOREVER. I used to vote Conservative-although I have never been “IN” any Political Party, until the “blessed PENNY dropped. I have great admiration for all those “back Benchers” and they are indeed the only ones worth voting for, but if they truly want to continue sitting on those seats in the House of Commons-they should join the Party that wants out of the EU. They are indeed the only ones in the Conservatives that are worth voting for, however-THEY ARE IN THE WRONG PARTY BECAUSE ALL THE REST WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU AS DOES THEIR LEADER. The proposed 2017 REFERENDUM IF Mr Cameron gets back into alleged POWER, The Treaty of Lisbon comes into action in that even if the want’s “OUT of the EU” and by the vast majority of people here in the UK, it would have to be put before all the remaining Nation States in the EU before we may leave. That may well be WHY Mr Cameron has chosen 2017 rather THAN THIS YEAR, TO HOLD A REFERENDUM.
    I can tell you this Right wingery, for what is to come from the EU, (2020, 2030, and even 2050 plans) if we do not get out very, very soon, we will NEVER be free from foreign Rule. We will betray all those that gave THEIR LIVES FOR OUR FREEDOM. Mr Cameron should realise that the people cannot continue contributing to our own MP’s-that can no longer GOVERN this country ACCORDING TO IT’s Common Law Constitution-and their very own Constitution FORBIDS THEM OBEYING FOREIGNERS. “…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.”

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Well said Anne. There can be no future with Cameron who is but a shadow of a true Conservative. Much the same might be said of the other so called main party leaders, you cant get a fag paper in between them on any matter of importance.

      • Right wingery says:

        Do you have any notion of precisely what a ‘true Conservative’ is? If you consider yourself to be one why on earth do you seek to disrupt free markets, as UKIP does?

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        First and foremost I am a Nationalist.

        Your difficulty is understanding that the only battle is with those who are Internationalists. Really its a waste of time discussing it, you seem committed to the liars and cheats all fiddling expense accounts and tax havens for their own advantage. You ignore all evidence of written history and wail conspiracy. I feel most of us have a little more understanding than you display. Your leader is a signed up supporter of the UAF, read Bolshevik and you have it. Smash the opposition, use all the dirty tricks, beat people over the heads with hammers. Now you may say that you doubt it, I don’t because an air craft fitter pal of mine was left badly scarred, I saw him and heard his tale so just go back to your thugs.

      • Right wingery says:

        So what you are trying to tell me, Brin, is that you are voting UKIP because you agree with the same sort of bigoted, nationalist bulls**t previously espoused by the BNP?

        What if the prime minister endorses the Unite Against Fascism agenda? Surely there is nothing wrong with opposing fascism? After all, isn’t that what the thousands of veterans we are remembering this week fought and died for?

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        You are a cowardly, nasty, conniving weasel out to cause problems and add nothing to any discussion. OK I think you might understand that.

      • Me_Again says:

        Brin you may want to point out to the gobby one that fascism is simply support of totalitarian government, at sometime a codicil was added ‘with a right wing political bias’. The codicil was added by the left to counter the reasonable point that supporting communism was supporting another form of fascism. As with gay meaning happy, sick meaning poorly and fascism meaning totalitarianism, I prefer originals mostly.

        The idea that Cameron signs up to UAF whilst leading us deeper into a political union with a fascist organization is to say the least a contradiction.

      • Right wingery says:

        LOL oh so now the European Union is some ‘fascist organisation’ is it? Oh good Lord!

        Tell me, Me_Again, for I am clearly not as clever as you… what is the definition of ‘fascist’ in your mind?

      • Me_Again says:

        Dear me you are a bit thick aren’t you? I suggest you try a dictionary. In it look up fascism, to do that you look for each letter in sequence. You’ll then discover it describes it [fascism] as a belief or desire for totalitarian, authoritarian governments. A belief in central control. This can originate from the old school description of either right or left wing.

        So therefore if centralisation of control is high on an agenda then fascism isn’t far behind. That being the case then the EU fits the bill perfectly. There is no better person to recognise such a thing than the last person to preside over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is what he has to say about the EU.

        “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
        ― Mikhail Gorbachev

        So you see, oh simple one, your rose tinted, weirdly polarized view of the world isn’t quite as simple as you and the left leaning media would have you believe is it?

      • Right wingery says:

        Brin, I think your last comment says a great deal more about you than it does about me.

  58. Anne says:

    None of the people were told THIS BELOW EITHER.-YET THEY ALL KNEW
    Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal—to accept as the ultimate goal–political federation in Europe, including ourselves”.

  59. Anne says:

    Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495. “I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome. It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union. I have no objection to economic arrangements, even a negotiated economic union, provided we get certain safeguards. But I am horrified when I am told that I am as British as ever because I do not want to be a European first. I want to be British first and European after. Is there any shame of disgrace in wanting to be British first? It is therefore the implications and consequences of economic union of which I am frightened”…………………
    “The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet”.

    “It is almost a sin to talk about it. Apparently we have got to get into the Community, because of the mess we are in, in order to live as a nation. ‘Oh thou of little faith’,. Have we lost faith in our own selves? Have we lost pride in our own ability even to stand alone?”

  60. Anne says:

    Right wingery. Winston Churchill was a REAL TRUE Conservative. Yet he put that behind him in the last war-and worked for ALL in this Country to be free from foreign RULE and if He had not have done-many alive TODAY- MIGHT NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN. The news reels in those days-and at the time of opening them, (and there was no ‘Doctoring’ of them in those days either) we were shown the opening of Belsen, as they were opened. Without that GREAT TRUE Conservative, I repeat, many here today, might never have been born. I have never met a Conservative “TODAY” the like of Churchill. He and the King went round together in the bombing of this Country, in “TODAY’s World” how close is the Prime Minister of the Day to the wearer of the British Crown TODAY? Especially when they try their best to alter our Long standing Common Law Constitution to “fit in” with the EU Treaties and the European ‘uman Rights? Our Constitution remains in full, for they did not ask the people, and without them agreeing, it remains the same-for it is the people’s Constitution-for they fought in two World Wars to keep it so.

  61. Stuart Bell says:


  62. Stuart Bell says:


  63. Jane Davies says:

    I will not read comments that are shouting at me.

    • Me_Again says:

      He could be printing Jane………………

      • Jane Davies says:

        Using caps on the computer means one is shouting….or so I have been told, and it is not polite to shout at people. But I could be wrong, although that rarely happens so my other half say’s!

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        It is possibly a person who is partially sighted, setting up his/her computer screen to display caps makes it easier to read.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Jane is quite right – the use of unnecessary UPPER CASE on blogs and threads is considered to be the equvalent of shouting – some house rules even make reference to it not being acceptable. Brın, for those who have sight problems it would probably be simpler to adjust the font size and it looks so much more professıonal!

      • Me_Again says:

        That was a joke Jane. You know when hand writing you print in capitals.

      • Jane Davies says:

        Ooops…clearly I didn’t see the joke…….I’m not usually that dim, but it’s difficult to ascertain in print (no pun intended!).

      • Me_Again says:


    • Anne says:

      When people are responding to “blogs” none can underline or emphasize the “important” parts of their conversation. They only way to “catch attention” is by using capitals.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        One would hope that the quality of the comment would be sufficient to hold the reader’s attention.

  64. Anne says:

    Sadly Andy, everyone did not have the schooling others of “TODAY” might have. Not only was the school I went to was bombed and we had no school to go to until “woodsheds” were found for us, I left school at age 13 and a half. Started work the day I was 14-and the place where I worked then, couldn’t get an Insuance card for me! I had no one to advise me.

    • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

      Yes, Anne, you are of course correct and many of us suffered similarly with our early education and one needs to make allowances.

      However, to make a complete comment on a blog using only capital letters does not suggest to me that the use is solely emphasing the important parts.

  65. Anne says:

    However Andy. I will continue fighting for our Country to be free from foreign rule until the day I die, whether I use CAPITAL LETTERS or ‘t’other kind.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      I support Anne! Unless its an attack on me personally, its easy to just tune it out of my mind.

      Was it because it attacked the Liberal, three party party ethos?

      These non PC attitudes have to be dealt with, say the perverted cultural wreckers of England.

      They can all go and fry their backsides for me. “The Sun has got its hat on, Hip Hip Hooray.” The full Ambrose version that I like it best, along with the 1940’s and 50’s Rupert the Bear Books.

  66. Andy Robertson-Fox says:

    It ıs, of course, a matter of personal choıce as to whether one wıshes to use upper or lower case; I was simply endorsıng the poınt made by Jane that on blogs it is deemed in some House rules to be the equıvalent of shoutıng. My ınterventıon has nothıng to do wıth the content of the comment nor any polıtıcal interpretatıon nor whether ıt conforms wıth the ıdıosyncrasıes of polıtıcal correctness.
    Personally Geraldo and ITMA were my preferences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s