Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Was I Wrong Or Tactically Unwise To Call C4 Fascists - And Have They Proven My Point?

  C4 have a "factcheck" section - in this instance they "factchecked" UKIP's manifesto and claimed to find it was full of lies. I posted this with the expectation that it would be simply censored, as the BBC do, so was somewhat suprised that it appeared:

To take one example C4 “factcheck” bases their claims on the alleged “fact” that “it would also be naive to think that there would be no economic cost” of quotting the EU.
That is not a statement that any remptely honest organisation could claim as an unambiguous “fact”.

The evidence is that, excluding the money we hand over, membership of the EU’s regulatory system destrpys 5.5% of GDP ((£90 bn). This has even been publicly acjnowledged by the EU’s “rnterprise” commissioner so C4 cannot honestly say that the net effect of membership is economically the opposite.

Clerarly were C4 in any slightest way honest, or anything other than a fascist propaganda organisation they will have published similarly slanted libels against the officially approved parties. Loohing at, for example, the LibDems they didn’t do a prior “factcheck” but did do this post event leaning over backwards to pretend the LDs had only minimally broken their promises and laud whay they had allegedly 2achieved in government”..
Factchecking C4 it is proven that they are corrupt, lying parasitic propagandists in…

and drew a reply

“The evidence is that, excluding the money we hand over, membership of the EU’s regulatory system destrpys 5.5% of GDP ((£90 bn)”
What evidence is that, then? You haven’t provided any.

By the way, love how you call C4 News a “fascist organisation” just because they have an opposing viewpoint to yours which they can support with pesky facts.

Still, UKIP would know all about fascists, given that their MEPs sit with them in the EU Parliament ( ) and they expel their own members for having differing viewpoints to their Leader ( )

to which I replied
 Neil Craig

“Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, announced in 2006 that EU regulations were costing the European economy some €600bn a year (this was almost twice as high as previous estimates). €600bn is about 5.5% of total EU GDP”
This information, without which it is impossible for the public to make an informed estimate of the value or otherwise of membership, and which is in direct contradicition to C4′s “factchecked” claims, has obviously been censored for over 6 years by our media or you would not be ignorant of it.
And if that is not proof that C4, the BBC & most papers are corrupt lying fascist propagandist parasites I would be interested to know what you would need?

pworrall (C4's watchman)

The claim about Mr Verheugen was made in this Financial Times article (
You’re right to say that it wasn’t picked up by Channel 4, the BBC or most newspapers. There may be a good reason for this. See this report by Open Europe: (

Quote: “This figure has been widely misunderstood, for three reasons: a) the estimate captures the administrative burden only (i.e. not policy costs or knock-on effects b) it describes the cost of EU regulations and domestic regulations combined (so not only EU regulation) and c)crucially, Verheugen probably never mentioned the figure in the first place. What Verheugen actually said in the interview about reducing regulation, was that “I’ve said that in my view it must be possible to get a 25 percent reduction, and that means a productivity gain of €150bn.” The Financial Times’ journalist appears to have taken this to mean that

€150bn represented 25 percent of the total cost of regulation. However, Verheugen’s office has subsequently confirmed that the €150 billion figure referred to the extra benefits that would be generated (as opposed to saved) through various dynamic effects by a 25 percent cut in the administrative burden of EU and domestic regulations combined.”
Since you have ignored my request not to post insulting, rather than critical, comments (“corrupt, lying fascist propagandist parasites”), I am no longer accepting comments from you and have blocked you.

This reply censored

pworrall had C4, the BBC & co actually reported the case, even if giving significant space to the OpenEurope rebuttal and counter rebuttals on all sides, my assessment would have been clearly falsified.
By censoring me you merely verify it.   And this to a further attack on me after I had been barred   don't need those sort of "favours".
Note that though I am censored for saying C4 are -------, despite being able to say, from the historic definition of ------- why it is true, there is no objection to Martin coming on here and accusing supporters of UKIP of being both idiots and liars, without even attempting to support such insults with facts.

Which says as much as necessary about whether C4's censorship is either ------- & aimed against a particular party, or "impartial, balanced & truthful" reportage as they and their government masters pretend to.    We also had this email exchange

Neil – I’m not censoring you because of your opinions. If you look at other comments across the blog, you’ll see that we always print comments no matter how violently people disagree with what we write. But I draw the line at personal abuse. You must be able to appreciate how unpleasant it is to be called a corrupt fascist parasite etc etc.
I’m not sure why pointing out that there has never been a definitive cost/benefit analysis of EU membership is an example of fascism, or what you mean by “corrupt”. Do you think the EU is sending me brown envelopes stuffed with euros to defend its existence?
This may be the internet, but you have to understand that words like this are not meaningless – they are insulting. And I am a real person, not a computer.
If you had stopped short of using language like that I would have been happy to let you continue posting.
Patrick (C4News FactCheck)

see. So “the facts” as you see them are the views of Tim Congdon, a UKIP leadership candidate, as opposed to non-party political sources I have quoted: NIESR, Professor Iain Begg, the Institute of Directors – and these are somehow “government approved” (Why so?)
You say: “The initial factcheck did not say that there was no proven cost benefit ratio, but the contrary, that there must be net costs of leaving.”
But what I wrote was: “There was no expert concensus as to a net gain or loss.”
The initial FactCheck, which I link back to from the piece on the Ukip manifesto, is here:
This is the verdict: “A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the whole question of whether Britain loses or gains economically by its continued membership of the EU. Some of the world’s top economists disagree about the numbers, and it’s impossible to say what the ultimate political costs of pulling out could be.”
And you think that personally calling me a fascist in a string of emails is the same as the party you support being insulted on television.
What all this has to do with climate change, I really can’t imagine, but if anyone has compared you to a child rapist for doubting climate change, I sympathise with you. Hyperbole like that is an unfortunate example of the childishness to which internet forum debate can sink.
It is entirely inappropriate to throw around insults like that, given the seriousness of child abuse, just as it is wrong to use very serious words like fascist against people who don’t agree with you.
Perhaps it’s best that we leave this conversation here, Neil. I don’t think I’m ever going to convince you that we’re not stooges of the government or whatever it is you imagine we are, although I would have thought that the existence of a million-odd FactChecks in which we criticise the government would suggest that this fails the common sense test.
I'm not sure what you mean by "definitive". Tim Congdon's assessment, which you have "not censored but not reported" seems pretty definitve. Or do you mean "government approved" by "definitive which is rather my point. Moreover the initial "factcheck" did not say that there was no proven cost benefit ratio, but the contrary, that there must be net costs of leaving, which even you now seem to accept as untrue.
I do indeed appreciate that gratuitous rudeness is unpleasant. As a supporter of UKIP I have been described on national TV as a loony & closet racist and as somebody who doubts we are experiencing catastrophic global warming as being the moral equivalent of a child rapist. Without, of course, being given the opportunity to reply you have (or the opposrtunity to censor you uset). Do let me know when C$ is willing either to either censor either Cameron or those who gratuitously insult scientific sceptics as you insist those who criticse you should be. Even let me know when you are prepared to allow those insulted to rebut.
The difference is, of course, that when challenged I am able and willing to prove every word I say whereas the state broadcasting propagandists, being unable to do so, simply censor. If you knew the meaning of fascism you would not object to my saying that people who do that are fascists.
Or are there any circumstances whatsoever under which C4 would be willing to allow a free debate on any important subject? We both know that C4 have already made it clear the answer is no. Or are there any circumstances under which C4 "factchecking" would be done with reference to the facts rather than pushing the state propaganda line? Again this "factcheck" gives the answer.
If I am in any way whatsoever wrong C4 will be pleased to accept my challenge to broadcast a formal debate (with both sides equally represented, something I should not have to explain) on the cost/benefits of the EU or alleged CAGW.
No. Thought not. Case proven.

Neil Craig

"I sympathise with you. Hyperbole like that is an unfortunate example of the childishness to which internet forum debate can sink."

Not an internet forum - I have had worse than that from "Greens" on them. That was the BBC state broadcaster Thought for the Day.
Obviously were it true or even arguably true the BBC would have provided their evidence.

Obviously were it a lie and our state broadcasters in any slightest way honest, rather than wholly corrupt fascists they would have retracted it.

Obviously, the standard of state broadcasting being what it is, as you will have guessed, they did neither.
The initial factcheck did, as I said and you confirmed, start from the wholly false assertion that there would be net economic costs of leaving rather than a £150 bn benefit.
I have given you 2 bits of evidence, from violently separated sources, for the EU being massively expensive. Both news items you, as a state broadcaster, have decided to censor/not report for unexplained reasons. Tim Congdon is an economist of great repute. If supporting UKIP makes him unfit to comment on his own specialty then there must be, if you are being impartial, a large majority of the population not allowed to appear on C4 news. I have not noticed this.
I await your confirmation of any circumstances whatsoever under which C4 would be willing to demonstrate its alleged occasional non-Fascist leanings by ever allowing broadcast of the free debate I suggested on this or any similar important subject.
Neil Craig   I got this support, which surprisingly has not been deleted

Author: Alex Williams


TBH, I reckon you couldn't fact check your way out of a paper bag. You've just blocked someone, for being insulting and offensive, because he included words in his post that you didn't like. He wasn't swearing, nor was he particularly being aggressive.
If you don't like people thinking your views may be of a certain political persuasion, perhaps you shouldn't be reporting on political things?   Author: pworrall
There's a simple policy, Alex: criticism and disagreement yes, insults no.


Clearly you have a problem, and that problem manifests itself as trying to shoot the messenger when he brings you bad news.
It's not C4 News' fault that one of UKIP's useful idiots presents 'facts' that are nothing of the sort, and is rude when airing his conspiracy theories and accusing ITN of being complicit.
Mr Worrall has done Neil Craig a favour, because Craig doesn't have to come back here and apologise for posting misinformation about the cost of EU regulation that even the eurosceptic Open Forum says is rubbish.

to which my reply as and remains censored

The point seems to be that my use of the word "fascist" is impermissable. But it is a perfectly proper description of a specific political ideal, which includes that thjose in power should control the media to promote approved views and denigrate minority ones. This was because the fascisti believed society was stronger with everybody held in line, hence the use of the fasces, a bundle of batons tied together, as their symbol.

This is precisely what C4's slanted and indeed false "factcheck" was doing.

When setting this up I also noted that Martin had been allowed to criticise UKIP for being associated with what he, in my opinion falsely, described as Fascists, without any threat that such a claim was impermissable. Nothing to do with factual accuracy or I wouldn't have been censored. Nothing to do with balance either or we would both have been.

I willingly admit that this is not the unrestrained unquestioning fascism of the BBC, who censor without any compunction, but a watered down version which shows some questioning of its role.

But nonetheless Channel 4 is displaying an ideaological commitment to both dishonest reporting and censorship in the state cause, which is, by definition, fascism.

If C4 can lie and then censor my disagreement then what other term is more factual? The other part of my title question was is it wiser to tone down one's dissent to permissable levels so that it may be permitted, even though it inherently puts you at a disadvantage, and to that I do not have a certain answer.

  Note, However, that Patrick doesn't even make an attempt to pretend that Channel 4 is ever going to allow real debate on anything, which again seems to prove my point.

Labels: , ,

Neil, you've been caught up in the contemporary "consensus" view of evidence (cf CAGW). Accordingly, if your opinions/evidence don't agree - or, worse, conflict - with the "consensus" on any particular subject dear to the heart of our rulers and their enablers then any excuse will be found (eg your use of the word "fascist" to describe behaviour which is objectively fascist) to prevent your opinions/facts from reaching the wider public. I know this is the traditional BBC modus operandi but I hadn't realised that Channel 4 had descended to this blatant corruption of public discourse.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.