Tuesday, 15 December 2015

24 Hours in the Life of an Aggressive Bully Labour Activist on Twitter

Over the last year or two I have encountered a particularly nasty piece of work. Who happens to be a senior activist at the Labour Party in Thurrock.

He has routinely resorted to abusing people with racism, sexually provocative messages, disability discrimination and suggestions that would clearly imply violent intentions.

I have reported this individual to Polly Billington (former PPC for Thurrock), his local branch, his regional branch, the Labour Party HQ and the Labour Party legal department.

When assured this individual would be investigated, and action be taken against him for his behaviour, I made the mistake (foolishly) of taking the Labour Party (yes I know!) at their word.

However they resorted to doing nothing, and actually informing him of my complaint made against him, as was confirmed by Scott Nelson himself.

The torrent of abuse and inappropriate communications and mentions of me have continued.

I am disabled, both legs, left knee, back, I experience extreme tiredness, pain, balance issues and depression as a consequence. Scott knows about this and uses it against me.

I shall now give some examples:

Disability discrimination:

Scott routinely reminds people that he suffers from disabilities, whilst routinely referring to me as a "neanderthal". The definition of which is; "Primitive or backward"...

As can be seen from multiple messages posted by him, he has incorporated this in a variety of ways with pictures to make quite unpleasant attacks upon me:

Scott ironically signals his "support" for "Disability Labour" whilst discriminating against people based on their disabilities, or making offensive disability discrimination comments or slurs.

This conversation over a period of time where he repeatedly refers to me as a "neanderthal", otherwise defined as "backward" or "genetically inferior".

Disagrees with me so suggests locking me up in an animal enclosure?

I block people who are abusive. I blocked Scott nearly 2 years ago and yet he continues to abuse me.

I don't need to explain how inappropriate this is. I think people can work out for themselves how offensive this is.

It's also worth mentioning that he has also made disability discrimination comments to others:

"Spacko" being a slang term for "spastic", an offensive term for a person with cerebral palsy.

Sexually provocative messages (making reference to my Asexuality):

This is the kind of discussions he has about me.
To say this is inappropriate is an understatement.

(Just FYI: I have never made any such suggestion.)

This is a tweet that Scott recently liked.


Racism against a UKIP Prospective Parliamentary Candidate and MEP:

Also documented here and here.

Trying to conflate me with a recently deceased terrorist:

Multiple other serious and false allegations:

Making false claims of connections other organisations/political parties and claiming that a UKIP success in some areas will cause "race riots", ignoring the fact that previous race riots in that area happened under the Labour Party:

Making a false claim that I operate an other Twitter account, which I absolutely do NOT:

Making a host of false allegations against UKIP citing the comments of former members/candidates as "Party policy":

Falsely alleging I had claimed a tragedy had been faked:

When in reality I was trying to persuade someone else who believed that it was, that it wasn't:

Falsely claiming I had defended the actions of a paedophile, a claim that is a complete lie!

24 Hours (15th of December 2015) of Activist Madness on Twitter:

Don't think I have to explain why this tweet is ironic.

Very clearly a threat, coupled with an indicator of incitement to commit murder.
I question the mental health and potential implication on others from someone who makes such declarations.

Further reflection of discrimination based on Asexuality. FYI: I attempted to report someone for threatening to stab a politician, my report however wasn't taken as a complaint had already been made. FYI: Asexual people don't have sexual fulfillment, that is kind of the point.

I'm a center-left UKIP supporter just FYI. Former Lib Dem. Have done all the political placement tests to place my political leanings. Very firmly center-left. Also "verminous hatred"... Really?! lol

So that presumes Gay people can't be homophobic against others and disabled people cannot be anti-disabled against others? 

 ...another threat.

I am very much the subject of abuse from you Scott. Also, you can be gay and homophobic.

I am disabled and don't use a wheelchair? I have never claimed those outside wheelchairs with impairments aren't disabled.

Spoken by the master!

Again. Never said otherwise. Scott has previously admitted to having depression, I have and continued to suffer from depression. That is no excuse for his behaviour.
No. You are a very bad person. Pleasant and caring people do not resort to the onslaught of abuse you do.

I have documented what he has said above. Scott, you are not appropriate to fight for social justice. You are a disgrace!

Yes you are... As is documented above and below!

You cannot claim to be a "fighter for social justice" and go around calling people "spacko", subjecting them to vile abuse and discrimination.
Such as...

Clearly more disability discrimination...

Making light of a character in a wheelchair...

 We try to keep extremists out Scott. You aren't welcome.

What was it he said? "Fighter for Social Justice"...

Already documented above... Nice comparing a person to a monkey though... That "Social Justice Warrior"...

Like yes... Like I have shown evidence of it... Like like... Like Asexuality is a thing... Like... You have shown intolerance of it and me being Asexual... Like like... I am sure people laughed off people being gay as you have done there... Laughing off Asexuality... "Social justice"?

More "Social Justice" from Scott...

 Said the person who doesn't understand the meaning of "Asexuality"...

I'm just going to leave this here for people to read to decide if it is acceptable or not...

I am sure I have UKIP supporters who disagree with what I say, as you will undoubtedly have people disagreeing with what you say Scott.

But one thing I am certain of, you have more people utterly ashamed at you, within the Labour Party for what you have said.

It is just a shame that the Labour Party condone your brand of absolutely hatred.

Remember folks. Jeremy Corbyn, or Jezza as he likes to be known wants a "kinder politics" where delegates "treat people with respect" and "cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics".

The Labour Party have clearly ignored this message and continue to allow the sort of foul vitriolic, repugnant and offensive abuse that Scott Nelson so revels in.

As I have previously said, I have reported multiple events to the Labour Party, but they are quite comfortable with this persons extremism.

We have just got through an awful period of politics where bullying has cost the life of a young political campaigner at the Conservative Party.

Bullying is obviously rampant on Social Networking sites especially, and it is obviously overlooked when reported by the Establishment Parties and very unfortunately praised by allies of those people who commit the bullying.

To solve a problem we first have to admit we have a problem.


Incredible. He is now using the same language used with regards to Islamic extremism and ISIS for UKIP.

This person is embarrassing for the Labour Party!

In fact since the original publication of this article further disturbing information has been presented to me by a Labour Party supporter who has been disturbed by Scott Nelson's tweeting activity for a number of years now.

It would seem that even her calls for Labour to take action have gone ignored:

Judging from Scott's response to the publication of this blog, he hasn't learned anything:

Thursday, 26 November 2015

Response to; "UKIP’s narrow minded nationalism is a threat to our national security" article by 'Students and Young People For Europe' (should be EU)

UKIP’s narrow minded nationalism is a threat to our national security

Firstly, are we talking about EU member states or Europe? It cannot be both. Both are different entities.

Europe is a Continental and Island grouping of over 50 nations. Whilst the EU is a Political Union of 28 member states.

I notice you make this conflation in the website name and subheading as well. Not at all disingenuous of course.

UKIP haven't criticised the idea of sharing intel with other EU or European nations, this is done regardless via NATO and Interpol so not entirely sure what point this article is trying to make?

It should occur to some that the Paris Terrorist attacks have been used in the EU Parliament to centralise intelligence data. Thus taking it out of the hands of experience securical services and putting it into the hands of Private Organisation security contractors and what is frankly inexperienced data handling organisations. It should stay where it is, MI5, Interpol and NATO.

I find it disgusting how the EU have used the Paris attacks as an excuse for a power-grap, which is emphasised in the response from this French MEP in the EU Parliament just yesterday (25/11/2015):

The accusation that EU member states aren't sharing intel is frankly bonkers. What the EU doesn't like is that counter terrorism is handled by Independent (to the EU) organisations such as MI5, NATO and Interpol. This is the power-grab they are attempting.

"Many would regard this as a sensible approach."

But this isn't what is being proposed and the fact you don't recognise this is utterly crazy. We have Securical services and they work with their colleagues in Europe and elsewhere. Not everything has to be done at a EU level.

"If you can freely travel from one country to another it is expected that security services are constantly in contact with each other to track your whereabouts if you are perceived as a threat."

Vehicles aren't checked travelling through Schengen, nor are people. People are free to move country to country. So what intelligence is their to go on?

Here where in lies the problem.

"Yet UKIP have again regarded a sensible idea as a ‘power grab’ simply because it involves forms of co-operation with other European countries."

It's not with "European Countries" though, as I have already illustrated.

The fact is the EU are trying to take those recognised intel services and incorporate them into an EU Police State.

“Schengen’s open border idea allows free movement for terrorists and has resulted in mass murder in Paris,” said Diane James MEP.

“For our national security, there must be a return to national border controls and checking of the origin and credentials of those who are crossing borders.

“There is a clear necessity that Islamist terrorists, their ideas, their money and their weapons no longer be given a free pass around Europe because of Schengen. It is a European political dream which is turning into a security nightmare.”

She is absolutely spot-on.

Nigel Farage;

“It is unacceptable for us to share our intelligence with countries like Romania,” added Mr Farage.

“It is the EU’s doctrine of open borders which has caused the problem. This is another crisis being used for an EU power grab.”

Again. Spot on.

"Ms James is precisely correct in that Europe must check the credentials of those entering European borders, but those rules need not apply to those traveling within the continent itself if we share intelligence about potential threats with our neighbours."

This is where the article falls to pieces.
The majority of those who conducted the terror attacks on 7/7 and in Paris were home-grown. The transportation of weapons is what resulted in the attacks taking place. This transportation of weapons was made possible with the Freedom of Movement rules put in place by the EU.

Romania share intel with the UK.
The UK share intel with Romania.

The point Farage is making, is that it shouldn't be done at an EU level. It should be done as is currently done via recognised security services within countries and data be shared between those organisations.

"The problem with UKIP is that it will support nothing that is constructive if it involves European co-operation."

It supports "European cooperation". This isn't "European cooperation" though, it is an attempt to withdraw intel gathering from recognised EU member states and centralise it within the EU.

This article accuses "narrow minded nationalism" yet makes absolutely no justification for such an accusation.

UKIP see the merit in learning from other nations in the world. The accusation is unjustified and inflammatory.

Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Response to pathetic Independent article "Five reasons why Winston McKenzie should have left Ukip over racism a while ago"

Five reasons why Winston McKenzie should have left Ukip over racism a while ago

I just came across another pathetic Left Wing media hit-piece attacking UKIP. Their have been a couple over the years trying to reinforce the claim UKIP are racist, and each time it usually covers the same sort of line.

Something along the lines of; "UKIP don't have any racist policies, but Farage has said this, and former UKIP candidates have said this..."

Lets ignore (as the media often does) that the last 6 months in particular have seen a much higher proportion of Labour and Conservative Party reps and Councillors caught up in offences ranging from racism, anti-semitism, child abuse charges and other questionable activity which has rarely, if ever been raised in the national media. Let's address the claims outline by this boorish article by someone who spends his time on Twitter retweeting messages mocking the Conservative Party (so I am sure their is no party political motive for his article.)

"It was no surprise that Ukip’s most high profile black member Winston McKenzie quit the party after claiming he had been the victim of racial discrimination.

The only surprise is the time it took him to realise Nigel Farage’s party is racist, their denials notwithstanding."

Impartial and not at all bigoted beginning to the article...

"His allegations may have a lot to do with how he was ignored in his bid to be chosen as Ukip’s candidate for London Mayor. But if he was racially discriminated against, he should have seen the warning signs a long time ago."

Ah yes... He was excluded because he was black. I notice Matt Dathan (author) makes no mention that the candidate selection for the UKIP Mayor of London candidate was made up of 4 (out of 11 candidates) BME candidates one of whom came second by the name of David Kurten (picture below):

No doubt had Mr Kurten been selected as UKIP's candidate Mr Dathan would be claiming he'd only been selected "because" he was black, and that UKIP had done so to try and refute claims that they are racist.

Either that or the complete tone of this article would be different. He would be claiming that Peter Whittle (the winner of the candidate selection) came second because he is gay, and that as a result, it was proof UKIP were homophobic.

Dathan then goes on to list five reasons why he thinks UKIP are racist;

"1. What Nigel Farage has said

The Ukip leader insists neither he nor his party is racist but he has undermined this claim on a number of occasions. 

Ahead of the 2014 European elections Mr Farage said he said people would rightly be “concerned” if “a whole load of Romanian men moved in next door”, adding there was a difference between German and eastern European neighbours.

He later expressed his “regret” over the comments, saying he was “tired”. 

But he landed himself in trouble again when he said that hearing foreign languages spoken on trains made him feel “uncomfortable”. 

And later in the year he must have been tired once again when he blamed the fact that he missed an event in Wales on immigrants, claiming that traffic on the M4 was to blame for his lateness and putting it down to “the population going through the roof”."


Indeed, during an LBC he was asked by host, James O'Brien; "What if a group of German children moved in, what's the difference?"

On this point, Farage highlighted that he had in fact been asked by an interviewer; "I was asked what I would think if a group of Romanian men moved in next door".

Now obviously comparing a group of German "children" to a group of "Romanian men" moving in next door, are two completely obvious and different things.

But even putting that aside. You have to remember that Farage lives in a small semi, with his wife and two young daughters.

I don't care if a "group of" Romanian men, or English men, moved in next door. In that situation I would be wary as would any parent of young girls.

But when you look at the Metropolitan Police DOI Reporting Services information on "Arrests of Foreign Nationals by Nationality and Specific Arrest Areas it reveals something a little more concerning as can be seen from the picture below...

As unfortunate as the data it. The crime figures show that Romanian Nationals during the period April 2008 to December 2012 are nearly 12 times more likely to commit a "sexual offence" than German nationals.

That is not "racist", it is mathematical fact.

Furthermore, the unfortunate fact is their have been a number of high profile rapes, and convictions by/of Romanian nationals over the last 2 years.

Farage explained later that he had been tired, as a result of an interruption and confusion involving Patrick O'Flynn. He has said "you know" in response to a question, when a more concise answer should have been given.

The author also brings up comments Farage made where he said he was "uncomfortable being on a crowded train in the center of London being in a minority of English speakers".

The simple fact is the native inhabitants of a country being displaced by mass migration in London in particular has happened. It is unfortunate that the populas of London, which includes some distinctive cultures (Cockneys for example) are now rare in London.

I don't want to get into the subject of "cultural genocide" which is mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty I might add, but when a populas gets displaced from its capital City. It is unfortunate.

To say that isn't racist. It is just the way it is.

Farage wasn't reflecting on people "being foreign" and that as a result was what he was uncomfortable with, he was reflecting on the cultural change.

But of course, as expected, what he said was twisted by the media and then we have people such as this Independent author writing attack stories gleefully dancing through the streets tossing the word "racist" about like confetti.

As for his comments at a Wales meeting. He made a "joke". I am not surprised that this Independent author, who seems to be expertly driven taking offence at everything that is said dependent on his political agenda (again you have to see the guys Twitter) has no sense of humour.

Farage joked that the roads were busy, and that the transport network has been effected by an increased population.

Simple maths dictates that an increased population, millions of which have been added through mass migration, will have an impact on the transport infrastructure of this country.

Several Conservative and Labour rep's have commented that an increased population, in part as a result of immigration will result in an increased need for expansion of our transport network, housing and social services. Yet I don't see the Independent whacking out article claiming those statements of fact are "racist". No of course not.

"2. Ukip MEPs sit with racist groups in European Parliament

After winning the national vote in the 2014 European Parliament elections Mr Farage chose to align Ukip’s 24 MEPs with far-right groups from across the continent to form the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) grouping. 

Among its members are the Swedish Democrats party, which was founded by white supremacists whose members allegedly posed in Nazi uniforms in meetings, although it became more moderate in 1996. 

Other members include the Polish right-winger Robert Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz from the Congress of the New Right (KNP). The party was founded by Janusz Korwin-Mikke, a man who was fined for racist language last month, and also reportedly claimed Adolf Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust, claiming that the Nazi leader would be acquitted from court if he stood trial today because he had no idea that his regime was persecuting Jewish people across Europe. 

Farage also aligned his party with the controversial figure of Beppe Grillo, the former comedian who suggested Italy’s immigration policy could be “re-importing” tuberculosis and posted a blacked-up picture of a government minister on his blog. His anti-establishment party, the Five Star Movement, helped Farage secure crucial EU funds by adding its 17 MEPs to the EFD group."

For me this is where the authors article starts to fall to pieces completely.

Let's ignore for the fact that post 2014 European Elections. UKIP's group was renamed the EFDD (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy), or EFD2 for short.

The author claims that UKIP did deals with "Far Right groups from across the continent to form their grouping.

Really? Their are six other parties or members in UKIP's group.

They are as follows:

  • The Party of Free Citizens (Czech Republic) - Right Wing
  • JoĆ«lle Bergeron (France) - Right Wing (a former Front National MEP who resigned after she opposed FN's motion to ban European migrants from voting in local elections)
  • The Five Star Movement (Italy) - Left Wing
  • Order and Justice (Lithuania) - Right Wing
  • Robert Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz - Right Wing
  • Swedish Democrats - Right Wing
So we have a Right Wing Party, not mentioned by the author. A French MEP, not mentioned by the author. A MEP who has never made racist comments, and hasn't commented on Adolf Hitler. Who's party leader, who is not a part of UKIP's group (non-inscrit), and was made aware via the media that he wouldn't be welcome. In fact UKIP never spoke to his group or the leader, they approached the MEP and offered him a role in the group and to finish off, a Left-Winger...

So basically... No Far-Right element. Not one.

3. Nigel Farage thinks racial discrimination should be legalised

The Ukip leader sparked another race row in the run up to May’s general election by saying that laws preventing racial discrimination in the workplace should be scrapped. 

Farage told the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips that legislation barring discriminating on grounds of nationality or race was no longer required because race is no longer a significant issue in modern-day Britain.

“I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word  ‘discriminate’ if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so,” he said. “I think you should be able to choose on the basis of nationality, yes. I do.”

Bonkers. Quite frankly. Not Farage, the author.

Remember this article is about "racism". British people can be BME, in fact Farage said that the section of British society which has been hardest hit by mass-migration from the EU, has been the BME community in London, in which their are record high unemployment numbers.

The question of businesses undercutting British nationals in the UK isn't so much a theory as it is fact.

The Conservative Party have discussed it, as have the Labour Party in terms of warning about it, and they have even gone as far as to roll out a policy to tackle it.

Again, I presume the author didn't consider that racist did he?

"4. Other BME members have quit Ukip due to racism

McKenzie should have listened to Sanya-Jeet Thandi when she quit as leader of Ukip’s youth wing last year, branding the party “racist” and “terrifying”. 

The British Asian leader accused Ukip of “exploiting the stupidity of ignorant anti-immigrant voters for electoral gain”. She added: “While the party deliberately attracts the racist vote I refuse to be associated with them.”

I have already addressed Winston McKenzie above, so let's move onto Sanya-Jeet Thandi.
Isn't it funny that when she disclosed that she thought that UKIP were "racist" and "terrifying", it was via a news article in the left wing Guardian.

Let's also ignore the fact she gave regular interviews saying that mass migration was an issue in the UK:

Gave regular speeches at UKIP conferences over the years:



Individuals have left all parties citing racism. The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP.

Also, "manipulating the anti-immigrant vote"? UKIP aren't anti-immigration. Why am I not surprised that I find myself having to explain to a left-wing Independent journalist UKIP's immigration policy.

Oh yeah, the reason that is, is because the majority of people I encounter who have such vitriolic views to UKIP don't actually know what UKIP's immigration policy is!

Not to mention what some of their further more developmental policies are.

I am willing to bet hard cash that the author of the Independent article didn't know it has been a core UKIP policy to reconnect with the Commonwealth since the party was founded. That is nearly two-thirds of the planets ethnic population.

I bet he doesn't know that immigration would play a vital role in UKIP's plan for the country, with an equal points based system being implemented to the globe, rather than the EU biased immigration system we have right now, that leaves so many rest of the world migrants unable to come to the UK, regardless of skills they might have to offer.

Rather than me rattling on I suggest people (including the author of the Independent article) listen to UKIP's immigration policy as explained by Steven Woolfe, UKIP's immigration spokesperson who also happens to be from a mixed raced background, you know, at the party that prevents black and ethnic candidates progression, oh... and he's a Member of the European Parliament. Did I mention that?

Then as always happens, we come to the list of former UKIP members who have been expelled for making offensive comments, or sharing offensive content...

5. All the Ukip candidates who have been exposed as racists

If he was looking for a reason to leave before, McKenzie wouldn't have had to look far to find examples of racist Ukip candidates.

Take, for example, Robert Blay, a Ukip candidate at the general election who said he would shoot Ranil Jayawardena, an Asian candidate standing for the Tories, if he ever became PM, as he questioned his racial backround. 

Mr Blay said: “His family have only been here since the 70s. You are not British enough to be in our parliament. ”I've got 400 years of ancestry where I live. He hasn't got that.“

Or there is the Ukip candidate David Wycherley who took to Facebook a day after Mo Farah won double gold at the London Olympics to say the runner is not British because he is an “African”. 

Or the Ukip candidate William Henwood who said the black comedian Lenny Henry should ”go back to a black country“ before comparing Islam to the Third Reich. 

And if Mr McKenzie was still unconvinced that Ukip had a big racism problem running through the party, he should have realised when ex-Ukip councillor Rozanne Duncan was filmed saying the “only people I do have problems with are negroes”.

Robert Blay - Suspended

David Wycherley - Said that Mo Farah was African... Which he is and has described himself as being?

Farah describes himself as "African" and was born in Somalia.

Whilst I think Farah is wonderful, and consider him British, of course. To ask the question is not racist.

William Henwood - Resigned and condemned

Rozanne Duncan - Expelled

Just before the May General Elections, I wrote an article showing that unfortunate comments by parties rep's wasn't exclusive to UKIP. Titled: "Lib Lab Con suspended (stepped-down), members bring party into disrepute: Why do the media ignore issues at other parties?"

Following my production of this article, it was kicked up a notch when "Nope Not Hope" website released a list of "137 Lib/Lab/Con Paedos, racists, homophobes, fraudsters you didn't read about on Hope not Hate - March and April this year".

Hell in the last 3 months alone, we have seen 3 Labour Councillors removed for child abuse charges (1, 2, 3)

In the last 4 weeks alone. We have seen a Labour Councillor expelled for anti-Semitism, 
Offensive behaviour within party Councillors is just a fact of life, it is how parties respond to that behaviour that matters.

UKIP ban former members of the Far-Right post 2011, whilst no other parties do. In fact the Conservatives and Labour Party have welcomed BNP and Neo Nazis who obviously at some time had extreme views.

But hey... Mr Dathan won't ever raise those issues will he...


Because he just doesn't like UKIP. That is the reason his article was written and published.

UKIP aren't racist.

If they are on Mr Dathan's grounds, then every other party in the United Kingdom is as well.

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Daniel Pitt - SlatUKIP false claims against me...

This afternoon I was made aware of a false accusation made against me by Daniel Pitt (Aka: "SlatUKIP" (Twitter) - "We're Still Laughing At UKIP" (Facebook).

In these accusations, he had claimed I was a "Former EDL member".

I want my response to be short, with evidence as this "individual" doesn't deserve anymore attention than is required to make him look incredibly silly.

1- The EDL don't have membership so that lie can be easily disproved

2- I have opposed the EDL for multiple years. As is evident if you type in my username with the words "oppose EDL" on Twitter.

A couple of examples (note dates of tweets):

 ...and some more tweets going back earlier...

3- As for Daniel Pitt running SlatUKIP. His own mother verbally abused me on Facebook after I had a picture he had photoshopped removed by Facebook (falsely implicating someone of racism) resulting in him being warned as to his future conduct on Facebook.

4- How come the only 2 accounts online to falsely accuse me of being a "former EDL member" are Daniel Pitt in his article, and SlatUKIP on Twitter. Both making the same aforementioned mistake that the EDL do not have a membership and making the false accusation.


...and here...

It will be very interesting to see if Mr Pitts website allows my comment:

Update 01/10/2015 - My comment on the article was unsurprisingly declined:

It's also interesting to note that the wording of the article has been changed in the clearest example of backtracking you will ever see:

From this:

To this:

Update 04/10/2015 - we have another wording alteration!