Friday, 25 July 2014

Reply to Mike Sivier AKA Vox Political regards article about myself

A short while ago it was made aware to me that I had been mentioned in an article by a individual named Mike Sivier otherwise known by the Twitter and Facebook name 'Vox Political'. Article as follows: http://aliberallife.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/meet-the-men-who-tweet-for-ukip/

In the article named "Meet The Men Who Tweet For UKIP' I was listed, by name as one of 9 people article worthy of mentioning in some kind of bizarre context that might be embarrassing to the party.

In the section in which I was mentioned it read the following:

"Thomas proudly announces that he is a UKIP member on his bio .. His tweets, in common with all on this list, show a propensity to believe anything posted by Breitbart news as gospel truth. Thankfully he avoids the Muslims are all bad and so on that front he is relatively sane! On the other hand he quotes Paul Nuttell and Roger Helmer as being purveyors of common sense – so perhaps sanity is an issue. I have seen Thomas telling racists where to go which is refreshing.. But then there is this":



The above being a post I posted on Twitter.

Firstly I feel I should point out that the individual in question did not ask my permission to screen-capture my tweet and publish it.

As for the text above it.
Yes I do read Breitbart, do I take it as the gospel truth? Goodness no. I have referenced it from time to time, but I no more reference it than any other news media outlet or website.


As for Paul Nuttell and Roger Helmer, they have been on Question Time on occasion, regularly get called onto speak on Politics shows. Have both been elected as MEP's for the European Parliament by the people of this country and all have a very logical grasp on politics.

I stand myself in good stead seeing who I had been partnered with in this web attack of which I had no knowledge until someone else who was following me on Twitter made me aware I had been involved in the article.

Why I have been mentioned in the "Top 9 of Tweeters" along with any of the other perfectly well spoken and decent people mentioned in this hit-piece/hit list is rather bemusing. But hey as Nigel Farage has said, when you receive flack, it just goes to show you are near the target.


As a mature adult I tried to point out that I had not given permission for my picture to be used, my name disclosed on the article and that by posting the picture of my Twitter ID my location and pictures would be available for people to see.

Over the last 2 years, as a UKIP supporter and more recently member, I have been subject to both verbal and physical attack when trying to attend UKIP meetings. As a disabled person I am of course concerned by the possibility of someone attacking me. As we have seen in the last few years it only takes one person to get a obsession and then anything can happen. I of course was also very concerned that someone would look me up and as such pose a threat to me and members of my family.

I tried to reflect this in the comments section. But to no avail, all I was responded to in the comments section was abuse and denials to remove the offending details.

Some time later the same account published a picture which had been created 5-6 months previous and had been added to in the form of attempted references by a Green Party member to attack UKIP before/during the May 2014 County Council and European Elections.


In the article the following picture was posted:



This picture has been answered so many times by UKIP members and representatives that it has got boring and yet recently Mr Sivier felt it necessary to post it again like it was a fresh brand spanking new picture only just published.

Scrapping paid maternity leave: 



Raising Income Tax:



Human Rights Laws and Holiday Entitlement wouldn't be removed, the decision making and laws would be repatriated:




Before the United Kingdom signed the Lisbon Treaty we conformed to the 'Human Rights Act 1998', and if we left we would return to either that or a variant of that.

Speeding Up Privatisation of the NHS:



Hell UKIP even produced an article due to the lies Labour were spreading!

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_head_of_policy_tim_aker_last_night_warned_voters_not_to_believe_labours_misinformation_and_lies_about_the_party


Cancelling House Building: Even the picture says no link found...

Abandoning Action On Climate Change: 







Cancelling Regulations For Making Banks Safer: Again no link given...

Making It Legal For A Man To Rape His Wife: Taken from the video of a man who used to be a donor to UKIP but was removed from the party for his views. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22631003 and a "voting record" in which up until the end of the last European Parliament UKIP voted against any transfer of legislation to the EU from British Law. It has nothing to do with the actual law.

In the 2014- Parliament UKIP have decided to vote in a way that progresses Human Rights Laws.


Cutting Education Spending: (No Link Given) and buying 3 Aircraft Carriers Instead: Link given is to a East Sussex UKIP affiliate that had not been removed when the 2010 policies were abandoned as the website had not been used in months.

Other links given including to Amjad Bashir's page, economic pages and Keith Rowe's page link old 2010 policies to as they had not been updated at the time.


I pointed out that the picture was nonsense and that the Policies mentioned were either past policies from a 2010 Manifesto completely torn up by Nigel Farage 8 months ago:

... complete and utter nonsense or were just simply not true...


I also warned him that if he kept trying to pass off already proved discredited policies via his Blog, Twitter page and Facebook that I would report him for spreading false information.

I repeat, I provided him with links, Youtube videos and all the information including the policies which had thus far been revealed and received a couple of dramatic messages in response.


Response 1 in which Mr Sivier refused to admit they were abandoned policies regardless of my providing him with straightforward evidence that they policies had been abandoned.

Apparently as you can see from this picture they are not abandoned even if the party leader says the Manifesto is "drivel" and abandons it.
Until UKIP replace it with something else, they are apparently "not past policies".

Also apparently posting articles saying that past discredited and abandoned polices are "current UKIP policies" is not misleading.

He then ends the message by threatening to have me "slung of (think he means "off") Facebook for threatening behaviour."

Personally I would say threatening to have me chucked off Facebook for warning him that I would report him if he kept lying about UKIP policies is "threatening behaviour"...

Over a week since he supposedly reported me to both Facebook and Twitter I am still on there...




I then reiterated that as long as he knowingly stated policies that had been removed by UKIP he would be lying...

If in 2010 I said "I like chocolate", and then in 2014 it was discovered I was allergic to chocolate and I said "I no longer like Chocolate", because I hadn't found anything to distract my sweet tooth, it doesn't necessarily mean I still like chocolate...


As I said, I sent him numerous links to articles and videos of the UKIP leader, reps and members saying that the policies he had references were not UKIP policies but he went on to state he was "VERY sure of my ground".

In the previous message he had mentioned he would report me to Facebook/Twitter for "threatening behaviour, yet suddenly he is saying that he had not said I was physically or verbally threatening him? So what was he reporting me for??

As I said, I would report him if he continued making such lies, that I have done, it is now up to the relevant personnel as to whether they take action.

If a person knowingly lies about something important, he/she should be reported for such lies if he/she is publishing such data in an attempt to damage the credibility of a party, company, organisation or person. It is a form of defamation of character.


I guess his comment that "I will not tolerate such threats" was given as he was about to publish a link that could harm me, my friends and my family.

What this person has done has as I have said put me, my friends and family at risk.

I have also been getting friend requests from strangers, and adverts bombarding my Twitter and Facebook pages. So now I know why.




This somewhat creepy obsession took on a whole other angle however when the individual published an article solely about me...

The New Article

Over the last 24 hours (25/07/2014) I was made aware of a new article completely devoted to me.

I read it and was immediately confronted with the fact that Mr Sivier (as I have previously said) had posted a direct link to my profile, which has my picture, location, family pictures and links to friends and family.


For this I shall be asking advice externally of course.

"It isn’t VP policy to name names usually, but this gentleman’s tone was so aggressive that he deserves to be identified. On his own FB page he describes himself as ‘Belligerent Ruler of the Planet Earth’."

UKIP members frequently get told that they should develop a sense of humour. Imagine my surprise then that Mr Sivier doesn't know a joke from the Hit TV Series Futurama by Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons:




"Firstly "tone was aggressive"? Really? So aggressive that neither Twitter or Facebook have taken action against me.

I haven't been aggressive in the slightest. I pointed out he was lying, as proven above, and he took it upon himself to start threatening to report me to Facebook and Twitter?
"You are encouraged to visit if you want to enjoy more of his pearls of wisdom" - So yeah... Encouraging people to troll me and harass me...


He quotes me saying: “Mental. Thankyou very much to the lefty anti-UKIP article someone posted the other week listing me in the top 8 ‘worst UKIP tweeters’ my Twitter following gave me a much needed boost from fellow Kippers!”

I thought a rather well measured sarcastic joke personally. Which is rather funny when you consider he has accused me of being aggressive? I guess he must have meant elsewhere??

"His communication with me was as follows (in fact the first is much the same as a comment he posted to the blog itself): “The UKIP picture you have published as an article was created by a Green Party member/supporter before the European and Council Elections. “It’s so outdated it’s cringeworthy.


Mr Sivier's response: "Let’s just pause for a moment and look at the caption under the image, which states that "Most of the links on this now-infamous meme have been taken down by UKIP members, anxious to hide the embarrassing facts they revealed. The vote in favour of marital rape is not so easily removed as it is recorded on the European Parliament’s official website.” It explains perfectly adequately that matters have moved on since the image was created."

For the record. I was wrong in saying that a Green Party member had created the picture, in fact the links posted on the picture had been done so by the Green Party member.
The picture itself had been created by Hope Not Hate and 'Extreme and dangerous' false anti-fascist fascist group.

As I have explained from the above. Some of the links were outdated policies removed by the party after the "forgotten websites" had been discovered. Hence their removal.

You see they are not UKIP policies so they were taken down.

His confirming as much in his own words backs up the fact that he is lying about policies he knows UKIP do not have anymore.

As for "the vote for marital rape", I have explained this as well, and posted a video featuring senior UKIP MEP Canidate Suzanne Evans, in which she says she would not represent a party that had extreme views that attacked the human rights of women.

To claim that a political party would knowingly attack the rights of women is utter madness.
UKIP were never going to be outvoted on a matter of human rights, they just wanted to oppose a further transfer of legislation that didn't need to be transferred from the British Human Rights Laws to the European Court of Human Rights.
They have since changed this policy and as I have said are now voting in acts of legislation that will serve to better rights in the European Union.

"Back to Mr Evans, who asks: “Are you just recycling out info to damage UKIP or are you genuinely just that out of date?!
Neither. I was using it as a direct example of the way UKIP behaves."
No... Actually you were re-posting a out of date accusation of current UKIP policies. I shall say it again... OUTDATED POLICIES.

Nowhere in his numerous articles, tweets and Facebook posts does he mention that these are redundant policies. He talks about them as current policies and as you can see refuses to accept that he is deceiving the electorate.
Mr Sivier then goes on to post messages I sent him saying the following:

“The picture makes use of 2010 manifesto policies which have long since been abandoned.
“UKIP’s 2015 General Election manifesto doesn’t come out until September. Same goes for the other parties if you hadn’t realised. So how on Earth can you be critical about any parties policies for an election when they haven’t even been released yet?!
“In fact the only certain policies released by UKIP aren’t mentioned anywhere in your article or that picture so are you intentionally trying to be misleading?!”
He goes on to say: "You will know, Dear Reader, that this ground has been covered very thoroughly already – here, for example, and also here and here."

The first link quoting the opinions of a few UKIP members from their websites and the outdated websites I have mentioned above.

It again references the outdated yellow picture.
The second link rather strangely referencing the first link published less than 24 hours earlier, claiming "facts" which as has been proven above are lies, "The image claims to be publicising UKIP policies, and seven out of the 10 policies claimed for the party have been verified, as demonstrated in the VParticle." - Erm well no, not actually. How many times do I need to post conclusive proof before this individual recognises he is just reconstituting outdated information?

What would it take? Sending a UKIP rep onto the Daily Politics for 2 hours reading off past policies concurrently saying "nope, not valid anymore"?
"Vox Political has been doing a little digging into the others.
The claim that 'UKIP wants to cancel all planned house-building on Green Belt land' appears to have been based on the party’s 2010 general election and 2013 local election manifestos, which are no longer available to the public."
They 2010 General Election manifesto as has been said until I have gone red in the face above, as well as Nigel Farage has said has been abandoned.

The 2013 local election manifesto also referenced the 2010 one. As can be seen above in the Nigel Farage LBC video he said that it was decided late in 2013 to completely scrap the 2010 manifesto and write a new one from scratch. (will be released in the 2014 Doncaster Conference in September).
Sivier: "Party members have stated many times, recently, that Nigel Farage has rubbished the 2010 document and its contents are not to be taken as UKIP policy. The party’s attitude to its manifesto from last year is less clear."
Right? So I publish a video above, and send this very same video to Mr Sivier of UKIP leader saying it has been scrapped, and he is still uncertain??
Mr Sivier makes a reference: "The relevant line, as quoted in this Property Newshound blog, is: “by controlling immigration, large areas of British countryside will not need to be destroyed by house building.” The rest of the article is well worth reading too."
"UKIP’s South Buckinghamshire website discusses plans to build on the Green Belt, with a reply to a summary document by the Conservative Party:
“Conservatives say: ‘So we need to find places to build more homes…’ (page 2)
“UKIP reply: Not on green belt land!”
The strange thing is that preventing development of Green Belt land should not be a controversial issue, yet I have just – as I have been writing this blog – received a comment from a UKIP supporter stating: “Every bullet point [on the meme] is a fiction, written by a Green Party activist.”
Where does that leave UKIP policy? Does the party now want to build on Green Belt land, because the Green Party (apparently) opposes it?"

UKIP are against building on the Green Belt. It's a UKIP policy. This much is obvious from current actions by UKIP at Council Level:



Sivier: "Personally, I’m against that. My former home in Bristol was on the edge of the city, next to Green Belt land which became threatened by the South Western regional assembly (whatever it was called). Residents had a terrible time fighting off the proposed development, which seemed to be motivated solely by a desire to build a new road to Bristol Airport, enabling faster journeys from it to the city and back."
"Building on the Green Belt – of any kind other than what is absolutely necessary for agricultural purposes - should be banned, in the opinion of this writer. It is land that has been set aside in the national interest, and proposals to develop it should be seen for what they are – money-grubbing by disinterested corporates who live in mansions on estates that will never be disturbed by such environmentally-damaging raids."
Again... UKIP are against building on the Green Belt so this whole section is not worth discussing.
Sivier goes on to say "The claim that UKIP wants to cancel bank regulations “to make banks safer” was a commitment on the party’s policy website, according to this article in The Yorker (which is simply the first I found in a Google search). The Yorker is a student-run media site, based at the University of York, which claims no political affiliations at all."

Really? This would be the "Independent Yorker" that has been routinely attacking UKIP for a long long time would it? The Independent Yorker that you have been referencing in multiple anti-UKIP articles...
Yeah they really do come across as Independent?
UKIP win a National Election, and increase their council election seats number and still they don't have a single positive thing to say about UKIP.

But hey... Independent... As Independent as the BBC I am sure... http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84760

Sivier: "It states: “According to their policy website UKIP… wants [to] further de-regulate the city… Indeed their primary reasons for leaving the EU relate to the need to cut such rights and regulations in the name of The City and big business.”
"This would appear to be corroborated by Nigel Farage himself, who wrote in anIndependent article in January this year: “And let’s look closer to home for where the fault lies with the banking crisis. I know it might still be trendy to “bash the bankers” but this crash was entirely predictable. It was Gordon Brown handing over regulation of the banking industry from the Bank of England who, since 1694 has done a pretty good job, and handed it over to the tick-box bureaucrats in Canary Wharf.”
"It seems the case for UKIP wanting bank deregulation is also proven."

There is a difference between "deregulation" and "repatriation" as I highlighted with the human rights laws above.
You seem to have again confused the two?
Sivier: "Unlike the Green Belt issue, bank deregulation would be a huge mistake for the UK. Farage is wrong in his claim that Gordon Brown was at fault for re-introducing regulation to the banking sector; it is the fact that he didn’t introduce enough regulation that let us down."
...and here comes the true agenda... All out defence for the Labour Party regardless of known amateur mistakes by Gordon Brown and before him Tony Blair...

Sivier: "The banks all told him that they were perfectly capable of policing themselves, and he took them at face value. Meanwhile the Conservatives, who have been blaming Labour for being too loose with regulation ever since they got back into office, despite doing nothing about the issue themselves, were calling for even less regulation at the time of the banking crash."
Has anyone noticed how it's rapidly gone from an 'attack UKIP article' to an 'attack Conservatives article', but hey, surely it isn't a left wing agenda? Surely?! It's not that he is attacking anything he deems to be a threat to his left-wing agenda I am sure!
Sivier: "The UK requires more banking regulation, not less. Less regulation would encourage further abuses of the banking system and would inevitably lead to another disaster. This time the consequences could be appalling, for millions of low-paid British citizens. Farage does not clarify why he wants to court this."
He (Farage) worked in the commodities and stock-broking sector for goodness sakes, I think he has a better idea of what is needed in the City of London and in banking in general.

If you increase legislative charges, banks will pack up and move abroad.
The second reference from the above, references one mans opinion. Much like Paul Nuttall's comments RE: "introducing a whiff of privatisation to the NHS", that doesn't make UKIP policy, and as I have proved above UKIP will NOT privatise the NHS and will NOT charge patients at the point of treatment.
As for the third reference, once again quoting one individual, one man's opinion does not make party policy.

Libertarianism encourages people to give their opinion. As I have said it doesn't make party policy.
Unlike other parties we don't hold people to a party whip, we like freedom of expression and ideas.
Sometimes the opinion given doesn't match up with party position. But it's normally good to view people's opinions.

I wish people would stop intentionally mistaking people's opinion for party policy.
Mr Sivier: "So Yr Obdt Srvt was very sure of his ground when he responded: “I checked the accuracy of the information contained in the meme and was able to substantiate everything except the claim about cutting education funding to build aircraft carriers."
...and the Green Belt...
Isn't it funny that he accused me of being arrogant above and yet Mr Sivier refers to himself as "Yr Obdt Srvt" Ie: Your Obedient Servant...
Mr Sivier: “Just because this information has since been taken down (to eliminate embarrassment for the party?) that does not make it any less valid."
They are redundant policies?
What part of this simple concept does Mr Sivier refuse to understand?! Deary me!
Sivier: “Don’t waste my time with the argument about the manifesto."
“And don’t waste my time with suggestions that I am trying to be misleading. It is UKIP that has tried to mislead the public, and it is UKIP that is desperately trying to cover up its policy indiscretions.”
UKIP have said over and over and over again that the 2010 Manifesto has been scrapped, and that a new manifesto is coming out in the 2014 Doncaster conference in September.

For someone who claims to be so learned about politics Mr Sivier really doesn't seem to know what most people also know.

They they even had a call-in on LBC radio the other week talking to Farage about what the new policies will be:

Sivier: "Alas – as noted in my article earlier today, Kippers don’t like to let the facts get in their way. Mr Evans got back to me with the following:
“‘eliminate embarrassment’
“Eliminate what embarrassment?
“You are referring to past policies as current policies in your article.”
Sivier: No. He inferred that, but the line “Policies put forward by UKIP or by high-level members of UKIP include…”, although a quotation from a previous article, is as accurate now as it was when it was first typed, a couple of months ago. UKIP, or high-level members, did put forward those policies. There is no reference in today’s article to whether they are from the past or still active.

Eugh!!!
There are only so many times a person can repeat the same simple point before it gets silly. But hey I do try, so I shall try again!

UKIP'S 2010 MANIFESTO HAS BEEN SCRAPPED, UNLESS UKIP CONFIRM A POLICY AS BEING IN THE 2015 GENERAL ELECTION MANIFESTO IE: AUSTRALIAN TYPE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, NO PRIVATISATION OF NHS OR CHARGING PATIENTS AT POINT OF ENTRY, NO DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEN BELT AND NO TAX FOR THOSE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE, POLICIES CLAIMED TO BE POLICIES BY NON-UKIP RELATED PEOPLE ARE NOT UKIP POLICIES.

THE 2010 MANIFESTO HAS BEEN SCRAPPED!
What I explained to him: “Understand this…
“2010 manifesto – 4 years ago for the 2010 General Election
“2015 manifesto – Released in September this year for 2015 General Election.”
What Mr Sivier replied in his article:"None of the references in the meme – or those that were discovered when VPwas researching its allegations – are from this 2010 manifesto, though. Some are from the 2013 manifesto, and some are from the party’s own policy page (now deleted, although the likelihood of eliminating embarrassment is muted by the fact that UKIP cannot say it was left there for so long by mistake and still expect to be taken seriously)."
As I have explained they are not UKIP policy! As Farage has said, they are not UKIP policy, and as Suzanne Evans has explained they are not UKIP policy!
What I said to Mr Sivier in conversation: “UKIP have only divulged a handful of policies non of which are detailed on the picture you referenced.”
His response: "Perhaps they weren’t relevant to the points being made."
Yes. God forbid he should actually disclose something current?!
What I said to him in conversation: “What you have referenced has been discussed to death on Twitter and Facebook and even the Green Party chap who created it has admitted it is outdated information.”
As I have said above. Green Party members have admitted to me that what they had been saying about UKIP policies was apparently out of date... Granted as I said the original picture wasn't done by a Green Member, only the links...
Sivier: "We’ll get back to Mr Abberton momentarily."
What I said: “Nigel Farage party leader said 5 MONTHS AGO that the 2010 manifesto is outdated, unwanted and will not be used again policies wise for the next General Election.
“Lord Pearson of Rannoch was the party leader at the time of the 2010 election, he compiled and produced the manifesto.”
Sivier's response: "Irrelevant, for reasons mentioned above."
Yes I am sure the input of a party leader about party policies is "irrelevant" to Mr Sivier when talking about current party policies.
Sivier: "Now we get to the grit:"
What I said: “Your comment about ‘embarrassing the party’ is more an ‘embarrassment’ to yourself. You are referencing outdated information as if it is current policies and information. So what you are in fact doing as you have been informed to this fact by myself is lying to your readers…
“Is this what you are? A person intentionally lying to mislead the electorate? If so please tell me…
“You say that UKIP are misleading the electorate. Feel free to tell me how?
“UKIP have said on numerous occasions, varying members and reps that the 2010 manifesto is defunct and not worth the paper it is written on. It no-longer represents UKIP.
“Yet you are posting it as current information which is misleading.
“You are the liar. You have been informed and if you continue to mislead people with discredited and past policies I will make people fully aware of your willingness to do so and your willingness to mislead people for your political agenda.
“You have been warned.”
Sivier: "Oh, really?"
Yes really. Multiple UKIP members, reps and people from other parties have confirmed the 2010 manifesto as abandoned by UKIP. Yet you keep publishing articles trying to connect past policies, made up policies of rep comments as current policies.

You are truly one of the most dishonest people I have seen write about a political party on the Internet.

You should work for the UAF or Hope Not Hate...
Sivier: "Let’s go back to Michael Abberton, the “Green Party chap” mentioned a few paragraphs ago.
He and his meme first came to attention when it was revealed that the police had been sent to visit him after UKIP complained about an entry in his own blog, The Axe of Reason. He said he knew the image had been on Twitter for a while so he had set about seeing if its claims could be verified."
"In his blog discussing the police visit, far from admitting he was quoting outdated policies, he states: “All I had done is promote the party policy using links to their own sources – no editorialising, no commenting. And in fairness highlighted those allegations I could find no evidence for.”
Firstly, I disagreed with the Police attending the mans address at the time.
I mean it's not like he had posted a link to a persons details on a website is it?

What the UKIP Councillor did reporting him to the police in my opinion was wrong.
As for his posting links to the article. I have answered the links above and have in the past answered his links with links of my own and conversation with the individual concerned on Twitter.
Sivier "Take a look at the date on the blog – May this year."
As I said, same outdated data that was abandoned in January!
Sivier: "Mr Abberton continued: “About fifteen minutes after they left I received a threatening tweet from a party member I had had an exchange with earlier in the day. Though appearing to be no more than a party supporter, he seemed to know that the police had been involved. I copied the tweet and sent it to the police.”
That's nice? No name published? Just a claim of abuse? No police follow up?
I'm convinced.

For the record I blocked Mr Abberton from my Twitter several months ago after he himself got abusive about my denying the UKIP policies that he had linked.

I was also the one who informed 2 of the affiliates that they had outdated links on their websites. Hence why they were taken down.
Sivier: "So we have evidence that Kippers are willing to cause a nuisance with the police in order to silence critics who have divulged information that UKIP would rather keep quiet, and we have a Kipper who has denounced Yr Obdt Srvt as a liar (despite the evidence to the contrary) and who has “warned” that he will act against VP if the blog continues in its function, which is to provide accurate information, no matter what he asserts."
No what you have is an example of one fed up UKIP Councillor reporting something tedious to the police.
Information divulged that is out of date and no longer current policy.
Yes I have called Mr Sivier a liar, because as I have proven above, he knowingly disclosed inaccurate information via his blog!
Sivier: "That is why he got this response: “They are not discredited policies. They are not past policies until they are replaced with something else."
“It is UKIP that is trying to mislead – the party’s attempts to shut down its critics are a clear example of this."
“Don’t think for a moment that you can threaten me. I’m fully aware that UKIP and its adherents like to throw their weight around and I am not impressed at all."
“Now you’d better get off my page before I have you slung out of Facebook for threatening behaviour.”
Which is why I responded with this... 
Sivier: "There will be no tolerance of any UKIP member or representative who wants to threaten this blog, Mr Evans."
That's fine... I shall just make sure people allover Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites know's a) that you knowingly lie in your articles and b) know to recognise your articles as firmly being in the "fiction" section.

Oh dear, I do hope I wasn't giving you the impression that I was being aggressive!

Update (26/07/2014): I have attempted to post this article in the comments section of Mike Sivier's 'Vox Political' article as a response to what he said.
He has however not passed it through moderation.
So what he has actually done is write an article about me, posting a link to my private information and not afforded me a right to reply to the accusations and things he said about me.

No comments:

Post a Comment