Twitter Twits

I love it, I absolutely love it. The full on prats who try to demonise the Tories at every turn couldn't contain themselves and incontinently wet themselves in public on Twitter. They knew a Tory, a senior Tory who was a paedophile and they wanted in on the social networking action to mention it. That was their reward, they mentioned it.

But (as ever) they didn't know anything. And the target of their bile this time was the totally innocent Lord McAlpine who is not taking it lying down. I'm sure they think he should just drop it, no harm done really, because they are lefties and that makes everything they do OK. Look at the extremely unpleasant Mrs. Bercow. She has declared that she didn't do anything libellous.

Problem is you loose-mouthed ignoramus  it isn't up to you. I wish that she could go to prison for a decent spell, to shut the obnoxious woman up. But failing that, Lord McAlpine could do us all a favour by suing her for the most money he can get. It would be so satisfying and clearly justice, if she was absolutely financially ruined by this. Her and that twerp she trails around to show she is more powerful than men, Speaker Bercow. Mind you, he would probably just claim it on expenses.

I like the settlement with the BBC too; £185,000. Of course, it is considerably less than they paid their failed DG when he 'resigned', above and beyond his entitlement, including pension contributions. ITV, who have decided to show they are at least as stupid as the 'national treasure', the BBC, have kept Schofield on air and have taken the 'appropriate' action regarding the outing of rumoured paedophiles on air. As Schofield still has a job, I'm guessing appropriate is not an appropriate word in this context. Sue the nuts off them too your Lordship.

And Monbiot! He has said of himself that his Tweets didn't reflect the rigour he usually applies to his output. Rigour? Presumably he doesn't understand the word. He spouts about Climate Change without any substance whatsoever, constantly. It is so bad he cannot possibly not know he is talking tripe. He is part of a deliberate propaganda campaign, based on ideology and activists.

The BBC let an outside organisation provide them with a package that was shoddy and unchecked beyond belief. Then the Guardian puts out a story (about anti-wind farm politicians and a blogger) that was entirely untrue and was written by Greenpeace.

Please understand, you may disagree with 'right' wing politics, and that is your right, but do realise that a lot of what you think has been conditioned by extreme and continuing leftist propaganda that is specifically designed to make you dislike the Tories and accept state control over your life.

Here is what I mean; on a recent TV debate about wind farms, James Delingpole explained why they were bad (including cost, destroying the countryside, killing birds and bats, requiring a fossil fuel power station to run all the time because you don't know when the wind will drop, and, as if it mattered, cause more CO2 output, plus enriching rich landowners and foreign energy companies) and Caroline Lucas said 'that's not true'.

That was it. It always is. When you don't have any substance you just decry the facts of your opponent. If you look at what passes for a debate on Climate Change you see those happy to talk science and encourage you to verify facts for yourself are not, ever, the alarmists. That is because like the stories mentioned above, the debate is fuelled, is written by activists like Greenpeace and they are supporting an ideology, not science.