You say it doesn't matter to you if it is him or not ..but still quite happy to re publish it on here and add to the remainer smear campaigns. You could just as easily have linked to a multitude of twitter accounts if you were solely interested in illustrating the divide of opinion about him .
So what to happened to freedom of speech then? The other day you were posting articles singing the praise of Claire Fox the Brexit Party candidate. She defends the rights of people like Gary Glitter to view child po rnog raphy on line, as well as Jihadi videos, not to mention supporting IRA bombers.
If I posted a picture online of a criminal , for example and suggested ( without verification) that it was you . What would you think about my freedom of speech rights then ?
What on earth are you going on about?
It's a simple question , answer it ! Do you need me to ask it using smaller words ?
Go ahead then I am happy with that, although I don't really understand the relevance of what it might prove, other than just being a distraction to any debate.
Just to be clear freedom of speech does not cover making false claims, and if you did this I would have legal recourse. If this occurred I would prefer the services of EssexPhil, rather than a socialist, or you.
You were the one who questioned what happened to freedom of speech in relation to my post to tikay about the unverified pic , supposedly of Nigel . Double standards ...obv. Your dislike of Farage is blinkering your rationale .
You say it doesn't matter to you if it is him or not ..but still quite happy to re publish it on here and add to the remainer smear campaigns. You could just as easily have linked to a multitude of twitter accounts if you were solely interested in illustrating the divide of opinion about him .
So what to happened to freedom of speech then? The other day you were posting articles singing the praise of Claire Fox the Brexit Party candidate. She defends the rights of people like Gary Glitter to view child po rnog raphy on line, as well as Jihadi videos, not to mention supporting IRA bombers.
If I posted a picture online of a criminal , for example and suggested ( without verification) that it was you . What would you think about my freedom of speech rights then ?
What on earth are you going on about?
It's a simple question , answer it ! Do you need me to ask it using smaller words ?
Go ahead then I am happy with that, although I don't really understand the relevance of what it might prove, other than just being a distraction to any debate.
Just to be clear freedom of speech does not cover making false claims, and if you did this I would have legal recourse. If this occurred I would prefer the services of EssexPhil, rather than a socialist, or you.
You were the one who questioned what happened to freedom of speech in relation to my post to tikay about the unverified pic , supposedly of Nigel . Double standards ...obv. Your dislike of Farage is blinkering your rationale .
It is of no surprise to me why you are a Nigel fan.
Firstly, the fact that you either didn't read, or didn't understand Tikays post is evidenced by your response.
Secondly you compare this post to publishing a photo of someone, saying it was someone else, and accusing them of being a criminal. There is nothing in common between Tikays post, and your interpretation. If you write articles wrongly accusing people of committing criminal offences, they would be libellous and not be protected by freedom of speech.
Thirdly, Tikay doesn't make any accusations in his post, (unlike your interpretation) in fact he clearly states that nobody knows whether it is Nigel or not.
NOBODY knows the answer.
Fourthly, If it is Nigel in the photo, he wouldn't be guilty of any crime, to my knowledge.
Fifthly, however much I dislike Nigel, I am unsure of whether it is him, in the photo. I am therefore not blinkered by my dislike of him.
Sixthly, Tikay clearly states that whether or not it is Nigel is not the point of the post.
It does not matter a hoot to me whether it's him or not, that's not the point at all.
I think it much fairer to say that you are extremely blinkered by your support of him.
Then you have the audacity to criticise someone for being a solicitor.
You have lost it.
Lastly, you have completely proved Tikays point about partisan responses.
You say it doesn't matter to you if it is him or not ..but still quite happy to re publish it on here and add to the remainer smear campaigns. You could just as easily have linked to a multitude of twitter accounts if you were solely interested in illustrating the divide of opinion about him .
So what to happened to freedom of speech then? The other day you were posting articles singing the praise of Claire Fox the Brexit Party candidate. She defends the rights of people like Gary Glitter to view child po rnog raphy on line, as well as Jihadi videos, not to mention supporting IRA bombers.
If I posted a picture online of a criminal , for example and suggested ( without verification) that it was you . What would you think about my freedom of speech rights then ?
What on earth are you going on about?
It's a simple question , answer it ! Do you need me to ask it using smaller words ?
Go ahead then I am happy with that, although I don't really understand the relevance of what it might prove, other than just being a distraction to any debate.
Just to be clear freedom of speech does not cover making false claims, and if you did this I would have legal recourse. If this occurred I would prefer the services of EssexPhil, rather than a socialist, or you.
You were the one who questioned what happened to freedom of speech in relation to my post to tikay about the unverified pic , supposedly of Nigel . Double standards ...obv. Your dislike of Farage is blinkering your rationale .
It is of no surprise to me why you are a Nigel fan.
Firstly, the fact that you either didn't read, or didn't understand Tikays post is evidenced by your response.
Secondly you compare this post to publishing a photo of someone, saying it was someone else, and accusing them of being a criminal. There is nothing in common between Tikays post, and your interpretation. If you write articles wrongly accusing people of committing criminal offences, they would be libellous and not be protected by freedom of speech.
Thirdly, Tikay doesn't make any accusations in his post, (unlike your interpretation) in fact he clearly states that nobody knows whether it is Nigel or not.
NOBODY knows the answer.
Fourthly, If it is Nigel in the photo, he wouldn't be guilty of any crime, to my knowledge.
Fifthly, however much I dislike Nigel, I am unsure of whether it is him, in the photo. I am therefore not blinkered by my dislike of him.
Sixthly, Tikay clearly states that whether or not it is Nigel is not the point of the post.
It does not matter a hoot to me whether it's him or not, that's not the point at all.
I think it much fairer to say that you are extremely blinkered by your support of him.
Then you have the audacity to criticise someone for being a solicitor.
You have lost it.
Lastly, you have completely proved Tikays point about partisan responses.
Evidence you have lost the plot ...whilst taking everything literally ( NO SURPRISE THERE ) And what the **** would you know about partisan ? ....nothing you ever post can be described as such ...complete tool !
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
You say it doesn't matter to you if it is him or not ..but still quite happy to re publish it on here and add to the remainer smear campaigns. You could just as easily have linked to a multitude of twitter accounts if you were solely interested in illustrating the divide of opinion about him .
So what to happened to freedom of speech then? The other day you were posting articles singing the praise of Claire Fox the Brexit Party candidate. She defends the rights of people like Gary Glitter to view child po rnog raphy on line, as well as Jihadi videos, not to mention supporting IRA bombers.
If I posted a picture online of a criminal , for example and suggested ( without verification) that it was you . What would you think about my freedom of speech rights then ?
What on earth are you going on about?
It's a simple question , answer it ! Do you need me to ask it using smaller words ?
Go ahead then I am happy with that, although I don't really understand the relevance of what it might prove, other than just being a distraction to any debate.
Just to be clear freedom of speech does not cover making false claims, and if you did this I would have legal recourse. If this occurred I would prefer the services of EssexPhil, rather than a socialist, or you.
You were the one who questioned what happened to freedom of speech in relation to my post to tikay about the unverified pic , supposedly of Nigel . Double standards ...obv. Your dislike of Farage is blinkering your rationale .
It is of no surprise to me why you are a Nigel fan.
Firstly, the fact that you either didn't read, or didn't understand Tikays post is evidenced by your response.
Secondly you compare this post to publishing a photo of someone, saying it was someone else, and accusing them of being a criminal. There is nothing in common between Tikays post, and your interpretation. If you write articles wrongly accusing people of committing criminal offences, they would be libellous and not be protected by freedom of speech.
Thirdly, Tikay doesn't make any accusations in his post, (unlike your interpretation) in fact he clearly states that nobody knows whether it is Nigel or not.
NOBODY knows the answer.
Fourthly, If it is Nigel in the photo, he wouldn't be guilty of any crime, to my knowledge.
Fifthly, however much I dislike Nigel, I am unsure of whether it is him, in the photo. I am therefore not blinkered by my dislike of him.
Sixthly, Tikay clearly states that whether or not it is Nigel is not the point of the post.
It does not matter a hoot to me whether it's him or not, that's not the point at all.
I think it much fairer to say that you are extremely blinkered by your support of him.
Then you have the audacity to criticise someone for being a solicitor.
You have lost it.
Lastly, you have completely proved Tikays point about partisan responses.
Evidence you have lost the plot ...whilst taking everything literally ( NO SURPRISE THERE ) And what the **** would you know about partisan ? ....nothing you ever post can be described as such ...complete tool !
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
I think your most insightful posts are the Brexit Party rally details.
Maybe you should just stick to them.
You seem to find others posts much more difficult, without resorting to silly arguments, and insulting all and sundry.
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
I am quite happy for others to decide where the truth lies, and who the idiot is.
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
I think your most insightful posts are the Brexit Party rally details.
Maybe you should just stick to them.
You seem to find others posts much more difficult, without resorting to silly arguments, and insulting all and sundry.
I am tired of your silly nonsense.
I'm tired of your never ending posts of ridiculous childish pics as well ...you have proved the level you are at , many times . But carry on , and i will be quite prepared to pull you up at every opportunity .
Careful puppy you're dealing with a Lion .......... remember.
He isn't even a cub . Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession . It's official Haysie is an idiot ! And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
I think your most insightful posts are the Brexit Party rally details.
Maybe you should just stick to them.
You seem to find others posts much more difficult, without resorting to silly arguments, and insulting all and sundry.
I am tired of your silly nonsense.
I'm tired of your never ending posts of ridiculous childish pics as well ...you have proved the level you are at , many times . But carry on , and i will be quite prepared to pull you up at every opportunity .
Keep posting them, they are your most interesting posts, if you are daft enough to be a Nigel fan, that is.
Share Tweet Send Email By Patrick Worrall 17 May 2019 A lot of people are claiming that Nigel Farage was involved in the notorious far-right National Front party as a teenager.
There is no evidence that this is true and the suggestion that Mr Farage was photographed alongside a National Front leader in 1979 is almost certainly untrue.
Thousands of people have shared Twitter posts of this photograph.
The shot dates from 1979 and forms part of the archive of the respected picture agency Getty Images. There is no reason to think it has been doctored or captioned wrongly by Getty.
It shows a man called Martin Webster leaving Kingston Crown Court in October 1979.
The caption from Getty states that Mr Webster, in the suit and tie, had just been given a six-month suspended sentence for publishing material likely to incite racial hatred.
At the time, Mr Webster was a leading figure in the National Front, an anti-immigration party widely condemned as white supremacist and fascist.
Some people are now suggesting that the boy wearing the cap on Webster’s right is a young Nigel Farage. The current leader of the Brexit Party would have been 15 at the time the snap was taken.
When contacted by FactCheck, an aide to Mr Farage strenuously denied it was him in the photo – and all the evidence we have seen suggests that it is not him.
The face To our eyes, the youngster in the photo bears no more than a passing resemblance to Nigel Farage.
If you look at pictures of the Brexit Party leader as a teenager – like the one on the right here showing him as an 18-year-old member of the Combined Cadet Force – we would suggest that the difference in the facial features is clear.
But these things are in the eye of the beholder, and certainly there are many people who believe the boy walking on Martin Webster’s right could be Mr Farage.
What does Martin Webster say? Mr Webster, now in his 70s, told FactCheck: “To the best of my knowledge, Nigel Farage was never a member of the National Front. I do not believe that the lad shown in the photograph standing beside me is Nigel Farage.”
While Mr Webster could not positively identify the young man, he states that he was 5ft 11.5 inches tall at the time the photo was taken, and that the youngster was significantly shorter than him.
Would Mr Farage – now 5ft 8 inches tall – have been this short at the age of 15-and-a-half?
The clothes look wrong, too. In October 1979, Mr Farage was a pupil at the south London private school Dulwich College.
Mr Webster tells an interesting anecdote about some Dulwich schoolboys visiting the National Front’s headquarters and bookshop at Pawson’s Road, Croydon, at around this time.
He notes: “Though they wore casual dress, their clothing… was smart ‘designer’ stuff; their hair was well-cut and short — all as you would expect of lads from wealthy families attending a posh public school.
“I would have noticed if they wore scruffy boots of the type worn by the lad in the picture.”
He adds: “I think that if Nigel Farage had associated himself as a young man with the NF in the 1970s, he would have got to know a few people in the party.
“Put another way: a few people in the party would have got to know him. In view of his high profile in politics since he helped found Ukip, it is likely that his former NF associates would have gossiped about his previous involvement with the NF…
“No such gossip about Farage has ever surfaced.”
It must be acknowledged that Mr Webster is a man with a long involvement in far-right politics and has never recanted his extreme political views.
But people on the opposite end of the political spectrum also say no evidence has emerged linking Mr Farage to far-right groups as a youngster.
FactCheck spoke to Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine that kept careful tabs on the activities of the National Front at the height of the party’s popularity in the 1970s.
A senior representative of the magazine told us that rumours of Mr Farage’s involvement in far-right circles have never stood up to scrutiny.
In 2013, Channel 4 News ran a story based on a letter written by one of Mr Farage’s teachers at Dulwich College warning of his “racist” and “neo-fascist” views as a schoolboy.
Other teachers at the school defended Mr Farage’s behaviour, saying he enjoyed goading left-wing teachers and was guilty of nothing worse than “naughtiness”.
None of the accusations in this, or similar media stories focusing on Mr Farage’s alleged behaviour as a schoolboy, have made the accusation that he was an active member of a far-right group or party like the National Front.
Mr Farage responded to the 2013 Channel 4 News story by saying that he had been a “troublemaker” who “wound people up” by expressing controversial views.
But he added: “Any accusation I was ever involved in far-right politics is utterly untrue.”
So who is the boy in the photo? We have not been able to identify the young man in the photograph.
Our fellow fact-checkers at Snopes.com have nominated Richard Verrall, former deputy chairman of the National Front, as a likely candidate, based on facial similarity.
But Mr Verrall – pictured here alongside Martin Webster in 1980 – was around 31 when the first photo was taken, not a slightly-built youngster.
Mr Webster told FactCheck that the boy was definitely not Mr Verrall, a close colleague of his at the time.
Comments
Double standards ...obv.
Your dislike of Farage is blinkering your rationale .
It is of no surprise to me why you are a Nigel fan.
Firstly, the fact that you either didn't read, or didn't understand Tikays post is evidenced by your response.
Secondly you compare this post to publishing a photo of someone, saying it was someone else, and accusing them of being a criminal. There is nothing in common between Tikays post, and your interpretation. If you write articles wrongly accusing people of committing criminal offences, they would be libellous and not be protected by freedom of speech.
Thirdly, Tikay doesn't make any accusations in his post, (unlike your interpretation) in fact he clearly states that nobody knows whether it is Nigel or not.
NOBODY knows the answer.
Fourthly, If it is Nigel in the photo, he wouldn't be guilty of any crime, to my knowledge.
Fifthly, however much I dislike Nigel, I am unsure of whether it is him, in the photo. I am therefore not blinkered by my dislike of him.
Sixthly, Tikay clearly states that whether or not it is Nigel is not the point of the post.
It does not matter a hoot to me whether it's him or not, that's not the point at all.
I think it much fairer to say that you are extremely blinkered by your support of him.
Then you have the audacity to criticise someone for being a solicitor.
You have lost it.
Lastly, you have completely proved Tikays point about partisan responses.
And what the **** would you know about partisan ? ....nothing you ever post can be described as such ...complete tool !
Absolutely unbelievable that the forum "arguer " should wish to question freedom of speech , whilst also saying that shouldn't include false claims , but decides to ignore that principle when applying to his obsession .
It's official Haysie is an idiot !
And absolutely no apologies for speaking the truth
I think your most insightful posts are the Brexit Party rally details.
Maybe you should just stick to them.
You seem to find others posts much more difficult, without resorting to silly arguments, and insulting all and sundry.
I am tired of your silly nonsense.
But carry on , and i will be quite prepared to pull you up at every opportunity .
Tweet
Send
Email
By Patrick Worrall
17 May 2019
A lot of people are claiming that Nigel Farage was involved in the notorious far-right National Front party as a teenager.
There is no evidence that this is true and the suggestion that Mr Farage was photographed alongside a National Front leader in 1979 is almost certainly untrue.
Thousands of people have shared Twitter posts of this photograph.
The shot dates from 1979 and forms part of the archive of the respected picture agency Getty Images. There is no reason to think it has been doctored or captioned wrongly by Getty.
It shows a man called Martin Webster leaving Kingston Crown Court in October 1979.
The caption from Getty states that Mr Webster, in the suit and tie, had just been given a six-month suspended sentence for publishing material likely to incite racial hatred.
At the time, Mr Webster was a leading figure in the National Front, an anti-immigration party widely condemned as white supremacist and fascist.
Some people are now suggesting that the boy wearing the cap on Webster’s right is a young Nigel Farage. The current leader of the Brexit Party would have been 15 at the time the snap was taken.
When contacted by FactCheck, an aide to Mr Farage strenuously denied it was him in the photo – and all the evidence we have seen suggests that it is not him.
The face
To our eyes, the youngster in the photo bears no more than a passing resemblance to Nigel Farage.
If you look at pictures of the Brexit Party leader as a teenager – like the one on the right here showing him as an 18-year-old member of the Combined Cadet Force – we would suggest that the difference in the facial features is clear.
But these things are in the eye of the beholder, and certainly there are many people who believe the boy walking on Martin Webster’s right could be Mr Farage.
What does Martin Webster say?
Mr Webster, now in his 70s, told FactCheck: “To the best of my knowledge, Nigel Farage was never a member of the National Front. I do not believe that the lad shown in the photograph standing beside me is Nigel Farage.”
While Mr Webster could not positively identify the young man, he states that he was 5ft 11.5 inches tall at the time the photo was taken, and that the youngster was significantly shorter than him.
Would Mr Farage – now 5ft 8 inches tall – have been this short at the age of 15-and-a-half?
The clothes look wrong, too. In October 1979, Mr Farage was a pupil at the south London private school Dulwich College.
Mr Webster tells an interesting anecdote about some Dulwich schoolboys visiting the National Front’s headquarters and bookshop at Pawson’s Road, Croydon, at around this time.
He notes: “Though they wore casual dress, their clothing… was smart ‘designer’ stuff; their hair was well-cut and short — all as you would expect of lads from wealthy families attending a posh public school.
“I would have noticed if they wore scruffy boots of the type worn by the lad in the picture.”
He adds: “I think that if Nigel Farage had associated himself as a young man with the NF in the 1970s, he would have got to know a few people in the party.
“Put another way: a few people in the party would have got to know him. In view of his high profile in politics since he helped found Ukip, it is likely that his former NF associates would have gossiped about his previous involvement with the NF…
“No such gossip about Farage has ever surfaced.”
It must be acknowledged that Mr Webster is a man with a long involvement in far-right politics and has never recanted his extreme political views.
But people on the opposite end of the political spectrum also say no evidence has emerged linking Mr Farage to far-right groups as a youngster.
FactCheck spoke to Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine that kept careful tabs on the activities of the National Front at the height of the party’s popularity in the 1970s.
A senior representative of the magazine told us that rumours of Mr Farage’s involvement in far-right circles have never stood up to scrutiny.
In 2013, Channel 4 News ran a story based on a letter written by one of Mr Farage’s teachers at Dulwich College warning of his “racist” and “neo-fascist” views as a schoolboy.
Other teachers at the school defended Mr Farage’s behaviour, saying he enjoyed goading left-wing teachers and was guilty of nothing worse than “naughtiness”.
None of the accusations in this, or similar media stories focusing on Mr Farage’s alleged behaviour as a schoolboy, have made the accusation that he was an active member of a far-right group or party like the National Front.
Mr Farage responded to the 2013 Channel 4 News story by saying that he had been a “troublemaker” who “wound people up” by expressing controversial views.
But he added: “Any accusation I was ever involved in far-right politics is utterly untrue.”
So who is the boy in the photo?
We have not been able to identify the young man in the photograph.
Our fellow fact-checkers at Snopes.com have nominated Richard Verrall, former deputy chairman of the National Front, as a likely candidate, based on facial similarity.
But Mr Verrall – pictured here alongside Martin Webster in 1980 – was around 31 when the first photo was taken, not a slightly-built youngster.
Mr Webster told FactCheck that the boy was definitely not Mr Verrall, a close colleague of his at the time.
Share
Tweet
Send
Email