TUV candidate’s website faces closure over ‘hate speech’

David Vance, defeated TUV candidate in East Belfast, faces having his long running blog, A Tangled Web, closed by his host over numerous instances of ‘hate speech’ in violation of Terms of Service.

To Mr. David Vance,

We have received several complaints regarding hate speech on your website. Per our terms, “Content with the sole purpose of causing harm or inciting hate, or content that could be reasonably considered as slanderous or libelous.” is not permitted.

ATW complies and removes hate speech

Comments closed pending review from Mick, anything moved to ‘pending’ doesn’t indicate a judgement on the entry just caution while waiting for the boss man’s view.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated. 

123 thoughts on “TUV candidate’s website faces closure over ‘hate speech’”

  1. smcgiff,

    I’m not a regular reader but I’m a free speech advocate.

    However, I know the site doesn’t run a free speech policy in the comments so I’m chuckling as some contributors and bloggers demand that right in the comments after the announcement.

    I’d guess Vance won’t take anything down, the blog will disappear, then resurface later the same day on a new platform. And the individual/group that decided to read, get annoyed and complain instead of not bothering will try to hound him/them off the new site.

  2. There are some commentators on that website who make me ashamed associate myself with the term ‘Unionist’. It should be abundantly clear who I am referring to.

  3. Vance is an intelligent, articulate individual and an occasional v.good read, but like Peter I stopped reading (and linking into ATW) a while ago due to the views expressed by some of the other commentators on the site.

    The universal truth of blogging still remains though:
    If the views expressed on a site really piss you off, then the biggest protest you can make is to stop reading it. Censorship, in this case, will only achieve in making martyrs.

  4. Yep, I think I’d agree with this. I’m not convinced that hate speech in itself warrants censorship if its not shown to manifest an incitement to an action. I have no right not to be offended by someone and that someone’s idiocy is fairly plain for all to see. I’m not sure he has it in himself to persuade too many.

    However, this is deliciously entertaining 🙂

  5. Nationalists/Republicans shouldnt get too concerned at “martyrs”.
    The “censorship” will lead to a slight rise in TUV fortunes and only make the members of the Belmont Bowling Club and Garden Centre unionists more apathetic.

    Its a win win for Nationalists/Republicans.

  6. I have no major problem with David’s posts (even though a lot of them show a dislike for a lot of things) but the likes of Andrew McCann and Grizzly are just hateful with what they post. The Phantom is a fairly balanced poster even if they show a fair bias towards Unionism and right-wing politics. And I have to say that I too count ATW as a guilty pleasure.

  7. haven’t visited that blog personally in over a year.
    oneill states D.V. is “is an intelligent, articulate individual”.

    That may be so, but nearly anytime I’ve seen him making any comments over here it was usually some ad hominem remark or a weak attempt at trolling…

  8. Martyrs?
    I was thinking middle aged white men droning on about darkies myself.

    Squarespace is a 10quid a month web host that doesn’t want to be associated with the blatant racism that ATW spews out, if it’s readers give a shit about ‘freedom of speech’ (ha), they could always chip in some cash and get the site hosted elsewhere, or maybe buy Mr Vance a leased line.

  9. “The Phantom is a fairly balanced poster even if they show a fair bias towards Unionism and right-wing politics.”

    lol not sure about Phantom having a bias towards Unionism, if I recall Andrew hated the guys guts :), while he was regarded as a ‘leftie’ by most of the other US contributors/commentators on ATW.

  10. Good grief, whilst I agree and don’t really object to Senor Vance getting to subtly leak mild vitriol all over the interwebs, a quick bored browse through ATW’s past content reminds one just how repulsive Adolf McCann’s writings can be…

  11. Andrew hates everyone’s guts. And Phantom does have a decent bias towards Unionism (at least in my opinion) although he is more open-minded. And most of the other US contributors on ATW are further right than the Fuehrer himself lol.

  12. Whoever made this complaint, and I doubt it is any regular reader or commenter, is undoubedly a coward, and may well have been persauded to make the complaint on behalf of a cabal of malcontents, and probably has more to do with NI politics than the actual subject of the complaints. Too many ex-Sluggers have been barred, not to have made enemies of the more feeble minded among them.

    Ernst Young commentator on ATW

  13. Censorship doesn’t come into it. It’s a simple case of a user of a service not abiding by the terms and conditions that he signed up to and, hence, a contractual dispute. He’ll just have to find a more care-free host…

  14. David has posted that he’s going to rectify the ‘hate’ posts and continue to be hosted on Squarespace. It seems like the right thing to do.

  15. You mean the cheap thing to do.
    If he thought they were hate posts, he should have removed them before, if he thinks they are valid opinions, he should stand up for his rights and take his custom to a hosting company that lets him and his bloggers say what they like.
    Not for £10 a month mind you 🙂

  16. Blog updated to reflect David Vance has agreed to deal with all posts defined as ‘hate speech’

  17. I never comment here because of the censorship and am no friend of Dave’s but he does allow much broader freedom of speach then some other sites

    As for wee andie ignore him, he is not worth the effort of response

  18. If you don’t like ATW – don’t read it, simple. Free speech is the best tool for getting people to let everyone know what they really think. When you limit free speech, you limit the capacity to debate and expose.
    On a different note, I think ‘trojan horse de jour’ (in this evening’s ATW missive) should rank up there with GUBU in the local politic lexicon, but DV just doesn’t get the credit…

  19. With accepting the complaint and editing posts highlighted – it seems ATW/David Vance have agreed bloggers/contributors were engaging in ‘hate spech’

  20. Yov’ve;

    “never comment here because of the censorship”

    Can I point out how that is just pure BS. Real proper crap.

  21. Ohhh quit with the free speech thing.
    It’s simple business, a hosting compant doesn’t want to host racist guff.
    If he’s too cheap to shell out more than a tenner a month so that his bloggers can say what they want and instead prefers to censor them, then it’s purely economics on both sides.

  22. Like most right wing nutters barring people comes more natrurally than having yer akshal disskushion.

  23. Michael – to be honest I couldn’t care less what the content of ATW is – but I’d rather know what is being said than having it forced somewhere underground. If some of the opinions are exposed as ‘hate speech’ yet some of those involved fail to see why, even better – the whole episode is very enlightening (in a way that suppression or censorship wouldn’t be).
    Personally, I think the platform should insist that any offending text is kept online in a stupidly coloured comedy font with a picture of a muppet (with the author’s head superimposed) beside it. Maybe even script in a quick mailto: so you can complain to the clown directly and clog his/her inbox. (Obviously, fans of the muppets may find that offensive in some cases).

  24. It was good for a laugh at the end of the night when you’ve had a few jars reading some of the comments, just made you think, not a bit of wonder this place erupted as it did with clients such as the like that posted on ATW but at the end of the day free speech means free speech.

  25. O yes he will just have to shop around for a host with fewer standards, that’s the joys of the so called ‘free’ market after all.
    You are such a cynic Alias, never laying your heartfelt opinion on the line, just quoting the stoopid rools.

  26. It is not, if your views significantly diverge from micks then the cards start flying and posts disapear

  27. “I’d rather know what is being said than having it forced somewhere underground.”

    Grab a hackney cab in Yorkshire. Or as a joke, convince a bunch of white english middle aged men you work with, a ‘london council’ is banning xmas decorations for fear of offending muslims and there you go.
    Not underground at all 🙂

  28. I like ATW and I think it’s a shame to se it under threat. It has some fantastic contributors and commentators. There are as many leftists as rightists there and I have never known David Vance to act unfairly towards any viewpoint. He seems to genuinely enjoy debate.

  29. I never bothered with it much. It was always exactly as anyone could have expected. Dont agree with it being banned though, thats a slippery slope.

  30. In fairness to the people of East Belfast if you mention that he as a candidate for election there you should give a bit more detail on the votes he got and that the people there actually elected a decent human being to represent them and not a member of the TUViban.

    Vance should have used the defence that as a TUVie he is going to attract the right wing nutters so its not his fault

  31. He accepted his host’s particular interpretation of the term as he is obliged to do as a condition of his contract and as it host is entitled to interpret it. It doesn’t mean that his speech is hateful or that he regards it as hateful outside of that contractual arrangement. I suspect that 48 hours doesn’t give him enough time to save his database and register a domain name, find a new host, etc, so it buts him some extra time. But next time I’d advise him to read the terms and conditions more carefully as some hosts won’t risk any content that causes offence, particularly when it is directed as Islam and those who’ll threaten to cut your throat if you make such comment or host it.

  32. Ah now ! Did not certain parties give a spirited defense of recent Israeli action? Seemed very heartfelt to me !

  33. “Seemed very heartfelt to me !”

    And it indeed it was, my little shinner toady.

    There was also a ‘heartfelt’ defence of Mr Vance as recently as 7 May 2010:

    “So you’d have voted for David Vance in East Belfast as well ?” – Greenflag

    I sure would. He was by far the best candidate in that constituency. As a rule, I only vote for independents (supporting the abolition of political parties), but Vance is very much his own man.

    I’m all heart, really.

  34. “……… but at the end of the day free speech means free speech……… ” Agreed !

    There are several blogs I read on a weekly basis including some US Right Wing ones that puts David’s ATW average contribution in the running for ‘ wimp of the year’ ! I read them, not to be offended, I know what to expect, but to keep up to date with a certain trend of thought.

    I know that most of this is a political joke, but the problem with this dismissive attitude is political jokes do sometimes get elected!

    From my trips across the water I would say that quite a lot of what David Vance has to say speaks for a ‘Middle England’ too polite and politically correct to say these things in such stark blunt English.

    Some wears back a man Yorkshire comrade that had been a life long communist and who had spend years on the party exectuive retired to Ireland. A trade union organizer, he signed up all seventeen hundred Mill Workers only to be told by his superior that the last thing they needed was more F****** Pakis’ The seventeen -hundred applications were literally dumped !

    He went back to the workers and to his surprise was taken to meet management who negotiated with him on behalf of the workers in house organization, he had to do a crash course on Islamic principles to do so and this suddenly opened his eyes to the fact that there was a parallel system operating, catering for over fifty thousand people in that city alone, encompassing welfare, child-minding, food supplies etc that had nothing to do with Western systems or existing public structures.

    He also found out that most Asian Labour Councillors were operating a dual mandate; Westernized in front of officialdom but operating according to Islamic customs behind the scenes. He could see the writing on the wall for the England he knew even then twenty years ago. He retired to Ireland and died some years after.

    I have seen little in Davids posts that I did not hear from the left in conversations that I was privileged to be part of when this man was visited by old comrades in the six months prior to his death. Ignoring these things are not going to make them go away, they are part of life, of attitudes and should be discussed.

    A new and acceptable consensus about society and its values cannot begin it political correctness prevents this debate taking place because of artificial constraints.

    Once again I find myself defending David Vance, not his views but his right of free speech to say the things that he has to say. As these things go he is not particularly abusive or intolerant; he is merly saying openly what many are prepared to say behind closed doors and among friends.

    Publicly operating within the constraints of political correctness is not going to change this situation. Informed debate however just may change some attitudes.

  35. “Publicly operating within the constraints of political correctness is not going to change this situation.”

    It doesn’t matter if nations within the EU support the right to free speech or not. That preference only mattered when sovereignty over such policies resided with the states of those respective nations. That is no longer the case. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether you or anyone else on this forum express an opinion is support of free speech or against it. Your opinion is of no consequence since even if you persuaded the entire the nation to defend free speech you would find that the entire nation has already given away its sovereignty in that matter and consequently can no longer determine the policy in accordance with its will. Sovereignty resides with the EU, and not with the people. The people are impotent to effect change, but are deliberately kept in ignorance of their political impotence by their masters in the EU and so they continue to talk as though their opinion of such matters was of any consequence.

    In the case of Squarespace, its ToS only prohibit activity that the law prohibits:

    ■Content of a pornographic, sexually explicit, or violent nature.
    ■Content of an illegal nature (including stolen copyrighted material).
    ■Pirated software sites, including cracking programs or cracking program archives.
    ■Content with the sole purpose of causing harm or inciting hate, or content that could be reasonably considered as slanderous or libelous.

  36. The web hosting service will be terrified of UK libel law and hate speech laws. Any legal costs would quickly wipe out the revenues from hosting blogs.

    An opening for lazy sneaking cowards who lost the argument long ago.

    Hopefully David’s complainants are not those.

  37. Well – I am honoured to receive Mark McGregor’s attention. I had no idea we kept such exalted company.

    Just a little update for all ATW’s many fans here on Slugger.

    1. I do not accept that any comments on ATW were “hate speech”. Clear?
    2. I have removed certain comments to conform to a polite request from the hosting company. I will ensure that no such request will ever come to my door again.
    3. This was an organised attempt to close ATW down. I have a fair idea where it came from and it was not the UK/Ireland/USA. It was not the work of one or two disgruntled individuals.Perhaps those who now mindlessly gloat over the pressure this has put on ATW might reflect on what happens when someone disagrees with their point of view?
    4. I publish all comments that come my way on ATW – unless they are exceptionally abusive (or “normal” for some here on Slugger) I do believe in freedom of opinion and am glad some here recognise this.

    Finally, I love being described as “TUV candidate” in the header. I was unaware that I have been selected to be a candidate but bow to Mark’s insight. Formidable stuff.

    I quoted Orwell as regards the issue of free speech on my recent post on ATW and consider that the big issue here. If we can’t say what we believe because someone, somewhere, disagrees, then what sort of freeedom have we left?

    ATW has been around almost as long as Slugger and I aim to make sure it will be around for many years to come – if only to annoy the hell out of some of Slugger’s fine IRA- loving appeasement-embracing Israeli-hating commentariat…oops, is that hate speech> 😉

  38. As a member of that “fine IRA- loving appeasement-embracing Israeli-hating commentariat” I note Vance’s assurances that A Tangled Web is not to completely disappear, as is I believe also the case with pubic lice infestatation. Happily there is an effecacious ointment remedy available for the latter.

  39. So you were not the “David Vance” who stood as a TUV candidate in East Belfast in the recent General Election and received 1,856 votes?

  40. “Perhaps those who now mindlessly gloat over the pressure this has put on ATW might reflect on what happens when someone disagrees with their point of view?”

    To me the most unfair part of it is that you do not know who your accusers are. I think your guess that they are not in the UK/Ireland/USA is a bit naive.

    Are you going to stick with your hosting company?

  41. Willis,

    I am afraid that you are confused. Vance certainly knows who his accusers are. They are the web hosting company who have quite openly accused him of a violation of the terms of service under which he agreed to operate.

    Vance clearly agrees that he has been in breach by agreeing to remove those comments that were deemed inappropriate and further it appears that he is sufficiently chastened to “ensure that no such request will ever come to my door again” which we can take to mean that he will no longer accept the type of abusive, racist comments that constituted the violation of the agreement.

    The future would seem bleak for A Tangled Web if it no longer finds itself a welcome home for the type of rightist shock-jock race-hate spew-fest that has been such a hallmark of its commentary section to date.

    I can’t say that I am over-bothered.

  42. David Vance,

    though not agreeing with you views I have to say I do occasionally visit your site and do enjoy your writing. It is refreshing to hear people telling it as they see it – as long of course, as it is not sectarian racial etc.

    On the political level, I think that anti-agreement commentators, such as yourself, generally have the impact of lessening support for pro-agreement Unionist parties but not to the extent of destabilsing the poitical arrangments. This is good for Nationalism as it undermines Unionist morale and reinforces the view held by most Nationalists and the British government that Unionism is unhealthy ideology which requires tempering by both the arrangments in Stormo and involvment from Dublin.

    Carry on the good work.

  43. David

    Good to know that you got sorted out. Could you please explicitly say where you consider the pressure on your web hosting site came from ?

  44. David,

    You are welcome.

    …but I would welcome a reply to te second part of my post. I am suggesting that our old friend the law of unintended consequences (LOUC) is at play which in this instance favours the good guys(that would be the Nationalists in my balanced world view) as anti-agreement Unionists help to make mainsream Unionists job much harder e.g. when Allister gives Deputy Dodsy or Robbo a pasting on telly as he is want to do or when the TUV splits the vote – which hopefully they will continue to do in the Assembly elections.

    Just to let you into a secret, the best way to damage SF is for Unionism to be united (though not necesarliy in one party) and to defend the current line in the sand in the battle with Nationlaism otherwise you will probably find yourself still able to shout no surrender but doing so whilst walking backwards.

    Any faIr assessment of Unioinst politics over the last 40 years show that LOUC has operated that way to Nationalism’s benefit.

    You might think it unfair and immoral and hypocritical but it just sounds like Mr Cappello claiming his very poor vand outclassed team were robbed. You are better off, like Fabio preparing instead for the next battle.

  45. In fairness, Sammy, David Vance is only expressing a view that the Irish government and Irish political parties have consistently expressed: that the Shinners are not fit for government. FG and FF have made it clear on many occassions that they would not touch the outcasts with a thousand foot barge pole. Admittedly, it is qualified as they are fit for ‘government’ in that part of the UK but not fit for government in Ireland.

  46. Rory

    Are you trying to insinuate that DV is a blowhard fantasist? There is no huddle of Al Quaeda or Taliban computer nerds gathered round a laptop saying “Leave off the IUDs for five minutes, let’s take down ATW .” As Claude Rains would say “I’m shocked”

  47. Alias,

    That is a fair point, but as I just indicated above fairness has feck all to do with politics and the Freestatery at play which allows FG (not now FF on the ‘security’ issue) to say good enough for you but not for me is always likely to raise a chuckle.

  48. Chuckle away, chuckie, but you’ll have to do it on the opposition benches. It’s a case of the sty being good enough for pigs but not for humans. Hypocrisy for sure, but that politics…

  49. I think you might have a bit of local unappines there with your porcine reference.

  50. Itwassammyetc

    There is another law at play here and it is this ; a political creed which betrays its principles and sells out to its enemies will not endure, Those of us opposed to the grossly offensive mandatory power sharing with killers and other assorted barbarians feel obliged to point out these pesky details. If the electorate choose otherwise, their call. But truth is not measured by how many agree with it…

  51. “But truth is not measured by how many agree with it…”
    A noble sentiment that all Alliance voters will agree with.

  52. “If the electorate chooses otherwise, their call”

    David Vance

    DV, did your leader not go on TV on election night and conmdemn (very strongly mind) the unionist electorate for rejecting your party?

    Hardly a “their call” attitude is it?

  53. David,

    “a political creed which betrays its principles and sells out to its enemies will not endure”

    That has been true for the UUP under O’Neill, Faulkener and Trimble – but what happened in the last election was that the DUP vote held up – though Robbo fell for seperate reasons – and the TUV vote collapsed. There has to be an alternative arrangment which is plausible and when you have a supposedly Unionist Tory PM telling you that the GFA is the only game in town then that law changes to

    “a political creed which betrays its principles and sells out to its enemies should not endure”.

    The simple facts are that the British have opted to follow the Natilonalist view of the world, that the insurgents were politically inspired and deserve to run the ‘country’ as long as they dont kill anybody.

    Your only hope of ‘progress’ is an horrendous outbreak of violence in the marching season or by the dissers or by the state forces which results in a collpase of Stormo.

    Undermining Unionist attempts at compromise is undermining the Union – and if I am really honest I’m delighted that my jabbering on at you will have absolutely no effect.

  54. “a political creed which betrays its principles and sells out to its enemies will not endure”

    Oh dear! I do hope that nice Mr Huhn of the LibDems doesn’t get to read this, it might give him a fit of the vapours.

    But I fear that David Vance may be having an identity crisis for can the David Vance who told his doting followers on A Tangled Webat 11.542PM on June 29 that, “I will not be whipped by anyone” possibly be the same David Vance who on June 30 at 9.52AM. told a more critical audience on Slugger O’Toole that, “I have removed certain comments to conform to a polite request from the hosting company. I will ensure that no such request will ever come to my door again.” ?

    Then there were those who also trumpeted that the British Empire and later the Third Reich would each endure for “a thousand years”. I suppose it gets habit-forming after a while.

  55. I have my suspicions about who might have complained about ATW.

    If I remember correctly the actual title of the Nazi Party, was the National Socialist Party, and that bunch of murdering sadists burned the books!

    Free speech should be cherished and guarded from all who seek to abolish it.

  56. ” I will ensure that no such request will ever come to my door again.” ?”

    I think that statement could be open to more than one interpretation Rory.

  57. Is it not strange that someone who proports to be a fan of free speech calls any opponents of the Israeli goverment anti semites (when no one actually was being so)?

  58. Absolutely and it is under more threat now than it has been for many years. I’m happy to let the deranged on all sides have their say because anyone with the power to shut them up will have the power to shut us up too.

  59. andnowwhat

    I did not agree, or even like what some said about the Israeli government actions re the flotilla, but I do believe everyone had the right to say it, no matter how disagreeable and even wrong!

    Just look at the new blasphemy law in the south: unbelievable…

  60. Did he ban you from espressing that opinion?

    Nope and that’s the crucial point here surely?

    I don’t read ATW (and the majority of Slugger Comments) because a lot of what’s expressed is the same level of intellectual debate that you get down the pub round about closing time. But as long as what’s expressed there doesn’t threaten my or anyone else’s security, then it’s not my business. I register my protest against a site by simply nott reading it.

  61. The EU doesn’t need to silence those who will silence themselves if so instructed by the state. After all, that compliant majority surrendered their right to free speech to the EU without as much as a murmur. Nations within the EU are operating under the deliberate delusion that it is still within their sovereign power to determine how the right to free speech should be qualified, when the reality is that they have no sovereignty over it whatsoever. It is farcial and more than a little tragic to see otherwise intelligent folks think that their opinion about free speech, and their redundant declarations of support for it, is of any consequence. It isn’t. You have no right as a nation to determine these matters since you have already surrendered that right to a supranational agency, and duly forfeited your right to determine your rights. Europeans are unmitigated idiots.

  62. oneill

    If your comment is addressed to me, as far as I know Im not banned from any site or where, and I completely agree with you.

  63. Me?
    What opinion would that be?

    I don’t post there, and I certainly don’t buy the free speech angle. He hasn’t had his views supressed by the stasi, he simply broke the ToS of a commercial agreement. Squarespace don’t care for the sort of bad publicity that can come of this, so he got a telling off.

    They didn’t come round to his house, beat him up and tell him to keep his mouth shut. He’s perfectly free to take his custom elsewhere to numerous web providers that could care less what he and his bloggers post about darkies and gippos and whatever.

    The only comparison here is that of the lodger smoking in a non smoking room. Less dramatic than the poor middle class white man being censored by evil forces hell bent on dominating the west, but truer.

  64. You are of course correct O’Neill in thinking that that Vance’s statement to the effect that ” I [he] will ensure that no such request will ever come to my [his] door again.” bears more than one interpretation. I expect that the statement was carefully framed in such a way for such a purpose.

    I however have taken it to mean that henceforward he will ensure that such comments on A Tangled Web that might breach his agreement with his web hosting site not to publish “Content with the sole purpose of causing harm or inciting hate, or content that could be reasonably considered as slanderous or libelous.” will no longer be accepted.

    If this is correct, as I assume it to be, (and I assume this on the basis of the first part of his statement which reads:” I have removed certain comments to conform to a polite request from the hosting company.”) that then it is a big climbdown for Vance from his bomabastic and defiant message to his camp followers that “I [he] will not be whipped by anyone.”

    Not whipped possibly, but agreeing to a good spanking certainly.

    Wouldn’t you agree ?

  65. No, I think it means he’ll be moving shortly onto another web hosting site holding a more libertarian approach to both posting and commenting.

    And life will continue on pretty much as it did before, I guess.

  66. Complete rubbish, Sean, and it’s self evident – every contribution on ATW has to be “approved” – and many of them aren’t. Try making any kind of objective criticism of Vance or any of his ridiculous views.

  67. David,

    Nothing can be posted on ATW unless you approve it first. You can’t accuse other people of being Orwellian under those circumstances.

    I have a fair idea where it came from and it was not the UK/Ireland/USA.

    Yeah, I bet it was those dirty towelheads.

  68. While I disagree with about 90% of the views expressed on ATW, I am glad that it is continuing. There are always interesting posts to read (whether or not one agrees with them). I must confess that, as a big fan of Elvis Costello, the musical content is frequently to my liking.

    Personally, I think that the worst thing by far about ATW is McCann – at best his articles are boring – either about his his family activities (who cares?) and/or an incredibly detailed history of some remote part of the North of England – gripping stuff!

    His inconsistency on “loyalist” terrorism and his rants about Nationalists/Republicans are just laughable. I often show them to my British friends (as I live abroad) and they always get a laugh.

    Their only worry is that anyone who has never been to Britain might think that he is typical of English people – thankfully he’s far from that!

    He writes as if he’s an expert in Law, history and economics although, as far as I’m aware, his degree is in politics and he has no formal legal, historical or economic qualifications.

    He seems to think that he’s of some importance although his attempts at a political career ended in humiliating failure and he is left with blogging, writing letters to the papers ( he once boasted that he was on first name terms with the letters editor of the Belfast Telegpraph – what an influential guy!) and joining radio phone-ins – i.e. things that anyone else can equally participate in.

    Anyway, ATW has had a result! Not only are they continuing but McCann has gone off in a sulk and is limiting his contributions to musical ones.

    Every cloud has a silver lining.

  69. “Their only worry is that anyone who has never been to Britain might think that he is typical of English people – thankfully he’s far from that!”

    Very true, all right-thinking English people think that gangsters, ex-members of sectarian murder gangs, and assorted moral degenerates make ideal public representatives and hence they duly elect them to public office, so Mr McCann clearly holds a minority opinion and should be duly ignored.

    I’m just kidding actually… it’s only a self-serving unprincipled minority in a region of the UK who have been brainwashed into thinking that such a shameful exercise of the democratic franchise is anything other than profoundly abnormal, amoral, and generally despicable.

  70. Alias

    Can’t you do any better than that?

    As I’m sure you are aware, I was referring to the fact that he has little or nothing to say about “loyalist” terrorists but plenty of vitriol for Republicans.

    To David Vance’s credit, he is always 100% against all terrorists as am I.

    I was fortunate enough to live in London for many years and I have many English friends of various political opinions. They, however, are able to express them without using such terms as “P*ki” or soap dodger.

    I can certainly say that, in my experience, most English people (even those witrh right wing views) wouldn’t want non-English people to think that McCann is typical or representative of them.

    However, perhaps you too look at the situation through Orange coloured spectacles where there are no “loyalist” terrorists and there was never any sectarian discrimination against Catholics. If so, I guess you’ll miss his posts.

    Like I said, in my experience, the vast majority of English people are more intelligent, better informed and more open-minded than that.

  71. Im an Irish Nationalist and i run a Webhosting Company
    and would Remove someone if they Post hate Speech
    just because i run it for a Partner company which my users also have to follow their terms and conditions, but id Block the TUV in a Second if they signed up to my website because i hate what they stand for not unionist but Racism id Block any political party which insited Hatred or Racism wouldint care if they where Nationalism, Unionism or Commonist, Liberal or Socialist.good on the webhost for putting the TUV Out about time the Racist Disbanded there not wanted in the 6 Counties..

    Dont much like the DUP either but at least there coming into the Fold and Working with us Catholics in the Assembly,
    and Peter Robinson has calmed down and stopped trying to be Fussy bad we cant get Jeffrey Donnoldson do the Same maybe some day he will stop going on about the past and just sit down and shut up and get on with his Duties same with a Few Others in the DUP, same with the SDLP Also dont much like that Witch Margret Richie.

  72. I have to say, i think it’s hilarious for David Vance to be crying about freedom of speech only 3 weeks after banning me from his site for a comment I made here on Slugger regarding his propagation of religious hatred.

  73. I don’t run a webhosting company but would suggest anyone running any company should invest in a spellchecker.

  74. The Phantom is a fairly balanced poster even if they show a fair bias towards Unionism and right-wing politics.

    Phantom doesn’t show bias toward unionism. If anything he’s more sympathetic toward the nationalist viewpoint. Maybe Irish-American, although i’m not sure. He does have a tendency toward childish rebuttals when his viewpoint has been rubbished, particularly with regard to issues concerning the middle east. Aside from that he’s a standup commenter/contributor. Unlike Adolf McCann.

  75. Thanks for that link, Maggie.

    Vance’s latest bravura stand “inevitably draws me to reminisce …” of Horatius on the bridge over the River Tiber holding back the Tuscan hordes or even those brave 300 Spartans defending the pass at Thermopylae against the countless thousands of the Persian armies, or yet again of all those nights when, drunk on cider, I talk shite and then threw up.

    What an absolute tit!

    Thank God we have people on here like Michael above who brings a breath of fresh air into the whole nonsense while others like Mark McGregor (who should know better) and Pippakin (who… well , who is just Pippakin) spout all this wishy-washy liberal guff about defending Vance’s right to free speech.

    I thought it’s only a matter of time before some cretin starts quoting that most over-rated and ridiculous quotation of Voltaire:

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    which, if anyone bothered to actually examine its content would soon realise is the biggest load of horseshit possibly ever written. Who in their right mind would put their own life at risk defending the right of a another party to incite a crowd to attack their home, rape their wife, enslave their children and do unspeakable things with their livestock?

    I can just imagine old Pips getting on her high horse defending the right of free speech for organisations like NAMBLA or P.I.E. which advocate the freedom of adult males to have full sexual relations with (usually male) adolescents.

    Like, SO NOT! Right, Pips? So hows all your fine words on free speech work there then?

    It is simple really – we should not tolerate the intolerable and we most certainly should not allow the freedom to organise and propagandise to those whose sole aims are to deny the very rights of free, civilised expression and indeed the freedom of movement, of legal protection, of liberty and indeed of life itself to others, based upon their colour, race, sexuality, or culture.

  76. I thought it’s only a matter of time before some cretin starts quoting that most over-rated and ridiculous quotation of Voltaire:

    Evelyn Beatrice Hall wants a word with you Rory.

  77. Thank you, Stones. That correction of my ignorance at least allows me to return to the enjoyment of the blessed Voltaire of Candide untainted by the blemish of that stupid, stupid maxim.

    All those idiots who are so fond of quoting it are of course exactly the kind of wankers who would run a mile before they would defend anyone under threat even someone with whom they passionately agreed, never mind a protagonist.

    Don’t get me started….

Comments are closed.