Had enough of Facebook

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

Facebook have informed me this evening that I’m temporarily banned from posting for 12 hours because someone reported one of my comments as abusive.

Fuck Facebook use Google_The offending comment was in response to a question posed on the Politics UK page asking whether people on benefits who drink and smoke excessively should have their benefits cut.  It said:

Give them non-transferable food vouchers. I don’t go to work to pay for other peoples’ fags and booze.

Someone has taken exception to this comment and reported it. At first I was just annoyed at the fact my account could be suspended automatically just because some whining lefty clicked the report button.  Then I discovered that actually, all these abuse reports are vetted by a real person so it was actually a conscious decision by a whining lefty at Facebook instead and that’s pissed me off.

My comment was in context, it wasn’t rude, it wasn’t abusive, it wasn’t threatening and it wasn’t “hate speech”.  Facebook seemingly does absolutely nothing about the spammers and fraudsters that infest the site despite the fact they can be spotted a mile off when you see them in group membership requests.  I report every single one of the spammers that I find yet I often see requests from the fake friends of the fake profiles to the same group days later.

I’ve been on Facebook since the early days when it was first opened up to non academics but it’s lost most of its appeal these days.  This has prompted me to do what I’ve been planning to do for a while – lock down my account and cull my friends list, I’m going to stick to Twitter and Google+ from now on.


  1. Niall McEvoy (1 comments) says:

    Still using RSS. Zero censorship there.

  2. Paul Hughes (1 comments) says:

    I bet you mate, that it was an American who screened the comment, as basically it’s got to be the word fags which they objected to, and not what else was written.

  3. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    If Paul is right, and just because I hate political correctness which is psychological warfare, I would just like to say, fags, fags, fags,fags, fags, fags, fags. Most of the dumb lefties do not realise that promoting homosexuality has nothing to do with “equality”, its to do with population reduction, it’s not rocket science, men who have sex with men do not create children, women who have sex with women do not create children. If you understand the hidden agenda behind socialism, promoting homosexuality is a means of attack, just like encouraging women into work, this is not “equality” it is an attack upon the nation. The “Book of the Labour Party” 1925 stated that encouraging women into work will “do harm to themselves, their children and the race”. These lefties do not realy care about homosexuals, they have a
    hidden evil and twisted agenda of which homosexuals are their victims not their protection. Research the Frankfurt School and you will get some insight into the mind control lefties practice to get what they want. They are sick twisted social engineering control freaks, and thats on a good day.

  4. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    And why should people on “benefits” be given food vouchers? They are not a class apart, they are citizens like you, and most of them paid taxes before they became unemployed, and will do so again.

    It is not up to people like you to tell them how others should spend their money.

    • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

      Because I have no problem paying my taxes to feed and clothe people who are genuinely unable to work or can’t find work but I do have a problem paying my taxes to pay for other peoples’ fags and booze. Rent/mortgage should be paid directly, so should utility bills. Food and clothes should be paid for with non-transferable vouchers.

      • Simon M (30 comments) says:

        And what about other things, such as the cost of using a laundrette, travel, the costs of jobseeking (which the unemployed are legally obliged to do in return for benefits), etc etc. You may not like the idea of claimants spending money on “fags and booze”, but I’m afraid the complexities of life on benefits are a little different to the picture painted in the Daily Mail.

        As for the idea of “not liking” what people spend their money on, well how would you like it if your employer decided to tell you how you should spend your wages? Would you like to be paid in vouchers Mr “Sane”?

        • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

          Unemployed people here in Telford can get a bus pass off the council to get to a job interview if they have no other transport. Launderette and the like could be claimed back if they were necessary expenses. Benefits shouldn’t be providing an income, they should be paying bills and necessary expenses. It shouldn’t be possible to be comfortable living on unemployment benefits for any extended period of time. As an incentive to be productive whilst unemployed, people on benefits who do community service could get some cash instead of vouchers.

          As for the suggestion that my employer might tell me how to spend my wages – I’m spending my own money, not someone else’s so why would my employer have a right to tell me how I can spend it? If I was claiming unemployment benefits – and I did for a short while many years ago – then I would accept whatever conditions were put on it because it would be someone else’s money I was spending.

          • Simon M (30 comments) says:

            So that would be vouchers for food, vouchers for drink (non alcoholic obviously!), vouchers for clothes, a pre paid bus pass, and presumably reimbursements for the cost of having an appliance fixed (for example). Yet it’s interesting when you say “Launderette and the like could be claimed back if they were necessary expenses”, since how are people supposed to incur such an expense if they have no cash money in the first place? You see the problem here? That, and the cost of administering such a scheme means benefits in cash money are the best option. And that goes without saying what a nasty, small minded policy it is, to inflict upon people whose only crime is to be out of work the stigma of a set aside voucher system. Would there be separate queues in shops for the claimants, so taxpayers can critique their choice of tinned soups and beans?

            You speak of the money unemployed people get as if the jobless get to lie back all week and do nothing; you have no idea how many hoops the unemployed have to go through just to maintain their claim. The government demands that all JSA claimants spend a minimum of 16 hours per week looking for work, and that will soon be 35 hours, effectively making job hunting a full time job in itself. All of this jobhunting has to be paid for – would you propose vouchers for the cost of telephone/mobile calls too? Internet access? Stamps and envelopes. And all of these demands are made of people who have previously paid into the system, as I said before.

            One more thing, you said benefits for the unemployed shouldn’t “…be providing an income, they should be paying bills and necessary expenses”, well they do already, since the cost of weekly living expenses are what is factored into an award of JSA. No more, and not enough to fund the lavish lifestyles you obviously think the unemployed enjoy.

            One last thing. Having read your comments, here and on other threads on this blog I can only be thankful an English Parliament is almost certainly never going to happen, if having such a body means being governed by people with views such as yours.

  5. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    I will stick up for the wanko view fundamentaly. Granted it is difficult being out of work and making ends meet, but it can also be difficult in work and making ends meet. Yet why should one man work to suffer why another does not work to suffer. Only the elderly and infirm should get money for nothing, if you can phyisicaly do some kind of work, you should help out in some way for benefit payments. Your self respect should erge you do do so, how can you be happy for other peoples wages to pay for your survival, while you do nothing, just one to two days of work a week should be mandatory to qualify for necessary benefits. The genuine argument is of course that the system and the political idiots that run it want English people out of work and scrounging for a living. Benefits in cash or Voucher? I do not care, just want to make an effort to earn what ever you get. If you earn it, spend it how you like, if you are daft enough to smoke yourself to death, be my guest. Of course handing out vast benefits for nothing is the socialist policy, so people vote for it, money for nothing, wow, yes please. Also flooding the country with mass immigration is the socialist policy, so people are becoming less likely to get a job, ultimately they have voted to keep themselves unemployed, and the system is going to blow up massively unless socialism and crypto socialism is defeated. Their agenda as was declared by the Fabian Sydney Webb, is to “smash up society” and their final act will be a “civil war”. Sorry Simon M but an English Parliament is definately going to happen, it’s the law, both national and international. All nations have a right to self determination and self defence, international socialism is a criminal endeavour with an evil ulterior motive. They offer “Utopia” and wish to deliver Hell, why do you think the Fabian emblem is a wolf in sheeps clothes. If not an English parliament, then who are you going to look to for your survival? the socialist wolves who want you for a “useful idiot”, if you want to give them power, you deserve to be an unemployed scrounger, because this is what they want you to be, it empowers them to be your master in their ivory tower. As Webb said “he who robs Peter to give to Paul, can expect the suport of Paul”. “Equality”? some are more equal than others and some need “useful idiots” to help them subdue the others. Think of the paedophile handing out sweets, as the socialist handing out benefits. Why do they not want you to work? Why do they encourage foreign peoples to take national jobs? Have your eyes wide open and look for the bigger picture, or have your eyes wide shut, and wither away.

    • Simon M (30 comments) says:

      Errm, yes. Where to begin. So the argument is “those who receive benefits should work for them”, but that fundamentally undermines the principal of “paying into the system”, which I’m afraid IS how it works for the majority of claimants. Under your system you would expect people to pay into the system via taxation and national insurance while they worked, and then work for their benefits all over again whilst claiming them! I wonder how that would work for those who have worked and then found themselves redundant. It also needs to be pointed out what benefits pay for. Since we seem to be discussing the status of unemployment benefits, let me tell you what JSA is supposed to be for. The only thing JSA pays for, for someone like me, a single adult over age 25 is “your living expenses”, which are calculated by the government. When someone receives an award for JSA it clearly says “this is the amount of money the government says you need to live on”. That’s it. No “plasma telly allowance”, or anything like that. And that comes in at the princely sum of £71 per week, which has to cover everything – food, clothes, energy, phone, broadband (if applicable), and now even some Council Tax and rent (thanks to the bedroom tax).

      You say “flooding the country with mass immigration is the socialist policy”, but then how do you explain the fact many employers support the current immigration policy? Could it be because large amounts of immigration has the effect of suppressing wages, to the benefit of employers and the detriment of workers? Because that is what has been happening, and instead of directing your ire at the unemployed you should blame successive governments of both main parties. Also, I hear this argument how the Labour Party offers generous benefits to the poor to bribe them into voting Labour, but again the evidence doesn’t support this – in fact poorer people, both working and non working are less likely to vote, while pensioners are the people who are most likely to vote. And guess which people have seen their incomes protected by the current government – yes pensioners…

      You seem to blame the unemployed for the poor working conditions of those in work, which is ridiculous, since the unemployed do not set employment policy in this country, nor do they set wage levels. If you want to improve the lot of those who are poor and in work (as do I0, perhaps it would be better to increase the minimum wage and introduce more workplace protections? This would improve the conditions of those in work, and fulfil the government’s promise that they will “make work pay”

      • Stan (222 comments) says:

        Hi Simon,
        I’m with you on this.
        The food voucher idea has been put forward by various political parties every so often and is soon put to bed again

        First of all you have to look at exactly how much of the benefit budget goes on job seekers, which is only around 3% – yep, just 3% of the welfare budget goes to the unemployed, 21% goes to people in employment and 42% goes on pensions.
        The vast majority of this 3% are short to medium term unemployed – contrary to popular belief, our unemployed are not always the same people, as people find and lose jobs all the time, so the voucher system would only apply to a small minority.
        Then you’ve got to look at the vouchers themselves, they have to be designed and administered, (you don’t want any old bloke with a printer to be able to reel them off). You have to make sure that there are enough shops that will take them because supermarkets don’t tend to open in remote areas.
        In a nutshell, the cost of vouchers would far exceed the amount spent on “booze and fags”

        As for working for benefits, why not give people a decent wage and create a job?

  6. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    Simon M, Exactly I do blame Conservatives and Labour they are two cheeks of the same backside, together they have created a system which is a farse for those out of work. Our industry is destroyed by the hands of these people, do not think Labour are there for the working people, this is utterly false. But you have to understand when a man goes to work and works hard for what he gets, he has a right to keep what he has earned, his sweat and toil, his life has gone into his reward. What gives anyone the right to take away from him his reward for his work, unless that need is specifically for general community purpose and not individual benefit upon the back of another mans work. This was suposed to be the socialist message, but it is not the socialist reality. The unemployed of this country are being stabbed in the back by Labour, Conservative and business, this is an agenda, they are working towards ideological goals, and ultimately care about no one. I am not sticking up for the “filthy rich” as Blair was, but Mr average with an honest job who does an honest days work. I think we should have a maximum wage, I think plutocrats should be rooted out and punished, I believe in fairness, which includes keeping your honest rewards. Do not forget you only pay into the system when you earn a certain amount, every one has a tax free allowance. And what better “workplace protection” could there be than stopping the ridiculess mass immigration, which is against the publics assent yet is an ideological agenda of Laobour and Conservative through the EU. If a UK business wants to employ Polish citizens to put it bluntly they should pack up and piss off to Poland. Poles are not better workers but the establishment have brainwashed this country to think getting your hands dirty is some how beneath ones self, and there upon people would rather stay on benefits than get their hands dirty. Poles are not hear to do the jobs we dont want to do, they are here to do the jobs we have been brainwashed to think we dont want to do. Go and pick some turnips, go and pick some potatoes, go and get your hands dirty, you might even enjoy it, what sort of work is it that you are looking for?

    • Simon M (30 comments) says:

      Wouldn’t you define “general community purpose” as looking after one’s neighbour when they are out of work? You say a man is entitled to the sweat of his own brow, but what about the fact there are not enough jobs to go round? What about those who can’t get a job? Must they be punished? I agree volunteering is good for people who are out of work, but not when it is used for the benefit of companies who could and should be paying a wage to the people who work for them, and not when volunteering is forced, and backed up by benefit sanctions that have a crippling effect on people.

      I agree with you on the immigration front. Both New Labour and Tories have a lot to answer for on the subject of immigration, and the phenomenon of mass immigration hasn’t benefitted anyone, apart from the political and capitalist elites, the latter group especially benefitting greatly from the influx of labour from overseas. I don’t for one second think New Labour are socialists, they are one of several Neo Liberal parties in the UK, all of whom are acting against the interests of the English people, both unemployed and in work.

      • Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

        I think we both fundamentaly agree that the whole system is designed to destroy the aspirations of the English people who ever they be. The whole point of English brotherhood is to assist our fellow countrymen, and the whole point of political party is to devide and rule us. So we have to look at who is benefitting from that. The English nation is not in control of it’s own money supply, and so the power of corruption is with those who supply money, and their hidden agenda. If we fight among ourselves they always win. I am sickened that you want employment in your country and you are now a second class citizen here, because of the agenda of the money supply. I can tell by your frustration that you genuinely want to have an occupation, as opposed to others who will exploit being given money for nothing. And “socialism” only comes near to working if everyone is willing to pull their weight. Did you know that both “socialism” and “communism” were infact designed in America by capitalist corporations. And advanved in Europe by the Freemason Moses Levy Mordecai who changed his name to “Karl Marx”. Were you aware that the Queen has issued a warning that “there are forces at work of which we are not aware”. Did you know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer Dennis Healy stated “World events do not occure by accident,they are made to happen….most of them are staged managed by those who hold the purse strings”. There has begun a campaign to get our politicians to issue national treasury notes and not to allow Bank of England notes to be issued as a monopoly for corruption, alligned to politico-religious endeavours such as “Zionism”. You can join this at the UK Column web site. All England will have to stop fighting each other and realise unity is strength, otherwise we have a very dangerous enemy at large who will take advantage of our stupidity.

        • Simon M (30 comments) says:

          The hell you on about?

          My posts here have been to refute the bonkers notion that people in receipt of social security payments should be given tokens/vouchers rather than cash. The political system stinks in this country, I agree, but it all exists to serve the interests of the rich, many of whom want to see the unemployed further marginalised and abused (as does our benighted Wonko and other frustrated taxpayers, against whose interests our political system is actively working against).

          Where did I say I was out of work? Not once have I revealed my employment status or occupation. It is obvious that people like you are so bigoted and ignorant that you assume that anyone who speaks up for the unemployed must be out of work themselves, hence you jump to conclusions. No doubt you would never accredit a “hard working taxpayer” with any empathy for those who are out of work, so it is obvious the Tory divide and rule tactics have worked well on you…

          Oh, and it does help if you learn how to use these handy things called paragraphs. They make reading your inane babble a little easier; whether or not that is a blessing is a different matter.

  7. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    Right so you are not unemployed, you are just a shit stiring troll. I would rather discuss the matter with someone who knows what they are talking about, not a deceiving socialist activist. If you are in work god help your poor employer who has to put up with your ambiguous drivle. I am sure the unemployed will bo so pleased that your heart bleeds for them, I guess it has more to do with the fact that you do not like the rich, than you care for them. You would judge a man by the size of his wallet than the content of his character, that is pathetic. I very much doubt if you have done a hard days work in your life, what do you know about work? if “by the sweat of your brow shall you bread”, you would have starved years ago.

    And why do you need “paragraphs” for just short statements, are you a bozeyed dip stick of some sort? Does “M” stand for “monocular”, are you a one eyed work shy, hater of the rich?

    Clearly as you use the term “Tory”, you are a factionists, a fascist, and your agenda is to maintain divide and rule, you want there to be unemployed, so you can run up to them and say “vote Labour” the faction of the workers, we will bring down the “capitalist pigs”, “up the workers”. And all the useful idiots will fall for it and engage the wellfare state, and later be exterminated in the “National Health Service”.
    I want English people to be able to work in England and not need the evil socialist wellfare state with it’s psychopathic elite. You only care if they have cash and not tokens while they rot in society. You are ultimately the pervert of the argument. By the way do you have any “empathy” for the thousands who have “needlessly” died in your beloved wellfare state and the NHS?
    If you do not want me to jump to any more conclusions perhaps you had better put your cards on the table instead of wading through any more of my “inane babble”, lest it might embarrass you, are you a Communist? are you a Zionist? are you an internationalist? do you sleep with men or young children? Are you in the Labour party? in other words all of the above. Thats all for now I do not want your husband getting angry because you are spending too mucn time on the computer.

    • Simon M (30 comments) says:

      I see you’re using paragraphs. The lesson has sunk in I see, and been learned well.

      England has had a system of poor relief/welfare/social security since Elizabethan times, when “invalids”, widows and even able bodied people out of work were given “relief” – usually in their own homes – by a system that was organised by the local parish. This gradually changed into a much more conditional and harsh system after the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which among other things massively expanded the use of workhouses. Eventually a system of old age pensions and unemployment insurance was introduced in the early 20th century, and then in the 1940s the welfare state we have now. The point is, there is nothing “modern” or “foreign” about social security; England has had such a thing to varying degrees for hundreds of years.

      No I am not a factionalist, but if we are looking at the politics of us and them let’s look at the Tory party conference, whose by line “for hardworking people” speaks volumes. If the Tories are for “hardworking people”, who are they not for? The disabled, unemployed, under-employed or even the elderly? If that isn’t factionalism I don’t know what is.

      As for your various accusations I’ll answer them in the order they are made – no, no, no, no and no, and no. It is interesting that you lump homosexuality along with paedophilia, which says a lot about your mind set – you are certainly a homophobe if you think the two are in way equivalent.

      To finish off here it is obvious you are a conspiracy theorist, who possibly spends a lot of time on the David Icke forums. Well I hope you have fun there. Oh, and some advice for next time you leave the house – don’t forget your tinfoil hat, they carry ray-guns you know…

  8. Stan (222 comments) says:


    I wouldn’t bother engaging with Bob if I were you, you will only leave yourself open to more pointless abuse.

    Besides, I’m sure that most of the people who are following this will assume that just because you oppose using tokens to feed the long-term unemployed, it doesn’t mean that you are a shit stiring troll, a deceiving socialist activist, pathetic, employed yet work-shy, bozeyed dip stick, one eyed, a factionist, a fascist, the pervert of the argument, a Communist, a Zionist, an internationalist, pedophile, homosexual or – perhaps worst of all – a labour party supporter.

    At least he didn’t accuse you of being a secret tory.

  9. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    It was the way he linked homosexuality and paedophilia that was the killer for me. Says a lot about Bob’s attitudes to gays and others doesn’t it? As for the rest that’s water off a duck’s back. It’s quite funny really; to be accused of being a fascist, communist AND Zionist is quite something!

    As for being a secret Tory, well that’ll be the day…

  10. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    Thanks for your reply Simon, since you are not going to admit to being socialist, I will continue to assume you are. I have not accused you of being anything, I have asked you to declare if you are of certain beliefs, so I do not jump to conclusions.
    I never confuse English social reformers, with “socialists”, if you continue to study some history you will discover the two are quite different. Sydney Webb the socialist was referred to in 1928 as being a “fascist”, by other groups in the Labour party.
    You may be pleased to know that I despise all political parties, including the “Tories”, but especially socialist Labour, may I suggest you look at http://www.labour25.wordpress.com, to see some of the twisted people who take up party politics in the name of socialism.
    I am pround to say I find engineered homosexuality very distasteful, because I know the socialist agenda that lies behind it, make no mistake it has been the policy of socialists to “create the masculine woman” and “create the femanine man” and “create the intermediate sex”. One of your heroes may be Karl Marx? take note of his daughters statement-
    “the effeminate man and the masculine woman….These are two types from which even the average person recoils, with perfect natural horror of the unnatural” (Eleanor Marx)
    So I apologise for being perfectly natural, I also recoil at the notion of Adults sexually abusing children as part of the socialist “counter culture”, as has been allegedly promoted by Harriet Harmen who in 1978 campaigned for restrictions of photographs showing child abuse, to be relaxed. A campaign also taken up by the “Paedophile Information Exchange” which had as one of it’s members Jimmy Savile, a Satanist child abuser, by fact not conspiracy.
    There is no longer any “conspiracy theory”, there is only conspiracy fact. Now I admit some people with flat earth brains find it difficult to believe that things dont just happen, and that people plot and conspire to make things happen. But this is called the real world, some people can see through the bread and circus, while others just eat burgers and watch Eastenders, oblivious to reality.
    May I suggest that you and Stan take a look at “an idiots guide to the new world order” at http://www.truthcontrol.com. You may discover something that rings a bell and snaps you out of your trans. If not, we will just have to agree to disagree, but remember boys, “to fail to prepare is to prepare to fail”, if you are sure that nothing sinister is lurking around the corner, well ignorance is bliss, good luck with that.

    • Simon M (30 comments) says:

      Not only do you conflate paedophilia with homosexuality you make the mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Communism doesn’t tolerate private enterprise, and believes state control of all means of production is the best way to run an economy; socialism wants greater wealth distribution, but believes those who work hardest should still be allowed to earn the most. Note I said work hardest, not those born into wealthy families. Another difference is where communism believes instate ownership of the means of production, socialism advocates that these means are owned by the workers, not the state, an important distinction. Thus socialism is compatible with a democratic state, whereas communism is not. Communism generally espouses the abolition of religion, while socialism generally espouses freedom of religion; there are many examples of “Christian Socialism”, particularly in Europe. Communism also seeks the abolition of all private property, while socialism recognises the distinction of private and public/state property.

      If I was to be pressed I guess, as far as economic matters are concerned I am more socialist than anything else, but I know we need a strong, competitive private sector, with a rebuilt industrial and export-based economy.

      I don’t know what this engineered homosexuality is that you speak of; again you are trying to pin the badge of Marxism/communism on me, and I stand by my assertion that your implied linking of homosexuality with paedophilia exposes a level of homophobia on your part.

      The only conspiracy I believe in is that there are some wealthy people who are determined to rig the economic and political systems to their own benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

      I am aware as any of Hattie Harman’s (I personally loathe that woman’s politics by the way) attempts to ease restrictions on kiddie porn. That is one thing we can both agree on, that she is and always has been a monstrous hypocrite whose batshit policies remain a danger to men, the family and society in general.

      It seems in some ways we agree on quite a bit. Perhaps this is merely a clash of personalities.

  11. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    By the way the reason why you will not see paragraphs is because the programme is not recognising the standard format of starting a new paragraphe. What I type is not correctly translated when I press “post comment”. It might be a conspiracy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.