Challenge to YAF Watch

Philip Rodney Moon - who seems to be the sole writer for YAF Watch- had the good grace to actually respond to something this week.

Mr Moon - who has posted a barrage of misleading articles concerning the Griffin MSU speech - points to another blog that...shock! horror!...states an alleged member of Storm Front attended Nick's speech! Both YAF Watch and said blog profess this to be evidence of how bad Nick and his party are.

I replied, pointing out that such a linear line of logic - i.e. the audience reflects the speaker - would tell us Nick is an abusive, violent Communist, since that represents the individuals we saw in attendance at the speech.

Just two people with undesirable Storm Front allegiances attended this speech of about eighty people.

How many politicians from any party never have any undesirables attend their meetings? Not a single crook in the Labour camp? No tax fraudsters or convicted arsonists on the left in the US?


I sent this message to Philip and as you can see he replied by telling me my comments contained "factual inaccuracies". He declined to say what they were but "set the record straight" by obfuscatingly informing me "YAF Watch did not organise the protest". Who said they did, Keith?

I told (re-typed from memory) Moon that his logic was wrong and I wanted to challenge him or any of his leftist colleagues to a debate on the Griffin issue. Surprise, surprise, rejected comment!

So let's do it right here shall we Philip? And maybe I can spread the word a bit too!

I hereby challenge Philip Rodney Moon or anyone of his nomination to debate. I say that Nick Griffin is not a Nazi, BNP are not a racist group, Nick was not treated fairly at Michigan MSU, the left group there were disgraceful in their behaviour and those who condemn the speech have completely lost the debate, the argument and the moral high ground.

I also say YAF Watch have offered one sided, bias and illogical articles on the issue in an attempt to inflate their own fragile sense of self importance and purpose.

I trust PRM dissents, so we can debate on any neutral site of our mutual agreement. I suggest "Debatepedia!". We appoint a mutually agreed, impartial judge and we concord a set of rules e.g. no personal abuse, each debate piece not longer than 200 words, etc.

We can let impartial readers decide who made their point better and more evenhandedly.

So Philip, what do you say? You've spent a lot if time on your site giving "information to interested parties". Surely you do that fairly and justly? Let's let neutrals decide!