Paul Nuttall - what a liar!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:29 pm

Add Hillsborough to his fake PhD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38972214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm surprised he hasn't claimed he was an Auschwitz survivor as well!

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:32 pm

You'd think that this should pretty much finish him; then again, look at Donald Trump...

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:40 pm

If he told me it was Tuesday, I would have to check my diary. I'm afraid we should
stop being surprised that a politician has lied. It appears to go with the job - they
all pee in the same pot I'm afraid.

beddie · Post by **beddie** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:40 pm

Wasn't it his press man that made those comments, hasn't he (press man) since resigned. Nuttall would therefore only be guilty of not checking what was placed on his site.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:44 pm

Tony Bliar - weapons of mass destruction.

ksrclaret · Post by **ksrclaret** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:45 pm

Wouldn't be so bad if he didn't sell himself as some straight down the line, honest-speaking, northern politician who's all for the working class.

No different from the rest of them, probably a bit thicker.

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:46 pm

According to that link, he "was quoted as saying" . . . . . . . what accuracy that portrays is anyone's guess I suppose.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:57 pm

I predict a lot of deflection in this topic from the likes of Ring...oh, he's started already.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:02 pm

Funkydrummer wrote:According to that link, he "was quoted as saying" . . . . . . . what accuracy that portrays is anyone's guess I suppose.

Well, it was on his own website so it's not like someone randomly gave a quote to a reporter.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:22 pm

TomBenderson wrote:On that specific, thought he dealt with it properly on the radio interview. Basically said, "That's not right" immediately. The size of that inaccuracy in the scheme of things compared to the hysterical shrieking about it tonight is telling.

He deserves no credit for owning up to a lie 5 and a half years after making it on his own website.

"hysterical shrieking"
Now you're just trying to deflect attention away from this lying sack of **** and onto other people who are critical of him being a lying sack of ****. I expected it from Ringo, but not you.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:26 pm

Sky news reporting that his "press officer has offered her resignation"

But hey. It's a wonderful opportunity for the desperate Left to have another communal hissy fit! Get those marker pens, blue tack and sellotape and knock out a placard girls!!!

Bless x

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:29 pm

"It's wrong, but it's a miniscule issue."

Issue may be considered miniscule by some, but lying and deception certainly isn't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:38 pm

TomBenderson wrote:It's being reported he didn't make it himself, although he's said he takes responsibility for his lack of oversight. Like I say, hysterical shrieking because he's UKIP. It's wrong, but it's a miniscule issue.

It's a disappointing insight into the workings of your mind that when someone admits to lying about being personally affected by the Hillsbrough tragedy in this way that your first instinct is to point at the people who are being critical of him for it.

Remember when that one idiot said that today was "a good day to bury bad news" 16 years ago? That was a miniscule issue but was the hysteria then because she was in UKIP too? Is/was the hysteria over Corbyn, Boris, Clegg, Cameron, Trump, Blair, Brown all because they were UKIP too?

And i think you underestimate how important this is. If the leader of a political party is found to have repeatedly lied about himself the way this moron has then it isn't a minisule issue when we're being asked to trust him with our votes. Allowing someone to get away with lies like this by continuing to support him is dangerous, and if you don't think it's all that dangerous then look across the Atlantic to see what happens when lies like this become unimportant.

ksrclaret · Post by **ksrclaret** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:39 pm

Hysterical lefties, placard-waving hissy fits, they're talking Britain down, liberal snowflakes etc etc..

You've got to admire their versatility, they can cover all manner of sins these days.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:42 pm

ksrclaret wrote:Hysterical lefties, placard-waving hissy fits, they're talking Britain down, liberal snowflakes etc etc..

You've got to admire their versatility, they can cover all manner of sins these days.

If we were quicker off the mark we could have made a bingocard out of the anticipated deflections from UKIP's uncritical, sycophantic, liberal-hating supporters. We'd be pretty close to a line by now.

Holmeclaret · Post by **Holmeclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:05 am

Not such a miniscule issue. He's used the victims of the Hillsborough disaster to further his own political ends. Not very pleasant for their families either.
It makes no difference whether he's claiming to have been a friend of deceased football fans, cancer victims or veterans. It's just wrong.
You don't have to be a liberal to complain about sh1tty behaviour.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:21 am

I don't know the details of this case but lying blatantly for years on end ought to ruin a political campaign.

So it will be interesting to see how the people of Stoke react. They have a pro-Brexit candidate who wants tight controls on immigration from UKIP. And they have a pro-EU, pro immigration candidate from Corbyn's Labour who thinks that people who voted from Brexit are 'racist'.

Even if UKIP don't win, it will be interesting to see what has happened to public opinion in this once unimpeachable Labour heartland of traditional working class voters.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:35 am

So although Labour will lose the Cumbrian seat, they will most probably win this one and we will have to endure a victorious Corbyn claiming that he has "turned a corner".

Suratclaret · Post by **Suratclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:24 am

" wildly-imagined heights of duplicity and dishonesty"
Part of the job description for an MP?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:50 am

TomBenderson wrote:Which he hasn't 'admitted'. You're taking a minor overstatement of his relationship to deceased unnamed, by a politician who, let's not forget, (to the criticism of some) has not been particularly vociferous on the Hillsborough issue and extrapolating to wildly-imagined heights of duplicity and dishonesty.

It was literally on his own website in an article that had his name in the byline.

I'm willing to believe that a trusted aide would be allowed to make posts to his website as if they're from him personally -- it happens all the time on Twitter -- but i'm not going to believe that for over 5 years he didn't know about it. I'm also not going to believe that when it was written that he didn't allow it to either be posted or allow it to remain uncorrected. There's just no way he didn't know about it.

If it was a minor overstatement then why did he make it? What possible reason would a populist politician have for lying about losing "close, personal friends" in one of the country's biggest tragedies in recent decades? 'Politicians lie all the time' is what i hear a lot of, but apparently i'm supposed to believe that this politician's lie had some other motive than political gain? You've got to be having a laugh.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:57 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:If it was a minor overstatement then why did he make it?

The reasoning doesn't affect the fact that it's a minor exaggeration. It's when you say things like this that your startling lack of logical thinking shows.

How come you're awake so early anyway?

Stockbrokerbelt · Post by **Stockbrokerbelt** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:57 am

How upset do you get at deliveries that are quoted as turning up in the AM to turn up 4 hours late then try to defend a lying arsehole you would not share a pint with in the pub & he thinks the NHS should be privatised.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:10 am

It doesn't matter whether he wrote it/knew about it or not, the damage is done. Those who want to will use this as a perpetual smear regardless or the facts because its UKIP. If this was a senior Labour or Lib Dem MP, you'd struggle to get more than a side column in the Express about it, but that's the social political climate we live in.

To be honest I'm not bothered anyway, don't trust the fker as far as I can throw him. I'll probably vote for them or the Tories regardless though.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:22 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote: If this was a senior Labour or Lib Dem MP, you'd struggle to get more than a side column in the Express about it, but that's the social political climate we live in.

Really? You'd expect any politician from another party to not be massively condemned for having a lie like that on his or her website, regardless of the fact you think he said it or not and it was a genuine mistake/intended to mislead. That's some pretty far fetched conclusion to draw from all of this.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:39 am

Here is a link to THE BBC article on Hillsborough from August 2011 where he states it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-14562573

Edit - changed A to THE for clarity...

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:45 am

TomBenderson wrote:No. I wouldn't expect many other politicians to get the same treatment and that would be right. If as was alleged by The Guardian, he'd not actually been at Hillsborough, that would be different. That would be a lie of some magnitude and I'd expect anyone doing that to get a very hard time.

Hmmm, well I would expect the same outrage.

Not sure why him being there makes a difference. If you lie, or allow lies to be published in a press release without checking them briefly, then you're a liar. He would have known an issue as sensitive as Hillsborough would have got this kind of reaction.

Did he not also lie about living in Stoke?

BFCmaj · Post by **BFCmaj** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:51 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Here is a link to a BBC article on Hillsborough from August 2011 where he states it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-14562573

If this was a direct quote, I'd like to see him try to worm his way out of that one.

BTW, does anyone else think he looks like Eddie Hitler out of bottom?

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:01 am

BFCmaj wrote:If this was a direct quote, I'd like to see him try to worm his way out of that one.

BTW, does anyone else think he looks like Eddie Hitler out of bottom?

I think it was where the press release was put online, then they probably just stuck it on his website. BBC asked for a quote and they got some made up stuff that he didn't check for five years allegedly.

Seems pretty odd to not even skim over the press release since it's only a few lines.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:23 am

TomBenderson wrote:So, he perpetrates this (in your view) act of dishonesty (or at least allows it to remain unchallenged - because in your view he hasn't time to create these press releases himself but finds time afterwards to have a browse through them later searching for errata). He then, despite having five years to come up with a feasible defence, as soon as he's challenged, simply goes, "Really?! No - that's not right" to the first question he gets.

You also contradict yourself accepting it may have been an aide overstepping the mark, but quickly flipping to "why did he make it?". Your problem here is that you are coming from a position of; It's Paul Nuttall so he's done something wrong. Now what was it he did?

This is trivia. Not as trivial but in the same category as his rival Snell's supposedly misogynistic tweets.

I never once offered a reason for an aide writing the content for his website. Whether he has time or not was never part of my post. There are plenty of other reasons for him not writing the article himself. But in case you're wondering, i'm not just trusting that he didn't write it himself. I'm assuming it wasn't him that wrote it because if he wrote it himself then he'd be referring to himself in the third person.

There's also no inconsistency in thinking that it might have been the aide writing it without his immediate approval and then asking if it was such a minor lie to make then why make it, because there's no way that Nuttall didn't know about this. He either knew when the aide wrote it (if it was an aide) or he knew very soon after. He then chose to let it remain on his website, at which point he was certainly lying about it. The only thing in question is exactly when he started lying about it. So my question stands, if this wasn't such a big deal then why lie in the first place?

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:29 am

The bloke's a chancer and got caught out. Even the Swivel-eyes like Benderson understand that but feel obliged for some reason to defend berks like this.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:36 am

TomBenderson wrote:Abuse as usual from you. No change there...

No abuse in that post , the fact you are defending the thug says all we need to know about the likes of you ,Rowls, and the ringo kid , not worth the time of day .

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:37 am

I find it incredible that around 5 lines of text weren't read at least briefly, especially given the sensitive nature of the subject matter.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:38 am

This is the text put in the article. More than five lines I guess.

Paul Nuttall, North West Euro MP for UKIP, said: "This is a cover-up of a cover-up.
"What are the Tories frightened of? The people of Liverpool will be disgusted by these cowardly moves to hide the truth.
"Revealing the facts on Hillsborough is hardly a matter of national security, it is a matter of natural justice."
"The briefings in question are the private memos that were sent to the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
"Without them being made public we will never get to the bottom of that appalling tragedy when 96 Liverpool fans including close personal friends of mine lost their lives."

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:47 am

Anyway, it'll be the electorate of Stoke who decide whether they trust this guy enough. I'd wager his political opinions are closer to most of them than the Labour guy.

Who gets elected is another story.

Holmeclaret · Post by **Holmeclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:48 am

Not that long ago, when someone behaved like a w@nker folk condemned it whatever their political persuasion. There was even a time when politicians would walk as a matter of honour if they got things wrong - eg Lord Carrington when tbe Argentines invaded the Falklands. We now have people leaping to the defence of any politician that they share a view with. Why can't UKIP supporters admit that this lying individual is a tosspot and find someone more worthy of representing their views?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:48 am

This is such a non story, if you watch the video of the interview he straight away denies ever saying it and didn't know it was on his website and apologized for the error. If he had tried to wing it and go along with the article then yes he would have been guilty. The faux outrage is the difference in the phrase "close personal friend" and "i knew people" who died.

BFCmaj · Post by **BFCmaj** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:49 am

TomBenderson wrote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

That's the press release in question. FFS.

So you're saying he didn't actually say it?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:50 am

In addition to him being a liar about a close friend dying at Hillsborough I think it's also fairly obvious he wasn't even there as a 12 year old, despite claiming he was.

"Nuttall was 12 at the time of the disaster, and was a pupil at Savio high school in Bootle, Liverpool. One of his former teachers, a Roman Catholic priest, has told the Guardian that the school believed it had been aware of the identities of every boy who had been at Hillsborough in order to help them through a difficult period, and that Nuttall was not among them."

Holmeclaret · Post by **Holmeclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:51 am

claretandy wrote:This is such a non story, if you watch the video of the interview he straight away denies ever saying it and didn't know it was on his website and apologized for the error. If he had tried to wing it and go along with the article then yes he would have been guilty. The faux outrage is the difference in the phrase "close personal friend" and "i knew people" who died.

That just depends - if it had been a close member of your family that had been used to boost his career would the difference be so insignificant?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:54 am

Holmeclaret wrote:That just depends - if it had been a close member of your family that had been used to boost this career would the difference be so insignificant?

How is it boosting his career ? nothing to say on the Guardian fake news story about him not being at Hillsborough ?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:54 am

claretandy wrote:This is such a non story, if you watch the video of the interview he straight away denies ever saying it and didn't know it was on his website and apologized for the error. If he had tried to wing it and go along with the article then yes he would have been guilty. The faux outrage is the difference in the phrase "close personal friend" and "i knew people" who died.

If he knew people who died then why doesn't he say who they were?

Holmeclaret · Post by **Holmeclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:59 am

[quote="claretandy"]How is it boosting his career ? nothing to say on the Guardian fake news story about him not being at Hillsborough

To squeeze as much sympathy out of the public as possible. To be seen as a man of the people.

Unless of course he lies for the hell of it which makes him even more of a tosser.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:59 am

I can't say I'm surprised to see the usual suspects on here attempting to defend the indefensible.

Paul Nuttall is a tiny, tragic individual with no scruples whatsoever.

If the people of Stoke-on-Trent have any sense of decency, they will reject this low-life chancer in their thousands.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:00 am

Spijed wrote:If he knew people who died then why doesn't he say who they were?

so you want him to make political capital out of it ?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:03 am

claretandy wrote:so you want him to make political capital out of it ?

Two points here, one, it would completely kill the story and people would have sympathy for him.

Secondly, he seems to be making political capital out of everything else doesn't he?

Holmeclaret · Post by **Holmeclaret** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:05 am

claretandy wrote:How is it boosting his career ? nothing to say on the Guardian fake news story about him not being at Hillsborough ?

To be seen as a victim to squeeze as much sympathy out of the public as possible. To be seen as a man of the people. Unless he lies for the hell of it which makes him even more of a tosser.
Unlike the US, our libel and slander laws have teeth. It's interesting that despite all his 'anger'about being accused of not being there, he does not apparently want to chance it in court. Why doesn't he sue?

BFCmaj · Post by **BFCmaj** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:08 am

TomBenderson wrote:No. I'm saying you're simply repeating what has already been said as if it were new or relevant. The press release is what's being discussed.

Well he's an idiot for not checking his press releases then. I find it hard to believe that a press aide made it up.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:11 am

claretandy wrote:How is it boosting his career ? nothing to say on the Guardian fake news story about him not being at Hillsborough ?

Well other than Nuttall's protestations there's nothing to say it is fake. He certainly seems to have kept very quiet about it for a very long time if he was. You'd think as a politician and 'man of the people' it'd have been a cause he'd have been very vocal about if he'd been there.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:15 am

: IMG_20170215_091308.jpg (141.65 KiB) Viewed 4022 times

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:17 am

TomBenderson wrote:So you're holding Nuttall's feet to the fire for not naming who he knew that died, but quite happy to take the word of an anonymous former teacher? You're definition of "fairly obvious" would fall well below most people's. As I said before, if it came out that was untrue, that would be very serious for any politican. Terminal, I'd think.

With all the adverse publicity he is currently receiving over this, and the possibility it might affect his chances of winning the by-election why doesn't he just kill the story by naming who it was?

Surely that's to his benefit.

From the Guardian:

Steve Kelly, a member of the Hillsborough Justice campaign whose brother Michael died in the Leppings Lane end, urged the under-pressure Ukip leader to provide further evidence if he was at Hillsborough that day.

“He’s claimed that he can back all this up. Well, if that’s the case, that’s all he’s got to do to clear his name,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -admission" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;