I can only assume you chose to use such a disparate article as an attempt to suggest to the more passive reader that I was rejecting any evidence I didn’t like. I rejected the sources you used – not their contents – and requested a more reliable source which you have failed to provide.

My reactions were neither prejudice or knee-jerk. I examined your claims and found the sources you used to be highly unreliable. Furthermore, the language you have employed in both replies makes no attempt to hide your own prejudice.

I demand an apology for that if you want any of your future posts to appear on this blog.

You continue to suggest that anyone more than an inch left of center must be a dangerous totalitarian Marxist, which is a term you have chosen to be deliberately alarmist. My comment about IDS was that he falls roughly on the oposite side of the UK political spectrum to Miliband. If Miliband is a Marxist, then surely IDS – as his antithesis – must be a Nazi? I really don’t like IDS and his hyper-conservative standpoints, but even I would defend him against that term – and it’s not much different to try and label Miliband in the same manner.

If you want to be taken seriously, please restrict your use of such alarmist terms.

And please don’t try to lecture me on the #debill, I know the topic well and it only acts to give more control to businesses – a distinctly right-wing position – not to allow the state to control the internet. Accusations at the time of the #debill that the government could use it block, for example, wikileaks were utterly unfounded – as wikileaks (and similar sites) are already protected under Whistle-Blowing laws.

I fervently oppose the Digital Economy Bill, but it is not part of some imagined communist agenda.

With those issues dealt with, we can move on to the actual contents:

1) EU death penalty.

The information you present now is quite accurate. It’s still utterly deceiving, but manages to be so without actually getting much wrong.

Yes, the EU Charter has a section which only bans use of the death penalty outside of wartime and in other extreme and vaguely defined situations. It also has a SECOND section utterly abolishing the death penalty which is now a requirement for membership.

There are countries which have yet to put that clause into effect who were already in the EU before the requirement. However, as I stated before, these countries – Russia, Latvia and Belarus – are all moving towards complete abolition and both Russia and Latvia have already signed that section of the document and are awaiting ratification by their own parliaments.

I mentioned all this in my previous reply, you chose simply to ignore it.

You then go on to misrepresent things in even greater detail.

The quote you take from the EU website is describing the EU’s goals for the whole of Europe and the wider world – not just EU member states. The goal specified in that statement applies to countries outside the EU and details what the EU would like them to do – i.e. abolish the death penalty or at least do it humanely if you must. It does not apply to member states and it is not part of any legal directive towards such states.

The very same page states categorically that all EU member states have now abolished the death penalty.

You are correct that the EU carries no specific sanctions against EU states which execute people. However, since all EU members are now all-but committed to complete abolition, I don’t see why such sanctions would be necessary.

Frankly, the claim that the UK has executed someone “recently” is ludicrous. The last use of capital punishment in the UK occurred almost 60 years ago.

2) On Bilderberg.

All of Skelton’s posts are written with a huge helping of irony joking that Bilderberg controls the world. I took the opportunity to look up those who have attended the conference and still attend the conference and, yes, it seems to me that they do, in fact, control the world.

Because practically everyone in the western world goes to them.

To lament Bildeberg’s influence is like lamenting the influence of the EU or the UN. Yes, a lot of people are involved… practically everyone, come to that. All the top politicians from around the North Atlantic go there. In fact, it would be pretty hard to find a top politician who hadn’t attended such an important conference. It would, I’d wager, be next to impossible.

Beware this deadly secret and dangerous meeting. Access is by invitation only, so it must be evil – that’s why they invite pretty much everyone from Thatcher to the Queen of Spain. If you wanted to elect EU representatives who hadn’t been to one of these conferences you’d be left with almost no qualified candidates.

I actually couldn’t find anything confirming that Miliband had actually attended one of these things. I found lots of articles saying he had – but none saying what year. I then found various lists of attendees

So are you somehow suggesting that – despite years of the UN and EU failing to find consensus on the most basic of issues… that somehow the exact same people have achieved a glorious (but secret) consensus at this other meeting?

Where exactly do you think Bildeberg lies in the political spectrum? Since they’ve hosted everyone from Ashdown to Osborne, it’s a ridiculous suggestion that they are somehow all pulling in the same direction.

Yes, security was high. Yes, the Greek police acted against Skelton’s human rights. Yes, terror laws allowing such acts are abhorrent. No, it does not follow that David Miliband is trying to take over the world.

Oh, and just to remove some more misinformation – they don’t ban journalists or suppress reporting, the photo incident was simply a result of amoral terror laws. In fact, they’ve even invited top journalists to the conference as delegates.

I’ll close by making a few things clear. I don’t like David Miliband (or Ed for that matter, though less-so) I disagree with him on many issues – ID cards and the DE Bill included. I oppose the war, I oppose the infringement of civil liberties – do I think the government deliberately made these laws to victimise innocents? No, because that’s a ridiculously paranoid position to take – why would they? What’s in it for them? Power? – They’ve already got it, that’s how they made the law in the first place.

It is offensive to anyone who reads your posts that you choose, not to address the policy issues you dislike, but to scaremonger and deceive.

Really, what does it matter if Miliband Senior had communist leanings? He’s a different person and since we know nothing of his relationship with his son, how are we to judge? We’re not – yet you actively encourage prejudice by attempting to instill fear in your reader.

Any more instances, and I will simply reject your post. Stop insulting our readers’ intelligence and stop deliberately misrepresenting my words.

You say you want to deal with facts? I’m still waiting…