Listen to the entire segment, it’s a classic example of a hostile interview. 

(This is not a quote, but basically how Abell conducted himself)

”Hey Weston, I’m the journalist, you’re the interviewee, I get to ask my loaded, self serving and very highly disingenuous questions, you don’t, you just respond to them with a simple yes or no”.

Shocker for the journo, there are no such written laws or regs that govern how an interviewee is to behave, and Paul does not conform, nor adhere to his rigid requirements, at all and gets muted by the totalitarian.

NOTE: GOV commenter, ”Independent”, observes:

I do not understand why, when the interviewer repeatedly states that Cox was elected by a “majority,” Weston does not contradict him. Unless “majority” means something different in the UK. Weston clearly states that Conservatives and UKIP together would have won. Therefore, we would say that Cox won by a plurality, not a majority.

Independent is right, if the combined votes of UKIP and the Tories would outnumber the votes cast for the deceased Jo Cox, then that means she won a plurality of votes, not a majority. It’s that simple.

LBC’s Stig Abell and the Ugly Face of the Totalitarian Left

by Paul Weston

In the aftermath of Jo Cox’s horrible murder, all the main political parties have issued a statement saying they will not contest her electoral seat of Batley and Spen. Liberty GB’sdecision to call this an anti-democratic nonsense and to stand Jack Buckby in the upcoming by-election has caused a predictable torrent of rage and hate to spew forth from the Left. Yesterday, I was interviewed about our “fascistic intention” to field a candidate by an earnestly bearded gentleman called Mr Stig Abell (@StigAbell) on LBC radio, which quickly degenerated into lefty emotive attacks rather than a discussion about democracy or historical precedent. I recommend readers listen to this in order to fully understand the chilling, bullying and ugly face of the totalitarian Left.

Democracy is a very precious thing. We hardly need look very far, both geographically and historically, to see the horrific results of countries governed without a democratic mandate. Our graveyards are testament to the sacrifices made by millions who risked and lost their lives fighting for democracy, yet a handful of disingenuous, hypocritical, sanctimonious, virtue-signalling left-liberals and cowardly centre-right politicians have now decided that democracy must be put on hold in the interests of purported sensitivity.

First of all, has this suspension of democracy ever happened before in England? The answer to that is no, it has most emphatically not. Three Conservative politicians have been assassinated by IRA terrorists. In every instance an election was contested. The first, in 1979, was that of the war hero Airey Neave OBE, DSO (Distinguished Service Order) MC (Military Cross — awarded for conspicuous gallantry). Mr Neave was a wonderful man. He was also the first British soldier to successfully escape from Colditz! 1990 saw the last political murder of a Conservative politician when MP Ian Gow was blown up by a car bomb. There were no calls from the left to allow uncontested elections on the grounds of “sensitivity” in those democratic, halcyon days.

I think we can safely say, therefore, that to propose an uncontested election is a historically unprecedented event. As such it is of immense political importance, and really ought to be debated at the very highest levels of political and cultural thought in Britain. Instead, however, it is left to a fledgling party like mine to defend our democracy in the face of oafish and hateful attacks from a hysterical, bit-part, left-wing totalitarian radio show host.

I don’t believe Stig Abell, LBC radio’s oaf in question, has thought very deeply on this supremely important issue. For example, Jo Cox won the marginal seat of Batley and Spen with 43% of the vote, which basically means 57% of those who voted did not vote for Jo Cox. Do the political views of the majority really matter so little to the Left? And what does this say, in very serious tones, about the Left’s view of democracy?

Why do leftists like Stig Abell get so hysterically angry about offering democratic representation to the majority of Batley and Spen’s constituents? Has he actually asked them their views about this, or has he just decided that his liberal emotions are far more important than their democratic mandate? What would be his response to Conservative or UKIP-supporting constituents who demanded — as part of the democratic process, as part of their bloodily-defended democratic right — that they be represented by a Conservative or UKIP candidate who reflected their political views, as has ALWAYS been the case in democratic Britain?

Read the rest of Paul’s essay at Gates of Vienna.

NOTE II: The ”journo” passionately pushes talking points that he clearly agrees with, then hides behind the facade of being an impartial host presenting views that were raised in the social and regular media. These are highly charged questions that demand a philosophical response and part of that demands the interviewee to pose questions back to the journalist who clearly doesn’t like answering any questions. ”My response would be irrelevant”, when clearly it would not only be relevant, but enlightening as well as.