Well over the last few months I have given it to blogs of that could either be described as of being of the left or being apolitical. For my blog of the month but this time around I am giving the gong to “Green Watch” because I just like their style and because they have caused such conniptions for the likes of my old mate Jeremy Sear and all of the sycophants who frequent his blogs.
Click on the picture to visit them
Cheers
😉
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Its quite clear that greenswatch is another fictional epic by that sad, laughable character Andrew Landeryou, and perhaps one or two of his knuckle-dragging cronies.
On the site: “Greens Watch researchers have investigated a number of the Greens kooky policies”. I doubt he’s done much more “research” in his life that reading the back of cereal packets.
Firstly welcome to my blog Ned 🙂
But on the content of your comment I am fairly indifferent to the notion that the site is an Andrew Landeryou production. He himself denies any involvement in it and frankly the pieces do not look like his style either. But you are welcome to speculate as you please about it.
The one thing that I do know is that the content of the pieces is consistent with the truth about the tactics and the policies of the Greens.
It is most amusing that the things that damn the greens the most are the revelations of their own policies like their attitude to “recreational” drugs. as previously enunciated on their own website.
The greens like all religious people get so upset when it comes to those who blaspheme against their faith and I have been thoroughly enjoying the spectacle.
Cheers
Iain
Sorry Iain, it just looks like another thinly-veiled hate site to me. At least your previous ‘blogs of the month’ had some substance. This one is just vindictive and silly.
Mark
My criteria for a blog of the month are very broad; I like the audacity and the quality presentation of Green Watch. But I have been willing to give the gong to various lefties in the past so I feel I am entitled to give the gong to a blatantly rightwing site once in a while.
Quote “I like the audacity and the quality presentation of Green Watch.” You mean the fact that they publish outright lies & distortions doesn’t worry you a bit? Says a lot about you doesn’t it Iain?
Christopher, firstly welcome to my blog 😉
I think that “Greens Watch” has done a very good job of hoisting some of the loonier Greens on their own petards and I invite you to cite any outright lies. The have certainly written their pieces to show greenies in the worst possible light but that my friend is the nature of politics
…but that my friend is the nature of politics
Yeah and so is lying.
Thanks for the welcome Iain
You ask me to cite some of their lies. Fair enough.
Here’s a few
They describe her organisation “Akasha” as being sinister. Yet the link they themselves provided gave no such indication. In fact everything seemed to be very much above board.
2) They described her as trying to brainwash her children through occult reading.
Let’s examine that reading shall we? Leanne describes the books as “‘These books contain real truths – love, friendship, family. They show characters overcoming adversity, questioning what they see around them, and struggling to overcome what sometimes seem to be insurmountable odds. All throughout, the natural world is cherished, valued and respected. These are Pagan values in the deepest, most real sense.’
Here’s another point to consider. There are many people with a variety of religious beliefs in this country. The vast majority of whom would consider it their parental right to explain & indeed try to encourage such religious beliefs in their own offspring. In what way is this brainwashing?
And if it is doesn’t that mean that every christian family that reads the bible to their children is engaged in the same activity?
3) They accuse her group of worshipping satan. But satan is a judeo-christian invention & has NOTHING to do with wicca. See the link below if you don’t believe me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
When I wrote to the Greenwatch editor to point these things out they replied “so what! The article serves its purpose” What possible purpose does an inaccurate & sensationalist article serve except to smear?
And if an article is inaccurate & when brought to their attention they refuse to retreact it the article can only be deliberately misleading…i.e. a lie.
In other words they were telling porkies Iain.
Christopher
I think I know just whom you are referring to but It would be better if you provided a link to the actual page you are citing. Or at least name the person you are talking about. (Please)
I am an atheist who actually finds all kinds religion both interesting and amusing in fact I am actually quite familiar with the nature of Wicca. Even though I accept that there is nothing more sinister in that faith than there is in Christianity I do hold that all religion is open to mockery and derision and that and as such the picture of Wicca at green watch has a certain legitimacy on those terms.
But does this constitute “lies”? It’s getting into the grey area certainly but we are talking about religion here and not empirical facts so you can’t be too precious about it really.