Friday 19 April 2019


hatchet (n.) 
c. 1300 (mid-12c. in surnames), "small axe with a short handle," designed to be used by one hand, from Old French hachete "small combat-axe, hatchet," diminutive of hache "axe, battle-axe, pickaxe," possibly from Frankish *happja or some other Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *hapjo- (source also of Old High German happa "sickle, scythe"). 
This is perhaps from PIE root *kop- "to beat, strike" (source also of Greek kopis "knife," koptein "to strike, smite," komma "piece cut off;" Lithuanian kaplys "hatchet," kapti, kapiu "to hew, fell;" Old Church Slavonic skopiti "castrate," Russian kopat' "to hack, hew, dig;" Albanian kep "to hew"). 
Hatchet-face in reference to one with sharp and prominent features is from 1650s. In Middle English, hatch itself was used in a sense "battle-axe." In 14c., hang up (one's) hatchet meant "stop what one is doing." 
Phrase bury the hatchet "lay aside instruments of war, forget injuries and make peace" (1754) is from a Native American peacemaking custom described from 1680. 
Hatchet-man was originally California slang for "hired Chinese assassin" (1880), later extended figuratively to journalists who attacked the reputation of a public figure (1944). 
Who knows if BBC hatchet-woman Kate Whannel is hatchet-faced but UKIP are unlikely to want to bury the hatchet with the BBC after her hatchet-job on the party for the BBC News website. 

Now, UKIP have certainly inflicted many, many wounds on themselves over the years because of their interminable infighting, and this piece chronicles pretty much every last example of that since the 2014 European elections. 

But is this BBC piece just a blood-soaked chronicle of true events?

Or is it more like BBC campaigning against Gerard Batten's present-day UKIP in the lead-up to those increasingly likely new European elections and trying to crush it once and for all? 

Of the article's 42 paragraphs, 5 bullet points, 6 sub-headlines (Post-referendum infighting: Expulsion, defections and a retirement; The Bolton era: 'Countless leaks, briefings and character assassinations'; Batten takes over: 'Increasingly out of kilter'; Tommy Robinson hired: 'A catastrophic error'; Where have they gone?; Who is left?) and 9 images with captions (including Gerard Batten's controversial reign has seen a drove of resignations), pretty much every single one of which is used to pile on the agony for UKIP. 

In fairness though, BBC hatchet-woman Kate does grant three paragraphs to the defence right at the very end - which was jolly nice of her.

So what's your reaction to the BBC piece? Is it to think 'What a carry on!' as far as UKIP is concerned? Or to think ' What a carve-up!' as far as the BBC is concerned? (Or both?)


  1. On this (rare) occasion, I'll give the BBC a pass. It seems a pretty factual report. Most of UKIP's troubles were self-inflicted. It does perhaps raise questions not dealt with in the article about what the party was under Farage - a ragbag held together by the force of his charisma and rhetoric? UKIP under Batten at least has a core set of values - defence of free speech and democracy, a mixed economy approach, abolishing the licence fee and a clear understanding of how to leave the EU.

  2. As I mentioned on the other thread. The objective of the BBC and MSM is to damage UKIP in any way possible and to extinguish it as a political force.

    Proper journalism goes out the window because the means justifies the end.

    The liberal power elite will never question the methods, whether it be smears, lies or fake news. They hate UKIP with a passion and class it as far right.

    Freedom of speech only exists for those who conform to the left-liberal globalist worldview.

    1. I agree - the editing out of Carl Benjamin's reference to Jess Phillips "laughing about male suicide" is a case in point. That is deliberate distortion. However this particular article? Seemed pretty factual to me - UKIP scored a series of own goals and put themselves out of the finals, so to speak.

      Yes, this is no longer a free speech society. Far Left demonstrators can scream abuse at MPs, turn up at their homes and engage their children in vile discourse, make murderous and offensive comments about Remainers on social media (e.g. calling for genocide of old people, which I've seen) or bring the capital to a halt...and nothing is done. It's all one way. We live in a Fear Speech society now.

  3. It wasn't exactly hard to write such an article; UKIP wrote itself really. It was a chapter of accidents and disasters. I'm worried that the Brexit Party won't be able to sustain and broaden itself but will fall into chaos and conflict in the same way. I hope not. We need a viable alternative to the current parties.

  4. To what extent can a small political party be held rsponsible for the actions of individual actors?

    The BBC with its mega-million income, layer upon layer of management can't control its staff, 'views my own', but then it is fortunate not to have anyone 'holding power to account'.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.