« Edgar replies | Main | Will Londoners Send Their Mayor Packing? »

April 26, 2008


Rev Donald Spitz

[The author of this comment is a notorious supporter of violence and terrorism against the US medical profession. I have consequently deleted his comment and the link to his organisation's website, and blocked him from posting further contributions here - OK.]


I love people who spout the Bible uncontrollably. Really makes me regret becoming an atheist.

But, aside from this fire-and-brimstone, Bible-thumper, what does 'military rule' entail? Would it be akin to a benevolent dictator (or is that in turn oxymoronical?)
I'd agree with him if he were to ruthlessly hack away at the number of MP's in the HoC. Far too many.


"For some reason - possibly the long list of names - his comment was wrongly caught by my spam filter, and I regret that it took me a while to notice this. "

Clearly, your spam filter is part of the conspiracy of criminal harassment that you've apparently been conducting against Lindsay.

Personally, I wish the British People's Alliance every success - the gulf between the impression Lindsay clearly thinks he's giving and what's revealed under the unforgiving spotlight of harsh reality is so enormous that there should be some irresistible entertainment along the way.

And since Lindsay demonstrably lacks both a sense of humour and a sense of proportion, this should only add to the fun.

sackcloth and ashes

'I first came across Mr Lindsay a few months ago when my comrades at Harry's Place reported his launch, by blog, of what appears to be, to this day, a one-man political party calling itself the British People's Alliance. The Alliance is opposed to immigration, Europe and artificial contraception. It favours military rule as an alternative to the moral chaos that is today's party system.'

Sounds like Geoffrey Palmer's character from 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin'.

Joe in Australia

I suppose an individual may be a "party" on his own, but there is no way that he can be in an alliance with himself.

Old Chadsman

Ah yes, David Lindsay. Anyone who was at Durham University between about 2000 and 2005 will remember David, who stood out as something exceptional even in a university blessed with more than its fair share of eccentrics. He was the chairman of a High Tory dining club called the Moulsdale Society which eventually got itself banned by the university authorities. He also had the rare distinction of being expelled by St Chad's College after writing to the Bishop of Durham claiming that the college had been infiltrated by MI5.

sackcloth and ashes

Lindsay was at Chad's? I thought he'd be fruitloop enough to qualify for St John's College, easily.

Oliver Kamm

Simon, I have no idea why your comment, like David Lindsay's, was also picked up by my spam filter, and my apologies for this. I'm particularly glad of your comment, as I had no idea of the sheer quality and volume of the output you've pointed to.


I must say I'm amazed to learn that Lindsay was at Durham University as recently as 2005. I imagined him as being at least 57. (He must have been really disappointed not to get into Oxford).

Kudos to the spam filter, I say. But this deadpan post is an absolute gem. Simon's comment even more so.

Has a worthy successor to the great Bill Boakes finally arrived?


Just for the record, David did indeed graduate from Durham in 2000, but then did a Master's degree there, which he completed in around 2002/3, while also acting as a tutor at one or two colleges. He still is a tutor, so far as I know (I may be wrong), and also lives near Durham, and so it wouldn't be at all surprising to have seen him around town there in 2005 or indeed this year. Since none of these facts is in the least embarrassing, it's very odd that he doesn't mention them in his reply.

I love "I could go on, but we don't all have trust funds". What does that mean? It can't mean he doesn't have time to write, after all - he writes more on his blog than any other blogger I have ever seen. Note to David: this is not a compliment.


The mention of Wikipedia seems to have struck a nerve. I wonder why?

A little research reveals that the Wikipedia entries on 'Hilary Armstrong' and 'Derwentside Independents' were amended on 19 Feb 2007 by a new user called Consett Campaigner. A new paragraph was added to the latter entry, announcing that the Derwentside Independents would shortly be endorsing the candidacy of 'well known local political activist David Lindsay' (later amended to 'well known local, national and international political activist David Lindsay'). These alterations were promptly removed by another Wikipedia user, Paul Leake, with the note: 'remove unsourced stuff about lindsay'.

'Consett Campaigner' also added a new paragraph to the entry on Hilary Armstrong, stating that 'Armstrong has never been popular' and that her position as MP for North-West Durham was under threat from the candidacy of 'well known local, national and international political activist David Lindsay'. These alterations were flagged as 'vandalism' and removed by another Wikipedia user with the comment: 'Suggest Mr Lindsay open up his own wiki'.

Some readers might be uncharitable enough to suppose that David Lindsay and 'Consett Campaigner' were one and the same. However, this would be grossly unfair. I happen to know that 'Consett Campaigner' was, in fact, Martin Miller.


Is the title of this post meant to suggest that the New Party and the British People's Alliance are the same organisation? If so, this is a case of mistaken identity. It is true that the New Party was founded under the name Peoples Alliance, but it has not operated under that name since 2003. It is unconnected with David Lindsay, his blog or his party.


No, I think Oliver merely means that it's a new party.

Not that new, though - the British People's Alliance has been in existence for a good six months now.

Bearing this in mind, I'm slightly perturbed that it doesn't seem to be popping up in any accounts of the upcoming elections - perhaps this is down to a neocon conspiracy by trust-funded Euston/Henry Jackson Society types, whose tentacles (as we all know) stretch throughout the media and can silence any subject at will?

sackcloth and ashes

Following Simon's comment, I would suggest that 'Martin Miller' is a sock-puppet for Mr Lindsay, created to persuade that self-deluded soul that his 'party' is more than just a one-man band. 'Miller' popped up on Harry's Place to defend the BPA, only to be asked by the blog moderators why he was using a computer with the same IP address as David Lindsay.

I would post the link to the thread, but those daft buggers at Harry's Place have exceeded their bandwidth limit again.

As for Mr Lindsay's hysterical and unfocused rant, I don't really know what to say, except 'Keep taking your medication, and don't get too upset when your Roderick Spode-esque excuse for a political party disappears up its own arse'.

Oliver Kamm

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'd forgotten that there is a current political party called the New Party. I didn't mean this one. I was thinking rather of the New Party established by Sir Oswald Mosley, which aimed at throwing out the "Old Gang". As Mr Lindsay favours a military coup to replace the elected government and the opposition, I felt there was a precedent here.


David, I know people keep asking you this question, but when you use the word "we", just how many people are you talking about?

You're party leader, so you presumably have access to the membership lists and can reply in a matter of seconds.

And just to be absolutely clear, I mean people who have actively and specifically pledged support to the British People's Alliance. Non-spoof equivalents of Patrick Michael Dawn. NOT entirely notional supporters like your "six hundred thousand staunch Unionists".

Oliver Kamm

Perhaps, Mr Lindsay, I might slightly amend Michael's criterion so that it comprises "people who have actively and specifically pledged support to the British People's Alliance" and the IP address of whose computer is not the same as yours.


Lindsay's no longer maintained livejournal also contains some choice entries, my favourite being this : http://davidaslindsay.livejournal.com/9809.html

Contains quotes about Lindsay from Labour Ministers, high-ranking union officials, and high-ranking Tories! Imagine.


How delightfully coy. But in general, when one's amassing quotations about oneself, it's usually a good idea to provide verifiable references, lest people more suspicious than my naturally credulous self start jumping to hurtful and erroneous conclusions.

But even I am at a loss to understand why the "leading 'liberal-left' journalist" who called Lindsay "a ghastly throwback" might wish not to be identified - and why, indeed, would Lindsay wish to conceal the identity of someone who clearly hates him that much?

Oliver Kamm

Mr Lindsay, I accept that there is no strict reason that you should tell me how many members of the British People's Alliance there are. But you have posted long essays on this blog, entirely unsolicited and unedited by me, and I think it is reasonable to ask you a question in return. I would be particularly interested to know who your supporter Martin Miller is. As you recounted on your blog, Mr Miller wrote to Georgina Henry at Comment is Free pronouncing you a brilliant writer and urging her to give you a regular column. It turns out that you and Mr Miller post from the same computer (as demonstrated by your having the same IP address), yet Mr Miller told Georgina that you and he had never met. I'd be glad to clear up any confusion on this point.

Like Michael, I'd also be interested to know who are the high-ranking ministers, party officials and trade unionists who are so free with their opinions of you. I too have had disobliging comments made about me by public figures, and I think it's in the public interest to name your foes.


How can an Act of Parliament which facilitates - tacitly encourages - the dismemberment of foetuses within the mother's body; how can that be a 'civilising reform'?
A family, before it can be 'supported', must exist, and there are thousands of families which simply do not exist because the children which would have been their driving force, have been killed and thrown into a bucket.

sackcloth and ashes

Having read Mr Lindsay's comments on the foreign policy his 'party' intends to follow, I can only conclude that he's on crack cocaine.

He talks about respecting the sovereignty of all states and building a 'partnership with Russia' - a country with a tradition of violating the rights of smaller states from Estonia to Georgia.

He talks about 'resisting Islamist secession from Serbia and Cyprus' (on the dubious grounds that the secular Kosovar Albanians and the Turkish Cypriots are 'Islamists'), but wants to see British (and I presume other NATO) troops pulled out of Afghanistan, a country which fell under the rule of the Taliban in the 1990s and became a haven of 'international' terrorism. Furthermore, quite how we should 'resist' the Kosovars and the Turkish Cypriots is beyond me - should we use force to crush them (bearing in mind that the Turk and Greek Cypriot leaders are currently negotiating reunification)? Is Mr Lindsay suggesting that we declare war against phantom 'Islamists' in South-Eastern Europe while giving way to real Islamists in Central Asia?

Also, how does the aim of '[offering] a voice to those whose commitment to freedom and democracy throughout the whole of China' square with 'recognising that China is indivisible from Taiwan to Tibet'? Was Mr Lindsay in a coma during 1989? And if he is calling for a 'one China' policy on Beijing's terms, then what does this mean for Taiwan - the one part of China where people actually have the right to vote and practice democracy?

I also wonder which college employs Mr Lindsay and what subject he tutors. Given his command of spelling and grammar, I sincerely hope it isn't English he teaches.

The Minstrel

The problems with Lindsay are:-

His chauvenism towards non-English speakers

His claim to be a socialist when he is a toadying royalist. He somehow thinks that the royal family are more in tune with everyday life than many others.

His absolute hate of Islam, particularly the Turkish variety. He seems to think that Turkey is more fundamentalist than Iran!!

Excusing/denying crimes against humanity if he sympathetic to the cause of the perpetrators (pace Serbia etc).

His hatred of any constitutional reform which is not reactionary (such as ramblings on about Lord Lieutenants)

His religious fanaticism that would make an 19th century Irish priest blush.

All this apart from the fact he makes up his "supporters" and spends much of his time editing out people who disagree with him, let along those who insult him.

David Lindsay - the Mussolini of the Shires - the question is what fictional character he most resembles - Walter Mitty or Billy Liar?

I can go on.

sackcloth and ashes

He's clearly a prick. I also liked his reference to 'the heirs of Sobieski and Solidarnosc', when (1) he's blatantly in favour of the strand of Russian nationalism that has historically repressed the Poles and other East-Central Europeans, and (2) Solidarnosc veterans such as Adam Michnik and Bronislaw Geremek supported Kosovo and Iraq.

He hasn't got a fricking clue what he's talking about. You can get more coherent commentary from a College JCR.

sackcloth and ashes

Here's the HP thread I was discussing earlier:



I was going to answer. But actually, you'll see when the votes are in next year. How is it your business before then?

It's not our business, of course. However, you must admit that there does seem to be a rather huge gap between the extent of your stated ambitions and the resources that you seem to have mustered in support - namely, a Blogspot blog as the party "website", plus a marked absence of anyone publicly pledging their allegiance on their own blogs or elsewhere.

Which is why there's such widespread doubt about whether or not your project is to be taken seriously, or written off as the fantasies of a crank.

And I would have thought that someone with serious political ambitions might be somewhat worried that potential voters might jump to the second conclusion on the basis of the available evidence. Or indeed potential candidates.

Barry Larking

This amazingly good fun! I used to think – "Old Oliver Kamm, y'know, nice enough, bit serious" – but now! It's like "Was Oliver in Monty Python?"

"Nor am I surprised, of course, to see scorn with which you genocidal vermin regard any attempt to give a proper political voice to, say, the white working class (the people whom you REALLY hate, possibly even more than you hate Arabs and Slavs - you'd give the white working class even more horrific deaths than that),..."

As the sixth child of seven born to white manual workers who went to secondary modern school and failed, I feel I can reply to this one. No, I do not feel Mr Kamm and his many sane contributors hold me in contempt leave alone wish to end my sorry white working class existence. (How, pray?) The 'million' who have perished in Iraq, if that be so, have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists, Baathist insurgents and sundry other murderers. The Liberation of Iraq has my support and though the policy following the over throw of the tyrant was measurably damaged by incompetent leadership, it had the effect of offering Iraqi's the chance to elect their government, a first for the region. Iraqi women and minorities have been given a chance to flourish in ways I applaud. In as much as these reforms are subsequently being opposed by a variety of indigenous factions, I deplore this.

But I am forced to enquire respectfully, where was Mr Lindsay's outrage when the previous regime in Iraq was killing its opponents by the tens of thousands? At what point did the scandalously fraudulent UN sanctions relief programme, 'Oil for Food and Drugs' arouse Mr Lindsay's outrage? The first or last quarter of a million casualties?


No, I do not feel Mr Kamm and his many sane contributors hold me in contempt leave alone wish to end my sorry white working class existence.

Well, I'm very happily married to a member of the white working classes, though I'm sure this is merely a cunning pretext to get her off her guard prior to my impending massacre of her and her entire family. Because I'm genocidal and verminous like that.

I also liked his reference to 'the heirs of Sobieski and Solidarnosc', when he's blatantly in favour of the strand of Russian nationalism that has historically repressed the Poles and other East-Central Europeans,

Yes, I had a bit of cognitive dissonance there too. But I find that thinking too hard about Lindsay's views and trying to make them add up to a coherent worldview is a pretty fruitless exercise. I'm enormously impressed with Simon's diligence, though.


Thank you for your kind comment about my 'diligence', Michael, but I assure you I've barely scratched the surface of the Lindsay archive. Many more gems remain to be uncovered. As David himself would say, 'watch this space'.

My main regret is that I haven't been able to link to a photograph of David. Does anyone know where I might find one? Apparently David is on Facebook, so there might be a photo on his Facebook profile. It would be interesting to find photographic evidence to test his claim that he is 'visibly mixed-race', a claim which has attracted some amused incredulity from those who have met him.

The comments to this entry are closed.