On the 3rd June, Nicholas Wilson (Also known as Mr Ethical) was answering questions from potential voters at a political hustings that took place in the Hastings and Rye parliamentary constituency (venue was the rye parish church).
So what possibly could have gone wrong with a few politicians, just answering some questions from the public? Well, apparently a lot can go wrong especially if your answer embarrasses Amber Rudd.
More details: a member of the public asked a topic about law and order in which in answering, Amber Rudd referred to the terrorist attack that place on the 22nd May 2017 in which 23 people were killed. When speaking Nicholas Wilson brought up the fact that the United Kingdom sells weapons to Saudi Arabia who is finally supporting ISIS.
So what you think Amber Rudd does when asked this difficult question? Does she try to give an answer in hopes of not sounding like a hypocrite? or does she censor him for daring to ask the question?
Knowing how authoritarian Amber Rudd is, the answer should be staring you right in the face. She wrote a note to the moderator of the discussions to get Nicholas Wilson silenced. This comes as no surprise to me as just the like rest of the leadership of the conservative party, she has never appeared to have been a strong debater.
Even if Amber Rudd had good debating skills, it would not have saved her from these embarrassing questions as she would have had to somehow juggle the lines about being strong on terrorism all while supporting Saudi Arabia which funds terrorism worldwide.
The scary thing here is that Amber Rudd thinks it is ok to censor arguments that she id unable to answer. It makes you wonder if the Tories win this election, what kind of censorship would they try to impose on people in order to stop people speaking up about any potential corruption that the government is involved in.
So to break down the story; Nicholas Wilson talks about the UK arms dealing with Saudi Arabia, then Amber Rudd hands the moderator a note, then that moderator silence Nicholas, “for being irrelevant”.