Nigel Farage plane accident. One MP we can be sure about well before the count

  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    6th May 2010

    UPDATE 3: I was wrong. Mr Farage was defeated by John Bercow, the House of Commons speaker.

    UPDATE 2: Pictures of Nigel Farage after the crash here (The Telegraph)

    UPDATE: Following concerns over chest pain and possible injuries, Nigel Farage has been transferred from Banbury Hospital to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, where the pilot is also being treated. (Updates at end.)


    On the BBC there was this shocking picture of a bloodied Mr Farage seemingly unconscious inside his aircraft. To be blunt I’m not sure if the broadcasters should have shown this.  Sadly, in this day of personal intrusion, public “ownership” of public figures and a discomforting voyeuristic tendency, it is par for the course.

    And now this one minute video from SkyNews is available online:

    Nigel Farage is standing against Commons Speaker John Bercow.

    Mr Farage's plane upside down, cockpit wrecked.

    In the Metro report, Nigel Farage plane crash pictures show bloodied face and wreckage:

    Pictures taken moments after Nigel Farage’s Polish-built plane crashed show the UKIP leader covered in blood after suffering facial injuries.

    The disturbing series of images, as yet unavailable for publication, show a clearly stunned Mr Farage with lines of blood smeared across the right side of his face.

    He was wearing a smart suit and sporting a UKIP party rosette and in one image is being helped by a witness.

    In another he is seen strapped into the plane, but dangling upside down with his face wedged in the grass after being flipped over in the accident.

    The foot of what appears to be the pilot can be seen sticking out of the crumpled blue wreckage.

    The front part of the plane also appears to have come apart from the main body of the plane after an apparent nosedive. It is currently lying in a field with the cockpit crushed.

    Mr Farage was in the aircraft towing a banner bearing the slogan “Vote for your country – Vote Ukip” when it went down at an airfield in Northamptonshire.

    It went down just after 8am, also injuring the pilot, who was airlifted to Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry. Former Ukip leader Mr Farage was taken to Horton General Hospital in Banbury.

    The aircraft was believed to be a 1960s-style biplane which left the Winchester area of Hampshire early today and flew into Hinton.

    The accident happened as it was taking off again from Hinton, the spokesman said.

    The plane’s registration is G-BWDF and according to the Civil Aviation Authority the owner is Sky Banners in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey.
    It is a PZL-104 Wilga 35A, a Polish fixed-wing landplane.


    1. Telegraph report, excerpt:

    ‘The aircraft was pulling a purple and yellow Ukip banner which allegedly got caught up in the tail fin of the aircraft when it took off just after 8am. The banner carried the slogan “Vote for your country – Vote Ukip”.

    Mr Farage, 46, was found still strapped into his cockpit seat, bent double and face down under the plane. He was pulled from the tangled wreckage still dressed in a pin-stripe suit, blue shirt and tie, with a Ukip rosette attached.

    Mr Farage, a Ukip MEP and the party’s chief spokesman, was taken to Horton General Hospital in Banbury suffering from minor head injuries.

    The pilot, Justin Adams, was more seriously hurt and lost his shoes in the impact of the crash. He was taken to Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry. His condition is not said to be life-threatening.’

    2. And this from the Daily Mail, many of whose readers will instinctively support Nigel Farage, UKIP’s former leader and parliamentary candidate (that’ll be a definite now.)

    3. Fellow MEP Daniel Hannan says “Nigel Farage always hated flying”.

    I presume he means “hates flying”. Mr Farage is not the past tense, yet, Mr Hannan. He’ll live to fly another day.

    4. Updated post from Daily Mail, excerpts:

    UKIP candidate Nigel Farage tonight said he was ‘lucky to be alive’ after a miracle escape from a horrific plane crash when a last-minute election stunt went dramatically wrong.

    Mr Farage is being treated in hospital after chipping his spine, damaging his breastbone and breaking two ribs in the accident, which came barely an hour after polling booths opened.

    He was hauled to safety with blood trickling down his face after the aircraft plummeted to the ground at 70mph when a banner declaring ‘Vote for your country, vote UKIP’ became tangled in its tail fin.

    Mr Farage could be heard moaning ‘get me out’. The blood-splattered Westminster hopeful was clearly terrified as he was helped to his feet.

    Hopefully Mr Farage will recover quickly.


    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    3 Responses to “Nigel Farage plane accident. One MP we can be sure about well before the count”

    1. Soylent Says:

      He openly admits that he would have gone to war with Iraq even if WMDs were known to not exist and failed to disclose this to the public. He lied to the cabinet and misled parliament over the war.

      If Blair was held to the standards used at the Nuremburg trials he would have not only been convicted, he would have been executed for war crimes. There is very much so blood on his hands for the utter disaster in Iraq, it’s a terrible injustice that it isn’t his own.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        He openly admitted to Fern Britton that he’d still have thought it right to remove him. Check his words.

        “If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?” Blair was asked. He replied: “I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]“.

        Significantly, Blair added: “I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.”

        He later stepped back from this at the Iraq Inquiry, when asked to explain why he had remarked to the daytime TV presenter Fern Britton that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known it had no WMDs. The Daily Mail’s report is distorted, as it always is on Blair, saying that he said he would have invaded Iraq without WMDs. He didn’t say that, but you will no doubt believe the Mail’s version, since it helps your sordid case. The case that the man man who brought peace to Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone and Kosovo deserves a rope round his neck.

        The Mail (Maul):


        “The comments, made in a BBC interview last month, suggested Mr Blair was hell-bent on ‘regime change’ – regardless of the circumstances. But Mr Blair insisted today that he ‘didn’t mean in any sense to change the basis’ for the invasion.

        Incredibly, the man who began the practice of politicians appearing on light entertainment shows to engage with the public claimed he had been caught out. He claimed: ‘Even with all my experience in dealing with interviews, it still indicates that I have got something to learn about it.’

        ‘I didn’t use the words “regime change” in that interview and I didn’t mean in any sense to change the basis. Obviously, all I was saying was you cannot describe the nature of the threat in the same way if we knew then what we know now.

        ‘It was in no sense a change of position. The position was that it was the approach of UN resolutions on WMD. That was the case. It was then and it remains.’


        I don’t think he needed to say he had something to learn. He should have stuck with his original words, which were in no way incriminating. They only said that he thought it would have been right to remove Saddam. He is entitled to believe that would have been right. He did not say he would have gone to war with Iraq “even if WMDs were known to not exist”, just that he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam.

        That does not mean that he would have got permission from parliament to go to war, or would have even tried. Without permission he wouldn’t have gone in. This was, in fact, the FIRST TIME EVER that a British PM had asked parliament for permission to go to war.

        Blair at the Iraq Inquiry, video:

        If you’re interested, read his words here regarding WMD.

        “I did not use the words “regime change” in that interview, and I did not in any sense mean to change the basis. Obviously, all I was saying was you couldn’t describe the nature of the threat in the same way, if you knew then what you know now, because some of the intelligence about WMD was shown to be wrong. It was in no sense a change of the position, and I just simply say to you, the position was that it was the breach of the United Nations Resolutions on WMD. That was the cause. It was then, and it remains.”

        “After September 11, that changed, and that change, incidentally, I still believe is important for us today because it is the reason today, as I say, I do take such a strong line on Iran or any other nation that tries to develop WMD. We cannot afford, in my view look, other people may have different views, but in my view, we cannot afford the possibility that nations, particularly nations that are brutal, rogue states, states that take an attitude that is wholly contrary to our way of life, you cannot afford such states to be allowed to develop or proliferate WMD.”

        “Just to say really, because I may not get another chance to say it, about the reactions of Arab leaders in the region: most of them were glad to see the back of Saddam. Now, what they worried about was the consequences of doing so, but there was no great support. In fact, when, as he is now, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, when he was then the Crown Prince, had launched the Arab peace initiative in 2002, I think Saddam was the one leader to come out and denounce him. He paid monies to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. I mean, he was a menace on the Middle East peace process too.”

        “It was always relevant to me, because I think that it gives it gives a different sense of the threat of the nature of Saddam’s regime. The fact that there were, on some accounts, a million casualties in the Iran/Iraq war, 100,000 Kurds that had been killed, 100,000 killed by political killing, we had had the Kuwait situation where, again, tens of thousands died. The actual use of chemical weapons against his own people. So I think it is always important to remember from my perspective the nature of the regime did make a difference to the nature of the WMD threat.”

        “When you actually read the descriptions of what happened when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the Halabja village, and by some accounts as many as 5,000 people died through chemical weapons, there are people in Iraq today still suffering the consequence of that, to me that indicated a mindset that was horrific. It is horrific whether or not he then uses weapons of mass destruction, but if there is any possibility of him ever acquiring them or using them, it is a mindset that indicates this is a profoundly wicked I would say almost psychopathic man. We were obviously worried that, after him, his two sons seemed to be as bad, if not worse.”

        I attended the Iraq Inquiry when he gave evidence. This man is NO war criminal, with no agenda to kill people as was Hitler’s policy. We should be proud of his principled stand against corrupt and evil and murdering leaders like Saddam, who ordered the killing of his own people, even of his own two sons-in-law.

        Saddam, the man with “NO” blood on HIS hands, would be proud of you, Soylent, for your distortion of the facts.

    2. alan Says:

      Some of the words here remind me of when the patients of Dr Harold Shipman were interviewed by the press, the one’s who thought he had not commited the crimes he was charged with were the one’s that had their comments aired on the mainstream media.
      Blair is guilty of war crimes as are Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, GW Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfield and all the rest of the Neo Cons it’s just that there are so many impressed upon members of the public who actually believe they have the correct opinion.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s