-end of line- Brillo pad and the Bilderberg cake

Apparently the Brillo pad (yes the man known as Andrew Neil) had yet another person on the daily politics that he didn't like, and whom was -no doubt- arrogantly yet politely heckled, (the Brillo's definition of debate) into losing his temper.
This time it seems to be about the "Bilderberg" group, which, according to the phantom scourer, is just a nice friendly meeting, of like minded people, whom just happen to be rich and get together for a cup of tea and a slice of cake.
According to the Brillo, -who was slightly defensive on News watch this a.m- the man being interviewed was "mad" His words and not mine, and shouting after his mike was switched off. In fact the man was shouting so loudly that he was being picked up even on the poor Brillo's mike.
According to the Brillo, this form of shouting is an "Americanism" and relates to no form of "debate" at all, and is simply a form of heckling, which is "a sad indictment to the fact that the art of debate has been eroded." I also expect the shouting upset the poor wee dog, whom might have been moved from its accustomed position at his master's feet. (yes Starkey I am referring to you.)
Yet it was the Brillo himself who inflamed this argument, by using the word "conspiracy". This word apparently enraged the interviewee so much so, that the Brillo had to simply shake his head in dismay as the show was brought to its usual dour end.
Surely, if there is anyone alive who knows about that word, it is the Brillo himself: whose eternal years of service in the cause of journalistic integrity, has placed him at the heart of the establishment, allowing him to make a stand for the cause of integrity and justice in the free world; and, after all, "the daily politics" a show that he pays to be aired, is the bastion of honest debate, where no shouting occurs at all,whatsoever and every individual on the show is treated with respect. Until, of course, the rottweiler starts to prowl that is. (yes Starkey, I am referring to you...again...)
I know about debate: debate is about using rhetorical language to engage individuals and therefore inflame passions. By pressing the right buttons its pretty easy to cause a person to get upset. The talent in debate,is to press the same buttons back. In an opinion, pressing the buttons back is not something that is easy to do. Which begs the real question: why did he have the man on the show in the first place? Did the Brillo know that his polite doggerel would inflame the interviewee?
Finally it has to be said that in a democracy, it is the right of any individual to have an opinion and have it aired, whether it is mad or otherwise; and most of us see it every day, as the E.D.L and U.K.I.P seem to grab more headlines than the other groups more dedicated to a socialist perspective. Also to deliberately inflame an individual, because you know you can, is a sign of a weak argument, and from my perspective simply underpins the possible position that the Bilderberg group are not formed just to drink tea, eat cake and consider the weather.
Yes, Brillo, you are an educated man, and you surround yourself with educated people, you prop up your ideas with like minded people and destroy any person who says the opposite to what you think. The real tragedy is that there is no other show available on the BBC to consider the other perspective, the perspective of the ordinary individual, who doesn't know what Bilderberg is about, who sees poverty on his or her street corner, yet also sees men and women of power and influence meeting -in secret- to discuss the economy of the world. Bilderberg is a human tragedy, it does not help individuals, it only helps itself; and those like minded. From that position alone it has to be broken up.
-end of line-