My punishment for not confining my writing to approved subjects, I am thus told, is that instead of the blog being ignored (because no sensible person reads EU Referendum anyway), people will come flocking to the comments to tell me that they don't read the blog any more. 

Furthermore, they tell me, they will continue not reading it until I stop writing nasty things about The Great Leader, even though they will not actually know when I stop, because they are no longer reading it, and never actually did. No doubt a non non-reader will tell them. 

Even in the event that I do stop writing rude things about The Great Leader, however, most will continue not reading the blog, just as they didn't do before. This time, though, they will not not be reading it because I'm writing rude things about The Great Leader, but because they never did it before and had no intention of starting.

In other words, much of this is a crude attempt at censorship by people who don't read the blog anyway, using moral blackmail, presaged on the idea that people who come over to read this blog are somehow doing me a favour. I am supposed to be the loser, they imply, if they do not visit my blog and read my words (not that they would necessarily understand them).

Much as I enjoy the exchanges with my readers, however, I think I ought to let these non-readers into a secret – not that they will read it, unless I am also rude about The Great Leader, in which case some will read it in order to tell me they haven't read it, and won't ever read my blog again. So we will offer some unkind words on TGL shortly.

As to the blog, genuine readers will know that my "day job" – such that it is – is that of a political researcher and analyst. In pursuit of that occupation, I post my research and analysis on the blog, for my clients to read. They prefer the accessibility and the anonymity of the blog, and it is very convenient for them. That thus has become the primary function of the blog.

Secondly, I do research for Booker, which I also post on the blog, in the certain knowledge that the best way of keeping something from the legacy media is to post it on the blog. We know that many journalists read the blog, but most never use the material directly because they are terrified they might have to admit they got it from here.

Thus, anything that goes on the blog can be used as an "exclusive" by Booker, because none of the legacy media (with certain notable and honourable exceptions) will have used it by the time it is published on the Sunday. Some (but not many) legacy journalists may then use the material after it has been sanitised. Mostly, though, they prefer to wait weeks or months later when they can attribute it to a safer source, or have "discovered" it themselves, when it then becomes "real" news.

That apart, this blog is also used for my own research – to fuel publications and to further my own political ends. It also acts as a shop window for my work and attracts very welcome and much appreciated donations.

That actually gives me a target readership of a few hundred, including myself (as I am constantly using the archived material). The thousands of others are a bonus, but very welcome nonetheless. The deal is they get a service free of charge - to take or leave as they see fit - and I get a quiet satisfaction out of people being able to use my research.

But get this right. Other than those who are actually giving me money, or are contributing actively and positively to the forum or comments (or corresponding by e-mail), no one is doing me a favour. For those who who choose deliberately not to read this blog because they are offended by it, it is their loss, not mine. And, to those who come here to jeer and smear, we certainly don't want you or need you, and never have. We have standards, and you don't meet them.

So, what about The Great Leader (#cultofFarage)? Well, what started my train of thought before I was so rudely interrupted was this in the Evening Standard, which has Clegg believing he "unsettled" Farage last week by bombarding him with statistical claims about Europe.

Clegg said that Farage "is touchy and unable to cope with the pressure of real political debate". "The more I set out the facts, the more Nigel Farage became agitated and unsettled", he said. "He clearly is not accustomed to having people point out that a lot of his assertions are not grounded in fact".

Clegg added: "He likes to cast himself as some plucky outsider. He is not able to deal with the facts so he resorts to bluster". I could have written that, but I didn't, but was this really Clegg claiming to have set out the "facts"? Was this for real?

Anyhow, that's as rude as it gets in this piece about TGL (#cultofFarage), and I didn't even originate it. I'll have a proper go later, after the debate, so non-readers can not read that as well.

* choose any two

FORUM THREAD