Stonky, a couple of points. The comments you quoted but which moderators did not remove: “I know you’ve had a rough time recently but going down the Icke route is not going to help”, “Rag Mag Media idiot”, and “Do not be an arse” ; when I was moderating, and under the circumstances, I too would have let these stand even though they do break the rules, because they serve as examples of Craig’s assertion that “there appears to be organised pushback” and “this astonishing Twitter pile-on…”
And I had an exchange with moderation recently. One commenter insinuated that I’d relish acting like the Khmer Rouge because I’m active with Extinction Rebellion, and another accused my of having “asked for” the invasive tracking software from Gould’s company, because I argue against the Off-Guardian nonsense that covid-19 is no worse than seasonal flu. In both cases I responded with obscenity, hoping to draw moderators’ attention to the insinuated smears against me. The first time, moderation removed my obscenity but permitted the insinuation to stand, so via the comments I pointed out the veiled personal attack and explained my purpose in posting obscenity. On the second occasion moderation needed no prompting. Some commenters are very skilful at slipping ad hominem attacks past the moderators by either sly insinuation or by interspersing personal insults among valid political argument, so I regard this as an improvement in moderation standards.
I have seen Kempe criticise government positions, generally for being too far to the right. My impression is that Kempe’s political position is roughly equivalent to that of the right of the Labour Party, and that Kempe objects to uncritical thinking, but is too inclined to dismiss suspicions as conspiracy theory.