The Supreme Guido and the absolute but not absolute freedom of expression

The Supreme Guido claims that freedom of expression is absolute and cites this to support his argument. However, he is wrong because it is not Article 19 which determines this issue. Rather, it is Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 10(1) states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, Article 10(2) restricts this under certain circumstances. Therefore, freedom of expression is not absolute under English law. I am aware of these limitations and see the need for them. The Supreme Guido who advocates that freedom of expression is absolute, in one breath, is guilty of hypocrisy. Because he then goes onto state, and try and defend, his policy of censoring posters freedom of expression on his own blog. Basically, he states because it is his blog, and then admits that only he knows what his rules of censorship are. This way The Supreme Guido always wins. A prisoner in his goldfish bowl. When he is invited to engage face to face with human beings, the little boy in him in the primary school playground takes his ball and refuses to play. In his small world that only he and Iain Dale live, you will notice they parrot each other. Both are scared of competition from other bloggers, frightened of others expressing their freedom of expression. In their small world freedom of expression, it would appear, only exists if anyone agrees with them. The mystery is why Iain Dale defends The Supreme Guido. It's a bit like a puppet and the person pulling the strings. Who is pulling the strings and who is the puppet?