Wednesday, 3 December 2014

Response to "Coalition formed in Portsmouth to fight against the rise of Ukip" article in Portsmouth News

Coalition formed in Portsmouth to fight against the rise of Ukip

"You're not welcome here" - Words that people gleefully attempt to attribute the "supposed" rhetoric from UKIP, but in reality as we have seen from the 'Stand Up To UKIP Portsmouth coalition' and other supposed "anti-fascist" groups, are seemingly more likely to come from the latter these days.

As a 30 year old UKIP member and activist, I spend a large portion of my day speaking to supporters, members and activists from other parties. It literally depresses me to see just how poorly and misinformed these people are as a result of rhetoric put out by their own political parties and passed around in a type of "Chinese whispers" that seems to get more and more ridiculous as it gets passed around.

All I can do as one person fighting my corner is try to properly inform people, when they are willing to listen and almost as it would seem these days, keep my head above water at the volume of attack being thrown at UKIP activists allover the country.

Words like "fascist" and "Nazi" casually tossed about like they are words that can be used in some kind of casual word play and, "you aren't allowed an opinion because you are UKIP" rhetoric is incredibly worrying. Indeed preventing a democratically elected party its freedom of speech is exactly the kind of thing that comes to mind when "fascism" is thrust out into the light of day.

When it comes to accusations of racism against UKIP members, I have no defence. Neither would I have any defence against those accusations if they were thrust upon the countless racist members of the Conservative party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats etc. One of the unfortunate things in politics and life in general is that racism and other questionable views exist in general. Not exclusively at UKIP.

What I can assure people of though is that UKIP have a strict sign-up policy. In fact if you are a former member of the Far Right, be it National Front, BNP, Britain First, EDL or any other extreme party. You are not welcome as a member at the UK Independence Party.
UKIP are currently the only political party in British Politics that has a ban on former members of the Far Right joining the party in the UK since Nigel Farage was re-elected as leader of the party in 2010.

When questionable individuals are un-earthed often gleefully by the National media, a right and proper investigation is carried out, and if that individual is found to have made unacceptable comments as a UKIP member, a zero tolerance policy is taken and their future status at the party is considered.

I see from some comments in the comments section beneath the article that claims of "Neo-Nazi" and "BNP" former members has been made. I encourage anyone with any names of these individuals to come forward, because in reality, their are no former Neo Nazi's or BNP members at UKIP. Unlike other parties such as the Labour Party who have a former Second in Command of the Neo Nazi League of Milton Keynes as councillor, and a former BNP member, activist and Councillor amongst its ranks in Blackburn.

Having concerns about the volume of open-door immigration is not a "racist" thing, or when people say that those concerns about open-door immigration are racist do they apply those views to members of their own parties who thinks the immigration system needs addressing.

Nobody is calling for immigration to end. In fact UKIP want a Global points based immigration system similar to Canada or Australia to come into effect.

Having a open door system across varying countries of different economic strength was a experiment of sorts that was always doomed to failure.
If you have a country with higher living standards and a better living wage, of course people are going to want to come, nor would anyone blame them for doing so.
But how is it going to improve those poorer countries if the Euro-zone if people start upping routes and rushing off to different areas of the EU.

The reality is those countries need to be helped away from what in many cases is a former Communist rule that resulted in generations of suffering.
Unemployment across the Euro-zone is as high in many areas at 60%, as we have seen by the large numbers of young Spanish migrants who have moved over to the south of England in the hopes of work. Again- I don't blame them for doing so, but when it comes to sheer numbers of migrants there is reason for concern in many people's opinion.

Wage compression is a fact, jobs are taken in bulk by foreign workers, whilst we have a estimated 2 million unemployed in the UK.

In many instances Big Business have specifically advertised jobs only in foreign countries. I am very sorry, I do not believe that their are jobs in the UK the local populas are unwilling to do.
When you go out and about like me and talk to homeless people, and 'buskers' out on the street who tell you they would take "any job going", no-matter what it is, how can these politicians claiming we need Eastern European labour to pick the fields of Essex live with themselves knowing their are people suffering on streets when they espouse this highly offensive and one-sided thinking.

I state again for the record, migration is a good thing, in reasonable numbers. I have no problem with people from other countries living in my area. In fact my area in particular has a percentage of Polish and Bangladeshi migrants who complement brilliantly to our community.

UKIP don't want an end to immigration as some people have claimed, we are not biased to people from specific regions, who have specific skin colours, or follow a specific religion. This claim is both offensive and nonsense.

The reality of the matter is, if UKIP had the choice between a skilled "brain surgeon" was was a Muslim from Pakistan or a Latvian unskilled labourer, the preference would go to that individual in Pakistan.

This is not how the system currently operates however. With current Rest of the World migrants prioritised against in favour of EU migrants for the sake of a lower Net immigration number.

When it comes to organisations and political parties coming together to prevent democratically elected political parties from functioning. This is what I get worried about, and this is what reminds me of "fascism".

In the last 24 hours I have had to confront an utter lie espoused by a prominent comedian on National television about UKIP, another individual who has created fake UKIP accounts and has posted deeply offensive racist/homophobic comments in an attempt to frame the party and another prominent individual at a political party who has point-blank lied about UKIP policies.

People quite frequently claim that UKIP are full of "rhetoric", when in reality the use of "rhetoric" is what is often used to try and either denounce UKIP or lessen their message.

What happened to politics and humanitarianism in general where this was considered acceptable.

The people who have been concerned about UKIP, that have come together to form this coalition, prominent members of the community for instance, why didn't they come to UKIP, people like me and speak with regards to their concerns?

Claims have been made in this meeting and UKIP have had absolutely no right to reply. This is why I have felt so eager to write this response.

I am not doubting that their are major issues "recession, austerity, a lack of social housing and poverty", but UKIP have never solely blamed these things on "immigrants, and I must say this claim is both dishonest and complete and utter nonsense!

There is absolutely no doubt that migration at a rate of one city the size of Hull in populas per year net has an impact on the infrastructure of this country. School places are low, NHS capacity is struggling and housing is at an all time low in terms of capacity for populas. It is an element of a larger problem, a problem that UKIP seek to address.

Referring to a leader of a political party as a "con artist" as Jon Woods, chairman of Portsmouth Trades’ Council, has done is incredibly low, especially when you considering that neither Farage or anyone from UKIP had the right to reply. It smacks of a bully in a school playground mocking someone who isn't present in the intention to get them bulled later.

Zuber Hatia, said that mosques in Portsmouth had been subjected to racist abuse and attacks.

Are UKIP responsible for what organisations and parties like the EDL, BNP and BP?
No of course they are not. I suppose in the absence of actual UKIP members attacking mosques, a thing I am 100% certain would never happen, you have to claim that UKIP have someone stoked tension in the absence of any justifiable evidence?

UKIP have never singled out the Muslim community for ridicule so this claim is also utter nonsense, and I find it shameful that this individual has tried to latch onto an anti-democratic campaign in such a manner.


As for the Labour Portsmouth South candidate Sue Castillon, of course she would lower herself to the standard of smears against UKIP, I see this daily from Labour Party PPC's trying to win back the working class votes they have lost over the years. The reality of the matter is UKIP speak for the working class now, and Labour have lost that vote with antics such as the white van fiasco in Rochester and Strood regards Emily Thornberry.

UKIP are no-more racist than any other party as I highlighted above, but it is awfully convenient for those other parties who have former BNP members and former Neo-Nazis to claim that UKIP encourage racial intolerance. When in reality UKIP have a multitude of ethnic members in South London for instance where we have numerous members of the Commonwealth standing for UKIP, and even a Polish gentleman who frequently writes articles for the National press to counter-balance the claims made by some sections of the media and political establishment.

I go out often, and speak to people from a wide range of ethnic, religious and National backgrounds, and it is being made more and more difficult to reveal myself as being UKIP due to this false rhetoric that is being put out by other political parties such as the instance given here by Miss Castillon.

If anything, people like her, other political parties and the National media are the ones stoking the rhetoric that increases tension in the country.

It's like the first person who throws the brick at a riot who then runs away as the violence unfolds. It is utterly cowardly and dishonest.


What the vast majority of the political establishment are concerned about is a party they know they cannot control, a party who doesn't tow a whip system, that introduces new ideas, gives people the right to recall those politicians they elected who have let the electorate down. A party that doesn't tow the same 'Pro-EU' party line that seems to exist across the political spectrum of Great Britain.

What they are scared about is a true alternative party.

Claims that UKIP are a racist objectionable party is a lie.

Should the political establishment be concerned about UKIP? Yes of course they should be, because we are coming for you, we will hold YOU accountable for the countless let-downs you have inflicted on this country over the years.

If people accept the rhetoric that is put out against UKIP by these 'other' political parties, then you really have been fooled.

The reality is UKIP are growing, UKIP are made up of people from different political backgrounds, we are taking votes from all political parties across the country, and the thing that frightens the political establishment most of all, is that we are encouraging former non-voters back into politics and are the only party that has managed to do so.

Before you make a decision on UKIP, consult your local UKIP candidate, councillors and representatives before you make a choice.

At the very least, listen to the response to such accusations before you make a carefully considered decision on where you stand when it comes to UKIP.

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Response to the "My response to a 'Kipper" article done by Matthew Wicks ‏AKA @MRWicks94

This article is a response to an article written by Matthew Wicks in reply to discussion I was having with him on Twitter.The original article can be found here:

"Opposition to the EU is always usually along the lines of either democratic or national struggle; these differ in terms of positive and negative. The EU top brass is becoming increasingly complicated and is showing signs of wanting to completely override national sovereignty. That is fine to campaign against; but when Eurosceptic parties across Europe rally against immigration more than anti-democratic elements that permit mass movement across the continent then priorities are wrong."
In a democratic Nation we would have been given a choice as to whether we should sign the Lisbon Treaty and open the doors up to mass uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
When Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty we didn't have a Referendum. We didn't even have a National debate on the subject. Labour and Brown just went ahead and did it anyway.
So when you start off by saying that it is anti-democratic, I think you should take your train of thought back to when we signed the Treaty in the first place.

Here's the point though. The people haven't been heard on Open Door Immigration and we are at least 5 years away from a formal departure from the Union. The longer we leave it before departing the worse the situation is going to get.
We have David Cameron "bigging up" Turkey as a possible addition to the EU (population 77 million) not to mention the chance that Turkey will give people from other Nations Turkish ID and passports (Iraq, Iran, Syria etc...) in the same fashion that Bulgaria and Romania have been giving people from Moldova and other Nationalities not in the EU Passports and ID cards.

Let's not forget Turkey is a nation that currently borders and isn't a million miles away from countries that ISIS call home.
None of the parties predicted how many migrants would come, indeed most of the parties would admit nobody really knows the exact number that have come and where they are. Both legally and illegally.

"The article you sent me from the Huffington Post seemed to more point out groups worse than Ukip rather than highlight the far-right elements that they have flirted with recently (even if I can hand it to them for shunning Le Pen's Vichy rabble)."
Worse than UKIP?
May I suggest when you write an article you don't presume UKIP are "bad" or "worse" or on par with Far Right groups. UKIP are defined as a Right Wing party and have pretty moderate views on most things when people aren't flinging their arms in the air and claiming offence.

The article in question that I sent you was written about the most frightening Far Right parties in the EU.
The discussion in question wasn't so much about UKIP, as you well know it was about the Polish Party Congress of the New Right.
So this segment of your article is disingenuous to say the least.

You accused UKIP of making a deal with a "Nazi type racist party", I pointed out we had done a deal with 1 individual to bring the number of Nationalities up to the appropriate number.
In a perfect World we wouldn't have had to.
But in a perfect World we wouldn't have the President of the European Parliament breaking his neutrality rules and blackmailing someone into leaving UKIP's EFDD group. Something I talked about here if you are interested:

If you took a look at the non-inscrits pool you would know our choice was impossible.
If you had read the article you would have realised the point I was trying to make.
Namely nobody defined the Congress of the New Right as a Far Right party until after UKIP took a MEP from the group.
Whilst the person in question made a pretty poor joke about slapping women, something I would never support, he is happily married and his wife apparently laughed off the accusation that was levelled at him by the Polish media.
The guy in question has never made a racist or homophobic comment as far as I am aware whilst a member of the Congress of the New Right.

Now whilst his Party leader has made repugnant comments that I wholeheartedly deplore. It is worth reminding people that both Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall have said that he and other members of his Party are not welcome. There is no "deal" with the Congress of the New Right.
We (UKIP) approached the MEP in question, and he spoke to his Party and it's leader and joined the EFDD.

There is no "deal" and there never has been one.
"Would I ever lend my support to Ukip? No. I am a left-winger with mixed views on the EU."
For the record I respect where you stand from.
I used to be center-left Lib Dem. They let me down badly and I couldn't continue to support a party of lies as Nick Clegg has turned the Lib Dems into.

"I feel I do not completely wish to leave but I do know that this country, if in the right hands, could make it as a completely autonomous nation not unlike Norway or Switzerland."
As a left winger? Who do you suggest?
Labour don't want to leave the EU.
Greens don't want to leave the EU.

You admit there needs to be change if we are going to stay in the EU. Yet change is not on offer.
Do you afford your vote to the Lib Dems?
No. They don't want to leave the EU.

Do you afford your vote to the Tories?
Whilst I am sure you are fighting back the bile in the back of your throat at the prospect. It is again worth mentioning that it's questionable whether the Tories will keep their promises with David Cameron going on record as saying he is pro-EU.
Even with the current mess, it worries me that he will claim compromise with the EU and do a "Harold Wilson", namely say he's got the EU to make a huge concession and that we no-longer need a referendum, or a vote to leave because the deal is "so much better", when in reality it won't be.

Along with the Tories plans for new souped up watching powers on the public, we seem to be taking the same route as Sweden did, which lead to discussing things like immigration being made against the law.
Whilst you might like that? I like my freedom of speech.
I also deplore suggestions made by the Tories that they will begin heavily taxing disabled persons allowances.
For me that is unforgivable.

"Are Ukip the right hands to leave it in? No."
Again you have made the mistake of making a statement of fact.
In your opinion they are not right hands.

Who are the right hands may I ask you?
Under the Tories and Labour our national debt has increased to nearly £1.4 trillion. That will go up a further £2 billion to £1.6 trillion if we pay the EU what they have demanded.

"Ukip is a jumble of right-wing ideas and a minority of its supporters hold very dangerous ideas"
I suggest you read their policies for people.
Hardly any of them are of a right wing nature. With ideas like Direct Democracy, Right to Recall, local/regional/national referendums for key decision making, local trusts controlling healthcare and many other things. Even the Right Wing tagline is becoming hard to sell.

"some racist" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of racism?
"some homophobic" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of homophobia?
"and some plain right bigoted" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of bigotry? Hell some might say this whole article and people's attitudes to concerned people who support UKIP is bigoted.

The simple fact is people who have made comments that are unacceptable have been removed.
There are obviously citable examples of people who have been swiftly removed by UKIP for making unacceptable comments. That much I am pleased by.
We also try to stop former Far Right members joining the party and are as such the only political party in the country that do so.

"These ideas are usually built on a level of misunderstanding rather than outright hate but would still prove difficult if they made up the mandate given to our country's politics."
What ideas?
Policies of UKIP or comments made by members/supporters.

If you are referring to UKIP policies.
The only one that was released in "Policies For People" (UKIP's sample of its manifesto, that has courted debate was the one about refusing entry to the UK of people on a permanent status who have HIV.
The Jury is out on that one still with many supporting it and many against it.

I don't think you can label any of the policies as being "unacceptable to this country or its politics".

"And how exactly is Ukip representing our tolerant nation on the world stage when it saves itself through allying with a party whose top brass member debates the intelligence of women and the legitimacy of Holocaust evidence?"
I think I answered this above but I shall repeat.
Robert Iwaszkiewicz joined the Group only. Not his party and certainly not his leader who made those disgraceful comments.

"I'd rather my homeland not be represented by people grouping together with that lot!"
Well as referenced in the above Huffington Post article you have 2 parties who when members of the EFD were deemed as Far Right, and then when they joined the European Conservatives and Reformists they mysteriously went back to being Right Wing and not worth mentioning.

Feel free to look up True Fins:
With its MP James Hirvisaari who was fined in 2011 for comments made on his blog about Muslims, another party members turned down an invite to the Independence Day ball because he didn't want to see gay people, and the party is linked to racism and homophobia.
Meanwhile the The Danish People's party founder Pia Kjærsgaard thinks that Denmark is not a country where immigration is welcome at all. "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Øresund Bridge."
This is what UKIP rejected at the end of the last European Parliament and what the Tories have teemed up with.
That doesn't get mentioned though does it?

"Even if I did want to leave the EU I wouldn't vote for Farage (or soon to be Carswell) to be our PM."
UKIP had an election for leadership a couple of months ago. Farage has been re-elected unopposed for a second full length term.
Granted I can see this article is rapidly devolving to rhetoric.

"They are a continuance of Tory politics; low levels of economic interference with heightened levels of conservative social attitudes."
Sorry. That is utter nonsense.
Look at the policies I spoke of above. Look at Policies For People. Only someone completely ignorant would think that?

"For a left-winger to support them just to spite the three main parties would be a betrayal of his/her beliefs."
Why would he/she need to choose to support UKIP only because he didn't think the other 3 weren't viable.
I personally came to believe long ago that had the Lib Dems kept their promises I would have probably found myself going over to UKIP anyway.
If you remove the rhetoric and ignore the media smears you find a pretty decent party which has come a long way!

"I would never support a party that shunned the non-EU ECHR"
The European Court of Human Rights has done more harm than good?
Besides why can't we keep track of our own human rights with our own human right laws.

Most people would admit that the ECHR is massively flawed. Hell it issued the European Arrest warrant on that poor cancer stricken boy recently.
"increased privatisation of the NHS (Paul Nuttall's words, not mine)"
UKIP policy is to keep the NHS free at the point of treatment and to NOT privatise the NHS:
In the article on his website Nuttall was talking about the positives that the possible pressure of impending privatisation would bring in streamlining the NHS.
The truth is it is not financially viable at present and the middle management layer needs reducing. It needs to become more cost efficient.

As for his video interview he was talking about lessening the burden on the NHS that should be carried by external institutions and units such as nursing homes.
See if you don't explain the detail you get what is so often portrayed falsely by the Labour Party.
A dishonest messing up of the truth!

"and is so committed to empty promises of democracy that it hasn't mentioned several anti-democratic institutions that we'd remain with if we were to leave the EU!"
How can you even say that?
That is such an empty line with absolutely no evidence of substance to back it up?!

All the parties have lied and been proved liars.
Only UKIP is a mainstream party that is yet to be given a chance.

"P.S. In no way have I labelled Ukip 'far right'. In no way would I label the Conservatives or Ukip far-right in terms of their policies or manifesto pledges (whatever Ukip's may hold come next May)."

You called UKIP a "Nationalist Party"
I suggest you look up the term "Nationalism. Because it doesn't line up with a party that has on several occasions said that this country is flawed and could learn from other parties.
As for "far right", I think we can all see the implication of what you think we all the rhetoric about "homophobia", "racism" and "bigotry"...

"But we must acknowledge that Ukip are certainly to the right of the Conservative Party."
Maybe on paper. But I think that's up for debate.
Many Tory MP's opposed the right to recall bill brought forward with the help of Douglas Carswell.

They negated on a "Cast Iron guarantee" to give people a referendum.
They plan to tax disabled allowances.
They have been prioritising EU migrants over rest of the world migrants, and have even been chucking decent people out of the country to counter those net numbers.

An utterly despicable act that UKIP would not tolerate. I know that for a fact as spoke to a senior UKIP rep about it a while back!
These are all traits of a pretty right wing party, meanwhile UKIP support all I listed above not to mention a points based global immigration system supported by both left and right wing parties around the world.

"In order to gain more electoral success (if you can name the position of being in coalition that) the Tories have moved closer to the middle-ground and championed the EU and liberal acts such as gay marriage; this has been at the expense of alienating a core vote whom now feel more at home with Farage's tweed shirts."
Again this statement is a bit confusing.
Do you mean middle-ground in the sense that they have moved leftward and more centralised or are you implying they have moved right to counter UKIP?
In my opinion they have moved Right of UKIP in the last 6 months.
Their attitude toward Rest of the World migrants both domestically and coming to the UK is astounding.
As is their attitude toward the disabled and the public having a choice on their MP's and the big decisions happening that face our country and the people who live in it.

Thursday, 23 October 2014

Reply to left unity Brighton and Hove

I am a UKIP member as you can probably tell about the tag so I do hope my comment is allowed to be added to this forum.
I have a few very simple things to say really.
First, the Left do not have the God given right to be the only group allowed to object to something they do not believe in.
You can try to shove screenshots of Paul Nuttall's website entry down our throats every time we bring up the NHS every time you like. But the point remains what Paul meant with his post.
He intended to put across the point that a threat of reform can lead to public services/interests being streamlined to make them more efficient.
A perfect example of this is Royal Mail. Had we not had a spineless Tory Government in charge that saw the opportunity of money, Royal Mail would still be in public hands making this country money it so badly needs. Same can be said for the Channel Tunnel, which whilst isn't fully owned (at the time) by the public, certainly started to return on its expensive build cost under the Labour Government, now cue the Tories against and it gets sold for £300 million.
But the point remains that the threat of reform leads to streamlining in an attempt to make it more viable, and this is what Paul Nuttall was trying to put across.
UKIP oppose the possibility of the NHS being sold off to TTIP and American ownership. Fully and without hesitation. They oppose privatisation full-stop and confirmed this at the National Conference in Doncaster ( and have confirmed policy to keep the NHS fully free to patients at both hospitals and GP surgeries. They have openly and firmly objected to the despicable privatisation of Cancer Care ( and will continue to do so.
Shouting out "racist" as an response to every concern you have about UKIP. In a democratic nation we debate, we discuss and we talk about our concerns.
I myself have many concerns about left wing politics and political ideals that I would love to debate with someone. I just haven't been afforded the opportunity due to the stigma applied to being a UKIP member.
I would happily sit down and calmly discuss where I and UKIP are coming from in response to any concerns the left might have about the party.
I fully understand that any discussion of immigration is a sensitive subject, especially when a reduction in that immigration is introduced as a policy.
But the reality is we have had a huge increase in immigration over the years that not only has the country found hard to process, it has also convulsed in terms of health care, accommodation, employment and the cost of living.
These are legitimate concerns that need to be answered whether on the left or right.
There is absolutely no doubting that the unskilled labour market has had a huge rise in workers. There is absolutely no doubt that there has been positive influences from immigration, you will find nobody who disagrees with that.
But when you introduce a city the size of Hull to the UK on a yearly basis when all the issues above haven't been addressed, you should be able to understand the concerns some have especially in some areas of the country that have been heavily impacted by migration.
I myself live on the south coast of England, my area has been heavily impacted by mass immigration over the last 7 years and it has left the area struggling both in terms of employment but also in terms of housing which has resulted in a huge development being built just down the road from my house in a green area that has been that way since possibly the ice-age.
One issue I am willing to bet that allot of people don't know about is how we decline applications to move here from the rest of the world, not to mention have gone through the unpleasant process of chucking out those here legally who are not EU born to make up for the figures that come here from the EU.
I myself know having lost my girlfriend to deportation some years ago. Something I will never ever forgive the Conservative Party government for, for as long as I live.
But UKIP are pro-Commonwealth. This is something that has remained consistent throughout their time as a political party.
They don't want to distinguish between Nationality, race or colour as long as we get a well qualified and well meaning migrant who is willing to add to the country.
A system of rejecting a unskilled labourer from Europe in favour of a Japanese scientist surely has to be preferable?
This is the policy UKIP hold forward on offer.
A migration rate of between 50,000-60,000 a year who have something to offer.
When you are desperate for new positive publicity to suite the people, this is when mistakes start to be made whether Labour, Lib Dem or Tory.
There is no doubting that Labour massively underestimated immigration, something to their credit they have apologised for if not in a rather subdued manner, the Lib Dems have quite frankly been allover the place with their policies and for that as a former Lib Dem voter I will never forgive them and of cause the Tories who say they have cut the deficit but haven't really, and have brought the quality of living down to a new all time low with food bank requirements at a tragically high level and Zero Hour contracts at an all time high unfortunately.
I am not going to sit here and say UKIP have got everything wrong. Hell we ditched our 2010 manifesto like it was a non-event when in reality as a party we shouldn't have put together think tank after-thought policies and then cherry picked them from 2010-2012.
The reality as Farage said is that it was utter garbage.
I myself read it and could see echoes of the Monster Raving Looney party in terms of taxi drivers wearing uniforms and some of the other more strange policies.
Had Farage not completely ditched the manifesto I would not be sitting to you hear right now as a UKIP member.
I started following UKIP because of what they said they wanted for the country and because of the excellent individuals I had come to know over time.
We have a fantastic manifesto being put together by Tim Aker, and of the policies released so far I am hugely encouraged.
We have excellent MEPs asking the right questions and opposing the right things, something maybe UKIP could have been criticized for before, but not now.
I spent last night watching the events of the European Parliament that took place the evening before. Events like objecting to financially backing bull fighting in Spain, bringing up our Nations negative effect in the middle east through Amjad Bashir and reducing the joint cost of new legislation were really very encouraging indeed.
I am not going to sit here and say we are perfect, but we are coming forward in leaps and bounds. We have very clear and fair concerns that whether you like to admit it or not do align with some of yours.
So before you scream "racist". Please just listen to us.
Accept our help.
Hell don't even mention we were there.
But we want the same as you do in many ways, and we want what's best for people.
Whether we are left wing or right wing, we both want what is right and not what is wrong.
So for goodness sakes, just in these instances lets at least be civil and do what is right for this country.
Regards, and thankyou for reading.

Wednesday, 22 October 2014

Pathetic Opportunism From The EU and the British Media

A lot has been said about the New Polish ally of UKIP and the British Press over the last few days, and one can't help but feel completely and utterly bored at the pathetic opportunism by the National press not only in how they initially reported the collapse of the EFDD Group (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy).

Firstly the wide-spread British media complete ignored the background of breakup of the group, which was questionable and highly suspicious to say the least.

In the early afternoon of October 16th 2014, it was revealed that the Latvian MEP Iveta Grigule had resigned her membership of the group, meaning that UKIP and the EFDD no-longer held the required 7 parties from 7 Nations to form a political group.

UKIP and the other parties within the EFDD group were immediately relegated to 'Non-Inscrits' in the European Parliamentary listing and asked to vacate the privileges that they all had as members of a grouping.

Losing a Parliamentary grouping means a cut in talk time in the European Parliament/Committee meetings, working spaces and financing.

It must be said, that the tacky, and poorly timed celebrations from notable representatives of the Conservatives, Green Party, Labour Party and Liberal democrats were pretty cringe-worthy considering it was the people of the United Kingdom of voted to put the United Kingdom Independence Party where they were.

UKIP MEP's have been tirelessly working in the European Parliament in Committee meeting and in the Parliament itself to bring the latest ongoing changes to the people of the UK. What the representatives of the other parties were effectively doing was laughing at the electorate who voted UKIP to where they were during the European Elections in May 2014.

The circumstances surrounding the Latvian MEP's departure as time went on seemed to be stranger and stranger.
A line from UKIP saying that the European Parliaments President Martin Schulz a member of the group 'Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats' who is meant (according to his job description) to remain neutral and impartial, seemed to imply that something had happened leading to the departure of this MEP.

It is no secret that Mr Schulz happens to have a spectacular loathing for UKIP, Nigel Farage and what was the EFD (now EFDD), and has in the past ignored his job description, its ordered impartiality and cast it aside to launch attacks on Nigel Farage in particular as can be seen here from this video clip dating back to 1 February 2012:

Schulz in this clip completely discarded his own job requirements and impartiality to launch a attack on Nigel Farage. Then furthermore ignored a point of order by Nigel Farage to respond to his personal attack on the Leader of UKIP.

Here a month earlier we have Mr Farage predicting Mr Schulz's impartiality and aggression before he even had a chance to come out of 1st gear:

So I guess people shouldn't be surprised when from time to time, Schulz steps out from his job description and impacts the very makeup of parliamentary groupings on the part of his own bias in an attempt to do Groups and Party's he deems harmful to the pro-EU cause.
I don't think however anyone could have dreamed the events leading up to the initial collapse of the EFDD and how much of an impact (apparently) Mr Schulz would have had himself in ensuring that the group didn't continue in it's existing (at that time) format.

Initially it was confirmed that Latvian MEP Iveta Grigule of the Latvian Farmers' Union had resigned from the EFDD in Mr Schulz office, but as the day went on more was revealed to add question to her departure.

Indeed in an interview she gave to the General Secretary of the EFDD she revealed that  EPP chairman Manfred Weber and Mr Schulz had told her she must resign from the EFDD Group in order take up the presidency of a Parliamentary delegation to Kazakstan.

"I had to do it to get elected", she told the secretary general of the EFDD Group.
This sum of events is pretty self explanatory.
The President of the European Union had given Miss Grigule a "or else" ultimatum to leave the EU. In any impartial country this story would have made big news across the UK. However only 2 media outlets reported this term of events. Breitbart London ( and the Daily Mail with a semi-sarcastic report on how Nigel Farage had "cried foul" (

Other newspapers took the more anti-UKIP approach completely going contrary to what Miss Grigule was reported to have told the General Secretary of the EFDD. Some making mention that she had left as Farage and UKIP had been more eager to concentrate on "domestic policies".
The question goes unanswered though.
Has Mr Schulz overstepped his boundaries and directly impacted the makeup of the European Parliament?

This is a question it would seem we will never find an answer to if this video clip is anything to go by:

This departure left UKIP with a very difficult choice to make.
Either try to make a deal with a member of another group and be accused of tapping them up, take a look at some of the Non-attached Members (Non-Inscrits) or sit back for the next 3 and a half years knowing that the EFDD members will be there not getting the same kind of coverage they had been democratically, after being quite frankly undemocratically lowered out of group status by a questionable act.

Obviously sitting back wasn't an option, finding a member from an already existing group in terms of time-frame would have left EFDD members getting twitchy liable to being poached and other nastiness possibly being inflicted on the Group members by the European Parliament.

So it was decided that the best option was to look at the non-Inscrits pool. A tricky tactic considering the non-Instrits pool are effectively parties rejected from formed groups.

With the current media attitude toward UKIP in the United Kingdom, you do get the impression that whatever the party had decided to do next would have been criticized.

Had they decided to go it alone the papers would have reported a continued lack of funding, a lack of talking time and the "mass losses" to UKIP as Parties joined other groupings. It would have provided the newspapers that hated UKIP with 3 and a half years of negative stories.
Instead they are taking the predictable route of smearing UKIP for the only option left to them.
If we take a look at the pool of Non-Inscrits in the European Parliament, basically the Parties and individuals UKIP could have chosen from to make up the 7th Nationality in the Group to qualify for Group Status. We have the following:
  • Austria's Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)
  • Belgium's Flemish Interest
  • France's National Front (FN)
  • Germany's Die PARTEI
  • Germany's National Democratic Party of Germany (DNP)
  • Greece's Golden Dawn
  • Greece's Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
  • Hungary's Jobbik
  • Italy's Northern League - Lega Nord
  • The Netherlands Party for Freedom (PVV)
  • Poland's Congress of the New Right (KNP)
  • The United Kingdom Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
Austria's Freedom Party are deemed to be a Right-Wing to Far-Right party (Ref1) and have been linked to Nazism by sections of the media. (Ref2)
Belgium's Flemish Interest are deemed to be a Far-Right party (Ref3) and practice in Separatism. (Ref4)
France's National Front are a well known Far-Right party (Ref5) and have a very lengthy history of racism. (Ref6) UKIP have said numerous times that they would not do business with the French Party and having already got a French MEP it would make no sense to do business with the party, regardless of political standing or background.
Germany's Die PARTEI are a Radical Center Party and are pretty much the laughing stock of Europe with ridiculous claims and policies. (Ref7
Germany's National Democratic Party are a Extreme Far-Right party with links to Neo-Nazism, National Socialism and Ethnic Nationalism. (Ref8)
Greece's Golden Dawn are an Extreme Far Right Party who again have clear links to Neo-Nazism and Fascism. (Ref9) (Ref10)
Greece's Communist Party are a Far-Left Party who have clear links to Communism, Proletarian internationalism and Marxism–Leninism. (Ref11)
Hungary's Jobbik are a Far-Right Party who believe in Hungarian nationalism and Radicalism. (Ref12)
Italy's Northern League otherwise known as Lega Nord are a Right-Wing party (Ref13) previously associated with the EFD in the previous Parliament. They decided not to rejoin the EFDD instead choosing to associate themselves with the Far-Right party 'The French National Front" (Ref14) thus making their position impossible with regards to rejoining the EFDD. Regardless, with the Five Star Movement of Italy already being members of the EFDD it wouldn't make sense for the Northern League to be invited back regardless.
The Netherland's Party for Freedom are a Right-Wing to Far-Right party with strong anti-Islamic opinions (Ref15) such as not allowing immigration from Islamic countries.
Polish party The Congress of the New Right were deemed to be a Right-Wing party up until the time Nigel Farage and UKIP invited one of their MEP's to join the EFDD. (Ref16) But now the MEP has moved and the British media agenda has kicked in, they are suddenly proclaiming the Congress of the New Right a "Far-Right" party (Ref17) and digging up any information in an attempt to discredit what UKIP have been forced into doing.
A few truths for the record. The Congress of the New Right's ideology is Economic libertarianism, Social conservatism and Euroscepticism. Whilst their leader might have made objectionable comments and the British media are desperate to make light of a poorly worded joke by the individual MEP who joined UKIP. The Congress of the New Right is the least objectionable party UKIP could have taken an individual MEP from to reform their group.

UKIP haven't signed up the Congress of the New Right. They have signed up an individual MEP.

Even Paul Nuttall has said UKIP/EFDD wouldn't accept Congress of the New Right as a complete party into the EFDD, nor would they accept the party leader Janusz Korwin-Mikke, who has made thoroughly unacceptable comments:

The United Kingdom Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) are a Right-Wing party (Ref18) and opponents of UKIP in Northern Ireland. Adding them to the EFDD would have made no difference to the 7 Nations rule anyway.

The absolute truth of the matter in conclusion is it looks incredibly likely that the EFDD was stitched up by the European Parliament's President and that they had a impossible choice to make, a "no win scenario", with the British anti-UKIP media and elitist established parties laying in wait to pounce.

UKIP did the only thing they could do to carry on competing. Had they not done so they would have been letting down all those people who elected them to the position they are in today.

The only thing I find shameful with regards this matter is the British Media's reaction, completely ignoring the wider story and those supposedly "Eurosceptic" MEP's from other parties who did not batter an eyelid when the European Parliament President apparently clearly stepped well and truly over the line.

As for those party representatives from other parties who have mocked UKIP in the cheapest and sleaziest way. What can you say other than "shame on you"...

Sunday, 19 October 2014

Formal Statement Regards Joshua Bonehill - The Daily Bale - Article referring to me (19/10/2014)


Joshua Bonehill and his merry troop of troublemakers are a blight on politics.

Joshua himself has already been in court over lies he has made up resulting in people being threatened.

A rep of his website has recently (19/10/2014) written an article about me with regards to anti-UKIP groups "SlatUKIP", "We're Still Laughing At UKIP" and an individual I suspect to be running those groups named Daniel Pitt, and his mother who sent me abusive messages on Facebook. These anti-UKIP groups currently exist on Twitter and Facebook.

In his article he referred to me as being "the Daily Bale correspondent" and "the Daily Bales Thomas Evans". He has also referred to me as "UKIP official", something I am not, I am a UKIP member.

He has also posted a direct link to my Twitter page, something he has absolutely no permission to do.

I want it on record that I have nothing to do with Joshua Bonehill, the Daily Bale or any of his productions/representatives.

I find his attitude, behavior and views repugnant to say the least.
I do not support him, his followers, any of his publications and or anything that he has to say.

I want that on record from todays date.
Anything he has to say in his articles is NOT taken from me willingly and is not appreciated.

I have just discovered that he has edited the comment I left (2 times) in the above mentioned article to reflect something completely different to what I actually said.

In this instance Bonehill and his associates have proven themselves liars.
Thomas Evans (UKIP member)

Thursday, 9 October 2014

Alarming Ebola... Are we ready?

I have just rather worrying left a Liberal Democrat MP stuttering somewhat on National radio, having given a very unreassuringly poor answer with regard to a concern I have about the preparedness we currently have for the Ebola virus.

The Government are going to implement health checks on people flying in on long-haul flights from Africa. But only at Gatwick and Heathrow airport.
Those flights in particular are the most expensive flights richer people from more developed and less heavily infected areas are going to fly in from.

One simple example.
Liberia has been hit by 3924 cases of Ebola, of which 2210 have died. (Ref.)
I have done a very simple check on flights from Liberia and as I highlighted you can get a connecting flight to London City Airport (not being covered by health checks) from Amsterdam (Holland) from Monrovia Roberts International Airport in Liberia:
I studied Travel and Tourism at a Vocational level for over 3 years and the one thing I know is that poorer people tend to get flights from Africa to Europe to locations such as Germany, France, Holand, Spain and Italy and then get connecting short-haul flights to the UK.

In other words poorer people who are more likely to have been infected with the virus will come in via the smaller airports such as Stansted, London City Airport, Bournemouth, Southampton etc than Heathrow and Gatwick.

The Liberal Democrat MP who I just spoke to on National radio just said something along the lines of "we can't roll out these health-checks over night, they need to be done in good time".
Now whilst that is true, they have also had plenty of time to prepare for this eventuality being a possibility.

The First Recorded Case and death took place in Sierra Leone on the 26 of May, that was 5 months ago! How can people say their was no warning?!

Regardless haven't we been preparing for the possibility of biological warfare and terrorism for the last 60 years?!

The simple fact is our Government has once again been caught with its pants down, completely unprepared to take action to protect the people who elected them.
As soon as it was announced that people were getting infected by Ebola in Africa we should have been making preparations to start checking people coming from the continent at airports and railway stations.
LBC had a medical expert on the radio saying that transmission of the virus is via the "eyes, open sores, sexual contact and faeces/saliva etc..." so transmission isn't as easy as a more progressed virus, however the fact it has spread so dramatically in a less densely populated country than the UK shows the transmission is alarmingly high. The mortality right is especially alarming!

So I leave you with this thought;
If one case does make it into London, one of the most densely populated capital cities in the country, which only has 2 quarantine centers by the way, how quickly will the disease multiply?
God forbid it goes airborne!

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Some Common Misconceptions About UKIP

Common misconceptions about UKIP:

- We are anti-European.

No we are anti EU. Europe is a continent of 50+ nations. The EU is a Political Union of 28 Nations. They are not the same thing!

- We team up with Far Right Parties in the EU.
We rejected both the French National Front and Golden Dawn in the EU parliament.

Also those "Far Right" Parties in the EFD from 2010-2014 are now with the Conservatives in the European Conservatives EU Group.

- We want to privatise the NHS.

No we don't. In fact it is UKIP policy not to privatise it or any if its essential services. Only the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have privatised sections of the NHS. Only Labour have left the NHS in the past in dire straights with a reported £60 billion black-hole at the end of their term in Government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

- UKIP would have patients pay hospitals and GP's for treatment.

No we wouldn't. Treatment would stay completely free at the point of contact for treatment.

- UKIP are anti-Immigration.

No. We are actually pro-Global immigration which is more than can be said with regards the EU who prioritise unskilled labour from the EU ahead of skilled labour from the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the World. UKIP want sustainable numbers in the 40,000-50,000 bracket which is the sort of number Labour and the Tories promised they would bring migration down to over the last 15 years!

- UKIP are homophobic.

UKIP believe that religions should have the right to choose whether as according to their beliefs, they should conduct Gay marriages. Nigel Farage himself said that UKIP would be pro-Gay marriage if the risk of the European Court of Human Rights taking legal action against religious groups refusing to conduct gay marriages was removed. A devoutly Christian couple were recently taken to court and lost, and were forced to pay excessive compensation for refusing a gay couple permission to stay in their hotel. Regardless of their religious beliefs. Equality has to apply to everyone. Even if you disagree with why they believe in what they do as long as in confines of law.

- UKIP are just a protest vote.

UKIP have been steadily building up a core membership for years now. They have a higher UK membership than the Green Party and shall soon (it would appear) be challenging the Liberal Democrat membership figure. Previous to the Scottish Independence Referendum we had a higher membership number than the Scottish National Party.
UKIP win Council elections, are on the verge of winning its first MP's and won a National Election recently. We have been polling consistently for 6 months now and have in the last 10 years been steadily improving and growing. If we are a protest party we are a very long protest party!

- UKIP only appeal to Tory voters and members.

UKIP have been consistently taken votes away from Labour (in some areas up to 30%), Lib Dems (in some areas 20%-30%) and 20% of our vote has come from people who had formerly not voted at all.

- A UKIP vote will hand Miliband and Labour the keys to 10 Downing Street.

Let's get a few things straight. a) The Tories do not have a God given right to a vote. b) The Tories are the one who lost their vote. Had they kept numerous promises given over the years they would not be in the mess they currently are in now. c) In Heywood and Middleton, the Tories literally (according to polls) have no chance of winning, indeed UKIP in many areas of the North and North-west are the only competition against Labour. So actually a vote for the Tories in some areas will hand Labour MP's. Only a UKIP vote in some areas will stop Labour MP's joining Ed Miliband in Parliament. d) Whether people like to admit it or not. UKIP have revealed very sensible policies that people will agree with.

- UKIP are anti-Working class. Labour are the only true supporters of the working class.

Labour were the party who defied the people, and went ahead and signed the Lisbon Treaty. Subjecting the UK to more migrants from 2009 onwards than the country had ever seen previous. This deluge of unskilled migrants had the impact of reducing employment opportunity, compressing wages and encouraging businesses to discard British workers in favour of foreign cheap labour. This has also lead to Zero Hour contracts and illegal cash in hand payment for work. This one action has set back workers employment opportunities more than any single act in British history.
UKIP want to trim migration down to sensible levels, create more apprenticeship schemes, discourage people from assuming huge student loan debts by doing good honest work which doesn't require expensive educations that will never be used, reduce the dreadful youth unemployment levels, will remove income tax from the minimum wage making it more financially worthwhile to get into employment and will make it easier for small and medium sized businesses to operate meaning more jobs for everyone!

- UKIP are anti-environmental.

UKIP are the only party, along with the Green Party, who want to protect the Green-Belt from development. The other parties are in favour of it.
UKIP oppose HS2, which would have an impact on the environment.
UKIP oppose further expansion of runways in favour of developing runways at other airports Nationally where the increased load of commuters can be accommodated.

- UKIP are "fascist", "racist" and "

UKIP advocate Direct Democracy, Right to Recall and local and national Referendums to bring decision-making back to the people who live within the country.

We want to reconnect with the Commonwealth (a third of the Worlds black/ethnic population), we don't want people to be discriminated on by their Nation of Birth as the EU, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Green Party and Liberal Democracts currently do by staying within the restrictive, pro-EU member European Union. People should be judged on things like quality and potential. Not the privilege of birth as the EU & Lib/Lab/Con currently support!

Tuesday, 7 October 2014

Richard Howitt Comments About The Disabled and UKIP Policies

One of the main problems impacting modern day politics is a partial disconnect and lack of belief shown in political parties by the electorate.
People feel lied to, and manipulated by politicians who have made promises on policies and broken them.

This is bad enough. But to have a representatives of a mainstream political party lying about the policies of other parties is disgraceful.

None more so have done this than the Labour Party in my opinion.
Over the last 9 months they have been lying consistently about UKIP policies with regards to the NHS and other matters. Telling people that UKIP want to privatise the NHS and charge patients for health-care, on many occasions vaguely referring to an article written by a representative of the party who meant his comments as ideas, not policies.

It is obvious for anyone that ideas given by representatives aren't policies until they are written down in black in white as policies in a party manifesto.
Why then do UKIP get judged for ideas, when other political parties do not get judged in the same manner or even in some cases for their policies?

Indeed the Labour Party themselves have had peers and members making comments about how they feel patients should be charged for treatment at the hands of the NHS and GP's. Yet these claims made by Lord Robert Winston ("Pay £200 to see the doctor so you value the NHS" *Robert Winston article) and former Labour health minister Lord Warner ("NHS Patients should pay a monthly fee" *Lord Warner article) don't seem to follow Labour around the same way as one singular opinionated article from one UKIP representative.

Maybe the reason this is, is because UKIP members and supporters do not use these statements in terms of political sabotage the same way the Labour Party do to UKIP in mainstream canvassing and articles.

I was left stunned the other day to discover that regardless of several articles opposing NHS privatisation on the UKIP website (* Tim Aker articleJill Seymour article), and regardless of Louise Bours UKIP health spokeswoman saying that UKIP policy was to NOT privatize the NHS (Louise Bours conference speech) and not charge patients for treatment, the Labour Party had decided to not only publish canvass leaflets saying exactly the opposite but attempt to sell them through their online shop!

Let's remember at a time when members of the electorate are perceived as having trouble trusting politicians and political parties. The Labour Party are encouraging people to lie about other parties policies to come out ahead in elections.

I spend a lot of my free time trying to correct people on misunderstandings and misinformation that has been published. Explaining UKIP policies and intentions as clearly as I can.
I must say I have spent a lot of time reassuring people who have read UKIP lies about the NHS.

This morning (07/10/2014) I was made aware that a Labour Party MEP by the name of 'Richard Howitt' had made a claim on Twitter that was both disgusting and dishonest.

He had claimed that "UKIP wanted to abort disabled children, put people with learning difficulties in camps & that they banned disabled candidates".
I read it as some kind of poor attempt as a joke, maybe a way to sarcastically highlight some poor comments made by a UKIP member. But no, this Labour Party MP had actually made out that these were actual UKIP policies.

Disgusted I rang up the Labour Party to complain about these hurtful and disgusting lies that had been published and retweeted by numerous people across the Internet, who were actually thinking they were real UKIP policies.

I spoke to a young lady at the Labour Party, who informed me that the Labour Party were "not responsible for comments made by its members". In astonishment I replied "that isn't the attitude your party casts on UKIP when one of its members makes a unacceptable comment, so why does the Labour Party not apply the same logic to themselves?" I asked.

I did not get an answer, and was only told that my complaint had been logged.

Multiple hours later the tweet in question is still on the MEP's twitter page and it doesn't appear that the Labour Party have any intention of removing it or asking the MEP to remove it.

In fact he is in the process of trying to reinforce his statement referencing a singular individual who made the offensive comments acting like a singular individual makes UKIP policies.

I, and others could quite easily go through all the atrocious comments and actions made by Labour Party MP's, Councillors, activists and members over the years and falsely cite them as Labour Party policies. However that would be a lie. Something I think British politics has had enough of in the last 10+ years.

At this stage I feel I should explain a little more about myself.
I am a disabled UKIP member. I have been offered the opportunity to stand for UKIP on occasion in the past, only not being able to do so because of poor health. But I help UKIP in any way that I can, and I am immensely proud to support such a brilliant and developing Party as UKIP having been let down previously by the party I used to support in the Liberal Democrats.

I would not support a political party who had poor attitudes or intentions to the disabled members of the electorate. Which considering the Labour Parties history with ATOS (*Labour and ATOS) and other policies I disagree with, is a very clear reason I would never consider Labour.

I have been treated with nothing but respect and support by my fellow UKIP supporters, members and representatives even going as far to be offered transport to try and help in council elections.

I speak with senior UKIP officials not because I am some "high up the food chain" representative at UKIP. But because the representatives at UKIP genuinely care about the electorate, and want to hear what people have to say.

This Labour Party MEP in question wants to put out the line that UKIP are anti-disabled people. Well I am living proof that they work hard at supporting their disabled supporters and accept them in any role they offer.

Indeed you do not have to look any further than the wonderful Star Etheridge "UKIP Disability Spokesman and Councillor for Coseley East, who is a "disabled wheelchair user" as evidence that UKIP accepts people on merit not via stereotypes as some areas of the media and other political parties would have people believe.

I call on this Labour Party MEP to remove his tweet and post a full written apology to not only UKIP, but all of the many disabled UKIP members, supporters and voters who have been effected and offended by his comments and what is in reality a grossly inaccurate post.

I would further call on the Labour Party, as a member of the electorate to stop lying about UKIP and other party policies in an attempt to deceive the electorate. The only effect of doing so will be to push people further away and more disenchanted with politics.
Star Etheridge herself has issued a response on behalf of UKIP. I completely agree with every word of it!
I am one voice of the electorate, but in my opinion my voice shouldn't be any less valid than someone who thinks he can talk about a political party and disabled people when he obviously doesn't have the slightest clue of the parties policies or the people who support it.

Thomas Evans (UKIP member & activist)

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Response to "Why UKIP members are dropping like flies as local councillors" article by Angela aka: @Angelneptustar on Twitter

Referenced article: Why UKIP members are dropping like flies as local councilors

I was recently made aware of an article by an individual via Twitter in which she made out that UKIP Councillors were "dropping like flies".

Within the first paragraph the tone of the article gave away its real objectives. A sarcastic swiping of UKIP and it's members immediately gave itself away as an article written to smear and not to report the facts in any kind of constructively critical way.

Articles of these types have been rampant in the last week since the defection of Conservative Party MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP. It would seem that a rather unhealthy dose of "sour grapes" has been ingested by some sections of the media and some pretty average bloggers online it has to be said.

Now I am not talking up my own blogging writing skills here, I am just a humble UKIP member with a reasonable understanding of politics.
I talk about what I know, and won't hold back from speaking the truth when it needs to be said.

Yet these people writing these articles are career journalists, political correspondents and activist/bloggers for other parties with a vast following.

The individual who wrote the above article has circa 10,000 followers on Twitter. About 3 and a bit times that than I do. My last article published on here was viewed by just over 1,000 people which was a new high for me, I might add, and I am very thankful to those who read it.

But when it comes to smears from political blogger activists I would have expected something more than this poor convoluted attempt to downgrade UKIP, its members and Councillors. But it would seem this individual has taken a few lessons from the "Labour Party school of nonsense".

"UKIP’s Matthew Smith on a fraud charge" - Accused doesn't mean convicted.

What this individual forgot to mention was Mr Smith was due to stand down as Councillor during the General Elections anyway.

Last time I checked people in the United Kingdom were innocent until proven guilty?

But as long as we are highlighting "accusations" of electoral fraud let's take a small look at some Conservative Party candidates shall we?
Ashford Conservative council candidate Cencizham Cerit jailed for electoral fraud - 8th Feb 2013

Conservative member Ali Hayder Munir convicted of electoral fraud after councillor father acquitted

Tory councillor Eshaq Khan jailed for using 'ghost voters' to rig local election

Five jailed for electoral fraud

Tory’s Mile End candidate Jewel Islam arrested in suspected electoral fraud

"Let’s start with the UKIP councillor for Henley-on-Thames. David Sylvester warned PM David Cameron that if gay marriage were legalised, disaster would befall the UK."
What Angela forgets to tell you about this instance is that David Silvester was a Conservative Party candidate and Councillor when he made the initial statement to the Conservative Party and David Cameron. He was a Conservative Party Councillor for multiple years before defecting to the UK Independence Party due to David Cameron's stance on Gay Marriage.

A matter of 3 days after Silvester made similar comments after joining UKIP, he had been suspended and sacked by the party. This was back in January this year, 9 months ago!

When Mr Silvester initially aired his views on the subject as a Conservative Party member, not only did the British media not focus on it in the same way it had whilst he was a UKIP member, he wasn't suspended by the Conservative Party.

No action taken against David Silvester over "Gay Marriage" comments

"Moving on to UKIP Councillor Paul Clapp of Wisbech, who was forced to answer the following charges by his colleagues.
They claimed that Cllr Clapp was
•struggling to cope with the role
•forgetting to call for votes on committee items
•failing to realise when the next item should be introduced
•reading recommendations from different items to that being debated
•is generally failing to ensure the meeting follows due process
The letter claims the role of chairman is also to work with officers on strategic issues “and we simply do not believe that the current chairman is experienced enough to do this at a very difficult and important time”.  Councillor Clapp has agreed to take on a less demanding role."

Actually if Angela had done a little more research she would know that Mr Clapp was diagnosed with severe dyslexia so what she has actually done here is bring to light someone's disability as a reason not to vote UKIP.

For me this lack of research into a really unfortunate issue is inexcusable, and should be denounced by everyone who reads her pathetic article.

"Also in Wisbech, UKIP Cllr Peter Lagoda stepped down in April from his role.  He quit after an independent review found that controversial remarks he made during a fire station visit were “racist, derogatory and discriminatory”.   Lagoda’s remarks at Wisbech fire station caused one of the firefighters to to lodge a complaint, as he admitted to describing his sister to the firefighters as a “w*g” and spoke about his “Mongol” relatives having children with “slanty eyes”.

Again, what Angela has done is not disclose all the facts. Lagoda was a very disappointing candidate UKIP had. He had no prior record of any wrong-doing, so short of conducting some sort of Vulcan-esque mind-meld. Any right minded party would struggle to discover any ulterior motives.

Mr Lagoda had never said or done anything questionable prior to this event.
Following these comments and his being charged with benefits fraud Mr Lagoda was kicked out of the party in April this year.

"In Cornwall, in May,  UKIP Councillor Keogh stepped down citing “personal circumstances.”He said: “Personal circumstances have arisen which mean I’m not able to spend the time I would like to on the job.   “The job needs to be done properly and I need to step aside and let somebody else take up the position.”

...again... In similar circumstances to Mr Clapp, until you really know his circumstances I think it is really foolish to highlight his departure as Councillor.

For all you know a family member of his could have fallen ill.

Shameful that you have cited this example as well Angela.

"In July, Robert Ray stood down as the leader of Thurrock UKIP.  The Aveley councillor has made the announcement as he is in the middle of court proceedings in relation to a drink-driving allegation.  He denies the charge."

There is no excuse for drink-driving. He rightfully stood down.

Did these Conservative Party Councillors stand down for drink-driving charges?

"In April,  Halesowen and Rowley Regis UKIP candidate Dean Perks has been urged to stand down after it emerged he owed the taxman more than £10,000 in missed VAT payments.  Mr Perks, who runs property renovations company Changing Rooms, failed in a three year battle with HM Revenue and Customs after they ruled he was VAT registered when he thought he was not.
Mr Perks is also standing for UKIP in next week’s Dudley Council elections for Upper Gornal and Woodsetton."

So basically saying he should stand down as he is poor?
Well done... <sarcastically claps>

Also this article is about UKIP Councillors who have "dropped like flies" isn't it? Yet he is still a UKIP candidate and not even a Councillor yet?

"In Yarmouth, UKIP Councillor Matthew Smith is standing down over fraud charges.   He had been due to stand for UKIP in Great Yarmouth at the next general election, but has stepped down to fight accusations of electoral fraud.  Norfolk county councillor Matthew Smith, 26, appeared at Norwich Crown Court earlier, where he denied the charges he faces.
They relate to the county council elections in the Great Yarmouth district in May 2013. Mr Smith said he was standing down for the good of the party. The councillor, of High Street, Gorleston, denies several counts of making a false statement in nomination papers and making a false instrument with intent.
His trial was due to begin on 5 January."

...Erm... Tad confused...
Didn't you already do Matthew Smith's bit at the top of the article or are you just repeating people to pad out the article for dramatic effect?

"UKIP councillor for Rushmore  Malcolm Small stood down after he was sentenced for arson.  Apparently he has been convicted of setting fire to his wife’s clothes in a marital spat.  Mr. Small received a sentence of twelve weeks,  suspended for two years.
In May, UKIP Councillor David Small was suspended over alleged homophobic and racist remarks just days after he was elected. He was told to stand down by his party while they investigated claims he referred to gay people as “perverts”, African immigrants as “scroungers” and other offensive comments.  He posted this on Facebook.  “I refuse to call them gays, as what has gay to do with Perverts like Elton John and Clair [sic] Balding who get their jollies in such disgusting ways. to sum up, they should not allowed to be married, they should go back to the closet.”
Mr Small had just won the Church Hill seat for the party on Redditch Borough Council."

...Again... We kicked him out...

UKIP have a zero tolerance policy to Racism and Homophobia.

Meanwhile at the Tories:


Tory Councillors Homophobic Bullying

"Finally, in May, UKIP’s Eric Kitson face the sack for racist rants.  He sparked fury amid allegations he unleashed a series of racist abuse online. Eric Kitson, who won a seat in Stourport  launched a whole raft of anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish Facebook posts. Among the most shocking was a cartoon of a Muslim being spit-roasted on a fire fuelled by copies of the Koran.  In one comment he said in reference to Muslim women: “Hang um all first then ask questions later.”  A raft of anti-Jewish remarks have also appeared on his Facebook site, and in a separate post he has called for the repatriation of “six million migrants and refugees”.
There was also false claims posted on his site that the Rothschild banking dynasty had controlled Nazi Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler.
His Facebook page has also called for Muslim women to be hanged, suggested Islam is “a cancer” that should be eradicated “with nuclear weapons” and expressed support for BNP boss Nick Griffin by ‘liking’ him."

What Angela forgets to mention is that he had been a UKIP Councillor for 12 years without issue. His unacceptable behavior came about suddenly without warning and he had given no indication up until the point he posted what he had, that he was trouble.

He was immediately removed from the party upon his unacceptable remarks.

"Racists.  Bigots. Homophobes. Fraudsters. OK,  you find them in every party, but these are all UKIP councillors in trouble this year!  Not much of an endorsement is it, Mr. Carswell?  Because after all, if UKIP members are like this as councillors, what will they be like as MPs?"

I tell you what is funny. You concede that "every party" has "racists, bigots, homophobes and fraudsters" yet you haven't apparently taken the time to look at just how many cases there are within your own party.

I am willing to bet you are just to ignorant a person to look it up?!

I myself recognise that there are undesirable elements in UKIP. As should members of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP.

What defines a party is the attitude it has to such events.
The simple fact is that UKIP do not accept former Far Right members. Literally. It has been in their constitution for 4 years now. Meanwhile the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have accepted people into their parties who have a past of Nazism or have been former members of the BNP.

I am proud of the zero tolerance attitude UKIP has to people that have done or said unacceptable things. It shows that we are doing it right whilst the other parties, as illustrated above, have tried to protect and preserve people who stand for them and make unacceptable comments.

You allude to a higher than normal number of questionable people at UKIP when you know, as does everyone else, that the spotlight of the media and other parties has been shone on UKIP to a vastly higher degree than other parties.

I mean for goodness sakes their was a cross-party campaign during the European and Council Elections this year in which information was freely being passed between "supposed enemies" as parties in an attempt to discredit UKIP in areas of which they were standing.

Information was being passed from a Conservative Party research team directly to the media in an attempt to smear UKIP.

The Conservative Parties own supporters have even spoken about how the smear attempts against UKIP are cringe-worthy: Conservative Party Views

The 'wonderful' pro-Conservative Douglas Murray has even highlighted just how spectacularly ridiculous the smears against UKIP have been: Douglas Murray Article In The Spectator

If you look at Regional Newspapers and News websites across the country. You will find examples of Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems etc who have made outrageous objectionable comments. But the key difference is they usually stop there.

They never see the light of day. Where as UKIP candidates, members, MEP's, Councillors and activists will be called up in the National Media for any comment that they make, the media can make a good anti-UKIP article.

The media hysteria brought about on UKIP egged on by people such as yourself Angela, not to mention organisations such as the UAF and Hope Not Hate, of whom they are either afraid of a new party coming up that doesn't tow a Elite line is utterly ridiculous. Shameful even.

In fact the only thing that is more shameful than that is that people have been abused to such an extent in this country, that they have been afraid to report very serious crimes through fear of being labeled.

You Angela and others like you, inadvertently lend your support to this with your pathetic smear tactics.

The media support a pretty effective blanket between the mainstream parties trouble-makers and UKIP's troublesome individuals.

I am willing to bet that you never heard about the Conservative Party Councillor who had armed police arrest him over Fire Arms Offences or the Labour Party Mayor who was charged with Child Abuse.

You are to busy trying to smear UKIP members on minor offences. Or claim that by voting for UKIP, voters will put in a Labour Government when in reality the Conservative Party selectively forget the fact that UKIP take votes from all the other Parties (Greens, Labour and Lib Dems), not to mention 20% of our vote coming from people who formerly didn't vote and were fed up with politics.

We as a party encourage people back into voting, yet you would have people go back to the "old ways" of playing table tennis politics of keeping the old Elitist Parties in power and not having real change!

With such complete and utter nonsense you do not deserve 10,000 followers Angela. How could you be so ignorant?!

How can people be so ignorant?!

Let's take a count on the number of UKIP Councillors you list here Angela shall we? Let's see what your article is made up of?
  • 3 cases of racist remarks
  • 2 cases of homophobic remarks
  • 3 cases of fraud
  • 2 cases of standing down or being moved to a new position due to health or personal circumstances
This is all from a grand total of 9 (1 of whom was a Council Candidate and not a Councillor) people. Out of 400+ Councillors over a space of a year?