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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZbv0gfCIw) 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 (http://www.ukip.org/cancer_care_privatisation_must_be_scrapped) 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 (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/16/EFDD-Collapses-As-Latvian-Member-Pulls-Out) and the Daily Mail with a semi-sarcastic report on how Nigel Farage had "cried foul" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2795853/UKIP-cries-foul-Latvian-defection-weakens-hand-EU-parliament.html)

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)

Statement:

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 "
isolationist".

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)