A round up of the latest frauds, crimes & racism from Labour Conservative and Lib Dem councillors sreported in local, but not national, press in the last 2 or 3 days
Tories - 2 on firearms offences, 1 for falsely claiming to be a barrister, 1 drink driving ban, 1 disqualified for benefits fraud, 1 cronyism over pub license breach, 1 accused of sexist remarks
Labour - 1 banned from office for bullying, 1 cronyism delaying prosecution for benefits fraud, 1 electoral fraud allegation, 5 resignations over racism claims, 2 resignations over homophobia claims, 1 facing investigation into homophobic remarks
This may come as a bit of a shock to you but all parties think they are victims of press bias. The only reason you are upset about it, is because, the wheel has revolved and its UKIP' s turn in the spotlight. At least I certainly don't remember you frothing about it as much when the other parties were subjected to it.
Lets be all clear and honest, because the truth is quite clear.
UKIP are playing the race card. Whether Farage is officially a racist or not is not particularly relevant. he is nhappy to play on the base notions of society. Its all pretty despicable whether you consider him a racist or not. And one other thing is indeed quite clear, Farage as a person could never unite the nation in the unlikely event of him possibly winning a general election. Having said that if he ever did then his idiotic policies and all his more than idiotic fellow travellers would turn round and bite him on trhe bum.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
No idea. What was it about the Tory party that attracted him in the first place and allowed him to rise to such a high position in the party? Could it be because the Tory party are inherently corrupt and self serving?
The difference and the problem, Richard, is that the Tories let him in before they knew what a scrote he was, whereas UKIP has let him in after the Tories chucked him out and in full knowledge of what a scrote he is. Hamilton would be unable to get into the Tory party today but he's welcome in UKIP. Why?
Bear in mind my view is that ALL parties are corrupt and self serving as are almost all politicians. The difference is that you think your party are better than anyone else's whilst in reality they are just as bad (or in my view actually worse as they are filled with hypocrites as well)
So do you agree with me that UKIP are a grossly corrupt and self-serving party? Good, we're making progress. I do not, however, say that the Tories are better - I say everyone is better than UKIP, who are by a country mile the worst.
They only had to find 13 honest MEPs but it defeated them and they managed to find only nine.
It reminds me of a thought experiment. You have a bag that contains 100 poker chips that are all either red or black. 95 of the chips are one colour and 5 are the other colour, but you don't know whether that's 95 red and 5 black, or 95 black and 5 red.
You have to say what colour the 95 are, based on drawing three random chips out of the bag. So you draw three, and they're all red.
What are the chances the 95 chips are red? What are the chances the 95 are black?
And that's why UKIP is obviously the most corrupt.
These shenanigans have been observed with great interest by Nick Griffin and the BNP. Until 1997, under the leadership of Dr Alan Sked, UKIP's membership form included a clause stressing that racists were not allowed to join. Soon after Sked's departure, however, the clause mysteriously disappeared.
This is not true and you should know better* than to quote the partial reporting and smears of the Guardian. The clause referring to a ban on racists joining was not disgarded it was replaced as it was deemed unworkable and replaced with a ban on anyone who had been a member of the BNP in the past joining. This was something that could be verified rather than the spurious accusations of someone being a racist.
As such it served to tighten the rules against racists joining the patry and sets UKIP apart from the other parties - including the Tories - who are apparently quite happy for former BNP members to join their ranks.
*I have said you should know better but of course we all know you do not know better and are happy (by your own admission) to ignore facts and 'details' as you call them when they get in the way of your smears.
Richard
Do you have a record of the 'before' and 'after' clauses?
Bearing in mind that this period of UKIP's history saw the party holding joint strategy discussions with the BNP, there may have been other motives for alllowing 'racists' in but excluding former BNP Members.
See this paragraph from the 1999 Guardian article:
Shortly before the 1997 general election, Mark Deavin [BNP officer negotiating with UKIP] spoke freely of his plans to undercover researchers from Searchlight magazine and The Cook Report, who had posed as emissaries from Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National. One necessary step, he said, was to get rid of the BNP leader John Tyndall ("who is actually an obstacle") and replace him with Deavin's chum Nick Griffin. This would leave one other obstacle. "If Blair becomes prime minister," Deavin predicted, "the BNP will be the official opposition in the inner cities, in working-class areas. The UKIP will be the opposition in the shires, the county areas, the middle-class opposition. That party is a serious opposition to us in middle England, but, if we had the resources, we could tear it to pieces." [My emphasis].
The Populus poll has the Conservatives particularly high. That's the feature that looks most unusual about it.
Good economic news and the European election campaign. I think that very simple and clear message of Labour and the Libdems won't give you an EU Referendum, UKIP cannot deliver an EU referendum, but the Conservatives will give you one is resonating.
@AF Me too. As I posted yesterday, the polls are all over the shop - at least two have shown the Tories in 20s in the last fortnight. Best ignore until well after the Euros.
Comments
UKIP are playing the race card. Whether Farage is officially a racist or not is not particularly relevant. he is nhappy to play on the base notions of society. Its all pretty despicable whether you consider him a racist or not.
And one other thing is indeed quite clear, Farage as a person could never unite the nation in the unlikely event of him possibly winning a general election. Having said that if he ever did then his idiotic policies and all his more than idiotic fellow travellers would turn round and bite him on trhe bum.
They only had to find 13 honest MEPs but it defeated them and they managed to find only nine.
It reminds me of a thought experiment. You have a bag that contains 100 poker chips that are all either red or black. 95 of the chips are one colour and 5 are the other colour, but you don't know whether that's 95 red and 5 black, or 95 black and 5 red.
You have to say what colour the 95 are, based on drawing three random chips out of the bag. So you draw three, and they're all red.
What are the chances the 95 chips are red? What are the chances the 95 are black?
And that's why UKIP is obviously the most corrupt.
Do you have a record of the 'before' and 'after' clauses?
Bearing in mind that this period of UKIP's history saw the party holding joint strategy discussions with the BNP, there may have been other motives for alllowing 'racists' in but excluding former BNP Members.
See this paragraph from the 1999 Guardian article:
Shortly before the 1997 general election, Mark Deavin [BNP officer negotiating with UKIP] spoke freely of his plans to undercover researchers from Searchlight magazine and The Cook Report, who had posed as emissaries from Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National. One necessary step, he said, was to get rid of the BNP leader John Tyndall ("who is actually an obstacle") and replace him with Deavin's chum Nick Griffin. This would leave one other obstacle. "If Blair becomes prime minister," Deavin predicted, "the BNP will be the official opposition in the inner cities, in working-class areas. The UKIP will be the opposition in the shires, the county areas, the middle-class opposition. That party is a serious opposition to us in middle England, but, if we had the resources, we could tear it to pieces." [My emphasis].
It's increasing showing it's unpleasant side, and something I cannot support in terms of it's social attitudes.
Me too. As I posted yesterday, the polls are all over the shop - at least two have shown the Tories in 20s in the last fortnight. Best ignore until well after the Euros.