Two of our contributors have set us their letters, addressing current affairs. The first is by Stout Yeoman:
How long does it take to investigate a brief altercation?
The MEPs present at that fateful meeting in Strasbourg ought to have emailed in short factual statements of what they saw and heard within a day of being asked to. It would then take half a day, at most, to cross through anything non-factual (as some will not have separated fact from opinion) and to send out requests for clarification on ambiguities in those statements, if any there were.
So that was Monday morning, or should have been. Tuesday would have been for assessing MEP testimony for consistency: is there a discernible consensus over what happened? The standard is merely balance of probabilities in making findings of fact as this is not a criminal investigation.
By Tuesday afternoon answers to the following two questions should have been known:
1) who first turned it physical with a challenge or invitation to go outside?
2) did Woolfe look punched when he came back in (by falling or otherwise)? It is said he stayed for around 15 minutes after re-entering by which time any facial bruising would have been evident.
The point of 1) is that, come disciplinary hearings, the instigator of a physical altercation is in a slightly more serious position than the person who took up the challenge. That is, a disciplinary panel may choose, if it wishes, to treat belligerence differently from foolish response. Both are at fault, of course, for the respondent to the challenge need not have accepted to go outside.
The point of 2) decides whether Woolfe or Hookem is lying (their own testimonies being diametrically opposed).
The Party has to decide whether disciplinary action should follow for either or both of them, with the added interest of finding one of the protagonists to have lied about what happened – and openly to the media no less – which is surely a disciplinary offence if anything is.
It’s a pity we cannot have a bet among readers on the promised report back to members. Do you think we will be told a) this weekend b) next week or c) much later when the news cycle has `moved on’ and the announcement can be buried under other news, especially if the decision is no disciplinary process to follow at all?
I am not expecting a). I hope for b). My trust in the leadership is now so low that I believe it will be c).
Sincerely, Stout Yeoman
The second letter is by our contributor James Dalton, writing about the excitement elections bring:
Election time is an exciting time, whether an election to determine who will be the next POTUS (President of the United States), or an election to determine who sits on an already well populated English Parish Council. For me, this is especially exciting: following the Presidential race in the United States, and standing for election to our local Parish Council representing UKIP, naturally.
The Presidential race this year is the most exciting of my adult life and indeed the most important. The American people are presented with stark choices: Hillary Clinton, the incumbent Establishment candidate on the Democrat ticket, and the political outsider, the maverick who shoots from the lip, Donald Trump, barely supported by the GOP.
The election is being played out in the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the coverage of the campaigns from British media providers reveals much, not about the candidates and their policies, but about the nature of the MSM itself. The revelations concerning the MSM are damning and the damnation is self-inflicted. What once would have been gold-dust to an investigative journalist – documented evidence of collusion and criminality at the heart of the US government – is now ‘out of bounds’. The resignations at the top of the Democratic Party at the time of their national convention hardly registered with European media consumers. Neither did the Congressional hearings where Hillary Clinton and the FBI director James Comey faced straight forward questions from Representative Trey Gowdy. Watch the testimony for yourselves, available on YouTube, and ask yourselves: (i) why do I know nothing of this? (ii) Why is James Comey still in position? (iii) Why has Hillary Clinton not been indicted?
It is question (i) which is revealing. The MSM does not report available news of importance to inform the people, the people who any government should serve. It is complicit in propagandising for a result in the forthcoming election and it wants Hillary Clinton to win. Consider the response to fellow UKIP member Josh Smith on this week’s Question Time, clearly a young man who knows more of the truth about what is happening in US politics than the ill informed people whose response was to boo him. (Well done Josh!)
Hillary Clinton has not denied breaking the law. It is a matter of (barely reported) public record that she handled digital information outside appropriate protocol and in doing so, broke the law – a law which many (e.g. David Petraeus former DG of the CIA) have fallen foul of to their professional and personal cost. However, further to that illegal handling of confidential information, much of her communications (reportedly in excess of 33,000 emails) have come into the public domain through internal leaks and through hacking. All of this would be of interest to vocational investigative journalists, but instead we have near silence from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Times. These organisations know the facts, but are choosing not to disseminate them to the people – it might affect how they think!
Back to the excitement of a Parish council election! If you’re reading this with your Saturday breakfast, I will be out electioneering the old fashioned way for a seat on the most local, yet least powerful tier of our institutions of government, knocking on doors, delivering leaflets and talking to people – streetlights, potholes, local development, dog dirt – no sexual scandals and populist soundbites or ‘wannabe’ young reporters wanting to make a name for themselves. Leaflets, canvassing and getting the word out: if you want common sense in politics, Vote UKIP!
Respectfully, James Dalton