Today’s first letter comes from Ernie Warrender, UKIP Spokesman for Small Businesses. He calls for a debate on his interesting proposal:
About Direct Democracy:
Having stood in three (very) different elections as a PC which is a novelty for UKIP, I have reached two conclusions.
- We will never win seats with the FPTP system and
- The ‘Turkeys’ (how I love the simile) will never vote for Christmas and change the system.
UKIP must have a STRATEGIC VISION not just a series of hobby horses. Ok, how do we get to the next step? One thing is for certain, Referenda are mighty powerful tools. I propose to mobilise the Electorate who can change things. They are faced with two choices, Red or Blue. Any alternative is perceived as a waste and this is traded on by the Tories in particular, Vote UKIP get Labour, ie we are useless and have no policies but the alternative is terrifying! You will see an appalling turnout at the next GE unless things change.
So, to quote Tony Blair (I know, bear with me) we give the Electorate a ‘Third Way’. A People’s Party. We are the People’s Army, we won the battle, let us now win the Peace. I propose we campaign on a Swiss style Democratic ticket. Every year, every Council will be tasked to find out from its Electorate, the one burning issue they wish to see debated in Parliament. The results are collated centrally and, annually, a referendum is held as to which of the People’s choice is FULLY debated in the house. No other Party will offer this and it will make us DIFFERENT.
A true People’s Party. Grassroots Democracy for the C21st!
Respectfully, Ernie Warrender
The next letter refers to a jaw-dropping ‘guideline’ by the Kent University Students Union – that Union is in our memories for declaring a Japanese-themed tea room as ‘offensive’ (see KentOnline) in August. Now they have published “Fancy Dress Guidelines” (see here) …! Below we publish the letter which we received on this subject:
Kent Union, the University of Kent’s Student Union, has recently produced ridiculous ‘Fancy Dress Guidelines’, banning several items and themes with the aim of ‘maintaining a safe university environment’.
Examples of banned items/themes include- Sombreros, Maracas, Mexicans, Priests, Nuns, Cowboys, Native Americans, Chavs and Tories.
These items have been labelled as ‘offensive’, ‘derogatory’, ’embarrassing’ and ‘unsafe’.
This follows the recent national press scandal regarding the Kent Union’s insistence that students boycott a new local nightclub, ‘Tokyo Tea Rooms’, due to cultural appropriation.
Extracts from the guidelines include:
- The use of props in order to emphasise racial stereotypes in order to convey a specific costume, regardless of comedic value, is offensive and must be avoided at all times.
- Negative example: The Crusades, Nazi uniform, priests and nuns, Cowboys and Native Americans, ISIS bomber, Israeli soldier and The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him).
- Positive examples: Medieval village, cave people, aliens, the United Nations, Ancient Greeks and Romans.
- Do not dress up as a gender/sexuality you do not identify with if the purpose is to belittle other genders and sexualities.
- Dressing up as someone who identifies as a different gender to you is acceptable if you are dressing up as a character, though this must adhere to the above and not be for the purposes of humor or belittling.
- There are historic events that can have a significant sensitive nature not just in society but for some students.
- Fancy Dress themes should also not be centred around political group stereotypes or the stereotypes of different levels of perceived class in the means to diminish their worth or validity.
Any deviation from these guidelines will result in events being disallowed and student groups facing disciplinary action. These guidelines are clearly over the top and reinforce the concept of a ‘snowflake generation’.
I think this story should be shared to raise awareness of how ridiculously ‘PC’ Universities are becoming, to the point where fun and appreciation of other cultures- is no longer prohibited.
I do not wish for my name to be shared.
We respect the correspondent’s wish, given the climate in today’s Universities and Student Unions, regretting that it has come to this.
The final letter is from our contributor Roger Turner:
“Kill the Bed”.
Hold on there`s a reason for the title …
Let me tell you a true story.
Once upon a time, there was a company that sold Orthopaedic Beds, perhaps some of you will be familiar with this firm/solid (some say) sleeping provision, supposedly designed as an aid for those with back troubles.
The firm employs a team of “specialists”; actually they are a team of specialist parrots who have been taught a standard “pitch”, which they babble when they visit the “sufferer`s” home where they will offer their “informed” advice as to how the client has been so wise to suss out his problem and come to them and “yes! He is quite correct his/her bed is obviously of no help to the condition, in fact it is probably contributing to it”
The next step is the command “TAKE ME YO YOUR BED”
Followed by the viewing and the advice:
“Oh Yes!, this is obviously the source of your trouble, before your new bed arrives, you would be even better off moving the mattress to the floor and sleeping there…………would you like me to help you do this now?
The above maneuver is known in the trade as “Killing the Bed”
Why am I writing this here?
I see Brexit and UKIP`s part in the operation as the “sale” of a product.
As in the tale of the bed above, The voter is suffering from the wicked machinations of his government and their masters the EU.
UKIP is offering their “product” “Brexit”; the voter is aware he is suffering, he knows he is being got at, traduced, misled, lied to, robbed blind even, but the process is so insidious and comprehensive that he has no idea of how it all interlocks and hangs together, indeed he is so overwhelmed that he is incoherent and insensible so as to be unable to comprehend this morass of hurt and assault on his mentality.
To be able to achieve a TOTAL and comprehensive Brexit, UKIP ,must, in effect “Kill the EU”
To do this the case must be made to expose every aspect (or at least the salient ones) of the EU`s wrongdoing. I feel, not only does the voter not know what will be the advantages of leaving the EU, I don`t think many of them have a grasp of the WHY
WHY do we want to control our own borders.?
WHY do we want to write our own Laws?
WHY do we want our fishing industry back?
WHY do we want to cease to be subservient to the ECHR?
WHY do we want and end to the EAW?
I seem to remember there used to be a column in the Independent “Inside the belly of the beast”, some of the necessary information was gathered there – but it was only available to members – the general population as far as I know have never had a proper resume – without one I don`t think we can get an informed population on our side to “KILL THE BEAST”.
Respectfully, Roger Turner