I copy here a message I sent to Gerard Batten after receiving his notice that Tommy R’s membership application would be debated at Conference.
Dear Gerard,
Once again you have made the right move. Unfortunately I shall not be able to attend the Conference but my vote would be to allow Tommy to join, while keeping the general ban as you suggest.
My reasons for backing Tommy were given in this piece I published on UKIPDaily.
Under your leadership UKIP is at last picking up the fight to stop the creeping Islamisation of Britain. We must join forces with Tommy on this; there are thousands more who will surely join if Tommy is allowed to join the party.
If Tommy is rejected by UKIP, the thousands of families whose children have been the victims of the Muslim rape gangs will have nobody to speak up for them except precisely those groups – BNP etc – who wish to use this to foment a race war, of whites against coloureds, whereas what we need to stigmatise, isolate and neutralise is not people of a certain skin-colour but an evil ideology dressed up as a religion.
Anti-EU forces are growing in strength throughout Europe, largely as a response to the mad ‘open borders’ policies of Merkel and others on immigration. The problem is that some of these forces do have tacit racist agendas, and some may even have roots in Europe’s sombre fascist past.
The danger is that the dreadful and illogical establishment narrative whereby Criticism of Islam = Racism (now enshrined even in our laws!!) should be allowed to take hold. We need to stress that while Tommy founded the EDL, he abandoned it when he saw that it was being infiltrated and taken over by racist BNP types.
He opposes the Islamisation of Britain and we must oppose it – and this is nothing to do with race!
Were it not for Tommy’s resolute denunciation of the Muslim ideological nature of the raping gangs, the MSM’s spin on the story of their being ‘gangs of Asian men’ would still be standing, causing popular resentment to be directed at all those of Asian background, some of whom are themselves victims of these gangs.
Paradoxically, this kind of wicked confusion favours both the ‘politically correct’ establishment who wish to stop us from opposing the Islamisation of the country, and the Nazi-fascist types whom the establishment say they want to keep down. If UKIP buys into this confusion, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. If UKIP rejects Tommy Robinson and all he stands for, the crowd of politically correct Remainers will be very pleased, the Islamists will rejoice, and so will the BNP types who will come out of the woodwork and say that they are now the only force to oppose the Islamisation of Britain.
I hope you have a good Conference, and am sorry I shall not be there in person.
Best regards,
Torquil
I received a circular from the party chairman saying that he had looked more closely at the rules and seen that a motion to change a rule had to come from a party branch – or something like that, and not just from a group of NEC members, or even from the leader. Whatever the position, it would be a crying pity if the proposal fell through owing to some silly procedural false step.
I think the party should beware of pandering to wrongful and deceptive MSM narratives, which should be tackled head-on and dismantled. Nigel had the rule put in about no former BNPs etc, partly to prevent infiltrations, but also to put a stop to the false MSM narrative ‘UKIP = BNP in blazers’. (In our early days he had to choose his battle-grounds taking care of the MSM tendency to blank him and us out completely.)
Now, rather than put in a dateline limit on former membership of a proscribed group – I gather a five-year limit has been suggested – surely better and more to the point to insert a rider, “…unless the applicant has since demonstrated, by word and deed, to squarely and actively oppose racist ideology”. After all, TR left the organisation he had founded precisely in protest at its being taken over by racists. What more could he do to show he is not a racist? He works alongside Sikh and other non-Muslim Asian groups whose own children are victims of the child rape gangs.
The Muslims are not interested in race; they are against anyone who is not a Muslim, whatever their colour, shape or size. Their outlook is not unlike attitudes were in the 17th century, when Europe was racked by wars of religion. This is why they must be exposed and opposed, we cannot regress by four centuries.
UKIP needs to work strongly to target, dismantle and destroy the establishment narrative that to criticise Islam is somehow racist.
Racism is unacceptable in British political discourse today, and I would certainly not contest that. I think Paul Weston. and some others, are not quite right to somehow accept it when he says, as he says in a video-clip: “I oppose Islam … and so I am a racist”. He might be thought to be justifying racism.
Nigel was also wrong not to demand that the Telegraph retract the dreadful headline they put on his op-ed article ‘Racists nearly destroyed UKIP, now with Bolton there is hope!’ (How ironic, when Bolton then started a ‘serious relationship’ with a woman, a UKIP member alas, who said that Meghan Markle would “taint the royal family with her negro seed”!!!)
However, criticism of, and antipathy to, a certain religion is not only acceptable but mandatory when that religion is actually the vehicle of a dreadful medieval political ideology that wants to take over the world, by deceit (taqqiyya) and violence (jihad).
We must clarify and combat this confusion between race and religion that exists in people’s minds, and campaign to have the words ‘religious’ taken out of the anti-discrimination laws, where they say ‘racial and religious’.
We should single out and focus on the worst aspects of Islamic doctrine, e.g. by targetting the eight Muslim states where apostasy is not only criminalised (as it is in many Muslim states), but is actually a capital offence. This is a denial of a fundamental Western value – religious freedom – and is as much a threat to our civilisation as was Nazism or Bolshevism in the last century.
A good policy I think could be to add say 50% onto the penalty for any crime of violence or incitement to violence committed for religious reasons. This would send a clear message to the jihadists that their days of being coddled and justified by the UK are over, while yet not infringing freedom of thought, for only criminal acts would be punished. So if someone murders someone during a robbery and gets 30 years, a murderer could get 45 years if at the same time he shouts Allahu Akbar!
UKIP Would be greatly enhanced by Mr Tommy Robertson joining UKIP In the struggles ahead!
This is idiotic. We’re here again. This problem has been solved a thousand times before Mrs Thatcher deregulated everything. 12 good men and ,defence and prosecution, Jury gives a decision and THAT’S IT . How many are there in the NEC ? 12.? Does each represent an area, or are they random, or some other qualification ? Who are they responsible to ? By now every pro and con about poor old TR has been ripped apart in public in public. So now we are going to have a conference dominated by a measured process. So What’s the problem ? That’s the problem. The NEC must be responsible to someone, not everyone. If he survives this, he’ll be a better man than anyone in UKIP.
Nope – he at least has to fill in an Application Form and explain what the ‘exceptional circumstances’ are to allow the Chairman to to consider this.
That is all.
On the Sky website:
“UKIP leader Gerard Batten criticised by Nigel Farage for endorsing anti-Muslim rally”
https://news.sky.com/story/ukip-leader-gerard-batten-criticised-by-nigel-farage-for-endorsing-anti-muslim-rally-11500884
Farage really does not “get it”. Sex slavery is a part of Islam and has been for 14 centuries. It is endorsed in the Koran – look up the phrase “that which your right hands possess”. This refers to women who are owned by Muslim men. There are numerous examples of sex slavery in the Hadith too. It is authentic Islam. Farage either does not have a clue or if he does then he is being just as deceitful as May, Cameron, Clegg, Obama, Blair, Boris Johnson etc.
I should not really be trying to help UKIP. I just want you all to speak the truth. However unpleasant the truth is.
I disagree, Farage absolutely gets it. He gets that Brexit is precarious and is not guaranteed. He gets that Brexit needs a spokesman in the media. He has managed to elevate himself out of the political fray and onto the couches of morning TV shows to get the message out to the millions beyond UKIP who voted leave and keep them onside. And what of UKIP? Under GB, UKIP have gone off half cocked. The focus should be on making sure Brexit happens, not distracting and dividing with all this anti-theocracy and TR stuff. As ordinary members, we are confused. Frankly UKIP finds itself in the worst of both worlds, unable to make any useful impact on either of its two key issues, namely Brexit and cultural identity. Most of the party, the polite elderly people of the shires, seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to Gerard, imagining him to be like them, when in fact Gerard is a working-class warrior, happier in a crowd of football lads than an OAP garden party. They are shocked he would want a ruffian like TR to join the party and think it must all be some ghastly mistake and no, nice Gerard would never do that. I’ve been in the room at press conferences where it is so easy for the media to round on Gerard for his ‘islam is a death cult’ comments, they immediately launch into that and discussion of any other issue gets shut down. Hence in my view Farage gets it, and Gerard also gets it, but his instincts have caused his priorities to be scrambled and he can’t help himself from getting stuck into the anti-theocracy fight. As a result, UKIP is even less effective. Although to be fair to him it was already chocolate teapot.
“I disagree, Farage absolutely gets it. He gets that Brexit is precarious and is not guaranteed. He gets that Brexit needs a spokesman in the media.”
Yet what Mr Batten gets, which you clearly don’t, is that UKIP’s future is precarious and not guaranteed. If being an exclusively pro-Brexit pressure group were sufficient to elect MPs to Westminster, for the party, it would have succeeded in doing so over the past three decades: it hasn’t. I simply fail to see what part of this some members so doggedly refuse to understand.
I suspect Gerard is intensely conscious of the fact that the pre-hospice life expectancy of the party is just over six months. The point at which our MEPs cease to have their seats and salaries, from March 2019, is when UKIP risks being an ill-financed rump of a party with not a single elected legislator to its name, bar a handful of virtually zero-exposure AMs. Failing to seize the opportunity of growing the party’s appeal in areas of profound concern to an extremely significant number of decent people nationwide is simply no longer an option.
Far from having his priorities “scrambled” the UKIP leader’s are strategically right on point.
” Farage absolutely gets it” No, he clearly has not understood Islam. I can tell that he does not understand it, from his various comments upon it.
If he would demonstrate that he does understand Islam, and say explicitly that the priority for the next few months has to be Brexit, then I would agree with that approach. However, he misunderstands it, and it is that misunderstanding which concerns me greatly.
Gerard Batten certainly does “get it” regarding Islam. It is Farage who is being unhelpful, by enabling and not challenging the deceiving politicians such as May, Corbyn etc. regarding it.
Hugo
Mabe this will help change your mind
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/video-nigel-farage-grows-flustered-stalks-out-of-interview-when-questioned-about-the-jihad-threat
Thought not. Mr Brexit yes, the rest not so much.
Is Hugo Jenks’ Fallacy of the Day for Tuesday
“False Dichotomy” ?
Hugo, you fail to see another explanation. A pretty obvious one. Selective quoting by Sky. By omitting all placatory and conciliatory comments.
Just like the Fake News by Sky about some “Anti-Muslim” demonstration up North, that was nothing of the sort and which included some Muslim participants.
Freddy, you are, sadly, resembling some lefties of my acquaintance. They seem incapable of focussing on a point. Instead, they go off on a tangent. Particularly when I raise a point with them which they know the answer to, but which they would not like to admit to. They think they are being clever by dodging the point. However, they are not, since it leaves the point itself unaddressed.
May I attempt to extract an unambiguous and concise answer from you?
Are you yourself in agreement with Gerard Batten regarding Islam? In precise terms, do you agree with his sentiment that “Islam is a death cult”? (I do agree with him. I appreciate his courage and honesty.)
Conversely, do you agree with Nigel Farage regarding Islam? For example: that the Old Testament is just as bad as the Koran. And do you see that answers such as this are seen as evasive and not really getting to the nub of the matter? (I find Farage to be deeply unsatisfactory regarding Islam. And troubling that he resembles May, Cameron, Clegg etc, and even Corbyn too in their willingness to deceive the public. I used to trust and respect Farage.)
My interest is in knowing your own position on the Farage: Batten see-saw. I do not give a fig that the Sky reporting may be lacking. Similar quotes are available directly from the mouths of these two. Nor do I give a fig about how clever you may be with quotes or verbiage. This is merely a smokescreen and a diversion.
Alas, I see Hugo Jenks’ Fallacy of the Day for Wednesday is “ad hominem”. :–)
Poor form.
Unambiguous and concise answers on the merits and demerits of different flavours of superstitious twaddle are being demanded from a lifelong Atheist ??
I don’t debate religion. The losers get sore – and it scares the cats.
I am unfamiliar with the detailed views of either GB or NF on this. Tidbit quotes don’t help me assess them. I think their main differences are re emphasis and ballot-box impact.
It is obvious that both oppose UK transitioning to an Islamic state (a function of the Police today seems to be facilitating that transition). GB is most definitely not an atheist; nor, I understand, is NF. Little surprise I’m not going to endorse either’s precise views.
But both also acknowledge that religion and politics don’t mix. For Chrissakes, even Alistair Campbell did!
Just yesterday here in UKIP Daily, I wrote that in my opinion, Islam is more than a religion and the Qur’an is a blueprint for world domination brought about by conversion or conquest, as history illustrates.
But you seem to want more.
From my perspective, the most important thing the Qur’an and the Old Testament – both works by, and for, men – share is that man arrogates to himself the rights to punish (including torture and slaughter) others for “moral” sins against the tenets of the respective religions. A mild example, one of hundreds, is in Deut. 21:18-21: “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.” (NIV).
CONTINUED …
The New Testament has no such pernicious twaddle in it; indeed, it revokes such permissions, and reassigns all rights to punish for these sorts of wrongs to the deity, in doing so introducing the doctrine of eternal punishment (“Hell”), a concept missing from earlier Jewish works and the OT.
I’m very content for the (IMO, fictional) deity to be the sole exerciser of such power.
Alas, the Qur’an lacks an NT equivalent; attempts at abrogation (naskh, tafsir) are like Band-Aid on a sword wound, and what Baha’u’llah tried in the 19th century (virtually, an NT for Islam) has resulted in Bahais being treated even worse in most Islamic countries than are Ahmadis.
As to the use of the word “cult” – many believers deploy it against a religion of which they disapprove.
I disapprove of all religions, and instead define cult as a religion which imposes Exit sanctions or penalties on adherents (most of whom were born into it and had no choice).
Penalties in the Qur’an and Sunnah against leavers (aka, “apostates”) are severe and extreme; happily, they are seldom practised in full. But fear of ostracism and ridicule is widespread, and many of my Muslim friends are actually agnostic/atheist but also somewhere on the cautious-to-terrified spectrum about admitting this. I fully sympathise. Which is why anyone who makes it harder for a Muslim to belong to UKIP will run into problems with me.
I am not obsessive about this issue, and therefore choose to discuss many, many other issues besides Islam – even if it offends your sensibilities and priorities. Especially if it does! I am at war with neither Muslims nor Islam.
Fanatics are rightly punished at the ballot box in Britain… Does your “point” condemn you to electoral irrelevance?
Now, excuse me. I’m off to Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court to make some converts to UKIP. The case # is T20180214. And if you are in need of gainful mischief, Hugo, I suggest you start a campaign to get the “No True Scotsman” fallacy renamed “No True Muslim”, while avoiding getting arrested. This has direct relevance to today’s Mission In Kingston.
Shall I now tackle whatever bronze age superstitions you suffer from, or shall I be polite?
“I am not obsessive about this issue, and therefore choose to discuss many, many other issues besides Islam”
Freddy, if we fail to tackle Islam NOW, then quite soon it will be too late. The point of no return is frighteningly close. Well, it frightens me anyway and it should do you too. I am amazed at the general air of complacency.
Other issues would be more or less irrelevant. When we are living under Sharia law then the issue of whether we are in or out of the EU becomes unimportant.
You are more mathematically competent than Diane Abbott. By several orders of magnitude. I would appreciate it if you would review the logic and assumptions behind my article:
https://independencedaily.co.uk/uks-demographic-transition-islamic-state/
I did contribute to your impetus to tackle the non-stun matter. Hopefully, you will also see the significance and urgency of the demographic transition matter too. And drop some of your less significant issues so that you can focus upon extending and strengthening my arguments, and publicising the seriousness of it.
Being concerned about multiple issues, rather than being obsessive about one, makes IMO what I have to say more likely to be heard and digested by those outside our own bubble.
It’s those who are *not* in our bubble in whom I’m interested. We make progress by alerting such people, who comprise over 90% of the population, to matters and/or changing their minds about them.
In the main, Brits won’t vote for those they see as extremists. They are very likely to switch off and dismiss – or not even hear – them.
I’ve no objection to “single-issue people” being activists, members, friends of UKIP. They too have an important role – Churchill’s retrospective analysis over his “wilderness years” was that he was dismissed by most because of what was generally seen as a xenophobic obsession with the danger posed by what the little Austrian corporal was up to. The Overton Window wasn’t there yet.
Churchill was proven absolutely correct to recognise that enormous danger, and later was a great war leader. In a parallel universe, had the (at that stage) unelectable Churchill seized (!) power in the early to mid 1930s, he might even have had Hitler and top Nazis assassinated. That would have averted the most damaging conflict ever, from whose ill-effects we still suffer.
Which is why I DON’T oppose those I see as sound “single-issue people”.
But people like me, talking about the economy, education, NHS, general immigration, refugees, cultural Marxism, etc. as well as abut Islam and Non-Stun, also have our place.
Stop trying to make me you!
Preaching to, or impressing, the choir is of very little interest, which is why I decline most “internal” speaking engagements. Others can keep up the morale. I’m far more interested in taking the likes of James O’Brien, whose cunning and guile I’m afraid would overwhelm most of our reps.
One catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. You observed, first-hand, how I “turned” that crowd of young people outside our Stoke Central HQ 18 months ago – pretty much everyone in our HQ were scared and had closed the door and battened up the hatches seeing them! Less than half an hour later, you saw they were eating out of my hands.
Had, instead, I launched into an AMW-style expose of the evils of (militant) Islam, their opinions of us as planted by “teechur” would have been reinforced.
I’m content with you being you. Do me the (vice-versa) courtesy.
I’m very good at being me. :–)
Lord Skidelsky at the LSE this evening remarked that a common Chinese view of their system is that it’s not a democracy OK but a meritocracy with a system of examinations meaning that the capable get advanced and get things done not the useless and vacillatory as all too often in a democracy.
Here we have in UKIP a party that often seems unable to decide something would be good or bad without asking what would the MSM think. I would not fancy living under the Chinese system but I think they’d sneer and say this looks like typical Western democracy – unable to get to grips with a problem and take action.
‘Tommy Robinson ‘ can be “discussed at Conference” – but he cannot be admitted;
Others have pasted some Rules but not given the full references.
Let’s just dissect the one posted below by Torquil in response to me:
” Here is clause 4.4.1 of the party’s Constitution, in full:
4.4.1 In exceptional circumstances the Party Chairman may, with the agreement of the NEC, cause to be admitted to membership any applicant who would otherwise be prohibited from membership.”
It is simply untrue as Torquil says that “So all the talk about “Rules are rules and must be kept” is technically not at all necessary”.
The active words in this rule are A) “exceptional circumstances” and B) “Chairman may” and also C) ” with the agreement of the NEC,”.
A) Firstly has TR (or whatever his name is) filled in a form of application, if he has what are the grounds of “exceptional circumstances” ? If these cannot be provided then any decision in contravention of the general rule of Proscription can be challenged. I cannot see how “Tommy Robinson is entitled to membership as in “exceptional circumstances”. Anyattempt to claim such is open to challenge.
B) For sake of argument let us assume that is the case anyway, the second condition of the Rule is then “Chairman may” ; ‘may’ is a choice made by the Chairman, he can still decide against proposing admission to the NEC even if he is convinced of ‘A’; ‘may’ is not ‘will’ and certainly not ‘shall’. So that this second element has to be overcome. In itself this discretionary element is difficult to challenge.
C) Then, assuming ‘A’ and ‘B’, the Chairman – if he at his discretion chooses to place before the NEC the application before it can be accepted ie ” with the agreement of the NEC,” The Chairman cannot waive through. The NEC may also refuse the Application even though the first two criteria have been met. Again I suggest this too may be challenged if the quantum of ‘A’ and therefroe ‘B’ is insufficient.
The NEC cannot instruct the Chairman to decide what are exceptional circumstances and the NEC cannot instruct the Chairman to place the application before them to ‘agree’ it either.
The Annual Conference/ AGM cannot overturn the Party’s own Rules – If the Party ignores its own Rules we could well give grounds for a legal action against our Leadership and the NEC, probably resulting in a suspension under an inter locutory injunction, perhaps also swingeing fines from the various regulatory commissioners which political parties are subject to.
The Party can alter or vary its own rules – but this is itself a lengthy procedure, because we ought not to change these willy-nilly.
Make no mistake that there are forces out there which are looking for any false move by us.
Good points Tony
This is the problem when UKIP is beginning to look like a low-rating reality TV show. Lacking any original ideas it desperately runs around picking up internet ‘celebrities ‘ in the vain hope that that will pull in a bigger audience- in this case the electorate.
So we now have ‘Sargon of Akkad’ – the professional misogynist, the shouty bloke from Infowars (he snake-oil vitamin salesman Paul Joseph Watson ) on board and Tommy ‘Columbian ‘Flu’ (sniff) Robinson pending in the wings. I understand that Katie Hopkins , after her IVA, is now urgently looking for shouty work too after losing both her LBC slot – taken over by the more rational Nige- and a libel case. Oh — I forgot about Count ‘Gas The Jews !’ Dankula. You know, the ‘funny’ one…
WHEN will UKIP stop feeding this Patreon-funded-politics-as-entertainment garbage?
In the absence of direction from our government over Brexit – with an opposition hell-bent on drifting back to its Militant Tendency past and a Liberal Party lost in the wilderness, UKIP should be putting forward an alternative. NOT jumping on a nearly-dead bandwagon past its prime or trying to ‘get down with the kids’.
But no….”I’m a Political Celebrity, Get The Muslims Outta Here” seems to be the plot, but the hackneyed messages from these characters is getting a bit boring for the 65 million punters looking for something more substantial to chew on.
How about talking about housing, the standard of living, and law and order? How about cutting out the endless drivel about “Soros’ “Globalism” ‘Cultural Marxism’ and other Millennial clickbait garbage that attracts limited revenues to the gang of shouters named above through their Patreon links but will FAIL to deliver UKIP a single seat.
DO NOT allow entryism just because these failing ‘celebs’ are having their Twitter and Facebook pages axed and they need to parasite another medium – UKIP- to feed both their egos and bank accounts.
I stand by my statement that “…all the talk about “Rules are rules and must be kept” is technically not at all necessary”. Rule 4.4.1 allows exceptions to the rule banning certain persons from membership, PROVIDED THAT the Chairman AND the NEC so decide, as you helpfully point out. The condition “in exceptional circumstances” is surely up to the discretionary judgement of those involved.
So Rule 4.4.1 grants the the Chairman and the NEC the power to make an exception in a case like this, It appears that they have decided to remit this power to the members at the Conference to decide. If the members decide to admit Tommy Robinson, the Chairman and the NEC will then say “OK he can apply for membership”. If the members decide against, they will say “No he cannot”.
There is no need to change the EXISTING rules to do this.
Of course under Rule 4.4.1 the Chairman and/or the NEC CAN prevent such a procedure from being followed – but is that their decision? If that were their decision they would surely have told the Leader that the proposal cannot be put to the Conference, there would have been a disagreement, but we would have heard about it. They do have a power of veto. You are saying that they MAY use it, but are they doing so? Evidently they are in agreement.
Frightening suggestions that any such procedure might lay the Party open to legal action with horrendous financial and regulatory consequences, will simply muddy the waters and scare the members quite needlessly.
Just to clarify, rules can be amended by NEC majority at any time. Constitution clauses, of which 4.4.1 is one, are a different matter, requiring 2/3 majority membership vote.
So what would Tommy Robinson gain from being in UKIP and what would UKIP gain from Tommy’s membership? Can Tommy Robinson be regarded as a team player? I currently support the continued ban on former members of proscribed groups and I do not think an exception should be made for Tommy Robinson. Would Tommy Robinson and UKIP be a stable relationship. I think both Tommy Robinson and UKIP can continue their work without him being a member of UKIP.
I absolutely agree. I have supported UKIP in the past, and made several modest financial contributions (before Mr Farage, who I have spoken to, and is a decent chap left).
I cannot see any reason whatsoever to even discuss TR’s joining UKIP, and I am absolutely dismayed to see that there’s even any talk of it.
I am sad to say that I think that UKIP has progressed far too far along the path it’s so obviously taken to be saved.
It is necessary to form an entirely new movement, throwing away the current leadership and party machinery entirely. There are over 17 million people who are potential supporters of an anti-EU party, should the worst happen to our Brexit endeavours. I for one cannot support the UKIP in any way AT ALL in its current incarnation, and I suspect that the vast bulk of previous and potential voters won’t either.
Pity.
From a purely objective standpoint TR joining UKIP might increase membership, although Gerard asked me when treasurer to do a special membership deal for the vets group he was close to, believing thousands would join, they didn’t.
Surely, the party’s focus at this time has to be Brexit?
Beyond Brexit the challenge for UKIP and any other new party is the FPTP voting system. It guarantees tribal/cartel politics in the form of LabCon. Maybe that’s why the ‘disgruntled’ in both the Labour & Tory parties won’t form new parties, they know FPTP presents an insurmountable wall to gaining a decent number of seats – UKIP’s 3.8 million votes in 2015 for one MP vs a similar number of votes for the LibDems/SNP delivering over sixty seats.
John you and I have had our differences over the years but on this one I have to say you have hit the nail on the head.
And this is precisely why I have banged on and on about fighting FPTP. The trouble is there are too many, otherwise sharp-minded Kippers who just think we must ignore the voting system because, “They won’t let us change it”.
Good Morning John.
Glad to see you back on this site !
This is the latest research briefing provided to Parliament. It includes data provided by all parties (including UKIP, on an official basis)
Its bang up to date ( September )
It shows, undeniably, that UKIP membership has barely risen AT ALL since the Bolton affair and so demonstrates that the flirtation with the extreme right is not having a beneficial effect at all.
I do wish UKIP would do its homework rather than listen to internal ‘fake news’ and claim stonking membership figures in public when any journo worth his or her salt would do exactly what I’ve done.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125
Statistics like these are just snapshots and don’t give any or much idea of the dynamics of the situation in this case how the membership may vary during periods smaller than the interval between the reported membership numbers.
At the beginning of the year before the EGM, Ukip was shedding members by the bucket load, so I am lead to believe, to the extent that the party was close to collapse. After the EGM under GB, membership recovered rapidly and this is what was reported, not “stonking” membership increases over any previous stated numbers, with GB recently stating that the membership stood at almost 24,000, true not fake.
Could it be that “flirtation with the extreme right” as you ridiculously term it has saved Ukip?
Its still less than + 500 since Bolton.
Not my interpretation, but UKIP’s official one.
I think the membership figure mentioned to me at the end of the Bolton debacle in February was 17,500. So if the membership now stands at 24,000, that represents an increase of 6,500.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact that all that is being discussed at present is whether or not the rank and file should be allowed to discuss Tommy’s possible membership of UKIP.
It’s the attempt by certain NEC members muzzle free speech that I find most disturbing.
Both Batten and MacIntyre were happy to let this go forward to AGM, so hardly ‘leadership stifling debate’. It has been pointed out they canot do so as ultra vires.
We cannot have exceptions to rules for individuals.
Change the rules by having a debate about that.
The rule in contention is quoted below:-
“…D.9 Constituency Association, Branch, County Meeting, Regional Committee or the National Executive Committee may propose a motion for discussion at the annual
Conference. Conference motions must be submitted to Head Office in writing a minimum of one month in advance of the start of Conference….”
This rule does not say who cannot propose a motion, there is enough discretion to allow it but certain people decided not too. They had insufficient confidence in their ability to win the debate in ‘ open court ‘ andhid behind the rules instead.
I wish there was an edit function to comments. I really do know the difference between ‘too’ and ‘to’
Emergency motions can get round that. I prefer a ballot of ALL the membership electronically.
How are emergency motions proposed within the rules?
“a ballot of ALL the membership electronically”
Not all of the membership can be contacted “electronically”.
They can be snail-mailed with details of the ballot website and freephone number, along with their 8-digit pin.
It’s similar to what they did to suppress Anne Marie Waters’ leadership bid, closing down her campaign launch, using UKIP’s official news apparatus to denounce her and threatening legal action to stop her candidacy. And it’s mostly the same people doing it. They don’t want Tommy or “those sort of people” in UKIP, and they don’t want to risk the membership having a vote on it and voting the wrong way.
I wonder what the age profile is of both those who are against TR and those who are for him? I watched the video of the UKIP North Dorset Summer BBQ 2018 that was posted here on UKIP DAILY recently. I am 72 and 75% of the attendees looked older than me. Just saying.
It would take me far too long to refute all the statements and contradictions in Meacock’s piece yesterday. What I find so depressing is the way, apart from Gerard, comments here and from the Dorset Committee show how few UKIPPERS appear to be able to focus on what matters, particularly to ordinary people from all stratas of society who are seething with irritation at the way our country is being run. Desperate as I am for alternative to LibLabCon, I don’t feel able to rejoin until i see more unified, vision and purpose than I see here or in my local Dorset area. Clearly, there aren’t enough Grards at the top and most of the MEP s seem to be demob happy and looking for their next trough to sup from.
Yes Torquil, this should be discussed at the conference and I believe that Tommy should be Invited as guest speaker.
I have lived all of my adult life under the EU cabal and so UKIP 100% leavers and with a ban on BNP NF ect, were and are the only party for me.
The UKIP membership , loyal voters the VATs and many who support us are not racist and we are now from all races ,
UKIP cannot betray them and others in the party who want to keep this ban, but….
some of us who have supported Tommy now wish him to be offered membership, yes, with all his foibles, for me Tommy’s persona is not the problem, but for some discontented members in the party who voted for Bolton at the EGM it may well be.
I will continue support Gerard Batten as leader of UKIP whatever the outcome at conference.
Juast one more thing. Is the person who is Tommy Robinso. Is he a valuable addition to the ranks of UKIP. Can he be taught the main aspect of ukip, is he a natural leader, how would he stack up against the likes of Joe Coburn and her incessant changing the subject etc.,. and the other questions. Where might he fit in with our resident ambitious nonentities and an organisation ?
As a society we seem to have lost the ability to marshal ALL the arguements pro and con, to make an informed and balanced decision about the entire issue. Ignoring political dimensions which are dangerous and generally spurious. If I were in charge I would be tempted to provide a piece of paper to every delegate , on which was inscribed all the bullet points again pro and con. Individuals could then give marks of 1 to 20 without repetition At the end we could compare the different totals with the result. Self, or any other kind of importance would not count. Answers on a sweet wrapper please.
IT comes down to this simple question….if you asked the man in the street what were the policies of UKIP they would know about our ultimate desire to leave the EU but would not have a clue to any other policy.
So if Brexit does happen with a successful conclusion ( unlikely,I know ), what then happens to the party,does it slowly dissolve into obscurity or does it go on a new path to be an alternative to the LibLabCon cartel.
The question of Tommy Robinson is the first of many questions to come about the future of the party….I would make one observation though,many have talked/written about his past,but does anyone question those that joined Labour to get Corbyn into office,how many came from the communists,from the socialist workers,anarchists with records..quite a few I would suspect but Labour let them in without question
UKIP’s future is to break the political class. When a trade union boss celebrates his re-election in a bar which serves champagne in a tankard at fifty quid a pop, when a senior Tory and an ennobled Labour has-been share a holiday on a yacht owned by a rapacious Russian oligarch then something is very wrong.
These are the self-serving wassocks we have in our ruling class. these are the people who get elected by our voters who choose the label rather than the policy.
Time to change. A job for UKIP.
JF
I agree with you that the majority of voters wouldn’t be able to name any current UKIP policies other than a full and complete break from the EU, but the same applies to all other parties as well. I would be hard pressed to name any conservative policies other than maintaining the status quo and doing sweet FA. What are the policies of the Liberal Democrats apart from keeping us tied to the EU for ever and a day. A wasted vote if ever there was one, a party made up of total non-entities. As it stands at the moment, UKIP rely on the 2015 general election manifesto written by Suzanne Evans. If any member of the electorate were that interested they would find a mountain of well thought out policies in that document so absolutely no excuse whatsoever to say that UKIP is a one issue party..
Suzanne played a key role in pulling together & editing the 2015 manifesto. She didn’t write the policies, the party spokesmen & others did
Fair point, you would know that more than I. However as you quite rightly she played a key role. All the more reason why the party needs to keep people like her on-side.
Indeed.
Agreed.
Some members are saying they will resign if Tommy Robinson joins UKIP, other are saying they will resign if he is refused admittance, this ‘storm in a teacup” is with us and there’s no good outcome, despite my personal opinion, I hope Tommy will not push to join UKIP and bring disharmony to the party at just a time when our competitors are so split, this should not be an issue and only distracts us from pushing our core policies, including opposing radical Islam.
” radical Islam” No such thing as radical Islam. It is just Islam. The “radical” later verses supercede the “moderate” earlier verses in the Koran.
Steve, don’t buy into the lies of the MSM and LibLabCon.
Watch this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9sYgqRtZGg
Have a look at the graph at 17:23 in the video. Looks familiar:
https://independencedaily.co.uk/uks-demographic-transition-islamic-state/
There are Muslims who do their level best to put into action Allah’s uncompromising Words in the Koran, as interpreted in the Sira and hadiths. Then there are Muslims who let things slide to a greater or lesser degree, for the sake of a quiet life. Luckily for the rest of us the latter greatly outnumber the former. There is a whole Sura about them: Sura 63, “The Hypocrites”.
“Luckily for the rest of us the latter greatly outnumber the former”
Are you sure? Or are you just parroting Blair, Cameron, May, etc?
Here some of are the results of polls:
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified
25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a “legitimate target”
These percentages cannot be plausibly described as a “tiny minority”
I try very hard not to parrot people, Hugo. Please read my words again. I did not say that a significant minority don’t support the jihadis. I said that the vast majority of Muslims do not spend their days killing unbelievers until worship is for Allah alone, even though that’s what the Koran repeatedly tells them to do. If they did there would be thousands of times more terrorism than there already is.
Keith. On another thread you detail how the Muslim population of the UK is increasing at an alarming rate. But here you say “the vast majority of Muslims do not…” How do you know that when the numbers finally tip in their favour, as they inevitably will, that those same Muslims will be allowed by the others to continue to “let things slide…”? You are simply not being realistic.
PeterUST, I agree. Once Muslims are the majority here the hypocrites will be not be allowed to backslide so much. They will in general be more radical because they won’t have a choice, as in Pakistan.
Keith. That is my point. When the time comes, the radicals will rule and the moderates won’t have any choice but to follow them. In 1930s Germany the majority of Germans were probably not true Nazis and in 1930s Soviet Union the majority were probably not true communists but in both cases they didn’t have any choice but to go along with the hardliners.
Keith, terrorism is terrible for those who are killed and injured in the attacks, and for their relatives, friends and colleagues. However, the numbers are thankfully small relative to the overall size of the population. The numbers are fewer than affected by road traffic accidents, and society continues to function overall despite road accidents.
If you watch the video I linked to, and read my article which I also linked to, then you will see that in fact, it is the ideology which is the root of the problem. The demographics, in the end, are far more serious than the terrorism. The demographics will, in the end, affect 100% of the UK population. Terrorism currently affects directly only a small percentage.
If they can win with the womb, which they are currently in the process of doing, then there is less need for them to use the bomb (or the knife or the lorry). They are just different means to the same end. And when the priorities change, as per Lebanon, or the Armenian genocide, you can be sure that widespread violence will be used. It is simply that we are not yet at that phase in the conquest.
Hugo, I agree. If I were a Muslim I would be saying to the jihadis, “For Allah’s sake stop with the terror attacks! Those can only alert the kuffar to what’s happening. We just need to wait and have lots of babies. In 30 years Western Europe will be ours.”
Hugo. You know that and I know that. But the majority of the UK population and, amazingly, even a good number of the commentators on this forum just can’t see that at all. It’s truly frightening how short sighted some people are.
I addressed a group of teenage, and very early twenties, Muslim cricketers near Walthamstow Town Hall in June 2014. All were born here (I asked).
To a boy, they said they wanted the Sharia to become the law of the land in Britain for everyone.
But – hold your hats – most of them were **smoking pot** at the time !
Haraam++ under the Sharia. Punishment for repeated transgression: Death.
When I pointed out this contradiction, the leader told me there was no harm as “NO ONE” could see it. I pointed that he had added blasphemy to his crimes under the Sharia. For which the punishment for even a single offence is death by any means, limited only by the imagination and inventiveness of the executioner.
So, don’t assume any deep thought went into these declarations by kids of what they want.
We see the fruits of having Saudi-funded mosques dispensing wahhabi and salafist thinking, even worse than the deobandis, and corrupting and warping young minds, plus peer-pressure and perhaps not being the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Sharia.
I think that a lot of readers are under the misapprehension that Sharia is a legal force in the UK( I’ll include Scottish and English/Welsh law in this).
It is not.
Sharia ‘courts’ – like the ISC- are only able to operate within the Arbitration Act 1996, and its rulings have no legal force. In addition a Sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law.
This does not mean however that people (Muslims) are not free to accept a Sharia judgement, because they are, much in the same way that members of the UKIP ‘club’ accept ‘rules’ that have no legal basis.
What WOULD BE illegal is incitement to commit a act ( lets say- in extremis- the execution of apostates ) which is forbidden in -all UK- law. Also if a Sharia court imposed, say a corporal punishment sentence that too could never be legal.
NO MAIN POLITICAL PARTY has a mooted twin-track legal system anywhere in its game plan and none plan it. Not even Momentum/Labour.
We need, after conference, to concentrate on real world problems, like housing, law and order, and defence.
I say ‘after conference’ because the spokesmen for these subjects at conference have less allocated speaking time than that famous ‘comedian’ Count ‘Gas The Jews!’ Dankula. So clearly TPTB disagree…..
> This does not mean however that people (Muslims) are not free to
1. Double-negatives allow for multiple, sometimes contradictory, interpretations. Don’t do it! Repeated breaches will result in your apprenticeship being discontinued! :–)
2. Once one has voluntarily accepted binding arbitration, it is binding and any appeal to the secular court system later is unlikely to be successful. Even if the acceptance was ill-informed. To escape some of the consequences, it might be necessary to prove either coercion or deception. Tough to do.
3. There are enormous social and peer pressures on Muslims, especially women, to comply with religious “judicial” proceedings, rather than drag their issues into secular courts and wash their dirty linen in public. They’ll be told they are bringing their religion into disrepute.
The same is true in pseudo-Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Very simple fix.
Don’t allow such nonsense to get any foothold whatsoever, and punish those who run such courts.
Third-world countries are brave enough to stamp it out. Why can’t Britain be Brave?
I believe disharmony and splitting UKIP is his intention.
Splitting up UKIP could be a good thing. It has utterly failed to work out what its purpose is beyond Brexit. Presumably, everyone in UKIP wants to exit the EU? Fine, we will have officially left in a few months time (maybe BRINO – but as far as the voters are concerned it would be an exit).
Farage has no intention of tackling Islam. See his recent interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUlvOFJszE
Gerard Batten wants to tackle Islam. However, he seems to have had very little support from UKIP overall. At least hardly any obvious support in the public domain.
This really is crunch time for UKIP. How many UKIP members understand how significant the Tommy membership issue is? If Tommy is barred then UKIP might as well fold up and cease to exist in a few months time.
Not many in UKIP understand how significant the non-stun issue is either. It turns out that it is absolutely key to having one law for all. Which itself determines whether we can have a functioning democracy or not. From what I have heard it looks as though the forthcoming manifesto on non-stun is failing to fully grasp the nettle. You cannot just oppose the inhumane treatment of animals in isolation. Yes if you oppose a religious practice, then you have to understand that you are thereby opposing that religion itself. It does not neatly compartmentalise itself for your convenience when writing manifestos. UKIP will be made a laughing stock. Again. As in Feb 2015.
Disharmony is the natural state of UKIP. I doubt that it is anybody’s intention to create disharmony. And let me point out that pointing it out is not creating it either – it already exists, and has existed for years.
The easiest way to “split up UKIP ” was tried by Waters and failed in the For Britain farce. What happened in ‘Feb 2015’ to justify your statement ? I remember in GE 2015 UKIP got the third largest popular vote at 25% and so scared Cameron and Tories he had to hold the Referendum.
> Splitting up UKIP could be a good thing
Good for ‘For Britain’, that is.
And bad for Britain.
Hugo – more subtlety is needed, isn’t it?
At this juncture we really did not need to be discussing this issue, an issue if it was to be discussed would split the party in half. The sole priority of the leadership should be full and complete independence from the European Union and holding Theresa May and her inept government to account Nothing more nothing less. Apart from that, as far as I am aware Tommy Robinson has never applied to become a member of the party. Rules are not made to be broken at the whim of the leadership. I believe Gerard Batten has made a grave error of misjudgment here by writing to the membership as he has done to promote this cause. Just when we were on the ascent in the polls and in membership, I now have members of my branch threatening to terminate their membership. UKIP seems to like shooting itself in the foot every so often, which then sets the party back.
Can we please stop talking about changing “the rules”?
The relevant clause is in the constitution, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. HOWEVER, with NEC approval, 4.4.1 allows the Chairman to make an exception – no need for special conference debates and rule changes.
And if we ARE to debate it as a party, shouldn’t EVERYONE have a vote – not just those who can make Birmingham?
Time tor Electronic Voting, methinks…
This is very helpful. Here is clause 4.4.1 of the party’s Constitution, in full:
So all the talk about “Rules are rules and must be kept” is technically not at all necessary. However, politically I think that a full debate and vote on the matter at Conference would be very useful.
This is in the constitution, the one approved by the members!
What are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ then? ‘Robinson’ has never shown any interest in UKIP before. Why now?
1. Maturing views about how it may be possible to effect change
2. Counselling by others
3. Opportunism – we’re no longer disappearing in the rounding in opinion polls
One of the primary roles of leadership is the ability to make difficult decisions. In asking the members to debate the issue of Tommy Robinson, the Chairman is effectively passing on the responsibility.
And yes, I agree, ALL members should have a vote if there is to be a vote.
At various UKIP meetings I have on rare occasions encountered members who have said things that Tommy Robinson wouldn’t have ever considered saying, but they have never been members of the proscribed political parties so they are not excluded.
Obviously the situation is that Gerard and Tony disagree. Gerard wants it, Tony not so sure, so he has decided to put it to members rather than use his own authority. Hence the party is split at the top over this issue from day 1. I don’t think now is the right time for division, everything in life is about timing.
The fundamental problem is that UKIP just doesn’t know what kind of a party it is and hasn’t a clue where it is going.
There are those who want UKIP to be just another mainstream party and, heaven forbid, if ever that performing clown Farage returned as leader that is exactly what it would be until deservedly it finally faded away for good. And there are those who want UKIP to be a high profile revolutionary party led by somebody with infinitely more oomph than Batten. Tommy Robinson perhaps?
But in the meantime the position of the non-muslim population of our country gets more perilous day by day.
Support for Tommy seems to be quite shallow within UKIP, from what I can gather from the public domain.
There were three Free Tommy protests in London. I attended all three.
Yes, Gerard Batten, Lord Pearson, David Coburn and Stuart Agnew have supported Tommy. Where though was the bulk of the UKIP MEPs? Where were the UKIP London and the Welsh assembly members?
There were three or four UKIP flags. At the first event there was a handful of people wearing UKIP rosettes.
And there was a group of MBGA members.
Tommy is a hero. Does UKIP even deserve to have him as a member?
David Coburn spoke at the Free Tommy rally but couldn’t actually bring himself to mention Tommy Robinson.
He had quite a lot to say about Tommy Robinson last July: “They are going nowhere. People like Tommy Robinson. They are going nowhere and they think they can jump on our bandwagon. Well I’m sorry, that’s not what UKIP are about. We’re not a one-issue party. We’re not only about about Brexit. We’re not only about immigration. We are about everyday things in life. So those people, I’m sorry, they are unacceptable. That’s why I’m standing. To make sure we don’t have nonsense like that.”
Watch from 3m53s:
“David Coburn spoke at the Free Tommy rally but couldn’t actually bring himself to mention Tommy Robinson.”
Yes, I thought that was a bit odd. Nevertheless, he was there. Where were all the others at the protest? Where are all the others now? Do ANY of the other UKIP MEPs support Tommy? Do ANY of them support Gerard supporting Tommy? Do they just want a quiet life, while collecting the remainder of their generous salary? Partly paid for by UK taxpayers.
I expended a lot of effort leafleting in the runup to the EU parliamentary election. I see very little return for my efforts. One of the UKIP MEPs in my region never replies to my emails, so I have given up. There is no point me even trying to contact her on this matter or any other, as I know there will be zero response.
We cannot make an exception to our Rules for one person, that way lies chaos amnd arbitrariness – just like the EU way of going about things!
The UKIP Southwark Branch sent the following Resolution to the NEC:-
“Resolution carried 5/1: In light of the recent public debate surrounding ‘Tommy Robinson’ possible membership application , “That UKIP Southwark Branch asks that the NEC propose to the AGM to instruct the NEC to prepare a Report for consideration to a general meeting on the matters of proscribed organisations and their members and former members admission to the UK Independence Party.””
That hopefully if accepted will give us a proper way forward.
@Tony,
Who wrote that ?
Sir Humphrey ?
30 years in Labour and TU conferences – comes natural.
If you want to change matters such that it’s not just Chairman with NEC backing making the exceptions, then it’s constitutional change, which is a big deal.
This is an unnecessary distraction at this time. The TR issue should be put on the back boiler until after the Leadership election next April when prospective candidates can put forward their views on this topic and members can vote accordingly.
In the meantime GB [who has done a fantastic job saving UKIP] should take further drastic action to get things back on track. The day has come to put personal pride and all our past differences behind us and to unite once more to save our great country. My suggestion therefore is to immediately appoint Nigel [if he agrees] as our spokesman for Brexit and perhaps joint Deputy Leader. This would get the general public behind us, create a great boost for the Party and hopefully guarantee our escape from the shackles of the EU for ever.
Better still appoint Nigel Farage as party president. The position at the moment doesn’t exist, but this would be ideal one for Farage. He needs to be kept onside and inclusive.
Colin Hussey.
Would this be the same Nigel Farage who abandoned ship at the worst possible moment, who backed Henry Bolton, who carefully avoids any reference to UKIP these days and who, it is said, will be attending a rally of Leave Means Leave on Saturday 22 September and therefore not attending the UKIP National Conference in Birmingham on the same day?
To use your own words “Dear oh dear, please grow up…..and get real for goodness sake”.
Well, perhaps it wasn’t the best time insofar as the party is concerned, but I think he was close to being burnt out and stood down for personal reasons. However he is STILL a UKIP MEP, and we NEED to keep him on side. That doesn’t mean to say that UKIP can’t exist without him because it can and will have to. However he is nevertheless the best orator on all things to do with the EU, and has the knowledge and expertise within his head when asked difficult questions by radio/tv presenters, without the need to bluff his way through it, defer the question to a later date, or refer to notes. When was the last time you saw him give a speech whilst referring to notes. The answer is never. His speeches whether you like him or not are flawless. I had no real belief in Henry Bolton from the start and voted for his dismissal from the leadership at the EGM, but did any of us including Nigel Farage, realise just how bad he was going to be for the party last September when he was elected.
Colin.
Well, OK, perhaps I have been a trifle over critical of Nigel Farage. As you rightly say, he is without doubt far and away the best orator on the EU that there is, and indeed a lot of other subjects as well. And there is no denying that if it wasn’t for his skill, energy and insistence it is extremely unlikely that we would ever have had a vote on Brexit. And yes, he no doubt did need time out to recharge his batteries.
What troubles me is that he seems to be ignoring UKIP altogether now and despite his apparent fearlessness he simply will not face up to the issue of Islam which, after Brexit, is the most important issue of our time.
But I am now 72 so perhaps I should keep my views to myself.
Peter.
Maybe the following YouTube video would interest you. It is from about a month ago, before the present TR issue, not sure how how or if it interlaces with Leave means Leave, but Nigel talks warmly of Ukip ( and throwing his hat in the ring for leader again!) I take a lot of events now with a pinch of salt including this, but things could get interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dilCdwoZd4M
Jim. Thanks for that link. I hadn’t seen it before.
I think Nigel no longer needs UKIP to further his ‘career’. He’s made it clear he doesn’t want to lead a political party again.
If Tommy was donating a few million £s would he be acceptable, and if not don’t worry we still have millions of civilised kids that haven’t been raped yet!!!
The Tommy Robinson affair
So that everyone can make up their own minds, here is Tommy’s background.
Tommy Robinson has a number of aliases. He uses Stephen Lennon, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon , Paul Harris ( on his legitimate passport ) and others.
His Companies House records describe him as a plumber.
He has Class A drugs offences (cocaine), hence why he was banned from the USA (and now banned for life for travelling under the name of Andrew McMaster on Mr McMasters passport, for which he received another custodial sentence). His partner (Ms J.A.V.) was cautioned for cocaine possession too . He has other offences, for assaulting a police officer who was defending his partner ( the same Ms J.A.V. – let’s keep her out of this) who was being kicked by either Tommy/Paul/or Stephen at the time.
He has other offences, for head-butting a man, mortgage fraud (with Ms J.A.V. s brother) and of course for contempt of court, resisting arrest and so on.
He was a member of the MIG (Luton Town) football hooligan gang.
There are a number of extant videos showing Tommy attacking people.
In addition he was a member of the BNP, after being personally recruited by Nick Griffin due to his reputation as a fearless street fighter and was the founder and member of the EDL.
He was also a member of Pegida, until he backed Tim Scott as leader (seen here from 1:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiq1kSlis00 .
Tim Scott threatened to kill UKIP members Luke Nash-Jones and Martin Costello earlier this year.
YOU decide whether this should be discounted now that Tommy wants to join UKIP and stand as a future candidate.
Do bear in mind that if YOU are a member of The Green Party, UKIP deems you unfit to stand for any elected office, and you may not be a PPC either.
It goes without saying, do keep all of this hush-hush, because those nasty MSM fellows might pick up on it next week at conference.
If Robinson is allowed to join against the rules there will be as many members leave as join. The difference is those who leave will be moderate members such as myself and those who join will be from the right wing and possibly far right wing and we will become the party the press like to say we are – fascists. He is a thug and will always be a thug. I cannot go to conference this year because the venue is disability unfriendly (I know because I went to the EGM earlier this year) so if there is a vote I cannot take part, this is too important for just Conference to decide.
With opinions and vocabulary like yours, I’m wondering why you’re not a member of one of the Lab-Lab-Con parties.
RE,
You are very quick to condemn especially when recent events prove Tommy Robinson far from what you have him marked down as.
How can you judge with such certainty the types that will leave against those who will join.
Clause 4.4.1 seems to solve any problems.
Personally I an behind Gerard Batten and his take on the issue I also believe that Tommy
Should be allowed a say at the conference and a vote if not taken at the conference then
over the internet for all members to participate.
In regards to the MSM UKIP are damned if they allow Tommy entry & damned if they don’t
Nobody is claiming that Tommy has a faultless past. Did you never make a mistake in your life?
Nelson Mandela and his wife Winnie were evil terrorists. She was an advocate of necklacing, – filling a tyre with petrol, fastening it around someone’s neck, and setting fire to it. Now the Mandelas are regarded as heroes.
Gandhi is alleged to have been a racist and in favour of the caste system but is now regarded as a hero.
Jesus used pre-meditated violence within the Temple courtyard. It got him crucified. Now he is regarded by Christians as the saviour. It must have taken several minutes to make a knotted scourge from a piece of rope. Therefore the violence was pre-meditated.
Nope. I have no criminal record, and I don’t fill tyres with petrol and set fire to people. Petrol is too damned expensive anyway.
None of your examples lived in participatory democracies did they – so your analogy collapses.
Dear oh dear, please grow up………… and get real for goodness sake.
Tommy would be the first to admit he has a chequered past. But having a chequered past does not in itself bar people from joining UKIP. It may disqualify him from being a candidate, but he has expressed no such desire and that will be up to the people running the vetting process if he does.
What has he said, in, say, the last five years, that you think shows he is not fit to be in UKIP, Mr. Bav? Please quote his actual words.
I didn’t say anything about him being ‘not fit to be in UKIP’ . I merely set the record straight about what we are dealing with. I have no influence over the motion and am not at conference. Its up to you to decide. Not me.
Given what you say in your original post, Mr. Bav, I think it was a reasonable assumption I made that you don’t want him in UKIP. I was in particular impressed by how you made no mention at all of Tommy having been treated as an enemy of the state for years for daring to publicise mainly Muslim child rape gangs, and his having recently been imprisoned by a kangaroo court and tortured and starved in prison.
Maybe my assumption was incorrect. Do you think Tommy Robinson is fit to be in UKIP, Mr. Bav? If not, what has he said in the last five years that made you feel that? Please quote his words.
It would be helpful if you could give some evidence for what you assert here, about Robinson having a criminal record for drugs offences, football hooliganism, assault on a police officer etc etc. Otherwise you could lay yourself open to being accused of defamation.
The only source you quote here is the video, which I have just watched, where channel 4 (hardly an extremist right-wing outfit !) establishes that Tommy Robinson left the EDL, which he had founded, because it was being taken over by football hooligans and far-right elements. It discusses his promotion of Pegida, at that time, which has “avoided the thuggery of the extreme right, and that is what Robinson … wants to bring to Britain.” as the channel 4 commentator said.
Its public record. I seem to recall Bolton wasn’t vetted very well either.
“public record”? Can you please be more precise and give chapter and verse…
No. Do your own research. I charge £180 an hour.
OMG!! hilarious!!! You post defamatory remarks about someone, and then say you must be paid if you are to provide evidence. Sorry, the onus of proof is on you.
Torquil, its all in Tommy’s own book “Enemy of the State”, if you are going to support the guy then at least read his autobiography so that (I) you give him a financial donation, and (ii) you actually know who you are supporting, and (iii) you don’t make yourself looks silly because Tommy admits to all those things.
I thought you were a lawyer Sir? Truth is never libel.
You need to give evidence to show that what you say is true. Chapter and verse?
Try Chapter 1-3 of Tommy’s autobiography, ‘Enemy of the State’. Available on Kindle if you are in Rome. It’s all there, he doesn’t hide any of it.
Emailed from train and posted by relay – so, pardon errors.
Consult s2(1) Defamation Act 2013, and s2(4) which repeals s5 (“Justification”) of the Defamation Act 1952.
> Truth is never libel
“never” ?
Too bold, Kev! Eschew such extremism, as I counsel every Libdem (or “ex”).
Even provable truth could have been libel; consider the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, very frequently tweaked as they are.
Especially s8 thereof, amended by s16 DA13, wherein considerations of malice become relevant.
This is contrary to your assertion.
If you need a further hint – published reference to a “rehabilitated offender” or a spent conviction, after it became spent. Note time periods vary, and some convictions are never spent.
For most purposes in law (again with exceptions, as Woolfe, a barrister, found in the PCC application lodged on his behalf by A.N.Other) this wiping clean means, legally, they never took place at all (neither offence nor conviction), even though they did.
Reference to the like, however “true”, might not therefore comprise a defence in a suit for libel. In the absence of malice, it could serve as substantial mitigation.
IANAL, but I have several pre-UKIP OOC wins (and no losses) for defamation – attempts by competitors who couldn’t beat me at producing world-class software – under my belt, and I didn’t use a solicitor or barrister for either. Neither matter relied on technicalities, but in preparing for them, I cracked open the books, and have kept track of the law since.
Freedom of speech and considerations of defamation have to work in tandem and balance. WIthout the latter, the former leads to anarchy. Too much of the latter, freedom of speech is killed.
IMO, the most important development in 2013 was s11, which ensures most defamation cases are now not for juries, who, by awarding outlandish sums, made London the libel capital of the world and so throttled free speech.
Note to Torquil – the above is not relevant to your protest; Tommy freely admits to past wrongdoing in his book. He would thus be estopped from suing for libel (not that it would even occur to him to try – he’s no such motivations).
The question before us is, while we can, and should, personally understand, forgive, “forget” – can, and should, the party?
I believe in democracy. Flawed, but in the long run beats all the alternatives.
Carry on.
Here’s a video, of Tommy Robinson’s mate Tim Scott, calling UKIP ‘Motherf**king shit’ If you watch the whole video, you can see the threats made to Luke and Martin. And the death threats . 4 times.
I will add here, that I think Luke Nash-Jones has been very unfairly treated by UKIP
Sorry, where is the link to your video showing death threats?
Torquil, I have experienced this same problem with Bav on another topic. Zero references provided, despite repeated requests. Large claims made with zero evidence given – sounds like the religion of peace!
There are lots of websites covering it, e.g. https://www.the-round.co.uk/charges-on-tommy-robinson-rap-sheet/
> https://www.the-round.co.uk/charges-on-tommy-robinson-rap-sheet/
Read the entry therein for 2010 (poppy-burning by jihad-apologists, “British soldiers go to hell”, etc.)
I can’t find anything to show TR was *convicted* of anything in respect of this – or even that the case was heard in court, to appear at which on Nov 22, 2010 he had been bailed.
It isn’t given a mention at:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson
Just saying.
I suggest you ask Gerald Gravett for his thoroughly researched piece on TR. You will find all the answers there
I have it.
Careful reading is needed; e.g., within it, a single conviction is referred to several times in different contexts, giving the impression to some things are worse than they are.
“to some things” –> “that some things”
What is your beef about the Green Party? They are a competing party so if you are (present tense) a member then of course you can’t stand as a UKIP PPC. What’s wrong with that?
My angle is that it might be considered absurd – especially to the press in conference week- to ban members of probably the most benign of all parties and on the other hand accept multi-offence people who were members of the BNP, EDL and have international passport and cocaine convictions.
They had a field day with Bolton.
Lest we forget.
Not my decision though.
But the Green Party are not on the proscribed list, are they? And I have to challenge you calling the Greens benign, they fluctuate over time, sometimes they would take us back to the stone age. They have swallowed hook, line and sinker the liblabcon. When I ran in GE17, I challenged our Green candidate on population control, and how obviously the more people you have living here the worse overcrowding and associated pollution gets. He told me the Greeens official line is that there is no link between the two. Please.
The Greens, on the ground, are the most scientifically ignorant of the LibLabConGroanRemoan pentateuch.
In Chingford many years ago, a large (50?) bunch of them decided to accept my challenge. There wasn’t even a “Sandhurst degree” (GCSE pass in general science) between the lot of them.
I got them to declare that nuclear power was always bad and never justified. “Always” and “never”.
We were standing outside in warm summer sunshine.
I pointed out all of them simply *had* to go indoors, but refused to explain why. It took ages for the penny to drop. “Oh, he thinks the sun uses nuclear energy”.
“Dimwits” doesn’t even begin to describe them. 😀
Quite a rap sheet. How you view it may depend partly on your thoughts on re-habilitation, debt paid to society etc., through incarceration. I personally don’t feel any outstanding debt.
It may also depend on what weight you give to other aspects, youthful indiscretion, frustration and yes perhaps a little stupidity allied to impulsiveness. Whether you think that Tommy Robinson has matured and put this kind of behaviour behind him is entirely up to each individual but are you going to determine this only on his record thus far or are you willing to look for evidence that indicates that that is the case? In any contentious or even high profile membership application I would hope this was done anyway.
As for Mr. Scott maybe Tommy was a bit over-awed by a man who walked the walk against our enemies where bullets and bombs were already flying and where capture would have meant a certain extreme death with no mercy. My view is that Mr. Scott needs a much longer time out of the desert before being harshly judged.
What really rocked me back on my heels was the revelation that Tommy was a plumber – Really, a plumber!
On the other hand if rejected by UKIP maybe Tommy can take advantage of the recently announced proposed new initiative to allow ex-criminals onto the Bench. With his range of convictions he could soon be on the fast track to the Supreme Court.
The only thing I see outstanding is the unforgivable alleged kicking of Ms. J.A.V. (let’s keep her out of this by naming her). Perhaps as a compromise, as an induction into UKIP, could I suggest that Tommy be made to lie on the floor, without retaliation, whilst the left out Ms. J.A.V. gets a good few boots in. That surely is going to satisfy both sides of this argument.
Food for thought.
I have found plumbers to be practical people capable of solving problems, and more so than (say) electricians or carpenters, who are also better at problem-solving than most academics.
One thing you didn’t cover was any distinction between forgive/explain/understand/forget at a personal level and at a party level.
Freddy
Sorry if my faux outrage at finding Plumber in a list of criminal convictions startled you. To be sure some are probably better than others, but criminal?
In my career as a mechanical/marine engineer and surveyor I did notice that overwhelmingly it was guys in boiler suits dealing with and solving problems associated with the likes of minor but significant boiler and engine explosions, major engine failures, after effects of collisions and storm damage etc., and a myriad other things to be dealt with on ships at sea.
I also worked with other guys in other suits in design offices and the like and many of these were drawn from the ranks of the former and some of this total sum of guys were plumbers, electricians and the like. I have knowledge and appreciation of them and in fact had to be them at times when none were otherwise available.
I am not really qualified to comment on individual vs group attitudes but something like “for the greater good” is rattling about in there somewhere, I feel sure you already have the answer. And #iamtommy.