Response to "Why UKIP members are dropping like flies as local councillors" article by Angela aka: @Angelneptustar on Twitter

Referenced article: Why UKIP members are dropping like flies as local councilors

I was recently made aware of an article by an individual via Twitter in which she made out that UKIP Councillors were "dropping like flies".

Within the first paragraph the tone of the article gave away its real objectives. A sarcastic swiping of UKIP and it's members immediately gave itself away as an article written to smear and not to report the facts in any kind of constructively critical way.

Articles of these types have been rampant in the last week since the defection of Conservative Party MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP. It would seem that a rather unhealthy dose of "sour grapes" has been ingested by some sections of the media and some pretty average bloggers online it has to be said.

Now I am not talking up my own blogging writing skills here, I am just a humble UKIP member with a reasonable understanding of politics.
I talk about what I know, and won't hold back from speaking the truth when it needs to be said.

Yet these people writing these articles are career journalists, political correspondents and activist/bloggers for other parties with a vast following.

The individual who wrote the above article has circa 10,000 followers on Twitter. About 3 and a bit times that than I do. My last article published on here was viewed by just over 1,000 people which was a new high for me, I might add, and I am very thankful to those who read it.

But when it comes to smears from political blogger activists I would have expected something more than this poor convoluted attempt to downgrade UKIP, its members and Councillors. But it would seem this individual has taken a few lessons from the "Labour Party school of nonsense".

"UKIP’s Matthew Smith on a fraud charge" - Accused doesn't mean convicted.

What this individual forgot to mention was Mr Smith was due to stand down as Councillor during the General Elections anyway.

Last time I checked people in the United Kingdom were innocent until proven guilty?

But as long as we are highlighting "accusations" of electoral fraud let's take a small look at some Conservative Party candidates shall we?
Ashford Conservative council candidate Cencizham Cerit jailed for electoral fraud - 8th Feb 2013

Conservative member Ali Hayder Munir convicted of electoral fraud after councillor father acquitted

Tory councillor Eshaq Khan jailed for using 'ghost voters' to rig local election

Five jailed for electoral fraud

Tory’s Mile End candidate Jewel Islam arrested in suspected electoral fraud


"Let’s start with the UKIP councillor for Henley-on-Thames. David Sylvester warned PM David Cameron that if gay marriage were legalised, disaster would befall the UK."
What Angela forgets to tell you about this instance is that David Silvester was a Conservative Party candidate and Councillor when he made the initial statement to the Conservative Party and David Cameron. He was a Conservative Party Councillor for multiple years before defecting to the UK Independence Party due to David Cameron's stance on Gay Marriage.

A matter of 3 days after Silvester made similar comments after joining UKIP, he had been suspended and sacked by the party. This was back in January this year, 9 months ago!

When Mr Silvester initially aired his views on the subject as a Conservative Party member, not only did the British media not focus on it in the same way it had whilst he was a UKIP member, he wasn't suspended by the Conservative Party.

No action taken against David Silvester over "Gay Marriage" comments


"Moving on to UKIP Councillor Paul Clapp of Wisbech, who was forced to answer the following charges by his colleagues.
They claimed that Cllr Clapp was
•struggling to cope with the role
•forgetting to call for votes on committee items
•failing to realise when the next item should be introduced
•reading recommendations from different items to that being debated
•is generally failing to ensure the meeting follows due process
The letter claims the role of chairman is also to work with officers on strategic issues “and we simply do not believe that the current chairman is experienced enough to do this at a very difficult and important time”.  Councillor Clapp has agreed to take on a less demanding role."

Actually if Angela had done a little more research she would know that Mr Clapp was diagnosed with severe dyslexia so what she has actually done here is bring to light someone's disability as a reason not to vote UKIP.

For me this lack of research into a really unfortunate issue is inexcusable, and should be denounced by everyone who reads her pathetic article.

"Also in Wisbech, UKIP Cllr Peter Lagoda stepped down in April from his role.  He quit after an independent review found that controversial remarks he made during a fire station visit were “racist, derogatory and discriminatory”.   Lagoda’s remarks at Wisbech fire station caused one of the firefighters to to lodge a complaint, as he admitted to describing his sister to the firefighters as a “w*g” and spoke about his “Mongol” relatives having children with “slanty eyes”.

Again, what Angela has done is not disclose all the facts. Lagoda was a very disappointing candidate UKIP had. He had no prior record of any wrong-doing, so short of conducting some sort of Vulcan-esque mind-meld. Any right minded party would struggle to discover any ulterior motives.

Mr Lagoda had never said or done anything questionable prior to this event.
Following these comments and his being charged with benefits fraud Mr Lagoda was kicked out of the party in April this year.

"In Cornwall, in May,  UKIP Councillor Keogh stepped down citing “personal circumstances.”He said: “Personal circumstances have arisen which mean I’m not able to spend the time I would like to on the job.   “The job needs to be done properly and I need to step aside and let somebody else take up the position.”

...again... In similar circumstances to Mr Clapp, until you really know his circumstances I think it is really foolish to highlight his departure as Councillor.

For all you know a family member of his could have fallen ill.

Shameful that you have cited this example as well Angela.

"In July, Robert Ray stood down as the leader of Thurrock UKIP.  The Aveley councillor has made the announcement as he is in the middle of court proceedings in relation to a drink-driving allegation.  He denies the charge."

There is no excuse for drink-driving. He rightfully stood down.

Did these Conservative Party Councillors stand down for drink-driving charges?

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Conservative-councillor-handed-ban-drink-driving/story-21093349-detail/story.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10139166/Tory-councillor-arrested-for-drink-driving-after-affair-with-schoolgirl.html

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/conservative-canterbury-city-cou-a55593/

http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Drink-drive-shame-Tory-Thanet-councillor-Shirley/story-17523841-detail/story.html

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/shirley-councillor-peter-doyle-who-7440496

http://road.cc/content/news/125268-anti-cycling-dales-councillor-banned-drink-driving

"In April,  Halesowen and Rowley Regis UKIP candidate Dean Perks has been urged to stand down after it emerged he owed the taxman more than £10,000 in missed VAT payments.  Mr Perks, who runs property renovations company Changing Rooms, failed in a three year battle with HM Revenue and Customs after they ruled he was VAT registered when he thought he was not.
Mr Perks is also standing for UKIP in next week’s Dudley Council elections for Upper Gornal and Woodsetton."

So basically saying he should stand down as he is poor?
Well done... <sarcastically claps>

Also this article is about UKIP Councillors who have "dropped like flies" isn't it? Yet he is still a UKIP candidate and not even a Councillor yet?

"In Yarmouth, UKIP Councillor Matthew Smith is standing down over fraud charges.   He had been due to stand for UKIP in Great Yarmouth at the next general election, but has stepped down to fight accusations of electoral fraud.  Norfolk county councillor Matthew Smith, 26, appeared at Norwich Crown Court earlier, where he denied the charges he faces.
They relate to the county council elections in the Great Yarmouth district in May 2013. Mr Smith said he was standing down for the good of the party. The councillor, of High Street, Gorleston, denies several counts of making a false statement in nomination papers and making a false instrument with intent.
His trial was due to begin on 5 January."

...Erm... Tad confused...
Didn't you already do Matthew Smith's bit at the top of the article or are you just repeating people to pad out the article for dramatic effect?

"UKIP councillor for Rushmore  Malcolm Small stood down after he was sentenced for arson.  Apparently he has been convicted of setting fire to his wife’s clothes in a marital spat.  Mr. Small received a sentence of twelve weeks,  suspended for two years.
In May, UKIP Councillor David Small was suspended over alleged homophobic and racist remarks just days after he was elected. He was told to stand down by his party while they investigated claims he referred to gay people as “perverts”, African immigrants as “scroungers” and other offensive comments.  He posted this on Facebook.  “I refuse to call them gays, as what has gay to do with Perverts like Elton John and Clair [sic] Balding who get their jollies in such disgusting ways. to sum up, they should not allowed to be married, they should go back to the closet.”
Mr Small had just won the Church Hill seat for the party on Redditch Borough Council."

...Again... We kicked him out... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27611960

UKIP have a zero tolerance policy to Racism and Homophobia.

Meanwhile at the Tories:
Racism:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/N-gger-woodpile-Complaint-councillor-uses-racist/story-20715735-detail/story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/conservative-councillor-chris-joannides-facebook

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/21/john-cherry-racist-remarks_n_3127033.html

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/bob-frost-accused-of-racism-15560/

http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/conservative-councillor-suspended-for-alleged-racism-against-muslims/

Homophobia:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Councillor-s-homophobic-views-slated/story-11245338-detail/story.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/18/tory-councillor-accused-of-homophobia-for-criticising-gay-actors-school-visits/

Tory Councillors Homophobic Bullying

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/04/14/suspended-tory-councillor-defends-views-on-gays/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8595606.stm

"Finally, in May, UKIP’s Eric Kitson face the sack for racist rants.  He sparked fury amid allegations he unleashed a series of racist abuse online. Eric Kitson, who won a seat in Stourport  launched a whole raft of anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish Facebook posts. Among the most shocking was a cartoon of a Muslim being spit-roasted on a fire fuelled by copies of the Koran.  In one comment he said in reference to Muslim women: “Hang um all first then ask questions later.”  A raft of anti-Jewish remarks have also appeared on his Facebook site, and in a separate post he has called for the repatriation of “six million migrants and refugees”.
There was also false claims posted on his site that the Rothschild banking dynasty had controlled Nazi Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler.
His Facebook page has also called for Muslim women to be hanged, suggested Islam is “a cancer” that should be eradicated “with nuclear weapons” and expressed support for BNP boss Nick Griffin by ‘liking’ him."

What Angela forgets to mention is that he had been a UKIP Councillor for 12 years without issue. His unacceptable behavior came about suddenly without warning and he had given no indication up until the point he posted what he had, that he was trouble.

He was immediately removed from the party upon his unacceptable remarks.

"Racists.  Bigots. Homophobes. Fraudsters. OK,  you find them in every party, but these are all UKIP councillors in trouble this year!  Not much of an endorsement is it, Mr. Carswell?  Because after all, if UKIP members are like this as councillors, what will they be like as MPs?"

I tell you what is funny. You concede that "every party" has "racists, bigots, homophobes and fraudsters" yet you haven't apparently taken the time to look at just how many cases there are within your own party.

I am willing to bet you are just to ignorant a person to look it up?!

I myself recognise that there are undesirable elements in UKIP. As should members of the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP.

What defines a party is the attitude it has to such events.
The simple fact is that UKIP do not accept former Far Right members. Literally. It has been in their constitution for 4 years now. Meanwhile the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have accepted people into their parties who have a past of Nazism or have been former members of the BNP.

I am proud of the zero tolerance attitude UKIP has to people that have done or said unacceptable things. It shows that we are doing it right whilst the other parties, as illustrated above, have tried to protect and preserve people who stand for them and make unacceptable comments.

You allude to a higher than normal number of questionable people at UKIP when you know, as does everyone else, that the spotlight of the media and other parties has been shone on UKIP to a vastly higher degree than other parties.

I mean for goodness sakes their was a cross-party campaign during the European and Council Elections this year in which information was freely being passed between "supposed enemies" as parties in an attempt to discredit UKIP in areas of which they were standing.

Information was being passed from a Conservative Party research team directly to the media in an attempt to smear UKIP.

The Conservative Parties own supporters have even spoken about how the smear attempts against UKIP are cringe-worthy: Conservative Party Views

The 'wonderful' pro-Conservative Douglas Murray has even highlighted just how spectacularly ridiculous the smears against UKIP have been: Douglas Murray Article In The Spectator

If you look at Regional Newspapers and News websites across the country. You will find examples of Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems etc who have made outrageous objectionable comments. But the key difference is they usually stop there.

They never see the light of day. Where as UKIP candidates, members, MEP's, Councillors and activists will be called up in the National Media for any comment that they make, the media can make a good anti-UKIP article.

The media hysteria brought about on UKIP egged on by people such as yourself Angela, not to mention organisations such as the UAF and Hope Not Hate, of whom they are either afraid of a new party coming up that doesn't tow a Elite line is utterly ridiculous. Shameful even.

In fact the only thing that is more shameful than that is that people have been abused to such an extent in this country, that they have been afraid to report very serious crimes through fear of being labeled.

You Angela and others like you, inadvertently lend your support to this with your pathetic smear tactics.

The media support a pretty effective blanket between the mainstream parties trouble-makers and UKIP's troublesome individuals.

I am willing to bet that you never heard about the Conservative Party Councillor who had armed police arrest him over Fire Arms Offences or the Labour Party Mayor who was charged with Child Abuse.

You are to busy trying to smear UKIP members on minor offences. Or claim that by voting for UKIP, voters will put in a Labour Government when in reality the Conservative Party selectively forget the fact that UKIP take votes from all the other Parties (Greens, Labour and Lib Dems), not to mention 20% of our vote coming from people who formerly didn't vote and were fed up with politics.

We as a party encourage people back into voting, yet you would have people go back to the "old ways" of playing table tennis politics of keeping the old Elitist Parties in power and not having real change!


With such complete and utter nonsense you do not deserve 10,000 followers Angela. How could you be so ignorant?!

How can people be so ignorant?!

Let's take a count on the number of UKIP Councillors you list here Angela shall we? Let's see what your article is made up of?

• 3 cases of racist remarks
• 2 cases of homophobic remarks
• 3 cases of fraud
• 2 cases of standing down or being moved to a new position due to health or personal circumstances

This is all from a grand total of 9 (1 of whom was a Council Candidate and not a Councillor) people. Out of 400+ Councillors over a space of a year?

Latest 'Stand Up To UKIP' Leaflet Encouraging Public Disorder Against UKIP

Trying to repress a political parties democratic right to stand is anti-democratic whether you like them or not. By doing such 'Stand Up To UKIP' should declare itself an anti-Democratic organisation.

Why can't groups and organisations of this sort let people decide for themselves. If they don't want want to vote for UKIP they can decide for themselves without being strong-armed by a organisation that claims to be anti-Fascist, yet exhibits fascist traits.

'Stand Up To UKIP' claim UKIP are "racist". Yet the definition of racist is: "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
I have never seen content or information that defines UKIP in such a way. I have never seen anything from UKIP disclosing a ) Britain is a race (granted it's my belief that their is a strong British race and culture that exists and my saying so is not racist) b ) Britain is superior to others c ) a particular race as a whole should be prevented from entering the UK.

In fact much the opposite. UKIP believe anyone from any Nation, believing in any religion coming from any ethnic background should be allowed to enter the country if they have the right skills to offer.
UKIP are strong supporters of a reconnection with the Commonwealth, an entity that was cast adrift by New Labour under Gordon Brown when he signed the Lisbon Treaty.
The Commonwealth were always the first people to come to the UK's aid at times of need. See World War 2 history. Yet we cast them adrift so casually, it is something I as a British person have been ashamed of ever since Mr Brown did it.
Let's not forget that the Commonwealth encapsulates a third of the Worlds population. The majority of which is black or Asian and doesn't hold English as their first language.

It's a question of numbers not race. It never has been a question of race.
If UKIP are "racist" as the 'Stand Up to UKIP' organisation claim to be, then maybe one of the organisations members or the organisation hierarchy itself could highlight a racist UKIP policy?
You will have trouble though. They don't have any?!

UKIP have no such policy to introduce a flat rate tax as 'Stand Up To UKIP' have claimed. So that is a lie.
I fear that they are reading from the same dishonest hymn-sheet that the Labour Party do. Singing off the same utter nonsense that they do about past policies from a utterly abandoned 2010 manifesto written under a different party leader to that of Nigel Farage, policies that have never been mentioned by UKIP or points discussed by UKIP members that have never and would never be brought into action as a formal policy in its manifesto.

UKIP members have talked about a flat rate tax which absorbed all different taxes into a flat rate tax but this has not been confirmed as policy and would be cheaper than the current rate of tax.

UKIP have also announced that they would have no income tax for those on the minimum wage. However this organisation hasn't mentioned that? I wonder why?!

UKIP have consistently said that they neither want to privatise the NHS or charge patients. So this again is a lie. This lie which has been discussed by the Labour Party as a current UKIP policy as recently as last week in a Labour List article written by Polly Billington (article written about such by myself on my blog a couple of days ago) has been rubbished even on UKIP's website due to the volume at which it was being told. It has also been labeled as a "current UKIP policy" by Labour Party Councilors, MP's and activists in public and in formal meetings with organisations such as Unison in a blatant attempt to mislead the electorate.

UKIP are a Libertarian Party. In other words they encourage people to discuss, debate and put forward ideas. They have a strong policy of Direct Democracy leading to Referendums about Regional and International issues. With such open debate you are bound to get a wide range of opinions and stances about a whole manner of things. An idea or statement does not make Party Policy. (ie: Paul Nuttall on the NHS)

The leaflet then goes on to say that UKIP has made "poisonous lies about Immigrants and Muslims". What lies does the leaflet refer to?
This accusation has been made without any context, substance of evidence? It has just left people to assume it is true.

The leaflet further rants; "In the run up to the European elections UKIP's mask slipped". - How? The 'Stand Up To UKIP' leaflet makes a statement as fact and has again not actually provided any evidence.
We all know a limited number of UKIP members have made questionable comments, however it is the action taken that makes the difference.
UKIP have a Zero Tolerance attitude towards bigoted comments and have taken action against such people.
Meanwhile a signatory of the 'Stand Up To UKIP' organisation has made bigoted comments and no action has ever been taken other than a flat apology being forced from her by her Party leader.

I of course refer to Diane Abbott, who has made her dislike for UKIP abundantly clear on a multitude of occasions.

Diane Abbott further racism

In fact multiple representatives of other parties have not had action taken against them by their respective parties for making highly disgusting comments.

According to 'Stand Up To UKIP', UKIP are also a party of "bigots, sexists Islamophobes and homophobes". - Really? Well as I have said above people who have made such comments have been kicked out.
But if we are being honest, that isn't what it's about is it regards the attitude from the people who operate 'Stand Up To UKIP'?

When you read the retweets done by the 'Stand Up To UKIP' twitter page, and the links to articles posted on their Facebook pages, you come to understand the deeper reason for this organisation and its actions.

There is a MASSIVE level of support for the Labour Party even going as far as to retweet secondary articles made by The Labour List. This  shows that along with the likes of the Conservative Party who dredged up information on any UKIP member or supporter it could lay its hands on and pass it to the media and other parties, they are attempting to damage UKIP in any way they can with a ridiculous level of resources combined.
Remember this being done whilst no similar respective spotlight is shone at any of the other parties. Not to mention other supposed anti Fascist groups like 'Hope Not Hate' and the 'UAF' who are VERY selective with who they attack. Basically UKIP and UKIP only, after all their aren't any sexists, homophobes or racists at any of the other parties.

A concerted united attack is being placed on UKIP due to a politically elite agenda that much we can all be certain of.

UKIP are the only party who reject former Far Right members from joining whilst the Labour Party have accepted known BNP members and a Nazi with open arms. Many members and supporters have also expressed what I myself consider to be a terrifying anti-Semitic agenda towards Israelis and Jews in general going as far as to make highly offensive and racist comments on Social Networking sites, to be involved in race-hate rallies and of course as we have seen over the last 5 weeks, 5 separate Labour Party councils raising the Palestinian flag in support of Palestine. A nation that elected a "terrorist organisation", as defined by Ed Miliband who want to "wipe all Jews out of the middle-east" or words to that effect.
This is logical proof that if any party has more questionable elements it is Labour, and if any party out there is consistently expressing racist views and accepting racist members, it is the Labour Party.

This entire leaflet is both disingenuous and quite frankly pathetic.

It is my humble opinion that 'Stand Up To UKIP' and its members negative rhetoric towards UKIP and UKIP members who are decent hard working normal people is as inflammatory as the rhetoric put out by the Nazi Party in the 1930's.
If someone has a UKIP badge on their blazer then they must be "racist, homophobic, sexist and or Islamophobic" is this organisation and other so called (left wing) anti-Fascist organisations attitude.

It couldn't be because people agree with UKIP's policies which are none of the above (ie: "racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic etc...")

It can't be because people are concerned about the impact of mass uncontrolled immigration that we have experience especially in the south-East since Gordon Brown (Labour) signed the Lisbon Treaty.

It can't be because people are concerned about the growing reliance of food banks.

It can't be because of the housing shortage which whether you like to admit it or not is not helped by a growing population (immigration).

It can't be because people are struggling to find hospital places, educational places or other services. 

It can't be because people are upset about not finding work having been undercut by laborers from the continent.

It can't be about the ever increasing energy costs.

It can't be because they actually like UKIP's tax policies that will help the young and get people back into work with common-sense incentives.

It can't be because they have had their jobs impacted on by our EU membership such as the fishing industries.

It can't be because they have had their jobs taken away from them by the political elite having been working in industry that has been around for hundreds of years (ship building): Portsmouth etc... and don't believe any political change by the recognised parties will make any difference to them.

It can't be because they are fed up of the red tape and legislation they trip up on by being in the Union.

It must be because they are bigoted.

I would suggest the people who form such organisations to repress democracy are the groups who are bigoted and fascist.

As has already been highlighted and proven. UKIP have members from all ethnic backgrounds, multiple nationalities, equal measure of males and females (compared to the other parties which don't), people from various religions and have members who are gay.

All this pathetic campaign proves is that certain organisations with political agendas are desperate for UKIP not to be taken seriously.
All this support for parties like Labour by retweeting their misguided articles proves is that these fake anti fascist organisations are supporting the political elite.

'Stand Up To UKIP' raise the matter of the French National Front.
Why?! UKIP have nothing to do with them, have no links and no similarities. This is why we wanted to have nothing to do with that racist mob!

All the organisation has done has done by name-dropping this group randomly into the leaflet is try to make UKIP guilty by association of being on the same piece of paper as this daft Party in France.

As for UKIP getting a high portion of media coverage. For the record as they were the only party that represented the "Out" vote for the EU, and it was a European Election I would say it was pretty fair that they be given a reasonable amount of coverage.
Point me out another anti-EU party of the left wing variety with the kind of infrastructure and popularity UKIP has and I will willingly concede a bias media coverage to UKIP.

UKIP also at the time had a high number of MEPs and polls showed the party would gain a high number of MEPs in the elections.

Before I sign off I just felt like I should highlight another aspect of complete stupidity from this (above)  leaflet.
In the first paragraph it reads "UKIP is a right wing, racist, populist party"...
In the final 3 lines of the "Bigots" section it reads "The lesson of history is that we need unity against the far right and racism"...
So which is it? "Right Wing" or "Far Right"? Even the people who wrote this stupid brochure don't seem to be able to make up their minds!

If the people who wrote this nonsense actually put as much time into their own parties. They might actually do some constructive good for this country!
However they continue to plod on with the baseless accusations, misleading rhetoric and encouraging violence.

How many attacks have their been by UKIP members or supporters on foreign Nationals?
Answer: None.

How many attacks have their been by supposed anti-Fascists on UKIP members, supporters and general members of the public who just so happened to get in the way at the wrong time?
Answer: Loads.
You are being spoken to by one of them.
A disabled UKIP member who was prevented physically my freedom of speech and to assemble at two separate UKIP meetings by 'UAF', 'Hope Not Hate' and 'SWP' activists.

If you back this campaign you are every bit as "fascist" as you claim UKIP to be.

I don't expect this message to be up for long or my posting privileges to extend much longer to the Swansea Stand Up To UKIP statement which is where I am posting this comment.
After all I was blocked from the main Facebook group for posting something similar some time back. (freedom of speech and the right to reply is something false anti-Fascists don't like you see).

But don't worry. I am posting this on my blog as well. Which will be forwarded in tweet format to other 'supposed anti-fascist' groups and UKIP pages.

Regards,

Response To Another Left Wing Hatchet-Job In The Huffington Post 15/08/2014

"Huffington Post Article - Nigel Farage Accuses of 'Planning Attack' As Ukip Leader Confirms Commons Tilt"

The only people who have accused the BBC of being biased towards UKIP are left wingers who have had pause due to UKIP's surge forwards in development.

Anyone with half a brain can see the media bias towards UKIP.

Every non-formal announcement article mentioning UKIP is negative (and even the formal ones have a negative undertone or mention something negative). UKIP are the only party that has members jump right to the front page for non-stories.

Take the Bill Etheridge non-story the other day for instance where the media tried to make out that he was "praising Hitler" when in reality he was just talking about him being a potent public speaker in manner.

Some weeks ago we had the story about Nikki Sinclaire and her expenses fraud charge. Let's forget for a second that Miss Sinclaire had spent the last year providing anti-UKIP headlines for the Huffington Post to feed off of. She had not been a member of the party in nearly 5 years?! Yet the media spent as much time as they could trying to reconnect her to the party as they possibly could like she had never left.

If that wasn't bad enough, at the time a Labour Party Councilor was being tried in court having been charged with abusing a little boy.

This story didn't even leave its regional newspaper, yet a story about a former UKIP member was daily news for a good 3-4 days!

During the European Elections and Council Elections, the media tried to focus on UKIP's General Election policies or members who had caused them minimal embarrassment. Completely ignoring other party members who had been charged fire arms offenses (Tories) or racism (Labour). Yet the media lapped up the cross party muck raking as if a pig in a puddle of mud and food. Fully knowing that the focus at the time should be it's local policies and European Election policies. But try as they might, the media wouldn't let them speak about the things that mattered. Regardless they got the European Elections won and won double the number of Council seats that were expected much to the utter horror of the media and other parties.

As for the number of people who complained about UKIP getting to much publicity and other claiming they got negative publicity.

I don't think many fellow UKIPers will mind me saying that compared to the likes of Labour and the Tories our support is far smaller.

The difference though is after/during the elections UKIP supporters were working for the party trying to maximize a much unexpected result.

Whilst supporters of other parties and members of other parties were going around spreading lies about UKIP policies that didn't exist (Labour), putting out fear stories about jobs being lost if we left the EU (Lib Dems) and just generally digging through normal people's twitter and Facebook accounts that were linked to UKIP in the hopes of finding any small piece of information to discredit the party (Tories). This information of course made readily available by any of the other parties and or the media.

So yes. I am sure a lot of sour people will have complained about UKIP getting publicity. 1000 people? That's what? Twice the number of people who voted in my small ward in the local council by election recently in which there was a 29% turnout (oh and UKIP won by the way!)

Don't expect me to lose any sleep at night over a handful of sour-faced staunch Labour and Green Party supporters who have nothing better to do than trying and hinder a already unbalanced electoral process.

But hey, rather than actually accept that all Parties got equal airtime even if obviously biased, the Huffington Post choose to highlight that a channel editor at the BBC News was sacked from coverage of the elections after tweeting a derogatory comment about the party.

The comment in question from the person concerned mentioning wishing that UKIP supporters and voters would "drown in acid".

Why they have raised this individual in this article as if it should never have happened is beyond me!

"More than 70 complaints were made claiming a bias against the Labour party, though there were absolutely no complaints of a bias in favour of Labour."

So 70 people made complaints of bias against Labour, whilst their were no complaints of bias in favour of Labour?

That's out of an estimated 7.8 million viewers who watched the Council Election and European Election coverage?

Why is the Huffington Post even referring to these figures. They are embarrassing.

I am willing to bet that the BBC gets more complaints about episodes of Eastenders than bias towards Election coverage.

Hell I am willing to bet that more people take to social media websites to bemoan bias in Election coverage than actually taking the time to ring up the BBC to complain about their programming.

"UKIP party members have enjoyed ample airtime on BBC shows, in particular on Question Time where Farage became "a usual suspect" in the run up to the elections."

He is the party leader.

As left-wingers gleefully conclude. Up until about a year and a half ago. UKIP was very much a one man band.

UKIP were the sole party out their objecting to UK membership of the European Union, and so it was very hard for a person to be put forward representing the party to speak on the show.

The last year however has been very different.

A blossoming range of fantastic public speakers and representatives of UKIP are available for BBC Question Time and other programs.

Diane James, Louise Bours, Suzanne Evans, Janice Atkinson, Jane Collins, Margot Parker, Patrick O'Flynn, Roger Helmer, Tim Aker, Steven Woolfe, David Coburn, Paul Nuttall, John Agnew and Amjad Bashir to name a few.

We shall have to see if the Huffington Post, BBC or other news cooperation's will actually approach these spokespeople to take part in their articles and programming.

As for any comparison to the Green Party. I fear the Huffington Post quip of "Farage has appeared on the show's panel at least 16 times since 2009 - more than the entire Green party, which has only appeared 11 times" is a bit misleading.

As the Huff's post has highlighted, Farage was primarily the only rep of UKIP who appeared on the show. So it wasn't the "Nigel Farage show", it was UKIP represented by Nigel Farage.

So UKIP 16 appearances since 2009 and Green's 11.

The UK Independence Party has a vastly higher number of Councilors than the Green's in the UK.

UKIP having 370 and the Green's having 160.

I know the Green's and others like to put forward the argument that the Green's have an MP and UKIP do not. But using that logic should the laughably titled 'Jewish hating' "Respect Party" be allowed vast numbers of reps on Question Time and other BBC programming when they have 1 solitary MP in George Galloway?

How many Councilors do they have? Yep that's right. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada!

So the argument that a party should have more representation than another party because they have one solitary MP is a joke!

Especially when you consider the state that particular City is in, and how much the Party are loathed by it's residents.

The only unfortunate thing is it's looking increasingly likely that Labour are going to take the Green's place in the hot seat as far as a Brighton MP is concerned. As much as I loathe Natalie Bennett's "anything to the right of us hating" attitude, and how they'd have little old people freezing to death in their homes due to expensive energy costs from the expensive tax payer funded energy constructions. Not to mention the apparent large contingent of anti-democratic Pseudo-Anti-Fascists who attack UKIP members whilst out peacefully canvassing for elections and attacking disabled and elderly people trying to attend UKIP meetings. This humble blogger knows that there are a few decent folk in the Green Party who have the best interests of the country at heart.

As much as I loathed Caroline Lucas ganging up with the other panelists on Question Time, I can respect that she has done a decent job in Brighton only to have been let down by some rather questionable Council level management resulting in comments about our armed forces (leading to a Councilor getting sacked) and rubbish piling up in the streets of London.

I really do dread to see what would/could and will most probably happen to my local City if the Labour Party got their hands on the Council and MP position.
I have seen recently first hand the mess that has been made by Labour of Crawley, and expect something much worse to happen in Brighton.

The Huff's post then goes on to make a further moan about UKIP "partly strongly featuring on the programme".
Now considering UKIP were the voice of Out (EU) and other parties (Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and Green's) all represent the voice of In. I don't think it is terribly unacceptable that the Out voice be heard in the lead up to an election that represents the In/Out question and referendum we will likely never get.

The fact UKIP won the European Elections reflects that people are unhappy, and as much as people will argue it was a "protest vote", latest polling figures of people who voted for UKIP in the European Elections shows that a pretty sizable chunk of that vote will follow UKIP to the General Election and beyond.

"Patrick O'Flynn, the director of communications, Diane James and Louise Bours also appeared on the show."

...so did Roger Helmer... Whoops guess the Huff's post forgot him.

"Bours became a social media sensation after going head-to-head with "football's philosopher king" in one of the most surreal political debates in modern history."

...that would be when Mr Barton made a truly sickening sexist comment that only got slammed by Miss Bours and a member of the audience?
Bumblebee was left a stuttering wreck as per usual whilst the other panelists were more concerned about their public profiles.

I personally was glad Miss Bours put Barton in his place. She is not afraid to object to things that should not be allowed. Be it in politics or in the social speaking context.

It's truly a shame that more in politics are not like her.

"A petition calling for Farage to stop being given "disproportionate airtime on Question Time," received more than 2,000 signatures at the time."

Over a thousand people have signed a HM Government petition to Grant UKIP new seats in the House of Lords.
30,092 people signed a HM Government petition for UKIP to be involved in any Television debates in 2015. Wonder if we will see that on the Huffington Post anytime soon?

















But hey if we are going to judge the scope of online Petitions such as the one outlined by this article, which essentially self-judges the amount of airtime UKIP are allowed to get. Granted I am pretty sure the amount of airtime UKIP get goes to a independent body owing to the agreement recently signed about the amount of airtime parties get, let's take a look at some of the other petitions currently out RE: UKIP.

We have a petition on change.org being run by the Liberal Democrats called 'Back Our Campaign To Stop UKIP' which has been signed by 717 supporters.
That's right, a petition run by a democratically elected political party, to stop another democratically elected political party's right to exist?!

Democracy in the United Kingdom has never looked so stupid! Yet they wonder why their support has nosedived with initiatives like that!

We have a Petition proposed by someone to do something about the blatantly misleading impersonation party 'An Independence From UK Now' party, which was rejected. Remember this party is reported to have cost UKIP 2 MEP's in the European Elections and a host of spoiled ballot papers when people have been concerned about voter turnouts.

At the same time as this a petition has been allowed by HM Government petitioning for 'Anti EU political parties like UKIP should be banned running in EU elections' saying that people who get sworn into European Parliament should vow to "solemnly support European Union and will work for the benefit of Union and for it's citizen's interest."

Now correct me if I am wrong but didn't a group of soldiers do that to a certain political leader from 1934 to 1945?

 "Thousands asked the Executive Editor for the BBC, Hayley Valentine, to "not normalise his vile politics." - says the Huffington Post.

Who the Hell defines "vile politics"? Does this country have such little regard for itself that it denounces a National Election victory of that as being "vile politics"?

By posting this statement, does the Huffington Post denounce anyone ever voting for UKIP as being that of someone pursuing "vile politics"?

"One backer wrote The BBC has "no business giving Mr Farage disproportionate airtime. Balanced coverage is at the heart of the public service broadcasting mission of the BBC." - The Huffington Post goes on to say.

"One backer"?
Farage didn't get "disproportionate airtime"? Prior the European Elections, as highlighted above, other UKIP party representatives were the ones who took to the media to answer media queries.

In fact I would say that in the last 4-6 weeks we have seen very little of Mr Farage, and as highlighted above, other party reps have taken to the stage.

"In good news for fans of Farage's frequent appearances on the BBC, he has today announced he wants to stand in the South Thanet seat in next year's general election - so he should be back on our screens soon."

We also have Suzanne Evans who also announced she would be standing for Shrewsbury & Atcham, Tim Aker Thurrock, Neill Hamilton Boston and Skegness, Patrick O'Flynn Cambridge and others... Yet the Huffington Post is the one focusing on Nigel Farage?

...and then as usual. The article finishes off with "The Highs and Lows of UKIP, mostly focusing on the lows of course!

 
 
 

My Response To Polly Billington Dishonesty RE: UKIP Policies and Attitudes

Article in question: http://labourlist.org/2014/08/ignoring-ukip-isnt-just-an-electoral-mistake-it-is-a-moral-one-too/

Response:

It really is quite appalling the level to which the Labour Party will consistently lie about UKIP policies to try and willingly and knowingly lie to the electorate.

This is not good politics to win people back onboard who feel disenfranchised with politics, this is even more deception which will surely push people away.

It is bad enough that Labour continued to spread the same lies about UKIP policies over the course of the European Elections and Council Elections. But to now continue lying about UKIP policies that have already been said not to be current or confirmed is an utter disgrace.

"UKIP is peddling simplistic answers that we should counter: not by spending our time pointlessly factually correcting people, but by having a conversation based on hope."

Do not confuse common sense policies with that of "simplistic answers", it gets really rather boring.
Books of policies, legislation and laws for the different segments of society are one of many elements of politics and law that leave people not wanting to have anything to do with modern politics.

UKIP have done and will continue to outline logical well thought out policies that people across all the parties will be able to read as of next month in total (September).

Don't believe the rhetoric coming from this individual.
Fine if you don't want to believe UKIP or want to question policies then do so.
But don't do it before they have even been announced.
Remember no party has released a manifesto as yet for the General Elections of 2015.

"UKIP’s politics of despair is based on a zero-sum games of jobs, public services and homes – where the country doesn’t just freeze but turns the clock back."

No. UKIP's policies are that to which we would like to make a better life for people.
Take people away from the need for food banks.
Take people away from unemployment and being reliant on the state.
Take away the fear that there will not be enough roofs around to shelter people.
Take away the fear that a jobs market will not be inundated with unskilled migrants taking those few jobs that remain, forcing down wages and sidestepping wage laws.

UKIP want to offer people on the minimum wage no income tax.
A fantastic idea that no other party has been able to match.

80% of our population want reform in the immigration system.

Both Labour and the Tories promised us reasonable rates of migrants entering the country and both have failed miserably to keep promises.

Whole areas have been swallowed up by mass immigration. As taboo as Labour have made it to say out load. It is a fact that there has been a impact culturally.

I myself live on the south coast and the number of people who are non-English speaking in my highstreet is alarming.

"Or, depending who they are talking to, would introduce a flat tax rate for all" - Lie. UKIP have no such policy.
"charge you for your GP" - Another lie. UKIP have no such policy and have on multiple occasions refuted this repeated lie from Labour: http://www.ukip.org/ukip_head_of_policy_tim_aker_last_night_warned_voters_not_to_believe_labours_misinformation_and_lies_about_the_party
"and abolish many of our hard-fought-for employment rights like paid holidays and maternity leave. Like the Tories only more so." - Again utter nonsense. Don't confuse a repatriation of law with abolition of employment laws.
Should we leave the EU we would need to repatriate laws and legislation.

"More and better jobs" - These would be the same jobs that Labour handed away when they signed the Lisbon Treaty without the publics say so.
Yet now they want to offer us jobs back?!
At least UKIP have a plan to create small and medium businesses. Encourage large businesses back to the UK with a decrease in expensive legislation, expensive energy costs and expensive tariffs.

"homes" - As much as people will moan at me for saying it immigration has had a impact on the housing market. Wage constriction and unemployment have had an impact on people's ability to buy houses and get onto the employment ladder.
Yet Labour boast they will sort this all out after creating the mess in the first place!

We need to build a house every 7 minutes to keep up with demand. Labour favour building on the green belt and continue to allow people to flood in from the continent. That means huge swaths of beautiful British countryside going the way of concrete and tarmac and rising energy costs with a higher requirement on energy.

"and quality public services is the right mantra that will build on our cost-of-living message" - This is the same Labour that left the NHS with a £60 billion black hole!
The same Labour that left the treasury without a penny piece, with the "sorry no money left" note left in the draw as a tongue in cheek joke.
The same Labour who dumped half a million people a year on the education system health services and other public services.

How dare the person who wrote this article talk down to UKIP as having no answer when we are giving answers right now to problems created by the Labour Party!

"But we also need to show we “get it” when it comes to the disjuncture between the risks the world poses and way our current system protects people – or not." - You mean like your policy of giving the British people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and an In Out vote if their is a further transfer of legislation to the EU.
Saying this when you know there is a further transfer of legislation in 2016 which involves handing the EU a Vito vote which means that if the people have a referendum and vote out, all it would take to Vito that vote is for 16 of 27 other EU member states to say no and the people's vote will be ignored and article 50 will not be able to be processed.

Shame on you. Shame on you that you would lie so openly to the electorate.

"Rachel Reeves’ suggestions of changing the welfare system to require contribution before benefits can be claimed speaks to the worries of many, and reflects our own values of decency." - No what it does is apply pressure to the tens of thousands who try to find work and can not.

We (disabled) have not forgotten the legacy you applied to us in that you signed up ATOS to evaluate all disabled people's ability to work.

This decision has lead to over 300 (as reported by multiple news sources) suicides by disabled people due to their allowances that they rely on to live due to ill health being taken away from them.
This is after being evaluated by people barely qualified to decide whether they are fit to work. Physiotherapists and psychologists evaluating the physical abilities of people and whether they can work.

How can you as a party be trusted to do what is best for people who cannot gain employment ever again?!

You sit there and say what you think will buy you favour. Not what will actually be good for people.

"We have never been a party that has as a principle that benefits are available to all who rock up." - No. But you turned a blind eye to it under Gordon Brown when he signed the Lisbon Treaty.
That is the problem. You can say you are not okay with it. But unless you actually take action you are liable.

"These reforms would probably require changes to EU rules, and we should be able to have those conversations in a constructive way that eludes David Cameron. His failure in Europe is because he isn’t driven by a set of values but by political expediency." - With this statement Labour just proves they are every bit as dishonest as the Tories and the Lib Dems.

There is no scope for reform within the EU. That much has been said on multiple occasions but parties like Labour and the Conservatives continue to make out their is wiggle room for change in the Lisbon Treaty in the EU.

This is a downright lie! I am sick of it!

"Establishing a system of social security that you can trust has been a success for Labour in the past, and tackling that head on again could be once more. We can confidently talk about a social security system that reflects your contribution, where we know and respect our neighbours and their efforts to get on, rather than live suspecting all around us of working a system that doesn’t work for us." - This would be the same "Social Security" that Labour were forced to apologise for when they massively cocked up when the doors were opened to Poland and something like 20 times as many people came into the UK in a vastly shorter time period than as was expected. Absolutely flooding the unskilled Labour market and leaving the youth with an unemployment level that is a testament of shame to your party?

Labour have a very selective memory!

"UKIP want to say to people the only way to protect you from those risks is to turn your back on the world, with no thought to the horrendous economic consequences of becoming a small-state free-market island, a low-rent sweatshop on the edge of Europe." - It's funny. UKIP always get accused of "scaremongering" by the other parties and media. But what the Hell is this?!

UKIP want to reconnect with the Commonwealth both in trade and immigration.
Remind yourself that is a third of the worlds population for goodness sakes!

UKIP want to have Worldwide immigration of skilled labour as opposed to a complete open door to 27 member states of Europe and the bizarre immigration setup with a few middle eastern countries we have now.

Why on Earth should we deny a New Zealand based neurosurgeon entry to the UK to work in favour of a Eastern European laborer as we do right now?!

UKIP want trade deals and connection with the GLOBE. That includes the EU.
We do not have to be part of the EU to trade with the EU.
We have Article 50 which means the EU have to trade with us if we enforce it. It worked for Switzerland didn't it?

Meanwhile we can foster trade deals with all the trade capital countries of the world, create trade deals with the emerging countries of the World and reconnect with our cousins in the Commonwealth!

The EU is the slowest growing trade market in the World.


Don't listen to silly little scare stories such as the one in this article. It is just another Labour Party attempt to mislead the electorate.

Read UKIP's manifesto if you do not believe the words of this individual.

"My community has changed rapidly over the last 15 to 20 years or so, and the anxiety that can grow from that is being exploited by UKIP." - UKIP are a common-sense party. We talk to people about what concerns then as opposed to striking fear into them that some subjects are taboo and should not be spoken about.

Labour tried this tactic under Blair and Brown striking the fear into people who were concerned about how their communities were changing and how little jobs were going around due to labour who were willing to work for less.

I am not surprised that this article is trying to scare people off of reading UKIP's true policies.

After all we all know that Labour Party members have their fingers in anti-fascist groups who falsely go around yelling abuse at UKIP members and supporters. Falsely accusing decent hard working individuals of racism for just supporting a party they believe listens to them.

I don't want to turn this into a mud slinging contest. But UKIP are a party that listens.
We debate.
I will talk to anyone from any party as long as it doesn't involve foul abuse being flung in my direction and baseless accusations being made.

I have tried talking to Labour Party councilors, activists and MP's in the past and some of the abuse I have received for simply being a UKIP member has been astounding.

I oppose homophobia, racism and extremism. Yet this doesn't stop some in Labour blanket accusing the majority of disgusting things and trying to prevent those people freedom of speech.

I myself have just encountered a "anti UKIP group" in my town of Worthing in West Sussex.
The person who co-runs the group has not disclosed her background or any political bias. Yet is a Labour Party member and stood as a Councilor in a ward local to me.
When I brought this up in debate, I was immediately banned by the person in question from even commenting on the group.

Labour also have representation in the UAF and Hope Not Hate. Two laughably titled "anti fascist" groups who do not believe in democracy, freedom of speech and the freedom for a group of people to join together at meetings or conferences.

I myself, a disabled person have been prevented from attending UKIP meetings by these groups supported by Labour Party members.

This is what you get if you dare to question a subject Labour and other parties do not want discussed.

Being concerned about open-door immigration is not racist or xenophobic. It should be freely discussed without fear. Yet Labour and other groups have installed a climate of fear around UKIP so when they discuss it, they are perceived in a different light.

This is disgraceful.

"Labour is and always has been the party of decency for working people, and right now that means connecting people to their own ambitions through practical achievable things we will do that will create opportunity and security." - As I have highlighted above in numerous sections this is a lie at best.

Labour have done more for degradation of communities and societies than any other party in British history.

Labour had an opportunity under Tony Blair and even under Gordon Brown to install a fair controlled immigration system where people could integrate into communities. But they squandered this opportunity for greed.
To help big business grow with a cheap unskilled labour market free to them.

"These ambitions cross the boundaries of race and language (and indeed class), which enable us to bring people together ti build solidarity and a strong community of shared values. To abandon some of our potential voters to the politics of despair isn’t just daft and cynical, it’s wrong." - Again this misleading at best.
UKIP cross boundaries of race, religion, ethnicity and nationality.
We have wings of other Nationalities (UKIP friends of Poland for instance), we have reps of different religions (Muslim, Jewish and others) and I am proud of that fact.

We want people to come to the UK from allover the World. But in such a way that is sustainable.


Labour destroyed communities.
London is a good example. It is now unaffordable to people who have family living back generations in the capital.

My community on the South Coast has changed dramatically since the doors were opened to Europe. Community shops that have been about since I was a child have long since gone, cultures have changed and the community spirit has suffered.


I sit here today thinking about how my country has changed over the last 20 years.
Allot has changed for the good.
Immigration isn't a bad thing.
People of different communities joining ours is a good thing.
Having trade deals with the World isn't a bad thing.

But the legacy that Labour left us with should not be forgotten so soon.

I find it infuriating how they try to manipulate the electorate with dishonest articles such as these.

Dishonest in how they sumarise UKIP in a manner that doesn't truly or honestly reflect them.

Dishonest in how they try to make people forget their own legacy, elements they are yet to own up to and how they will solve problems that just would not exist without their impact during their last term in Downing Street.

I am not asking you to vote UKIP.
I am not saying you should vote Tory or Lib Dem.

But what I am saying is before you hang your flag of allegiance to the Labour Party. At least have all the facts at hand. Read all the manifesto's released by the parties and do NOT forget the legacy that Labour have left this country.

Reply to Mike Sivier AKA Vox Political regards article about myself

A short while ago it was made aware to me that I had been mentioned in an article by a individual named Mike Sivier otherwise known by the Twitter and Facebook name 'Vox Political'. Article as follows: http://aliberallife.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/meet-the-men-who-tweet-for-ukip/

In the article named "Meet The Men Who Tweet For UKIP' I was listed, by name as one of 9 people article worthy of mentioning in some kind of bizarre context that might be embarrassing to the party.

In the section in which I was mentioned it read the following:

"Thomas proudly announces that he is a UKIP member on his bio .. His tweets, in common with all on this list, show a propensity to believe anything posted by Breitbart news as gospel truth. Thankfully he avoids the Muslims are all bad and so on that front he is relatively sane! On the other hand he quotes Paul Nuttell and Roger Helmer as being purveyors of common sense – so perhaps sanity is an issue. I have seen Thomas telling racists where to go which is refreshing.. But then there is this":

The above being a post I posted on Twitter.

Firstly I feel I should point out that the individual in question did not ask my permission to screen-capture my tweet and publish it.

As for the text above it.
Yes I do read Breitbart, do I take it as the gospel truth? Goodness no. I have referenced it from time to time, but I no more reference it than any other news media outlet or website.

As for Paul Nuttell and Roger Helmer, they have been on Question Time on occasion, regularly get called onto speak on Politics shows. Have both been elected as MEP's for the European Parliament by the people of this country and all have a very logical grasp on politics.

I stand myself in good stead seeing who I had been partnered with in this web attack of which I had no knowledge until someone else who was following me on Twitter made me aware I had been involved in the article.

Why I have been mentioned in the "Top 9 of Tweeters" along with any of the other perfectly well spoken and decent people mentioned in this hit-piece/hit list is rather bemusing. But hey as Nigel Farage has said, when you receive flack, it just goes to show you are near the target.

As a mature adult I tried to point out that I had not given permission for my picture to be used, my name disclosed on the article and that by posting the picture of my Twitter ID my location and pictures would be available for people to see.

Over the last 2 years, as a UKIP supporter and more recently member, I have been subject to both verbal and physical attack when trying to attend UKIP meetings. As a disabled person I am of course concerned by the possibility of someone attacking me. As we have seen in the last few years it only takes one person to get a obsession and then anything can happen. I of course was also very concerned that someone would look me up and as such pose a threat to me and members of my family.

I tried to reflect this in the comments section. But to no avail, all I was responded to in the comments section was abuse and denials to remove the offending details.

Some time later the same account published a picture which had been created 5-6 months previous and had been added to in the form of attempted references by a Green Party member to attack UKIP before/during the May 2014 County Council and European Elections.

In the article the following picture was posted:

This picture has been answered so many times by UKIP members and representatives that it has got boring and yet recently Mr Sivier felt it necessary to post it again like it was a fresh brand spanking new picture only just published.

Scrapping paid maternity leave: 

Raising Income Tax:

Human Rights Laws and Holiday Entitlement wouldn't be removed, the decision making and laws would be repatriated:

Before the United Kingdom signed the Lisbon Treaty we conformed to the 'Human Rights Act 1998', and if we left we would return to either that or a variant of that.

Speeding Up Privatisation of the NHS:

Hell UKIP even produced an article due to the lies Labour were spreading!

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_head_of_policy_tim_aker_last_night_warned_voters_not_to_believe_labours_misinformation_and_lies_about_the_party

Cancelling House Building: Even the picture says no link found...

Abandoning Action On Climate Change: 

Cancelling Regulations For Making Banks Safer: Again no link given...

Making It Legal For A Man To Rape His Wife: Taken from the video of a man who used to be a donor to UKIP but was removed from the party for his views. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22631003 and a "voting record" in which up until the end of the last European Parliament UKIP voted against any transfer of legislation to the EU from British Law. It has nothing to do with the actual law.

In the 2014- Parliament UKIP have decided to vote in a way that progresses Human Rights Laws.

Cutting Education Spending: (No Link Given) and buying 3 Aircraft Carriers Instead: Link given is to a East Sussex UKIP affiliate that had not been removed when the 2010 policies were abandoned as the website had not been used in months.

Other links given including to Amjad Bashir's page, economic pages and Keith Rowe's page link old 2010 policies to as they had not been updated at the time.

I pointed out that the picture was nonsense and that the Policies mentioned were either past policies from a 2010 Manifesto completely torn up by Nigel Farage 8 months ago:

... complete and utter nonsense or were just simply not true...

I also warned him that if he kept trying to pass off already proved discredited policies via his Blog, Twitter page and Facebook that I would report him for spreading false information.

I repeat, I provided him with links, Youtube videos and all the information including the policies which had thus far been revealed and received a couple of dramatic messages in response.

Response 1 in which Mr Sivier refused to admit they were abandoned policies regardless of my providing him with straightforward evidence that they policies had been abandoned.

Apparently as you can see from this picture they are not abandoned even if the party leader says the Manifesto is "drivel" and abandons it.
Until UKIP replace it with something else, they are apparently "not past policies".

Also apparently posting articles saying that past discredited and abandoned polices are "current UKIP policies" is not misleading.

He then ends the message by threatening to have me "slung of (think he means "off") Facebook for threatening behaviour."

Personally I would say threatening to have me chucked off Facebook for warning him that I would report him if he kept lying about UKIP policies is "threatening behaviour"...

Over a week since he supposedly reported me to both Facebook and Twitter I am still on there...

I then reiterated that as long as he knowingly stated policies that had been removed by UKIP he would be lying...

If in 2010 I said "I like chocolate", and then in 2014 it was discovered I was allergic to chocolate and I said "I no longer like Chocolate", because I hadn't found anything to distract my sweet tooth, it doesn't necessarily mean I still like chocolate...

As I said, I sent him numerous links to articles and videos of the UKIP leader, reps and members saying that the policies he had references were not UKIP policies but he went on to state he was "VERY sure of my ground".

In the previous message he had mentioned he would report me to Facebook/Twitter for "threatening behaviour, yet suddenly he is saying that he had not said I was physically or verbally threatening him? So what was he reporting me for??

As I said, I would report him if he continued making such lies, that I have done, it is now up to the relevant personnel as to whether they take action.

If a person knowingly lies about something important, he/she should be reported for such lies if he/she is publishing such data in an attempt to damage the credibility of a party, company, organisation or person. It is a form of defamation of character.

I guess his comment that "I will not tolerate such threats" was given as he was about to publish a link that could harm me, my friends and my family.

What this person has done has as I have said put me, my friends and family at risk.

I have also been getting friend requests from strangers, and adverts bombarding my Twitter and Facebook pages. So now I know why.

This somewhat creepy obsession took on a whole other angle however when the individual published an article solely about me...

The New Article

Over the last 24 hours (25/07/2014) I was made aware of a new article completely devoted to me.

I read it and was immediately confronted with the fact that Mr Sivier (as I have previously said) had posted a direct link to my profile, which has my picture, location, family pictures and links to friends and family.

For this I shall be asking advice externally of course.

"It isn’t VP policy to name names usually, but this gentleman’s tone was so aggressive that he deserves to be identified. On his own FB page he describes himself as ‘Belligerent Ruler of the Planet Earth’."

UKIP members frequently get told that they should develop a sense of humour. Imagine my surprise then that Mr Sivier doesn't know a joke from the Hit TV Series Futurama by Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons:

"Firstly "tone was aggressive"? Really? So aggressive that neither Twitter or Facebook have taken action against me.

I haven't been aggressive in the slightest. I pointed out he was lying, as proven above, and he took it upon himself to start threatening to report me to Facebook and Twitter?"You are encouraged to visit if you want to enjoy more of his pearls of wisdom" - So yeah... Encouraging people to troll me and harass me...

He quotes me saying: “Mental. Thankyou very much to the lefty anti-UKIP article someone posted the other week listing me in the top 8 ‘worst UKIP tweeters’ my Twitter following gave me a much needed boost from fellow Kippers!”

I thought a rather well measured sarcastic joke personally. Which is rather funny when you consider he has accused me of being aggressive? I guess he must have meant elsewhere??

"His communication with me was as follows (in fact the first is much the same as a comment he posted to the blog itself): “The UKIP picture you have published as an article was created by a Green Party member/supporter before the European and Council Elections. “It’s so outdated it’s cringeworthy.”

Mr Sivier's response: "Let’s just pause for a moment and look at the caption under the image, which states that "Most of the links on this now-infamous meme have been taken down by UKIP members, anxious to hide the embarrassing facts they revealed. The vote in favour of marital rape is not so easily removed as it is recorded on the European Parliament’s official website.” It explains perfectly adequately that matters have moved on since the image was created."

For the record. I was wrong in saying that a Green Party member had created the picture, in fact the links posted on the picture had been done so by the Green Party member.
The picture itself had been created by Hope Not Hate and 'Extreme and dangerous' false anti-fascist fascist group.

As I have explained from the above. Some of the links were outdated policies removed by the party after the "forgotten websites" had been discovered. Hence their removal.

You see they are not UKIP policies so they were taken down.

His confirming as much in his own words backs up the fact that he is lying about policies he knows UKIP do not have anymore.

As for "the vote for marital rape", I have explained this as well, and posted a video featuring senior UKIP MEP Canidate Suzanne Evans, in which she says she would not represent a party that had extreme views that attacked the human rights of women.

To claim that a political party would knowingly attack the rights of women is utter madness.
UKIP were never going to be outvoted on a matter of human rights, they just wanted to oppose a further transfer of legislation that didn't need to be transferred from the British Human Rights Laws to the European Court of Human Rights.

They have since changed this policy and as I have said are now voting in acts of legislation that will serve to better rights in the European Union.

"Back to Mr Evans, who asks: “Are you just recycling out info to damage UKIP or are you genuinely just that out of date?!”

Neither. I was using it as a direct example of the way UKIP behaves."

No... Actually you were re-posting a out of date accusation of current UKIP policies. I shall say it again... OUTDATED POLICIES.

Nowhere in his numerous articles, tweets and Facebook posts does he mention that these are redundant policies. He talks about them as current policies and as you can see refuses to accept that he is deceiving the electorate.

Mr Sivier then goes on to post messages I sent him saying the following:

“The picture makes use of 2010 manifesto policies which have long since been abandoned.

“UKIP’s 2015 General Election manifesto doesn’t come out until September. Same goes for the other parties if you hadn’t realised. So how on Earth can you be critical about any parties policies for an election when they haven’t even been released yet?!

“In fact the only certain policies released by UKIP aren’t mentioned anywhere in your article or that picture so are you intentionally trying to be misleading?!”

He goes on to say: "You will know, Dear Reader, that this ground has been covered very thoroughly already – here, for example, and also here and here."

The first link quoting the opinions of a few UKIP members from their websites and the outdated websites I have mentioned above.

It again references the outdated yellow picture.

The second link rather strangely referencing the first link published less than 24 hours earlier, claiming "facts" which as has been proven above are lies, "The image claims to be publicising UKIP policies, and seven out of the 10 policies claimed for the party have been verified, as demonstrated in the VParticle." - Erm well no, not actually. How many times do I need to post conclusive proof before this individual recognises he is just reconstituting outdated information?

What would it take? Sending a UKIP rep onto the Daily Politics for 2 hours reading off past policies concurrently saying "nope, not valid anymore"?

"Vox Political has been doing a little digging into the others.

The claim that 'UKIP wants to cancel all planned house-building on Green Belt land' appears to have been based on the party’s 2010 general election and 2013 local election manifestos, which are no longer available to the public."

They 2010 General Election manifesto as has been said until I have gone red in the face above, as well as Nigel Farage has said has been abandoned.

The 2013 local election manifesto also referenced the 2010 one. As can be seen above in the Nigel Farage LBC video he said that it was decided late in 2013 to completely scrap the 2010 manifesto and write a new one from scratch. (will be released in the 2014 Doncaster Conference in September).

Sivier: "Party members have stated many times, recently, that Nigel Farage has rubbished the 2010 document and its contents are not to be taken as UKIP policy. The party’s attitude to its manifesto from last year is less clear."

Right? So I publish a video above, and send this very same video to Mr Sivier of UKIP leader saying it has been scrapped, and he is still uncertain??

Mr Sivier makes a reference: "The relevant line, as quoted in this Property Newshound blog, is: “by controlling immigration, large areas of British countryside will not need to be destroyed by house building.” The rest of the article is well worth reading too."

"UKIP’s South Buckinghamshire website discusses plans to build on the Green Belt, with a reply to a summary document by the Conservative Party:

“Conservatives say: ‘So we need to find places to build more homes…’ (page 2)

“UKIP reply: Not on green belt land!”

The strange thing is that preventing development of Green Belt land should not be a controversial issue, yet I have just – as I have been writing this blog – received a comment from a UKIP supporter stating: “Every bullet point [on the meme] is a fiction, written by a Green Party activist.”

Where does that leave UKIP policy? Does the party now want to build on Green Belt land, because the Green Party (apparently) opposes it?"

UKIP are against building on the Green Belt. It's a UKIP policy. This much is obvious from current actions by UKIP at Council Level:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1297332/ukip-victors-fight-green-belt-homes

Sivier: "Personally, I’m against that. My former home in Bristol was on the edge of the city, next to Green Belt land which became threatened by the South Western regional assembly (whatever it was called). Residents had a terrible time fighting off the proposed development, which seemed to be motivated solely by a desire to build a new road to Bristol Airport, enabling faster journeys from it to the city and back."

"Building on the Green Belt – of any kind other than what is absolutely necessary for agricultural purposes - should be banned, in the opinion of this writer. It is land that has been set aside in the national interest, and proposals to develop it should be seen for what they are – money-grubbing by disinterested corporates who live in mansions on estates that will never be disturbed by such environmentally-damaging raids."

Again... UKIP are against building on the Green Belt so this whole section is not worth discussing.

Sivier goes on to say "The claim that UKIP wants to cancel bank regulations “to make banks safer” was a commitment on the party’s policy website, according to this article in The Yorker (which is simply the first I found in a Google search). The Yorker is a student-run media site, based at the University of York, which claims no political affiliations at all."

Really? This would be the "Independent Yorker" that has been routinely attacking UKIP for a long long time would it? The Independent Yorker that you have been referencing in multiple anti-UKIP articles...
Yeah they really do come across as Independent?
UKIP win a National Election, and increase their council election seats number and still they don't have a single positive thing to say about UKIP.

But hey... Independent... As Independent as the BBC I am sure... http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84760

Sivier: "It states: “According to their policy website UKIP… wants [to] further de-regulate the city… Indeed their primary reasons for leaving the EU relate to the need to cut such rights and regulations in the name of The City and big business.”

"This would appear to be corroborated by Nigel Farage himself, who wrote in anIndependent article in January this year: “And let’s look closer to home for where the fault lies with the banking crisis. I know it might still be trendy to “bash the bankers” but this crash was entirely predictable. It was Gordon Brown handing over regulation of the banking industry from the Bank of England who, since 1694 has done a pretty good job, and handed it over to the tick-box bureaucrats in Canary Wharf.”

"It seems the case for UKIP wanting bank deregulation is also proven."

There is a difference between "deregulation" and "repatriation" as I highlighted with the human rights laws above.
You seem to have again confused the two?

Sivier: "Unlike the Green Belt issue, bank deregulation would be a huge mistake for the UK. Farage is wrong in his claim that Gordon Brown was at fault for re-introducing regulation to the banking sector; it is the fact that he didn’t introduce enough regulation that let us down."

...and here comes the true agenda... All out defence for the Labour Party regardless of known amateur mistakes by Gordon Brown and before him Tony Blair...

Sivier: "The banks all told him that they were perfectly capable of policing themselves, and he took them at face value. Meanwhile the Conservatives, who have been blaming Labour for being too loose with regulation ever since they got back into office, despite doing nothing about the issue themselves, were calling for even less regulation at the time of the banking crash."

Has anyone noticed how it's rapidly gone from an 'attack UKIP article' to an 'attack Conservatives article', but hey, surely it isn't a left wing agenda? Surely?! It's not that he is attacking anything he deems to be a threat to his left-wing agenda I am sure!

Sivier: "The UK requires more banking regulation, not less. Less regulation would encourage further abuses of the banking system and would inevitably lead to another disaster. This time the consequences could be appalling, for millions of low-paid British citizens. Farage does not clarify why he wants to court this."

He (Farage) worked in the commodities and stock-broking sector for goodness sakes, I think he has a better idea of what is needed in the City of London and in banking in general.

If you increase legislative charges, banks will pack up and move abroad.

The second reference from the above, references one mans opinion. Much like Paul Nuttall's comments RE: "introducing a whiff of privatisation to the NHS", that doesn't make UKIP policy, and as I have proved above UKIP will NOT privatise the NHS and will NOT charge patients at the point of treatment.

As for the third reference, once again quoting one individual, one man's opinion does not make party policy.

Libertarianism encourages people to give their opinion. As I have said it doesn't make party policy.
Unlike other parties we don't hold people to a party whip, we like freedom of expression and ideas.
Sometimes the opinion given doesn't match up with party position. But it's normally good to view people's opinions.

I wish people would stop intentionally mistaking people's opinion for party policy.

Mr Sivier: "So Yr Obdt Srvt was very sure of his ground when he responded: “I checked the accuracy of the information contained in the meme and was able to substantiate everything except the claim about cutting education funding to build aircraft carriers."

...and the Green Belt...

Isn't it funny that he accused me of being arrogant above and yet Mr Sivier refers to himself as "Yr Obdt Srvt" Ie: Your Obedient Servant...

Mr Sivier: “Just because this information has since been taken down (to eliminate embarrassment for the party?) that does not make it any less valid."

They are redundant policies?
What part of this simple concept does Mr Sivier refuse to understand?! Deary me!

Sivier: “Don’t waste my time with the argument about the manifesto."

“And don’t waste my time with suggestions that I am trying to be misleading. It is UKIP that has tried to mislead the public, and it is UKIP that is desperately trying to cover up its policy indiscretions.”

UKIP have said over and over and over again that the 2010 Manifesto has been scrapped, and that a new manifesto is coming out in the 2014 Doncaster conference in September.

For someone who claims to be so learned about politics Mr Sivier really doesn't seem to know what most people also know.

They they even had a call-in on LBC radio the other week talking to Farage about what the new policies will be:

Sivier: "Alas – as noted in my article earlier today, Kippers don’t like to let the facts get in their way. Mr Evans got back to me with the following:

“‘eliminate embarrassment’

“Eliminate what embarrassment?

“You are referring to past policies as current policies in your article.”

Sivier: No. He inferred that, but the line “Policies put forward by UKIP or by high-level members of UKIP include…”, although a quotation from a previous article, is as accurate now as it was when it was first typed, a couple of months ago. UKIP, or high-level members, did put forward those policies. There is no reference in today’s article to whether they are from the past or still active.

Eugh!!!
There are only so many times a person can repeat the same simple point before it gets silly. But hey I do try, so I shall try again!

UKIP'S 2010 MANIFESTO HAS BEEN SCRAPPED, UNLESS UKIP CONFIRM A POLICY AS BEING IN THE 2015 GENERAL ELECTION MANIFESTO IE: AUSTRALIAN TYPE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, NO PRIVATISATION OF NHS OR CHARGING PATIENTS AT POINT OF ENTRY, NO DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEN BELT AND NO TAX FOR THOSE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE, POLICIES CLAIMED TO BE POLICIES BY NON-UKIP RELATED PEOPLE ARE NOT UKIP POLICIES.

THE 2010 MANIFESTO HAS BEEN SCRAPPED!

What I explained to him: “Understand this…

“2010 manifesto – 4 years ago for the 2010 General Election
“2015 manifesto – Released in September this year for 2015 General Election.”

What Mr Sivier replied in his article:"None of the references in the meme – or those that were discovered when VPwas researching its allegations – are from this 2010 manifesto, though. Some are from the 2013 manifesto, and some are from the party’s own policy page (now deleted, although the likelihood of eliminating embarrassment is muted by the fact that UKIP cannot say it was left there for so long by mistake and still expect to be taken seriously)."

As I have explained they are not UKIP policy! As Farage has said, they are not UKIP policy, and as Suzanne Evans has explained they are not UKIP policy!

What I said to Mr Sivier in conversation: “UKIP have only divulged a handful of policies non of which are detailed on the picture you referenced.”

His response: "Perhaps they weren’t relevant to the points being made."

Yes. God forbid he should actually disclose something current?!

What I said to him in conversation: “What you have referenced has been discussed to death on Twitter and Facebook and even the Green Party chap who created it has admitted it is outdated information.”

As I have said above. Green Party members have admitted to me that what they had been saying about UKIP policies was apparently out of date... Granted as I said the original picture wasn't done by a Green Member, only the links...

Sivier: "We’ll get back to Mr Abberton momentarily."

What I said: “Nigel Farage party leader said 5 MONTHS AGO that the 2010 manifesto is outdated, unwanted and will not be used again policies wise for the next General Election.

“Lord Pearson of Rannoch was the party leader at the time of the 2010 election, he compiled and produced the manifesto.”

Sivier's response: "Irrelevant, for reasons mentioned above."

Yes I am sure the input of a party leader about party policies is "irrelevant" to Mr Sivier when talking about current party policies.

Sivier: "Now we get to the grit:"

What I said: “Your comment about ‘embarrassing the party’ is more an ‘embarrassment’ to yourself. You are referencing outdated information as if it is current policies and information. So what you are in fact doing as you have been informed to this fact by myself is lying to your readers…

“Is this what you are? A person intentionally lying to mislead the electorate? If so please tell me…

“You say that UKIP are misleading the electorate. Feel free to tell me how?

“UKIP have said on numerous occasions, varying members and reps that the 2010 manifesto is defunct and not worth the paper it is written on. It no-longer represents UKIP.

“Yet you are posting it as current information which is misleading.

“You are the liar. You have been informed and if you continue to mislead people with discredited and past policies I will make people fully aware of your willingness to do so and your willingness to mislead people for your political agenda.

“You have been warned.”

Sivier: "Oh, really?"

Yes really. Multiple UKIP members, reps and people from other parties have confirmed the 2010 manifesto as abandoned by UKIP. Yet you keep publishing articles trying to connect past policies, made up policies of rep comments as current policies.

You are truly one of the most dishonest people I have seen write about a political party on the Internet.

You should work for the UAF or Hope Not Hate...

Sivier: "Let’s go back to Michael Abberton, the “Green Party chap” mentioned a few paragraphs ago.

He and his meme first came to attention when it was revealed that the police had been sent to visit him after UKIP complained about an entry in his own blog, The Axe of Reason. He said he knew the image had been on Twitter for a while so he had set about seeing if its claims could be verified."

"In his blog discussing the police visit, far from admitting he was quoting outdated policies, he states: “All I had done is promote the party policy using links to their own sources – no editorialising, no commenting. And in fairness highlighted those allegations I could find no evidence for.”

Firstly, I disagreed with the Police attending the mans address at the time.
I mean it's not like he had posted a link to a persons details on a website is it?

What the UKIP Councillor did reporting him to the police in my opinion was wrong.

As for his posting links to the article. I have answered the links above and have in the past answered his links with links of my own and conversation with the individual concerned on Twitter.

Sivier "Take a look at the date on the blog – May this year."

As I said, same outdated data that was abandoned in January!

Sivier: "Mr Abberton continued: “About fifteen minutes after they left I received a threatening tweet from a party member I had had an exchange with earlier in the day. Though appearing to be no more than a party supporter, he seemed to know that the police had been involved. I copied the tweet and sent it to the police.”

That's nice? No name published? Just a claim of abuse? No police follow up?
I'm convinced.

For the record I blocked Mr Abberton from my Twitter several months ago after he himself got abusive about my denying the UKIP policies that he had linked.

I was also the one who informed 2 of the affiliates that they had outdated links on their websites. Hence why they were taken down.

Sivier: "So we have evidence that Kippers are willing to cause a nuisance with the police in order to silence critics who have divulged information that UKIP would rather keep quiet, and we have a Kipper who has denounced Yr Obdt Srvt as a liar (despite the evidence to the contrary) and who has “warned” that he will act against VP if the blog continues in its function, which is to provide accurate information, no matter what he asserts."

No what you have is an example of one fed up UKIP Councillor reporting something tedious to the police.
Information divulged that is out of date and no longer current policy.

Yes I have called Mr Sivier a liar, because as I have proven above, he knowingly disclosed inaccurate information via his blog!

Sivier: "That is why he got this response: “They are not discredited policies. They are not past policies until they are replaced with something else."

“It is UKIP that is trying to mislead – the party’s attempts to shut down its critics are a clear example of this."

“Don’t think for a moment that you can threaten me. I’m fully aware that UKIP and its adherents like to throw their weight around and I am not impressed at all."

“Now you’d better get off my page before I have you slung out of Facebook for threatening behaviour.”

Which is why I responded with this... 

Sivier: "There will be no tolerance of any UKIP member or representative who wants to threaten this blog, Mr Evans."

That's fine... I shall just make sure people allover Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites know's a) that you knowingly lie in your articles and b) know to recognise your articles as firmly being in the "fiction" section.

Oh dear, I do hope I wasn't giving you the impression that I was being aggressive!
Update (26/07/2014): I have attempted to post this article in the comments section of Mike Sivier's 'Vox Political' article as a response to what he said.
He has however not passed it through moderation.
So what he has actually done is write an article about me, posting a link to my private information and not afforded me a right to reply to the accusations and things he said about me.