Correction to the post below........

The facts are as follows:

1. Entry was made to Nikki Sinclaire's office on Tuesday morning by a party official.
2. An office junior was present who was distressed by the sudden, unannouced entry. 3. The party offical advised both Nikki and the office junior that they were acting on direct instructions of the NEC.
4. Items were removed from Nikki's office
5. The office junior telephoned Nikki's Brussels office to inform Nikki of the entry.
6. Nikki was not given any prior warning and no request was made to her to hand over any items of property.
6. Nikki made contact with the party official who had removed the items and they were then returned to the office.

Just like the Sweeny

A clarification on the "raid" on Nikki Sinclaire MEP's office:

The NEC asked an officer of the party to remove UKIP equipment from the office of Nikki Sinclaire believing it was jointly occupied with Mike Nattrass MEP.  The officer in question visited the office, spoke to a member of staff, confirmed that nothing belonging to UKIP was present and left.  Nothing was removed from the office.

I don't think this will be making the front page of Private Eye any time soon.

Nikki Sinclaire MEP's Statement

BBC letters

Thanks for your e-mail.

We note your concern that UKIP has not been invited to take part in the planned Prime Ministerial Debates.

You’re twisting things with your very first sentence. My concern was that once again UKIP is being kept out of the debates. Calling them Prime Ministerial debates is your way of keeping the 4th party out. If the BBC seriously want to argue that Nick Clegg can be Prime Minister, then please explain where those 200+ gains are going to come from.

Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of
the UK have never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate
would welcome such a development. The BBC – along with ITV and Sky – put forward
proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place
during the coming General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.

It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at
Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters’ proposal.

This is basically a repetition of what you’ve already said – but interesting to note the use of the word “proposal”. Proposal to whom? The state? The British public? Because if either were the case there are a great number of questions that would then follow.

The broadcasters have also made it clear that each – individually – would put
forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC
intends to hold election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland. The details – both of the BBC’s UK-wide debate and those
in each of the nations – have yet to be agreed.

For all other parties,
the BBC will also bring forward proposals to ensure that there are opportunities
for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide
debate.

Ah ok….so Plaid Cymru, who only contest 40 constituencies, and who live in a part of the UK where power is already considerably devolved, will get a full hearing. But UKIP, who are contesting 500+ constituencies WON’T? And you consider this fair?

The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests
on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons
in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005.

As I told you in my original letter, and reminded you with my second response – this “argument from incumbency” is not only heavily biased in favour of the status quo, but demonstrates again the “innate bias” which the BBC has more than once quietly admitted.

Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the
previous European election of 2004. This meant that UKIP – on the basis of its
strong performance in 2004 – was given the same level of coverage in the 2009
election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

This is just utter fiction. Anyone who was involved in ,or followed last June’s election knows that UKIP didn’t receive equal coverage. By ramping up your lies in this fashion, you are showing that the BBC really is fighting a war of propaganda.

In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance
at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2%
of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.

Is it surprising that UKIP suffered in the polls when the free coverage awarded to the incumbents was denied them? You essentially kept them off the TV.

It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC – and other
broadcasters – to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial
debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the
context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC
for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime
Ministerial debate.

There’s your other big twist. Initially it was to be a debate “between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister” (which I’m sure would include Malcolm Pearson anyway), now you change it to “those parties which have substantial electoral support”.

Once again you aptly demonstrate that the BBC is inconsistent, corrupt and immoral.

I invite you to respond to the points I have made here.

Defections Just Keep On Coming - London Cllr Joins UKIP

An outspoken councillor switch in allegiances shook up Sutton Borough Council politics today. St Helier Councillor David Theobald quit as an Independent to join UKIP.

The move means UKIP now have a total of two councillors in the Borough as he joins fellow colleague, Belmont UKIP Cllr David Pickles. Cllr Theobald, 51, said: “I do not perceive UKIP as a party of the right, left or centre, but see it as a broad spectrum and I will continue to exercise my moderate left of centre ethics.

“I have enjoyed many debates and conversations with Cllr Pickles over the past few years and have found that, despite opposing views on some issues we can always find common ground and a viable road forward”.

Frank Day, chairman of UKIP Sutton Borough branch, who is the parliamentary candidate for Carshalton and Wallington at the coming general election, said he was “delighted at the news”.

Exclusive: Nikki Sinclaire quits EFD group in EU Parliament

We have just had it confirmed that Nikki Sinclaire MEP has resigned from the Europe of Freedom & Democracy (EFD) group in the EU Parliament.

Nikki was uncomfortable with the EFD group from day one for understandable reasons. Some of the members of the EFD group are, if not homophobic, not exactly complimentary of homosexuality.

There are 27 countries in the European Empire and what may be considered unacceptable to most people in one country isn't necessarily considered unacceptable to most people in another country and in the case of some of UKIP's Eastern European partners in the EFD group, their views on homosexuality are a case in point.

I can fully understand Nikki's feelings on the group although it's a shame no compromise could be found that would have enabled her to stay in the EFD grouping with her fellow UKIP MEPs. I am sure she will continue to work for UKIP, for the country and most importantly, for the people in the West Midlands that voted for her to represent them in the EU Parliament.

Edit: Apologies for the post disappearing overnight, I assume it was deleted in error.

The negation of the self

David Cameron wants you to negate yourself, according to Richard Reeves, director of the neo-Marxist think tank Demos. That Britain’s next ‘conservative’ Prime Minister has been fraternising with this far-left Fabianist fifth-column, has been common knowledge amongst those in the know for some time. But that the Telegraph would echo such strong collectivist propaganda as this, and promote it as Editor’s Choice, is perhaps a little shocking.

“At the heart of Cameron’s political philosophy are the conjoined ideas of
social responsibility and commitment. But the “big society” which he
optimistically hopes can replace the “big state” is one which has to be composed
of big people – people who are willing both to discipline themselves and to
sacrifice some of their own interests for those of others. In other words,
people of character.”

So after “decades of neglect” of the state’s cultivation of the personality of the people (I beg to differ), Reeves and Cameron have decided to lay out the attributes which are most desirable to their “new agenda for character education” – summed up by the “ability to put the needs of others before your own”.

Such blatant calls for self-sacrifice cannot be sanctioned, and so I defer to Ayn Rand, who remains the world heavy-weight champion debunker of altruism.

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one
“package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of
values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of
defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral
guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of
others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the
beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as
that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

So the “test of character” posed to the British people is “how selfless can you be for the public good”? This is an indictment of moral vacuity, and as clear a sign as any that it is dangerous to underestimate quite how evil the next government will be – regardless of who wins, since even Reeves admits “both the main parties…promote social responsibility”.

‘Evil?’ I hear you ask.

‘What could be more evil?’ I retort.

You are being prescribed sacrifice of your livelihood and your moral code, and then told such an action is the height of morality. The two parties who are vying to form government are now clearly trying to outdo one another in the altruism stakes. Gone is any believable rhetoric about freedom, prosperity, or even the cliché of ‘change’, from British politics. This election will be fought between rival cabals of corporatist interest as to whom can construct the most effective socialist technocracy.

As for the grit crisis I wrote about in my last piece- well that has nothing to do with salt, but everything to do with character, according to Reeves – the implicit suggestion being of course, that any sector of the economy, be it rock salt distribution or the socialised health system, can be improved if only us individuals are willing to sacrifice ourselves.

I hope for my sake that you’re not.

Another Tory councillor defects to UKIP

News Release
 
FROM THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY IN THE EASTERN COUNTIES

11th January 2010

"The Conservative Party no longer represents real conservative values" says Ramsey Councillor as he defects to UKIP.
 
Cllr Andy Monk, who was elected as a Conservative to represent Ramsey on the Huntingdonshire District Council, has today (11th January) announced his defection to the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Cllr Monk joins Cllr Peter Reeve, who won the double by-election for UKIP in July 2009 and represents Ramsey on the District Council as well as being a Cambridgeshire County Councillor.  They will now be establishing a UKIP Group on the Huntingdonshire District Council.

Cllr Monk says "I am very pleased to have joined UKIP.  Like many other Conservative members, I have agreed with UKIP on the key issues for many years. I really do feel that the current leadership of the Conservative Party no longer represents real conservative values and that local Conservative leaders do not allow their councillors the freedom to properly represent the local community.

"In contrast UKIP strongly champions the local community and is the real voice of local people. That is why I entered politics and it was because I promised to listen to local people that I was elected in April 2009 and it is why I have decided to join UKIP now."

UKIP Deputy Leader and MEP for the East of England, David Campbell-Bannerman said: "We are delighted that Cllr Monk has joined UKIP. Our political influence and support in Cambridgeshire is growing fast, as it is around the country because we are the only Party with real common sense policies.  We expect our councillors to work very hard for the local community and Andy has risen to the challenge. He joins a fast growing band of UKIP Councillors fighting to challenge the complacent career politicians who no longer listen to the ordinary man in the street."

Vote for change

Different colour, same contract

There are millions of people in Britain labouring (excuse the pun) under the misapprehension that it makes the slightest lick of difference whether they vote for the Tories or for Labour (or for that matter, the LibDems). I predict (and consider it fitting) that the election date will be April 1st, and so its sadly much too late to show any large percentage of the aforementioned millions the truth: that in the post-Lisbon, post-democratic Britain, changing from one tried and failed party to another is no different from changing your energy billing company. As long as Britain remains in the feeding trough of the technocratic wolves of the EU, there can be no real change.

Let me give some background to those of you that don’t know. In Britain, whether your home is signed up to EDF (French), nPower (German), or to Eon or British Gas (global corporatists), your supplier will still be the same. Your gas will be piped by Transco, and your electricity will come from a regional generator already chosen for you by the wonders of government-sanctioned monopoly. Changing the name on the top of the bill really changes nothing, and is very unlikely to make you much of a saving in the long run (believe me, I used to sell energy for a living!).

The cartel nature of the supposedly “deregulated” energy industry doesn’t, of course, stop salesmen coming to your door promising you all kinds of gimmicks (price fixes, duel fuel discounts, ‘free’ telephone and broadband packages) to persuade you to change. This is because the administrators (and that’s all billing companies consist of) can only make money off you by persuading you to change. My guess is that any Brit who reads this can recall changing their billing company in the last 5 years, at least once. When they did this, they brought new costs onto themselves, because the unit price of their energy was inflated so that the company could make money. If they told you on the doorstep that it would cost you money to change, would you bother? Of course not.

In the same way, David Cameron and Gordon Brown are both vying for your signature. Only this time it won’t be a cautious scribble while you look in the salesman’s eyes and wonder if the £200 saving he has promised you is real – it will be a ‘X’ on a piece of paper, while you fidget behind a screen and invent reasons to continue to legitimise the most outrageous criminals in all of British history.

To ease you through the sales process, both Red Labour and Blue Labour promise you the same kind of irrelevant gimmicks. This year’s election sees the gimmicks naturally revolve around “deficit reduction”. Speaking now to those millions of people who are thinking of changing their energy supplier, how many of you– it must be asked – have considered where that deficit came from in the first place?!

To distract people from the true nature of the Ponzi scheme being levelled on them, Red Labour talk about “tax rises” as if this is suddenly a good thing, and Brown is smug and self-satisfied – as if he deserves a medal for his bold admission of the rises. Blue Labour, and Cameron, on the other hand, talk about “spending cuts”, not on ideological grounds, or even practical grounds, since he leaves the most wasteful sinkholes like the NHS untouched. No, it’s pure electioneering, pure gimmick, pure fascia, pure surface. Both of these concepts are sham short term measures which cannot change the basic structure of the system in place – the immorality of centralised banking and deficit financing.

If you want any clearer proof that these ‘policies’ are irrelevant gimmicks, just watch Cameron’s recent interview with Andrew Marr (and compare it to the Brown interview). When asked the most straightforward question on budgeting – as to whether the Tories will beat the Labour pledge and will “more than half the deficit in 4 years” – Cameron’s piffle is the furthest thing from a straight answer you will ever see.

I’m not going to go into Cameron’s interview in detail because his policy on the only thing that matters (Britain’s membership of the EU), is exactly the same as Gordon Brown’s. His gimmicks are slightly different, but just as I wouldn’t waste my time examining my stools for fiber, I’m not going to pick out the differences between Red and Blue Labour (I do encourage you to watch the interviews).

Lets look instead at some of the really telling comments Cameron made:-

Andrew Marr (paraphrased): “Your list of cuts is nothing like enough to make the
savings you’re claiming”

David Cameron: “I accept its not enough”

That should be tomorrow’s headline…but it won’t be. The leader of the opposition is ADMITTING he’s lying, but is allowed to continue. What a shameful state of affairs.

DC: “There are some things we don’t want to do, but we know we HAVE to do”

He’s a man of no principles, no ethics, no moral code whatsoever. He will do whatever is necessary to allow the corporatist elite to keep raping and pillaging British freedom and prosperity.

DC: “We’re gonna tell people they have to retire a year later”

Excuse me, but exactly when was it decided that it was a good idea to let cultural Marxists like David Cameron tell you whether or not you can work, and for whom, and for how long?

DC: "Here’s the thing: you never HAVE to agree with what the government say"

Isn’t the purpose of government to represent the people, not shepherd or tyrannise them? I put it to you that the only legitimate role of the government is the protection of individual liberty. Please feel free to disagree if you still don’t see how that position is SELF-DEFEATING.

With this I shall leave you to ponder whether you will continue to sanction the gimmicks and lies of the billing companies, or whether you want to withdraw from the EU and change your supplier.

A few months remain. Join, and work together with others to save the remnants of your livelihoods and your dignities, and begin to reverse the rot afflicting a once prosperous country. Join with, and vote for UKIP. It’s your only hope. I kid you not.

A new farce force in politics ...

The English Democrats have formed an unholy alliance with some other minor parties and called it the Alliance for Democracy.

Joining the English Democrats in their "Anglo-Christian Democratic Alliance of Political Parties" are the Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship", Jury Team, Popular Alliance, the UK Fascist First Party and Veritas.  Strangely absent are the England First Party, a BNP off-shoot that the English Democrats formed an electoral pact with during the 2009 EU elections.

Let's have a look at the English Democrats' new bed-fellows:

The Christian Party ... well, what can I say?  The Christian Party is headed up by a Scottish Reverend and has a homophobic, anti-abortion, illiberal manifesto.  As well as the UK Christian Party, there is a Christian Party Scotland and Christian Party Wales - something the English Democrats criticise other British political parties for!

Jury Team isn't even a proper party, it's just a rich bloke paying deposits for no-hopers who can't make it onto a party list.  Jury Team candidates collectively gained only half a percent of the national vote between them in the 2009 EU elections.

The Popular Alliance is an off-shoot of UKIP and Veritas, itself an off-shoot of UKIP.  The Popular Alliance has a policy to "restore British culture, tradition and history, especially in schools".  Their website describes them as a "Political party opposing Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP, Veritas and BNP as an alternative for government".

The UK First Party is yet another UKIP off-shoot and already has an alliance with the Popular Alliance.  The UK First leadership and its handful of activists consist mainly of disgruntled former UKIP members including Greg Limp-Wrist, one of the EU moles who writes on the anti-UKIP "Junius" blog.

Veritas is the original UKIP off-shoot, formed by Robert Kiljoy-Slick when he threw his teddy out of the pram after failing to get himself installed as leader.  Veritas' biggest achievement is to still be in business despite having virtually no success in its 5 year history.  Robert Kiljoy-Slick once tried to take over the English Democrats but failed.

The combined vote in the 2009 EU elections of every party in the Alliance for Democracy (Veritas and Popular Alliance didn't stand any candidates) was just 4.4% - 1.8% less than the BNP, slightly over half the Green vote and just over a quarter of the UKIP vote.  Three of the six parties in the Alliance for Democracy are UKIP off-shoots, one of them is specifically opposed to one of the others, one of them has a "British" party to cover England with local parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all of them except the English Democrats are UK parties.

I'm not sure how you can have an alliance of Anglo-Christian parties in England, Scotland and Wales as they claim to be and I'm surprised that the English Democrats are so keen to declare themselves a Christian party when one of their national council members and founder members, who happens to be one of their best people, is Jewish.  There's even a Scottish and Welsh branch of the alliance!

I could be wrong, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone will be unduly concerned about this schizophrenic alliance of British/Scottish/Welsh/English nationalist Christian (apart from non-Christians) unelectable political parties.

EU Commission taking legal action to protect 3.7% pay rises

The EU Commission is taking legal action against ... erm ... itself? National governments?  Nobody?  Not sure who but they're taking someone to court to overturn a decision by democratically elected (or half undemocratically appointed in our case) national governments to cap pay rises for EU officials at 1.85%.

The EU Commission says that it's illegal not to give them inflation-busting pay rises of 3.7% on top of their already obscene salaries and is asking the EU Court of Justice to rule as such.

There is little doubt that the EU Court of Injustice will rule in favour of the EU Commission because the judges, who are already on a salary of £215k, will be ruling on their own pay rises!  As Nigel Farage says, "it would not take Nostradamus to predict the result of this particular case".

It would be interesting to see what happened if an individual was to take their own legal action over this because the EU Court of Justice is not the independent tribunal guaranteed by the EU Convention on Human Rights.

Lisa Duffy for Chairman Director?

The Chairman of Young Independence, Lisa Duffy, has been put forward for the post of Chairman Director of UKIP.

The appointment will need to be ratified by the National Executive Council (NEC) on Monday.

Lisa hasn't exactly shone in the post of Chairman of Young Independence, with members complaining that she is out of contact for weeks on end.  This is apparently due to work commitments - she juggles a full-time job and the Chairmanship of Young Independence.  Presumably the post of Chairman Director of UKIP is a full-time, salaried position otherwise I fail to see how she can possibly be effective in this role.

This is all just speculation of course, she might not even get the job and the terms won't have been confirmed yet.  We will have to wait and see and give her (or whoever gets the job) the benefit of the doubt until they have the opportunity to prove their worth.

Edit:
The post is Director, not Chairman as previously thought.

Shooting fish (with Goebellian harpoons)

For those of us currently campaigning hard for the status quo monopoly on the British airwaves to be revised, it comes as no surprise that in their 2010 European Union preview, the Bolshevik Bullshit Corporation show again how RIDICULOUSLY biased they have become in favour of the European Union.

What comes as a slight surprise is that the FIRST aspect of the issue mentioned is the EU’s role in global governance; but now that they have the fascist superstate, why not go for the mystery star prize, eh? Gavin Hewitt is obviously being coached, directly or indirectly by the same Alphaville-style technocrats that wrote Van Rompuy’s maiden speech. These people can’t be fucked to hide their crimes anymore – in fact they’ve begun to assume they don’t need to. Only the British people are to blame for the loss of their own sovereignty, and only the British people can prove or disprove the validity of the elite’s assumption as to their acquiescence. The majority of the people have never WANTED political union*, but now they’ve got it, can THEY be fucked to do something about it?

The SECOND point Mr. Hewitt makes is about “divisions within the union” and by this he is presumably talking about the petty squabbles between the far-left and the centre-left over how swiftly to accelerate their Soviet model agenda. These disputes – which you the taxpayer sponsor – iron out smaller details such as whether the elite need Turkey to help them or whether the rising Islamism there – and the prospect of sharing borders with some of the worst dictatorships in the Mideast – might prompt (finally) a negative public response.

THIRDLY, Hewitt babbles his way through what would normally be some sound concerns about the economy, but then sadly disposes of the final shreds of his respectability when he says that readers should expect the European Commission (a.k.a the unelected bureaucrats who recently completed the most recent stage of their ongoing power grab) to “enforce competition policy rigorously and to resist…protectionism”. One CANNOT regulate markets in order to make them free! And…ladies and gentlemen, I ask you PLEASE…..HOW is funnelling wealth into a (now visible) oligarchy whilst perpetrating mass theft and looting on the people NOT protectionist???

FURTHER outrages from Hewitt may well be deliberately designed to make the reader want to give up interest (and possibly hope) altogether: “Europe will continue to be anxious over its identity”. What a blatantly collectivist pro-EU lie! This is the kind of targeted, one-size-fits-all propaganda that ensures the stooges feel moralised, their patsies capitulate, and the ignorant masses abdicate their minds.

LASTLY, Hewitt concludes with: “Finally, how will we judge whether Europe is serious about managing the environment? My pick is the bluefin tuna. That may be the litmus test of how serious the EU is in protecting species under threat.”

No reference here of the Anthropogenic Climate Change fraud, or the carbon taxes and green financial frauds being carried out under its auspices…just some fucking fish.
It’s often been said that technocrats view people as ants, but now you know you’re more like fish in a barrel. You really must love getting shot to stay as quiet as you do.

* = Q: When was the last time that any people were the driving force in developing rational and ethical truths in Western politics?

UKIP Swindon AGM

UKIP Swindon will be holding it's AGM on January 18th at 7pm. The venue is the South Marston Hotel and Leisure Club (formally the Nightingale Hotel), whose owner continues to support UKIP by allowing the use of conference facilities for free.

The meeting will be to elect a new committee to take the group into the next local and general elections. It will also be used to make the final selection of the two PPC's.

Chairman Greg Heathcliffe hopes all Swindon members will attend this meeting as the formation of this committee is perhaps the most important in the history of the Swindon Branch. Please note whilst non members are welcome, they will not be able to take any part in the election process, or speak to the event.