Why such interest in UKIP

[one direction]

What do I think? I think that if you start with a position then you can find evidence to prove you are right. Then some one else can find evidence to prove you are wrong. I would ask the people posting on here claiming that UKIP are evil and need to be stopped  just one question. How many UKIP Memebers have you actually met, talked to and debated with? Not how many headlines have you seen, not how many articles have you read, not how many tweets have you recived on your Twitter account from #ukipareevil, not even how many interviews have you seen on TV or listened to on the radio because every single one of those chanels of communication are filtered through the agenda of the person, organisation or medium through which they are reaching you. Ultimately I believe what my own eyes see, what my own ears hear and what my own nose smells. I have met Mr Wright MP on several occassions, I know he is a two faced, self serving, professional politician who has the best interests of himself and his party career at heart. So I won't vote for him. Similarly I won't vote UKIP either because I've never met the UKIP candidate. He might be a great guy but I don't know him. If he knocks on my door, answrs my questions while looking me straight in the eye without being shifty or evasive then he might get my vote. At the moment however its "None of the above" on my ballot paper.

PS Just out of interest I googled "Labour are evil" and now I know that Labour are a party of paedophiles, it must be true, just read this link. Proves it
http://labour25.com/2011/06/14/entering-the-dark-evil-paedophile-world-of-the-labour-partys-paedophile-ring/

Mind you the most insidious, most corrupt, most morally bankrupt political party is not the Labour Party, as I think I had naively always assumed, but rather the Liberal Democrats.
http://www.trendingcentral.com/why-the-lib-dems-are-the-most-morally-bankrupt-political-party-in-britain/

However, I also know Tories are truly the scum of the earth. Self-serving, selfish, greedy and grasping they will clamber over anyone and anything to protect their wealth and to accumulate more.
http://www.endevil.com/tories.html

Of course that misses the fact that the Green Party philosophy and policies are fundamentally evil - they are authoritarian statists, whose key interest is in using the monopoly of legitimised violence (the state) to force people to do what they want, ban people from doing what they don't want. to confiscate more money from people who earn it, and to give other people's money to things they like.
http://libertyscott.blogspot.co.uk/2005/09/why-greens-are-evil.html

etc etc etc

[DRiddle]

I've met and talked with loads. Most of the local lot, the 2 UKIP councillors, Phil Broughton etc. I actually once chaired a Question Time style debate with a UKIP MEP.

Derek Clark his name was. That was an experience. I'm not sure if he achieved much politically, although I do remember him having to pay back about £30,000 in expenses due to a 'misunderstanding'.

He was a textbook UKIP cliché. His main contribution to the debate was to tell a lady from the NHS that the whole 'anti smoking agenda' was a myth because (and I quote) "My grandmother smoked like a chimney and lived well into her 90s".

Clearly Derek saw this as being stronger evidence than 100 years of longitudinal research by scientists across the globe.

[Mican]

As we are no further forward on this subject, let us look at the reality of how people look at things and see them a different way, the letter by David Silvester for instance. 

In a letter to the Henley Standard, he said: "Since the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, the nation has been beset by serious storms and floods.
"One recent one caused the worst flooding for 60 years. The Christmas floods were the worst in 127 years. Is this just 'global warming' or is there something more serious at work?

Bear with me: These are actual facts

"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."

These are factually wrong.

He said he had warned Mr Cameron that the new law would result in "disasters", adding: "But he went ahead despite a 600,000-signature petition by concerned Christians and more than half of his own parliamentary party saying that he should not do so.
"Now, even as Cameron sheds crocodile tears on behalf of destitute flooded homeowners, playing at advocate against the very local councils he has made cash-strapped, it is his fault that large swathes of the nation have been afflicted by storms and floods.

These I think we can all agree on.  Lack of cash for flood defence, lack of dredging the rivers (oops better not let the greenies see that bit)

"He has arrogantly acted against the Gospel that once made Britain 'great' and the lesson surely to be learned is that no man or men, however powerful, can mess with Almighty God with impunity and get away with it for everything a nation does is weighed on the scales of divine approval or disapproval

Not sure where in the bible that comes from.

As we have seen from the head lines this is a UKIP crackpot blaming "gay marriages" for the floods and jumped on by the papers and UKIP haters, but people who can smell the coffee and see the wood and are in no way prejudice, will look at it from a different way.  They will see it as a letter of two parts, the first part written by a man who went to Bible College and will assume he believed the words from the scriptures he wrote.  (Although they are factually wrong) the second part we can all agree with.  So if you think he is a crackpot spouting from the bible, I assume you wont be going to church again, weddings, funerals etc. because you are going to be faced with another crank in the pulpit spouting from the bible and bringing back bad memories. 

[mk1]

I now  have no further interest in the thread. I am not going to make any more posts on the subject.

Quite why I  feel the need to make such an anouncement  is as much a puzzle to me as it is to you.

[Party Pooper]

Mican do you agree with Clr David Silvester  UKIP that the floods and gay marriage are linked and the one is the cause of the other ?
Your question about going back to church assumes that the people you are addressing in this thread are Christians as that's what Silvester is and Christians call their places of worship churches.there are or religions and some people have no religion what so ever.

[beanzontoast]

Mican thats exactly where I am coming from I have repeatedly tried to keep a balance on my comments, and therefore PP is wrong when he suggests anything printed in a national paper with a red top is ok with me is it isn't,  what I would say is that if it has a red top it probably has a Labour bias, and the Mail has a tory bias, once you know that you are on a winner, as an example for 15 years the Labour party has been running the NHS in Wales and its an absolute mess the daily mail ran this story for 4 days the Mirror didn't mention it at all. If true it blows away the claim labour makes that the NHS is only safe in their hands.

[Mican]

Mican do you agree with Clr David Silvester  UKIP that the floods and gay marriage are linked and the one is the cause of the other ?

No.

Your question about going back to church assumes that the people you are addressing in this thread are Christians as that's what Silvester is and Christians call their places of worship churches.there are or religions and some people have no religion what so ever.

I was assuming that the place you would find someone stood in a pulpit quoting from the bible would be a church, perhaps you can come up with another explanation?  You don't have to be a christian or any other religion or have no religion to go to a church for a funeral or wedding.

By the way you are not Ray's alter ego are you, putting in gramatical errors to throw us off?

[Ryehill]

 Party Pooper mentioned this weeks report on the benefits of immigration, what he failed to mention was that the report was compiled by Christian Dustmaan. He was the academic that predicted that only 13k Eastern Europeans would come to the U.K.when border restrictions were eased. An error in the order of 2000%.  I think that these kind of statistic are more worthy of discussion  than the eccentric ramblings of a virtually unknown councillor.

[Lord Elpus]

Its a well known fact that 87.43% of all statistical evidence used in arguments are made up on the spot.

[steveL]

Its a well known fact that 87.43% of all statistical evidence used in arguments are made up on the spot.

.... and there's another one!

[steveL]

Party Pooper mentioned this weeks report on the benefits of immigration, what he failed to mention was that the report was compiled by Christian Dustmaan. He was the academic that predicted that only 13k Eastern Europeans would come to the U.K.when border restrictions were eased. An error in the order of 2000%.  I think that these kind of statistic are more worthy of discussion  than the eccentric ramblings of a virtually unknown councillor.

It's also a well known fact that any topic of conversation which includes a UKIP participant will eventually focus on the EU, Immigration or Muslims

[Ryehill]

  Steve L. I was replying to a comment made by Party Pooper, so what are you saying? That on a thread dedicated to a Eurosceptic party no comments about the E.U. should be made .Nor should there be any mention of immigration, which has only become a major issue since the E.U. policy of free movement of labour has been implemented. In future, in order to avoid confusion, it might be an idea if you set the guidelines for discussion.

[steveL]

It's not for me to set 'guidelines' for discussion. People talk about what they want. Admittedly, cross-over occurs and sometimes people go off at such a tangent that they really should have started a new thread. All common sense to me.

As for my own comment, I remain of the view that UKIP is a pressure group; no more. A receptacle for people who have an obsession about the EU, Immigration and Muslims. You might have a different view and I'd be first in the queue to defend your right to hold it.

To Mican I would say that it was PHF that held out a tactical hand to UKIP. The UKIP response was pretty much on the lines that PHF wouldn't put up candidates against UKIP and in return UKIP wouldn't field candidates in the places they weren't going to field candidates anyway.

Since May, UKIP have remained pretty much silent in the council chamber. All the running has been made by Independents and PHF. Personally, I put that silence down to the fact that HBC doesn't have any real influence on EU matters, the town doesn't have an immigration problem and that Muslim kids seem to be a damn sight better behaved than a significant minority of our own 'white Christian' kids.

Incidentally, someone who blames periodic floods on gay marriage is not 'eccentric'; he's a bloody nutter and what bothers people is that the UKIP selection process appears to be so slack that it allows such people through the gate.

[Mican]

I agree with most of what you say Steve apart from the last bit, basically what you are saying if anyone quotes the scriptures they are nutters.  Enough of that, the following is a copy of the reply I made to Dave Riddle on the National thread.

"I completely agree with you, but just let me say, when you were running for council I made a comment about social media which still stands, anyone can read what is written and though it may have it's advantages it also has it's disadvantages and may one day come back to bite you.  If PHF expects UKIP to be buddy buddy in the chamber, then PHF needs to stop it's critism of UKIP on social media which has been going on for a while, to say the least it's not the brightest of ideas.  Stay with the things that are important in the town.   And no I am not a supporter of UKIP or PHF."

[steveL]

Yes but it's a bit like the argument to vote UKIP simply to get rid of Wrighty i.e. 'for the greater good'. UKIP are quite happy with that if they are the ones to benefit but when it came to the council chamber and a sensible approach to get rid of the Labour majority (for the greater good) UKIP didn't want to know.

It's probably just as well. When a UKIP councillor spouts off against a housing development claiming that 'it would end up being full of immigrants' then to quote the Scotsman, "'Am oot!"