Saturday, 31 October 2009

Farage does not get it.

The UK Lib/Lab/Con political elite have now got the message that they cannot continue to employ their close relatives on public money. Mr Conway's little scam has brought the whole edifice crashing down. Its rough justice for some but jobs paid for out of the public purse have got to be advertised and seen to go to properly qualified applicants. I have seen what jobs for the relatives does in Islamic countries. It is the root cause why these countries are without exception mired in family based corruption.

Nigel Farage seems to think this principle does not apply to him. I can assure him, in the new political climate of transparency, the LibLabCons will make sure it does. Farage and UKIP will pay a heavy price for failing to conform.

When Mottram appeared at the fateful Nov 08 UKIP NEC meeting his opening gambit had nothing to do with the BNP! Mottram asked Farage why he was continuing to employ his wife on EU money when he had promised to put an end to this practice. Farage's reply was something about he had a special dispensation from the rules. So he hid behind the rules as did our sordid MPs like Jacqui Smith and McNulty. It was not acceptable as an excuse for our MPs sordid behaviour so why should it be accepted from Nigel Farage?

It is a similar story on publishing details of expenditure financed by MEP expenses and allowances. Farage's oft repeated claim that details of this expenditure by him is available on the Web is not true. No one has been able to find any such details for the 10 years Farage has been an MEP. When things hot up in the General Election the LibLabCons especially Bercow in Buckingham will shaft Farage on this. The pity is UKIP will go down with him.

Farage simply does not get it but undoubtedly UKIP will get in the neck next May/June. What a waste of £500 deposits there will be, a total of £250k wasted to add to the Elcom £500k. Some leader! In business he would be sacked and in the military court martialled for incompetence. Why can UKIP members not see how disastrous this man has been for our cause?

Monday, 26 October 2009

BBC got it wrong with Nick Griffin says veteran broadcaster

I watched Nick Griffin on Question Time thrown to a baying mob audience of juvenile leftists and ethnics whilst being attacked and interrupted by every other member of the panel and worst of all by Chairman Dimblebore. And this is what the liberal elite call informed debate! It showed just how illiberal and nasty they really are. The knowledge of Roman history exhibited by the lady who is on the board of the British museum was abysmal and the Jewish boy who seemed to think we fought the Second World War to save the Jews needs a history lesson! Its a bit like the leftist myth that Lincoln fought the American Civil War to free the slaves. Both these wars were fought for hard headed real politik reasons that had nothing to do with saving the Jews or freeing Black slaves. Roman citizenship had to be earned and any who did so were very proud of their achievement. As the Jew, Paul of Tarsus, citizen of Rome, said in the Bible, "For I am a citizen of no mean city"

My mother always taught me that no one can help the colour of their skin. I have believed in this all my life. Griffin's racist views are vile to me and every civilised person. What the BBC succeeded in doing however was in making many of the non-London audience feel sorry for Griffin. What is popular in the mosques and synagogues of London does no necessarily play well in the great cities of the Midlands and the North. Diane Abbott noted this on Andrew Neil's show that immediately followed Question Time!

My title is taken from page 6 of today's Daily Telegraph and refers to Sue McGregor, 68, who presented the Today programme for 17 years who said "I don't think it was right to completely skew the formula to him and one issue. It either gave him a huge audience for his views, which I would not approve of, or it gave the impression of attack dogs against Nick Griffin". That is BBC speak for we cocked it up! The article goes on to say, "Privately many members of BBC staff have said that inviting Mr Griffin on to the programme may have back fired" Another bit of economy with the truth! There was nothing wrong in inviting him on but it was the way he was treated that caused the problem. The BBC made him into a martyr and as the Romans say , "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church"

Well there was plenty of Griffin's blood spilt and he took what the Duke of Wellington would have called a hard pounding but remind yourself who eventually won at Waterloo?

Griffin sat there nervously and took it, kept his cool, and was there at the end to raise the issue of the ethnic cleansing of London to hoots of derision from the biased audience and panel. It was a performance of courage in a very difficult environment.

Today however, the Daily Mail runs a story headlined below, sourced back to 10 Downing Street that shows Griffin was telling the truth. Click on the link below to read it.

Labour 'deliberately let migrants in to make Britain more multicultural and so Tories could be accused of racism'

It claims that Labour's relaxation of immigration controls in 2000 was a deliberate attempt to engineer a 'truly multicultural' country and plug gaps in the jobs market and that it was approved by Blair and Straw. I won't summarise the article but urge you read it for yourself. Its very frightening.

And therein lies Griffin's usefulness in the political debate. He can raise issues which other, more Political Correct, party leaders are scared to touch not because these issues like Islam and immigration are not important, but because of the possible damage to their pygmy like political reputations. When one is interviewed by the Civil Service one is always asked to chair a committee on some fatuous topic. The one essential as chairman is to ensure that you elicit everyone's views no matter if you and the rest think someone is a real numpty. Numpty views sometimes turn out to be important and even if most of that person's views, as with Griffin are indefensible, one must be careful of dismissing all their views without examination. Play the ball not the man!

Thursday, 22 October 2009

NF on Question Time

I thought it might be instructive to review Farage's performance after a period of mature reflection and comment.

Many remarked on Farage's profuse and obvious sweating during the show. It might be he had good reason to sweat. The most telling comment was posted on the Forum by a BNP supporter, Blazing Saddles, (I have edited out the BNP puffs), allegedly quoting a former UKIP member as saying:

So who was the most hypocritical, and the most dangerous (to British sovereignty) panellist on last Thursday's BBC Question Time?

He refuses to reveal anything regarding his personal gained from his own EU expenses or allowances, whilst condemning MP's for their greed.

He refuses to answer concerns about financial misappropriation within his own Party.

He uses loopholes in the rules to employ a family member, despite promising not to do so.

He boldly condemns racism in Britain, but allies himself with racist parties in Brussels.

He claims to be fighting for British Sovereignty, yet his main publicist is .... the Europhile BBC.

Have you worked it out yet? Yes its Nigel Farage, the ultimate Hypocrite!

On Expenses:

Last Thursday as a member of the 'Question Time Panel Farage waxed eloquently about the greed and cynicism of MP's and voiced a belief that some would go to prison.

[Note: Despite condemning MP's Farage still wants to become one? Why? Let Dr Richard North explain:

"With Farage though, nothing is ever entirely what it seems. There are strong rumours that our Nigel has overstayed his welcome in Brussels and that the forces of darkness are not a million miles from feeling his collar, making his continued tenure as an MEP expensive and increasingly insecure. Reinventing himself as a Westminster MP – his lower salary fortified by his MEP pension - could head off the wolves and give him protection from impending disaster."]

Yet at the same time as criticising others, Farage does everything within his power to ensure that his own profits from being an MEP remain hidden. And this despite his having promised (on-air) to do the exact opposite! Even though in May 2009, 'The Guardian' reported that Farage had said in a speech to the Foreign Press Association that over ten years as a member of the European Parliament he received and spent nearly £2 million of taxpayers' money in expenses and allowances, on top of his £64,000 a year salary, he still refuses to give any details!

He promised not to employ family members in his office. Yet exploited loopholes to employ his wife. Paying her somewhere in the region of £30k per annum!

He refuses to reveal the full accounts for the 'Ashford call centre'.

Nor will he answer concerns over the mystery of thousands of pounds from UKIP's SE regional account, laughingly described as 'other expenses'. That's an awful lot of paper clips!

Comment from Farage on questions put to the 'Question Time' panel:

Prior to the Euro elections, in June, Farage utterly ruled out any form of co-operation between UKIP and the racist BNP, because the views of the BNP were incompatible with those of UKIP. He again vehemently attacked the BNP last Thursday evening!

Yet as soon as he was returned to Brussels, what did he do? He formed alliances with some of the most extreme right wingers within continental Europe. Many of which make the BNP look positively liberal! Men such as, George Karatzaferis, President of the Greek LA.O.S Party

The hypocritical Farage is happy to work alongside such men when in Brussels!

Farage is a hypocrite but so are many politicians of all parties. Unlike the others Farage is dangerous. Aided heavily by the BBC and others he provides the political establishment with a mirage that deceives the electorate into believing UKIP really is a viable alternative to the Lib/Lab/Con axis at Westminster. With UKIP under the control of Farage nothing could be further from the truth. Do you not sometimes wonder why Farage is given so much media exposure by the BBC? Why do you think he supports an establishment figure like Pearson as leader of UKIP?

Farage never tires of saying that he looks forwards to being out of a job, when Britain leaves the EU. But does he? Somehow I doubt it, for that would mean giving up his suite of offices and his chauffeur driven limousine, not to mention the money.

And if he's nothing else, Farage is vain. Where else, apart from Brussels would he have such a stage on which to perform. Where, apart from Brussels would he be pampered by sycophantic toadies?

UKIP is now quite simply a political cul-de-sac talked up by the media into which dissent can be corralled until Britain is no more.

Many have remarked in similiar vein on Farage's performance along the lines that he was so PC and up the establishments bum big time. Note how he rapidly distanced himself from Pearson when the discussion turned to Pearson's invite to Dutch anti Islamic MP Gert Wilders to speak in the Palace of Westminster. According to Farage, Pearson did not represent UKIP views only his own. Not a dicky bird about Pearson being heavily promoted by Farage as the next leader of UKIP! Another one of Farage's less edifying characteristics is ditching his allies to save his own PC skin and PC cred with DC who will soon have it in his power to put Farage into the Lords.

Nigel knows which side his bread is buttered on all right!

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

UKIP Leadership Race & Court Cases

I hear there are 6 candidates to be the next leader of UKIP who have completed the nomination process:

Gerard Batten MEP
Winston McKenzie
Mike Nattrass MEP
Malcolm Pearson Life Peer
Nikki Sinclaire MEP
Alan Wood

Pearson & McKenzie are the two Farage candidates. One to polish Nigel's PC credentials and the other to win. I heard Farage boast on question time about the number of coloured and ethnic minority MEP candidates UKIP had in June, seven. But how many got elected as MEPs? Er none. Its the same this time. Farage would like a run off between McKenzie and Pearson, a contest that Pearson could not lose. Pearson will of course do Nigel's bidding in all things, UKIP will not change and rule by the Cabal will continue.

So what of the others? Well pressure will be brought on them to stand down along the lines of, following our bad court result of minus £360k plus costs we need a safe pair of hands and someone who can bring in wealthy donors for Nigel's next fiasco, ie Pearson, so do the right thing for UKIP and stand down. People like Alan Wood will be told by his namesake, long time Farage sycophant and Pearson's campaign manager Malcolm Wood that he will split the vote in the South West. Alan is a good guy and very loyal to UKIP so he might well be swayed by the snake oil salesman's talk.

Gerard Batten will be pressured over his future selection as an MEP next time round. Gerard believes, unlike Farage, in withdrawal from the EU and like Alan Wood wants what is best for UKIP. Unfortunately Gerard is not good at resisting pressure from Farage and his crew so he may well step down.

That leaves Nikki and Mike Nattrass. I have only met Nikki once and she struck me as a strong willed lady who obviously can help with Nigel's effort to acquire more PC brownie points so I suspect she will survive to the vote. I have never met Mike Nattrass but he is perceived as a bit of a being a loose cannon by those whose opinion I respect. Crucial will be his attitude to Nigel's pan European ambitions and how much history he has that Nigel knows about.

Bridget Rowe, Nigel's new PRO, will no doubt have a part to play in all this. As a former red top editor she knows how to handle these situations.

Alan Wood is an excellent campaigner and had there been any justice would have been the number 2 MEP candidate in the South West. He works tirelessly for UKIP and believes in UKIP core values and wants to organise and campaign in the UK not Brussels. He is also opposed to Nigel's pan-European plans as I imagine are Gerard Batten & Nikki Sinclaire. If his name is on the paper we get I will vote for Alan.

ITV are in dire straits and are desperately trying to recruit Michael Bishop who founded and ran British Midaland Airways for many years. Bishop has stated that he will only accept if he has the resignation of the entire ITV selection committee that chose him. If I were running for UKIP leader my platform would be similar to Mr Bishop's viz the resignation of the entire UKIP NEC and Chairman so that a fresh start could be made and the power of the Cabal that has done so much damage to our cause broken.

Sunday, 18 October 2009

Back from my hols but things still as before

I returned 6 days ago from one of my now increasingly frequent sailing holidays in the warm and pleasant waters of the Aegean and Ionian Seas. The weather was excellent, I missed the party conference season and I even managed to sing a love song to my wife at the old Greek theatre at Epidaurus. It must have been OK as I was given a round of applause from the German tourists who were sitting in the back row of the 14000 seat open air theatre! I could not however oblige them with an aria from the Merry Widow - I can't remember the words except. "everyone's in love with love and I love you" and that it used to be one of Adolf's favourites.

Depressing that things in the UK are still the same. EU, keep your hands of the City says BoJo/Gord and every other UK politico seeking votes. As always the excact opposite will happen. The EU will have their way because our political classes are impotent faced with the EU. Our best hope lies with the moneyed classes but I fear the famous UKIPer, SponPlague, will soon be joined by many of these kindred spirits in the city of Zurich. Perhaps I should open another gnome shop there.

Onto the Democracy Forum to find Croucher still smearing anyone who does not love Nigel. Croucher, McTrough and all the other Faragistas employ what is called an ad hominem argument. Wilkepia gives an instructive definition of ths type of illogicality:

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam[by whom?]) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.[original research?]


  • "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job."
  • "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
Now does that not sum up Croucher's technique pretty well. Its as old as the hills or certainly as old as Julius Caesar.

To put in in the current UK football obsessed vernacular it's ,"Playing the man not the ball", something the UKIP cabal do all the time. They fiddle while the City burns.