The person who ‘interviewed’ Farage on Westminster Hour was truly pathetic. Mr Norman Smith had obviously not done his homework and so a golden opportunity chance to put Farage’s ‘leadership’ under the spotlight was lost.No mention was made of the well publicised resignations/defections from UKIP.
No mention was made of the OLAF investigations.
No mention was made of NEC expulsions.
Farage was not asked to justify his ridiculous claim that the BNP had infiltrated UKIP.
Farage was not questioned about Libertas UK - a political party that was set-up by his own Press Officer.
Farage was not questioned about the posting of a UKIP candidates MEP interview on YouTube.
And so on.
In the interview Farage made comments about UKIP members who had made ‘criminal accusations’ and therefore should be ‘chopped off at the legs’. This was clearly a reference to John West who had complained to the police about Jeffrey Titford. Unbelievably this statement was allowed to pass without comment from the interviewer!
Presumably the interviewer approves of a party leader making threats of violence against a member who did his civic duty and reported a crime to the Police!
Farage then went on to attack candidates who were alleged to have told people not to vote UKIP. Again, this comment was allowed to pass unchallenged.
Dr Eric Edmond was also less than impressed with the interview:
I worked on forecasting techniques and forecasts for many years. One of the things I learned was that the average forecast ex-ante invariably out performs the previously single best forecast measured ex-post and that the reason for this was that even the worst individual forecast contains nuggets of information that can add something to the overall picture. BobFM writes worse than anyone else on the British Democracy Forum and he always parrots the Farage line. This morning he did include the link to Mr Farage's latest interview on the BBC programme Westminster hour . I was not aware of this interview. I am grateful to BobFM for posting it. I give the URL below. Click on it if you wish to listen to it.
Mr Farage was bleating on about party discipline, a favourite theme of his. After all, why use valuable radio time to put forward UKIP policies when you can indulge in some internal navel gazing? He claimed that UKIP candidates on their blogs had been decrying the party and advising voting for other parties. As far as I know I am the only UKIP MEP candidate writing a blog so I presume Mr Farage's comments refer to me. I know Mr Farage claims he has de-selected me but as due process has not been followed I reject Mr Farage's actions as illegitimate and clearly unconstitutional. Mr Towler did write a blog for a while but stopped when his paymasters in the EU asked him to. I believe Mrs Towler also had a blog but only for a very short time.
I would be grateful if anyone can point out to me where on my blog I advised voting for another party. My views on voting UKIP are available for all to see and here on YouTube and I give the click through link below. I hope Mr Farage will watch it. He might learn something useful from it.
The charge of decrying the party is also bogus. As I made plain yesterday there is a higher loyalty than blind obedience to, and support for, the UKIP's hierarchy actions. Where these actions conflict with long established British principles of justice, fairplay and decent civilized debate we all have a civic duty to speak out against them otherwise we lose what we are fighting for and what generations of our ancestors fought and died for.
Mr Farage made reference to some members of UKIP making criminal accusations against other party members. The process of reporting suspected criminal behaviour to the police is not a criminal act. It is a civic duty! The police will investigate and act accordingly. Whistleblowers are always decried using the specious and self serving arguments of loyalty deployed by Mr Farage. If honest decent people turn a blind eye to what they know is wrong then eventually the bullies will come for them as the Germans found out in the 30s.
I have not had a chance to put my case, cross examine the evidence against me or appeal against this arbitrary decision to de-select me. I have been tried in absentia by a prejudiced court just as happens in the EU. If UKIP behaves like the EU then what are we fighting for? That was my branch's view and it is my view.
Dr Edmond's original article can be seen at: LINK
No comments:
Post a Comment