A STATEMENT REGARDING JUNIUS
This statement regarding Junius is approved by Team Junius
JUNIUS ON UKIP
This article is an abstract from:
WITH REGARD TO JUNIUS
From my conversations with Team Junius:I gather their aims were largely similar to mine, as was their aim to inform and provide an archive of facts in support of UKIP becoming fit for purpose, to lead to Leave-The-EU, which clearly it currently is not, as it tends to represent its own personal ambitions rather than British self determination, values and ethics.
At the moment Junius team have largely stopped addressing UKIP’s problems, in the belief that it is unlikely that UKIP will have any consequential influence on domestic politics after their failure in the local elections of 2013 when out of over 1,700 seats in which they stood candidates a mere 147 were elected and already they are falling by the wayside and or resigning - due in part to lack of vetting, lack of professionalism, lack of training, a lack of a clear aim or vision for the future, and in some cases due to racism, inappropriate behaviour and convictions for theft etc. etc.
UKIP’s achievements are so clearly the product of a single individual that Junius has stood back from their role exposing UKIP’s ineptitude and dishonesty, as unfit for purpose, as to continue putting their own jobs at risk is no longer of sufficient value, in the light of UKIP’s unarguable failure to obtain MPs, Police Crime Commissioners, Mayors or any other role of any gravitas or significance in domestic politics in 20 years.
Team Junius, I am told, will possibly re-enter the position of political commentary if the situation alters and UKIP becomes of any meaningfull relevance in UK domestic policy rather than self serving 'cult' of also rans!
Although I have heard from members of Team Junius they and others have passed on the UKIP lies that it is claimed that actions and threats of prosecution by UKIP forced Junius to cease posting.
I can assure readers that the UKIP spin is a pack of lies particularly as they have absolutely no idea who the members of Team Junius are nor are UKIP able to identify a single solitary member of the team. It is therefore abundantly clear that no member of the team has in any way been threatened with prosecution, nor contacted by anyone threatening to prosecute nor has any member EVER been cautioned by any lawyer or the police with regard to their publication of facts and views they publish about UKIP and its clique or claque or even members or policy.
May I also add that the ONLY three threats I have EVER received were founded first on the inept misunderstanding of the law by Michael Zucherman when I used the title ‘catterpillars & butterflies thereby bringing into derision the subsequent utilisation of the imagery used by UKIP subsequently.
The second instance was based on lies presented by Mark Croucher, Clive Page & Paul Nuttall for UKIP, in an attempt to bankrupt me to shut down the flow of facts about UKIP which I present. They lost their case in Court and to date have failed to act honourably and pay the some £13,000 they owe me.
The third instance was based on a pack of lies presented by Gerard Batten regarding which the police were misguidedly duped into interviewing me under caution for some 3 hours. The police decision was there was absolutely no case to answer and that I had not acted in any breech of the law and Gerard Batten was shown to have lied to try to build a case.
Let us be certain – I can unequivocally state that any claim by UKIP that they have intimidated those who publish under the name Junius into giving up is untrue and like so many other stories that emanate from UKIP and its placemen is just a pack of lies.
I understand that there is a possibility that even though Team Junius are no longer posting there MAY on occasions be guest postings, hosted on the blog.
This posting was made with the approval of Team Junius
By. LINK
ReplyDeleteThe Solution:
Procedure By Which conservatives Could Control Parliament
If UKIP is Lucky, UKIP could get, perhaps, get ten to thirty seats
in Parliament. Do not forget, the public still regards UKIP as a
one issue party. To gain control of Parliament UKIP and (and frie-
nds) should form a new conservative party with a platform that is
close to that of the existing Conservative party, omitting, of course,
policies that are objectionable to conservatives. The purpose would
be to make a bed that would be easy for conservatives to slide into,
including the eighty percent of the Conservatives who left Conser-
vative associations. UKIP and the conservatives should then form
a political association in each parliamentary district. UKIP could
merge with the new party, thus getting rid of the one issue problem.
Every one who would have worked to form the new, conservative,
party should be prevented from joining the new party for
a period of time to prevent the impression that UKIP controls it.
The two or three conservative parties should hold a primary election
to determine who runs as the Parliamentary candidate, with the losers
to help the winner. The cost of forming new associations can be raised
by local contributors. It is suggested that the new conservative asso-
ciations and the political party be controlled by the lowest level of con-
servatives, such as teachers, small businessmen, solicitors, professionals
etc. If the above procedure can not be completed in time to get
candidates elected to Parliament, the new party must wait until
after the election and hold a petition demanding that the elected
MP resign. Note: an MP represents every person in his district, not
just members and supporters of his party. When the petition reaches
fifty percent of those who voted in the prior election, the conservatives
will be morally justified in demanding their MP"s resignation. Then the
new party could run their candidates in the following by elections.
To select a candidate, a local association should advertise for applicants
or the position of candidate for Parliament, then select the best app-
licant by using rigorous tests, including, most importantly, psychological
evaluation. psychological evaluation is an absolute necessity as the psych-
ological evaluation is the only way to tell who is honest and who is a con-
artist; members of the public cannot. Testing could be required of the
association officers, committee members and delegates, etc.
The platform, selected by new party associations, should be some what
vague in order to facilitate integration the platforms of the new assoc-
iations into one platform. It is suggested that self forming cliques of those
who are honest and trust worthy be formed; then form self forming
cliques of those who have political skills and capabilities, within the
first described clique.
The corruption in Ukip is a cause for concern. Information about the corr-
uption may bee seen on the following websites:
ukip-vs-eukip.com
unfashionista.com
eureferendum.com
John Newell