Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
UKIP win a seat
Comments
-
Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.
2 -
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.0 -
Exactly. It's hardly a level playing field, UKIP are under a microscope.Fiiish said:
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873508/Ukip-official-charge-vetting-candidates-admits-spends-half-time-weeding-lunatics.html
Also seems " a bit UKIP".
Notice the bit about Pound Land Enoch.
0 -
So you're saying that those comments made are acceptable?charlton_hero said:
Exactly. It's hardly a level playing field, UKIP are under a microscope.Fiiish said:
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.0 -
So do UKIP.Fiiish said:
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.
They use the same sort of 'spin doctors' that the others do. Patrick O'Flynn their usual spokesman used to be the Political Editor of the Express .
To be fair to O'Flynn he defended the indefensible at lunchtime about Kerry Smith . O'Flynn sidestepped the question stating he was part of the Douglas Carswell wing of UKIP. He said it is not PC but good manners to be respectful. His explanation for the behaviour was that Smith was on sedatives when he spoke.
0 -
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 24m
Kerry Smith has resigned as Ukip's prospective parliamentary candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock after making offensive comments
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal 7m
UKIP candidate Kerry Smith, who described gay people as "fucking disgusting old poofters" and a Chinese name as a "chinky", has now resigned0 -
I heard he was lined up for the LGBT & Minorities Outreach position too.Callumcafc said:Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal 7m
UKIP candidate Kerry Smith, who described gay people as "fucking disgusting old poofters" and a Chinese name as a "chinky", has now resigned4 -
They don't help themselves do they, what an utter idiot.Callumcafc said:Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 24m
Kerry Smith has resigned as Ukip's prospective parliamentary candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock after making offensive comments
Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal 7m
UKIP candidate Kerry Smith, who described gay people as "fucking disgusting old poofters" and a Chinese name as a "chinky", has now resigned
Farage and their PR team must be fuming.0 -
Some of their candidates really are moronic. Must be real struggle for Farage to actually put up any kind of realistic candidates in certain constituencies.
All very we'll having 'real' people as Parliamentary candidates, but when you're not sure of their background and history it could turn out to be a nightmare.
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
I have said it before. I once attended a dinner party with senior UKIP members. They were a bunch of racist homophobic twats. Nasty vicous little Hitlers. I have hated the party ever since and am never fooled by cheery Nigel and his pint.4
-
Why were you there?3
-
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Moron.Callumcafc said:
So you're saying that those comments made are acceptable?charlton_hero said:
Exactly. It's hardly a level playing field, UKIP are under a microscope.Fiiish said:
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.2 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30474521
"A leaked Labour document - which has been sent to some of the party's MPs and activists - says they should avoid talking about immigration when they are campaigning. "
Why would a party aspiring for Government not want to talk about what is clearly a big discussion point ?0 -
You defended him and UKIP in general so you know, just wanted to clear that one up before we go any further.charlton_hero said:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Moron.Callumcafc said:
So you're saying that those comments made are acceptable?charlton_hero said:
Exactly. It's hardly a level playing field, UKIP are under a microscope.Fiiish said:
UKIP are no different to LibLabCon in terms of gaffes made from unguarded remarks made off the record. The difference lies in the PR agencies that LibLabCon use to train their MPs when they can and can't make racist/sexist/stupid remarks and are available to clean up the mess when an unguarded remark is recorded.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
re
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.0 -
Essentially that bloke is a bit of a racist and he doesn't like gays.Richard J said:Bryan_Kynsie said:
Doesn't say who recorded the bloke's phone conversation or why....?IAgree said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467897
Looks "a bit UKIP" to me.
That is not relevant . This is not the language that I would expect from a prospective MP in any context .
What I find strange is that UKIP have already deselected him as a candidate once and he was re nominated last week. Although both his most dangerous rivals pulled out.
One being Natasha Bolton who was formerly the chosen candidate of the UKIP Gen Sec , but is now accusing him of sexual harassment and Neil Hamilton. Why anyone wants to bring him back into frontline politics amazes me .
What a choice. UKIP is descending into farce.
He sounds the perfect candidate for south Basildon and Thurrock.1 -
Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-304763830 -
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-304763831 -
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....1 -
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
0 -
Don't know how the fu## you got two LOLs for that question. I was invited to a friends house whose brother in law was a senior member. It was quite a few years back and I didn't really know much about them. After this particular dinner they asked me to do some printing for them, I declined. Have hated them ever since. Hate them even more now they try to sneak under the radar. They are Monster Raving Loony to me, but with an evil streak. Joke of a party with nothing to offer but hatred and negativity.WSS said:Why were you there?
3 -
Errrrrr, no. Nick Robinson's opinion is that of his own. The fact that he is a Tory just adds some bias towards his reporting. All journalists that have political leanings will be influenced to a certain degree by that political stance.micks1950 said:
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
I love it when people put words in the mouths of others as it highlights their inability to draw any conclusion other than the one they want to draw.
Re the sexual harassment case, the woman in question has since been shown up to be a compulsive liar that was slightly besotted with the weird looking UKIP'er.
Carry on.0 -
John Humphry on BBC bias.micks1950 said:
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577951/BBC-grotesquely-managed-liberal-bias-says-Humphrys.html
The BBC receives millions in EU funding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/299768/BBC-is-3m-Brussels-propaganda-arm0 -
I'm confused...I thought it was all settled that the Beeb was massively left wing biased but NOW they are biased towards the Tories?
Whatever next...3 -
Put what words in what mouths (presumably yours).....?Big_Bad_World said:
Errrrrr, no. Nick Robinson's opinion is that of his own. The fact that he is a Tory just adds some bias towards his reporting. All journalists that have political leanings will be influenced to a certain degree by that political stance.micks1950 said:
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
I love it when people put words in the mouths of others as it highlights their inability to draw any conclusion other than the one they want to draw.
Re the sexual harassment case, the woman in question has since been shown up to be a compulsive liar that was slightly besotted with the weird looking UKIP'er.
Carry on.
I posted Nick Robinson's report (without any comment of my own) as I thought it might help in understanding the strange spate of candidate withdrawals, resignations, leaks, counter-leaks and accusations of impropriety that have emerged from UKIP in the last couple of weeks.
You posted in response first:
“Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?”
and then later
“Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible”
You claim to be some sort of 'seeker after truth' who “can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end”, yet you seem particularly desperate to dismiss Robinson's entirely plausible account of these strange goings on (which as I said he would not have reported without good evidence that it was all coming from different factions within UKIP fighting over candidate selections).
Are you sure you're quite as independent minded as you claim.....?
2 -
You're incredibly deluded if you think the other parties don't have their fair share of nutters. As I said before, UKIP are under heavy scrutiny, the other parties are not.micks1950 said:
Put what words in what mouths (presumably yours).....?Big_Bad_World said:
Errrrrr, no. Nick Robinson's opinion is that of his own. The fact that he is a Tory just adds some bias towards his reporting. All journalists that have political leanings will be influenced to a certain degree by that political stance.micks1950 said:
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
I love it when people put words in the mouths of others as it highlights their inability to draw any conclusion other than the one they want to draw.
Re the sexual harassment case, the woman in question has since been shown up to be a compulsive liar that was slightly besotted with the weird looking UKIP'er.
Carry on.
I posted Nick Robinson's report (without any comment of my own) as I thought it might help in understanding the strange spate of candidate withdrawals, resignations, leaks, counter-leaks and accusations of impropriety that have emerged from UKIP in the last couple of weeks.
You posted in response first:
“Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?”
and then later
“Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible”
You claim to be some sort of 'seeker after truth' who “can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end”, yet you seem particularly desperate to dismiss Robinson's entirely plausible account of these strange goings on (which as I said he would not have reported without good evidence that it was all coming from different factions within UKIP fighting over candidate selections).
Are you sure you're quite as independent minded as you claim.....?
Here are some recent examples, how many did you hear of?
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/11217704.Gun_offence_Tory_to_be_sentenced_today/
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/flintshire-councillor-banned-bullying-disqualification-7127671
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/kingstonnews/11216830.Kingston_councillor_charged_with_benefit_fraud_will_face_polls_before_court/
http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Fraudster-councillor-Tiverton-forced-committees/story-21101893-detail/story.html
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/five-middlesbrough-councillors-resign-labour-7080454
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-liberal-councillor-steve-radford-7122909
0 -
You put up Nick Robinsons "entirely plausible account of these strange goings on" and even commented in your original post that it was "Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......", thus agreeing with the content. It doesn't mention that Natasha Bolter was sending Roger Bird texts that go against her version of events. I wonder why he's left that bit out? You decide.micks1950 said:
Put what words in what mouths (presumably yours).....?Big_Bad_World said:
Errrrrr, no. Nick Robinson's opinion is that of his own. The fact that he is a Tory just adds some bias towards his reporting. All journalists that have political leanings will be influenced to a certain degree by that political stance.micks1950 said:
I'm pleased to hear your opinion on 'media bias'.Big_Bad_World said:
You couldn't be any further from the truth. I can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end.micks1950 said:
It must be comforting to believe that anything you don't agree with (or don't want to hear) is part of some sort of 'agenda'.Big_Bad_World said:
Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?micks1950 said:Worth a read to understand what's been going on with UKIP's candidate selections......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383
Nick Robinson is no 'leftie'....
That kind of scuppers your assumption. Sorry about that.
Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible.
I was aware that Robinson was a tory (probably with a small 't' - i.e. not an active party member).
But now you suggest that Robinson's reporting is part of a Tory 'agenda' rather a BBC 'agenda' as you first posted (or are they both part of some grand conspiracy)......?
Robinson would not have reported as he did without good evidence that the 'leaking', 'counter-leaking' and sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past couple of weeks around UKIP candidate selections were coming from different factions within UKIP........
I love it when people put words in the mouths of others as it highlights their inability to draw any conclusion other than the one they want to draw.
Re the sexual harassment case, the woman in question has since been shown up to be a compulsive liar that was slightly besotted with the weird looking UKIP'er.
Carry on.
I posted Nick Robinson's report (without any comment of my own) as I thought it might help in understanding the strange spate of candidate withdrawals, resignations, leaks, counter-leaks and accusations of impropriety that have emerged from UKIP in the last couple of weeks.
You posted in response first:
“Yep, because the BBC hasn't got an agenda where UKIP are concerned, have they?”
and then later
“Nick Robinson is a Tory so it's in his and the Tory parties best interests to try and muddy the UKIP waters as much as possible”
You claim to be some sort of 'seeker after truth' who “can't stand media bias and their witch hunts regardless of which political party is on the receiving end”, yet you seem particularly desperate to dismiss Robinson's entirely plausible account of these strange goings on (which as I said he would not have reported without good evidence that it was all coming from different factions within UKIP fighting over candidate selections).
Are you sure you're quite as independent minded as you claim.....?
I'm extremely independent and proud of the fact. It means I can, I'd like to think, comment on most things without being prejudiced by the press or any affiliation to a political party. You're free to disagree with me. That's your right.
How do you know that Robinson 'wouldn't' report on anything that didn't have good evidence? Anything goes pre-election, and that goes for politically motivated journalists.
If you think otherwise then, again, that's right to do so. I just believe it to be somewhat naive.1 -
Nice to see the BBC are so inspective of UKIP candidate selections in seats they're probably not going to win. Would be nice to see them show the same level of scrutiny to Labour candidate selections in seats they are going to win, considering the dodgy behind-the-scenes goings-on with the unions trying to plant candidates and the scandalous amount of nepotism happening with candidates being related to the various dynasties in the party.1
