Blogs Coffee House

UKIP stand by their latest trouble man

25 April 2014

2:37 PM

25 April 2014

2:37 PM

More trouble for Ukip this morning: it seems that yet another party official has some colourful views about ‘people of color’. David Challice, who is understood to work at Ukip HQ, once suggested that ‘cash-strapped Moslems’ should have multiple wives.

In a bizarre newspaper advert placed in the Exeter Express and Echo in 2009, Challice said that he had found a ‘money spinner’ for ‘any cash-strapped Moslems’. He recommended that they should have ‘multiple wives in order to claim an extra £33.65 per wife in benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions’. An outcry followed, with Challice accused of racism. Challice later denied that the advert was racist; arguing that ‘…the mention of Islam and Muslems [sic] was strictly factual. Or are these complainants disputing that a Muslem [sic] can come to this country with a harem of wives, and claim state benefits for each of them?’

[Alt-Text]


Well, Mr S would point out that, even under Labour, cash-strapped monogamous British Muslims were never allowed to marry multiple wives in Britain in order to claim extra benefits. Furthermore, polygamous marriages conducted abroad by immigrants to Britain are no longer recognised by the coalition’s Universal Credit. But that’s all by the by, really.

Mr Steerpike’s attention has also been drawn to Challice’s book, The View From Here, which contains some singular views about the ‘vile’ Greeks:

‘The Greek driver seeing a dog in the road a hundred yards ahead will accelerate and do his damnedest to run it down for sport; a Turk will maintain his speed and course, and if the dog happens to be in the way, will run it over – the one is vile the other fatalistic.’

However, this quote is apparently from Brian Sewell and, as Ukip point out, is ‘attributed to Mr Sewell in the text’. Those looking to smear Challice need to try a little harder than that.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Liz

    Right, that’s it. Enough nonsense.

    Women need to take over Parliament and the press.

  • cartimandua

    There has just been a news item about a march in Brighton. The march “for ” England
    seems to have been peaceful but they were faced by 300 half wits who equate
    being for England with being racist.
    This has nothing to do with Ukip but it troubles me that the anti fascist thugs have managed to get so many dimbos to equate pride in the country with racism.

  • Owen_Morgan

    How surprising to find that UKip is staffed and supported exclusively by cretins.

    • starfish

      And the evidence for this is what?
      Oh, I forgot, bubble muppets (love that phrase) don’t have to prove anything – they can just say it and the BBC etc lap it up and report it on as ‘fact’

    • cartimandua

      You prefer oleaginous highly paid apparatchiks I suppose.

  • Raw England

    Check out Nick Cohen’s latest article.

    I’d be interested, Mr SteerPike, to know what you think of your Spectator colleague being a far-Left, intensely anti-England immigrant who wants people to attack UKIP members.

    • Denis_Cooper

      Link?

  • Denis_Cooper

    I’m looking forward to an incisive article on this kind of thing:

    http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=45223

    “This is a short-term consultancy contract until the end of May 2014, with an
    immediate start. Job share or part-time considered.

    Are you a social media enthusiast? Do you engage on a variety of different
    social channels? We’re looking for someone creative and dynamic that has a
    natural flair for social media engagement. You will work closely with
    International Alert’s Communications and Europe Teams, and be responsible for
    running a short-term social media campaign (#EUnify) to counter racist and
    xenophobic discourse in the UK in the run-up to the European elections.”

    Is it right that a website funded by the taxpayer should be advertising this job, to be part funded by the taxpayer, to try to influence how people vote in the elections?

    Now there’s something for journalists to get their teeth into.

  • Denis_Cooper

    According to this in July 2012:

    http://news.visato.com/england/uk-polygamous-immigrants-financial-benefits-will-increase/20120731/

    the move to Universal Credit may actually benefit polygamous immigrant households currently residing in the United Kingdom.

    “Conservative MP for Bedford and Kempston, Richard Fuller, had raised this subject in the Parliament earlier this month. Fuller said that although the consequence might benefit some polygamous households, as a whole the principle is worth it. “Most people will think it absurd that the benefit system currently recognizes polygamy,” said Fuller, “and ending this is one of the positive hopes from the introduction of Universal Credit. Only a few people are impacted by the change, but this sends a clear signal.”

    So Steerpike hasn’t even got that bit right.

  • ArchiePonsonby

    Roll up! Roll up! The Spectacularly Boring’s UKIP Smearathon part 94 starts HERE! Pathetic! Roll on next May!

  • Realpolitik

    Yeah, a bit insensitive; generally accepted that Christians are fair game, he should know Muslims are off limits.

    A few simpletons in UKIP still, I hope they weed them out over the next few weeks before the desperate media find them.

  • Lady Magdalene

    UKIP isn’t cowed by the demands from LibLabCON and the MSM to subscribe to their politically correct agenda.
    We believe in free speech and plain-speaking. We don’t silence people for speaking in a NON PC manner if what they say is perfectly acceptable.

    • Steve Cheney

      Um, you might want to tell that to David Coburn, who along with a few chums has spent much of the past couple of months trying to get anti-UKIP Twitter accounts suspended through mass reporting. That suggests a party with absolutely no commitment to free speech to me.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …well, that suggests you are a hyperbolic internet troll, to me.

        • starfish

          Strange
          I have been reading and posting on this site for years and I do not recall the over mighty Steve Cheney gracing us with his presence until very recently

  • Steve Cheney

    “Or are these complainants disputing that a Muslem [sic] can come to this country with a harem of wives, and claim state benefits for each of them?’”

    Um, yes, they are, because, um, no, they can’t.

    What is it with UKIP fans and asking rhetorical questions that they don’t actually know the answer to?

    • Denis_Cooper

      The article says:

      “Furthermore, polygamous marriages conducted abroad by immigrants to Britain are no longer recognised by the coalition’s Universal Credit.”

      But Challis’s remarks were made in 2009 and were about the position then, not about the position now.

      • Steve Cheney

        In 2009, Universal Credit didn’t exist. And as the article mentions:

        “even under Labour, cash-strapped monogamous British Muslims were never allowed to marry multiple wives in Britain in order to claim extra benefits.”

        Of course, if you are anything like the average pro-UKIP news article commenter, this won’t bother you, and you’ll continue to defend this loon purely because of his party affiliation and claim that he has been “smeared” even when no one is lying about anything he said.

        • Denis_Cooper

          Precisely.

          • Steve Cheney

            Oh, so you are happy to admit that you will support Challice, and declare anyone who disagrees with him to be “smearing” him, regardless of whether you know he’s wrong or not?

            • Denis_Cooper

              Now you’re descending into personal insinuations because I point out that the article specifically refers to the position under Universal Credit, which did not actually exist in 2009 when the comments were made?

              • Steve Cheney

                I guess I am just confused as to why you don’t either a) consider the possibility that Mr Challice was just wrong, or b) check for yourself. Trying to deduce whether or not he was right based on one paragraph of a blog seems kind of pointless when you have the vast resources of the Internet literally at your fingertips. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that you have spent far more time and keystrokes asking me to prove that the article says Mr Challice was wrong than it would have taken to just find out for yourself. It does suggest an unwillingness to let the discussion about whether he was right or wrong end if there is a chance that it will end the “wrong” way.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  You assert that what he said was incorrect at the time he said it, five years ago, so it’s up to you to prove it.

                • Steve Cheney

                  I would argue that it isn’t really. The fact that polygamy has never enjoyed legal status in the UK is not only pretty clear from the article – it says that it wasn’t legal under Labour, and the last Labour government was in power 1997-2010, which includes 2009 – but it’s also pretty common knowledge.

                  Nevertheless, for your benefit, here is the Wikipedia article that it would have taken you seconds to Google for, like, half an hour ago:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom

                  It clearly states, with multiple references, that polygamy is not legal in the UK, and that it has been officially illegal since 1861 (while also being broadly taboo before then).

                  Since spousal benefits would always require some indication that people are married, it is obvious that spousal benefits would not be available to someone claiming multiple wives.

                  The point about Universal Credit is that it is conceivable – although I have never heard anything about it – that there might have been some loophole that allowed it; however, since Universal Credit was not introduced until long after 2009, there is no possibility that Mr Challice was alluding to any such loophole.

                  So, that is completely resolved now. It is 100% certain that Mr Challice’s claims about Muslims – or anybody else practicing polygamy, but he only mentions Muslims – were untrue at the time that he made them, and for a good century or so before he made them.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  Apparently you missed this bit at the top of your own reference:

                  “Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are not recognized for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.[1] However, they may be recognized for the purposes of welfare benefits. This decision was not made without controversy, and there have been protests against it.[2]”

                • Steve Cheney

                  That’s interesting as far as it goes; however, I can’t find any evidence that it ever actually happened.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  I suggest that you simply retract everything you have said, and next time check the facts yourself before you start accusing others of inaccuracy.

                • Steve Cheney

                  I’m not going to retract everything. The fact that you refused to look this up yourself suggests that you absolutely didn’t care whether it was true or not. And I still contend that, since the only sources on this are the right-wing tabloids and one minor news source, it’s entirely possible that it wasn’t the case.

                  Mr Challice’s comments are still obnoxious, of course. As you will know, the majority of Muslims do not have multiple spouses. And as we have seen recently, it is very common for the right-wing to express fury and outrage about possible loopholes in the systems that are only ever exploited by them to prove how exploitable they are – from UKIP’s MEP expenses to Ross Slater’s abuse of food banks.

                  So I am curious: can you provide a credible – i.e. non-tabloid – source to indicate that multiple spouses *were* ever eligible for spousal benefits?

                • Denis_Cooper

                  My understanding was that in 2009 when the comments were made it was indeed possible to claim benefits for more than one wife by a polygamous marriage contracted in a country where that is legal, as confirmed by the wikipedia entry you yourself have kindly produced, and if that has changed with the introduction of Universal Credit that is a recent change and not relevant to the accuracy of what Challis said in 2009.

                  You said in your first comment:

                  “Um, yes, they are, because, um, no, they can’t”

                  and I asked you to prove that they couldn’t do so in 2009, as claimed by Challis, and you have not only failed to back up your own assertion you have produced a reference which contradicts it.

                  Of course you won’t retract anything, why should you when your only purpose is to smear UKIP?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Isn’t it time you disappeared now, lad? You’ve been exposed as a charlatan, and it’s rather unseemly that you continue on.

        • Denis_Cooper

          It is bad manners to edit a comment after somebody has made a reply, except perhaps to correct minor typographical errors and certainly not to insert two whole new paragraphs.

    • Conway

      They could until 2013. See previous links.

  • john king

    How many times does the entity “telemacus” have to be flagged before his offensive comments are removed?

    • Wessex Man

      oh don’t do that, I find them quite amusing.

  • The_Missing_Think

    This latest frenzy of attempted canon spiking, should backfire UKIP up past the 25% mark in GE polls.

    With UKIP overtaking the melting Dali watch Tories, by autumn at the latest.

  • Raw England

    These UKIP people, who’re being stalked by the far Left and their immigrant allies, are saying what most English think.

    The fact these insignificant things are even highlighted shows we’re no longer in control of our own country.

    • you_kid

      That’s right – those builder tweets were difficult to decipher and riddled with grammatical errors. What did they say? I couldn’t understand a word, me.

      • Raw England

        Wait, what?

        • you_kid

          Would you be so kind to repeat those hard hatted tweets here. In your own words – so the likes of me can understand them. Please?

          • Raw England

            There’s nothing about builders or tweets in the article :(

            • you_kid

              Do excuse, your free speech jibe inspired me to make these comments.

              I was just combing and combing and then found these tweets of this builder with a hard hat, you know, a clever guy me thinks, but I just could not understnad what he was on about. Can you help? In your own words? Please?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Certainly. He was saying that you are an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter, of the envirowhacko persuasion. Hope that helps.

                • you_kid

                  just like your ‘elite’ then?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …what are you blathering about now, lad?

    • Steve Cheney

      Um, “free speech” has never meant immunity from criticism. In this case, Mr Challice made a completely false claim about benefit entitlement. We don’t know if it was out of ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead people; either way, merely pointing out that what he said was factually wrong is not an attack on free speech, but participation in the “debate” that UKIP claim to want to be part of.

      Of course, if you think that “being in control of your own country and language” means being able to say whatever you want, without any criticism, no matter how wrong and insulting what you say is, then you don’t believe in free speech – you believe that other people should be silenced just so that a handful of people won’t be criticised.

      • Denis_Cooper

        But was it factually wrong at the time he made the claim?

        Which as you may have noticed has been dredged up from 2009.

        • Steve Cheney

          Are you asking that question rhetorically?

          To the best of my knowledge, the UK has never acknowledged polygamous marriages, so someone claiming multiple wives would never have been eligible for spousal benefits.

          Do you have some credible source suggesting otherwise?

          • Denis_Cooper

            No, I am not asking a rhetorical question, I am expecting an answer.

            The article says:

            “Furthermore, polygamous marriages conducted abroad by immigrants to Britain are no longer recognised by the coalition’s Universal Credit.”

            Why do you think that the author chose to put it like that?

            He could just have said:

            “Furthermore, polygamous marriages conducted abroad by immigrants to Britain have never been recognised by the benefit system”.

            • Steve Cheney

              Denis, here is the paragraph that your quote comes from:

              “Well, Mr S would point out that, even under Labour, cash-strapped monogamous British Muslims were never allowed to marry multiple wives in Britain in order to claim extra benefits. Furthermore, polygamous marriages conducted abroad by immigrants to Britain are no longer recognised by the coalition’s Universal Credit. But that’s all by the by, really.”

              It’s pretty clear that the concerns you are raising about the wording of the second sentence are answered by the first.

              Honestly, I’m impressed if you managed to read and then copy-paste the sentence you quoted above, without even glancing over the one that preceded it.

              Either way, it is kind of facile to pontificate over whether the author’s words can be interpreted as implying that polygamous relationships might have had legal status at some point. Even if the author’s words are ambiguous, he is not the only source we have available to us.

              I am as near to 100% certain as I can be that polygamous relationships have not had legal status in this country within living memory. If polygamous relationships aren’t legally recognised, then obviously no one could claim benefits for multiple spouses without defrauding the system.

              • Denis_Cooper

                What impresses me is the way that you can read those two sentences but deliberately not see that they refer to two different scenarios.

                a) Polygamous marriages contracted in this country, which have been and still are illegal whether or not there is any attempt to claim benefits.

                b) Polygamous marriages contracted abroad where they are legal, but which “are NO LONGER recognised by the coalition’s Universal Credit”.

                Why do you think the author chose to say that they are “no longer” recognised by the new “Universal Credit”?

                You’re the one asserting that it has never been the case that multiple wives through marriages legally contracted in another country are eligible for any benefits, so prove it.

                • Steve Cheney

                  “Why do you think the author chose to say that they are “no longer” recognised by the new “Universal Credit”? ”

                  I have no idea. Why are you using that turn of phrase to try and assert that something might be true, when you could very easily check whether it is? I know you think that it’s on me to prove it, but you could have looked it up for yourself a hundred times over. The fact that you haven’t suggests that your support for Mr Challice has nothing to do with what is actually true – you seem only interested in seeing if I personally can be bothered prove it.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  You have repeatedly asserted that it can’t be a “smear” because the accusation made against Challice is true, now by your own reference it turns out that his claim was not incorrect.

                • Steve Cheney

                  “You have repeatedly asserted that it can’t be a “smear” because the accusation made against Challice is true”

                  The only “accusation” made was that he wrote the things that he wrote. Therefore, he is not being smeared.

                  Maybe you are confused: maybe you think that as long as his comments have some shred of truth to them, they are perfectly fine. After all, I have often observed that UKIP fans do not understand why people find the things that their members say offensive.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  I suggest you go back and re-read your first comment, and do so without first changing it.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You seem to have been exposed here, lad.

                  It’s quite amusing.

                • Alexandrovich

                  If I told you that I ‘no longer smoke’, would it be reasonable to assume that I once did?
                  Stop being obtuse.

          • Conway
      • Colonel Mustard

        ‘Criticism” – that’s what you call it is it.

        • Steve Cheney

          Pointing out that something someone said – e.g. that polygamous marriages are recognised legally and allow multiple spousal benefits to be claimed – is factually inaccurate is indeed “criticism”. I’m not sure what else you would call it.

          • Colonel Mustard

            “”free speech” has never meant immunity from criticism.”

            Currently the ‘wrong’ type of “free speech” attracts more than criticism.

            • Steve Cheney

              It’s true that very unpopular opinions that make people angry attract insults and derision as well as criticism.

              But then, that is a direct consequence of freedom of speech. If people are free to say what they want, then very unpopular opinions will be criticised more than more popular ones.

              I mean, maybe you think that some free speech should be banned, so that all opinions, popular or unpopular, are equally criticised. But if you believe in the free market, you should be perfectly happy to accept that unpopular opinions will be criticised more – and more harshly, if they make people angry – than popular ones.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Yes, I know the game. It was played out under Steyn’s article.

                • Steve Cheney

                  Then I am unclear about what you are complaining.

                  If “the wrong kind of free speech” is simply the kind that people disagree with, then freedom of speech means that nobody has any right to demand that it not be criticised. Indeed, people are free to just state their disagreement and throw insults around too, if they wish, and if they are happy to put up with the consequences.

                  Being disagreed with isn’t unfair. That’s the bottom line. If your views happen to also be based on completely untrue claims, then being disagreed with is kind of inevitable.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …but as we see above, the claims were not untrue at the time, and you haven’t demonstrated otherwise.

                • Wessex Man

                  in that case then i disagree with everything you’ve written!

          • Conway

            Until 2013 when changes were made to Tax Credits, polygamous marriages were recognised and benefits were available for more than one wife: “http://news.visato.com/england/uk-polygamous-immigrants-financial-benefits-will-increase/20120731/”

            • the viceroy’s gin

              I think our little chicken has flown the coop.

              Nice research on the polygamy. Thanks.

  • George McCarthy

    Another idiot who doesn’t know the difference between race and religion?

  • anyfool

    He is only saying what most people think, but are afraid to say, also why are they allowed to import multiple wives from abroad regardless of whether they claim benefits for them, even the nonsense about not being allowed to claim money for them is a red herring, they are allowed to claim for themselves, it still goes into the household pot whether the house is supposedly split up into flats? or any other form of multiple dwelling.

  • JoeDM

    More LibLabCon establishment smears.

    It just makes me more determined to vote UKIP !!!!

    • Denis_Cooper

      Would that be that a straight 0 on the Faux Outrage Scale, as devised by the eminent French psychologist M Faux?

    • Steve Cheney

      Why do so many UKIP fans not know what “smear” means?

      If it’s factually accurate, it’s not a smear. In this case, Mr Challice’s comments about “Moselems” and benefit entitlement were factually untrue; so if anything, he was the one guilty of “smearing” people.

      You can vote for whoever you like, but you shouldn’t lie about journalists.

      • Denis_Cooper

        Are you sure that his comments were untrue in 2009, when he made them?

        • Steve Cheney

          Yes. And the article clarifies that fact as well.

          • Denis_Cooper

            Where does it clarify that?

            • Steve Cheney

              (For anyone reading this, I’ve answered this question further up the comments.)

              • Denis_Cooper

                No, you haven’t.

                • Steve Cheney

                  Yes I have. The fact that you continually reject the answer does not mean that it has not been given to you.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  No answer has been given.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Cite where it is above, lad. Otherwise, we’ll have to assume you’re making another false statement.

      • Sapporo

        I’d say digging up remarks from 6 years ago, taking them out of context to fit an agenda of demonising a particular political party, whilst not doing the same to other parties, before a significant election, where the new party is set to usurp the establishment politicians, was a smear campaign.

        • Steve Cheney

          Maybe you would say that. But that just suggests that you don’t know what a smear campaign is.

          For something to be a smear, it has to be untrue. If it’s not untrue, it’s not a smear. And this is hardly the first time that reporting of UKIP’s conduct – recent or historic – has been declared to be a “smear” by UKIP supporters who do not know what the word means.

          • Sapporo

            Yawn…semantics.

            • Steve Cheney

              I would say that the difference between accusing someone of lying and accusing someone of saying something that you don’t like is a bit more than just “semantics”.

              For example, if someone lies about you, you could potentially sue them and win; if someone says something true about you that you don’t like, and you try to sue them for it, you’d probably lose.

              The difference between lying and telling the truth is not trivial.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …you seem to be proving that in this discussion, lad.

          • Penny

            No – as a one-time local politician I can tell you that your definition of a smear campaign is wide of the mark.

            A smear campaign isn’t pointing out a lack of truthfulness on the part of the opposition. That is a perfectly legitimate and correct thing to do and is done all the time. The public certainly have a right to know if a) a party has lied b) a proposed policy is flawed c) if a party has previously said it will do something in its past manifesto that it very clearly did not do.

            A clean and positive campaign is when a party not only does all of the above but – more importantly – sets out its own stall.

            A dirty campaign – a smear campaign – is when a party focuses not on a), b) and c) (above), or on setting out its own stall, but places the emphasis on continually attempting to discredit the opposition party itself (as opposed to its policies). It very often finds a key theme and pushes it endlessly.

            The party to which I was elected was, one year, the subject of a smear campaign – and the public really didn’t like it. Negativity doesn’t play well in any scenario and it’s true of politics, too. As one resident said to me during that particular campaign “Well – I know what X thinks of you – but I’ve no idea what they’re going to do for us!”

            That resident’s words sum up the current state of play. Much of the media is so focused on attacking UKIP (not for its policies, mind, but for itself) that it is not setting out the ConLabLib stalls. The electorate will, therefore, know what the three main party’s journalists, supporters and MSM think of UKIP – but they may well know rather less about their views on our membership of the EU. Hopefully, you will be able to see how this can backfire for ConLabLib.

            • Penny

              One further point: a clean campaign does not attack ordinary voters. It does not accuse them or disparage them. That is a huge mistake. You win by stating the merits of your policies and by the points I’ve made above. You address concerns.

              I’m afraid this is not the case in this EU election campaign. UKIP voters have been branded as racists, loonies, swivel-eyed, bone-headed. You might like to take a look at Dan Hodge’s article in the Telegraph. It’s astonishing given his past political activism. He should know better.

        • Wessex Man

          of course it’s a smear campaign and it will go on till the 2015 General Elections, the discredited Westminster Village just can’t get it into their heads that the great British Public have seen through them. Every trick that they come up with seems to backfire on them and they still don’t get it.

      • Denis_Cooper

        “Mr Challice’s comments about “Moselems” and benefit entitlement were factually untrue”

        No, they were factually true at the time he made them.

    • Ooh!MePurse!

      More determined? More determined than when? Nobody will force you not to vote for them. How can you possibly be more determined to do something as simple as putting a cross on a ballot paper?

      • Steve Cheney

        It’s another UKIP supporter comment meme; everything the press says makes these people “more determined to vote UKIP”. Given how fanatical their devotion to the party tends to be, it’s kind of meaningless.

        I have to say, the fact that pro-UKIP commenters use these same few stock phrases – see also “running scared”, “EUSSR” and “Lib/Lab/Con” – does kind of create the impression that there might only be about ten of them with lots of different accounts.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …we’ll know soon enough, won’t we, lad?

          You seem terrified by those ten, though.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “Those looking to smear Challice need to try a little harder than that.”

    And those looking to smear UKIP need to try a little harder than this.

    The Spectator did not allow comments on the earlier article by this author, and nor did the Telegraph allow comments on its article on the same subject; but the Daily Mail did allow comments and the mid-point of those comments seems to be at about 2 on the Faux Outrage Scale of 1 – 10.

  • jamesbarn

    § Even After a week of relentless smears by the Media the UKIP bandwagon is still on track. These are the results of the only 2 local elections that UKIP contested yesterday and they had never contested either one before yet managed to get 30% and 15% from a standing start

    Goodby Cameron

    East Cambridgeshire DC, Sutton
    April 24, 2014
    LD Lorna Dupre 523 (50.9%; +27%)
    Conservative 280 (27.2%; -19.2%)
    UKIP 162 (15.8%; +15.8%)
    Labour 63 (6.1%; -23.6%)
    Majority 243
    Turnout 33.1%

    East Lindsey DC, Horncastle
    April 24, 2014
    Conservative 432 (38.4%; +10.3%)
    Independent 353 (31.4%; +13.1%)
    UKIP 339 (30.2%; +30.2%)
    [Liberal Democrat 0.0; -26.7%]
    [Labour 0.0; -9.2%]
    Majority 79
    Turnout 20.8%
    Conservative hold
    Percentage change is since 2011

    Don’t worry Nigel the LIBLABCON and the Media are in total panic mode and don’t know how to stop us.

    • HookesLaw

      So it was not a foreign born kipper canidate who made racist comments then? It was not UKIP who empployed an Irish actor to play an out of work Briton?
      You are just another kipper cultist who thinks the sun shines from Farage’s backside.

      • Sapporo

        I’m sure if UKIP had the funds to employ a full-time team analysing the social media contributions of the members of LibLabCon they too would find similar comments. But, hey they don’t get £ms from the EU to fund their campaigns. They don’t have their placemen all over the media and they have not stolen the database of other party memberships. You see, many of us used to be activists for other parties, and we know that many members of the Tories and Labour hold distasteful views.

        • Steve Cheney

          Are you implying that the only reason that UKIP members’ past conduct and expressed views come to light is because the major parties are paying people to look for them?

          I think you give them too much credit.

          The truth is that UKIP are very unpopular with the majority of the British public, and some people like to spread the word about them because the media has, until recently, been giving them an insanely easy ride and disproportionate exposure.

          I’m sure that if the major parties were willing to stump up wages for those people, they might take them; but the idea that they MUST be being paid to dig up the dirt on UKIP kind of ignores the fact that lots of people are involved in politics and activism for free, because they care about things.

          • Denis_Cooper

            If he is implying that, he may have good reasons for doing so.

            • Steve Cheney

              He may. He may also be hugely in denial about how unpopular UKIP are, like so many of their supporters seem to be.

              I don’t know, I assume you’ve heard of Occam’s razor. It’s generally considered fallacious to assume the existence of additional entities in a situation without evidence. In a similar way, it’s generally not wise to declare that people who disagree with you on the Internet MUST be getting paid to do so.

              Even on matters of objective truth – e.g. “light travels faster than sound” – you will find some disagreement, and it seems to me that the assumption that anti-UKIP sentiment is all paid for by the major parties is being based on a very small number of users – compared to a disproportionate number of pro-UKIP users.

              • Denis_Cooper

                I assume you’ve heard of Roger Helmer.

                http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/

                “While UKIP looks to the future of our country, I’m told that both Labour and Conservative parties have teams dedicated to digging dirt on UKIP. The Times has been phoning up far-flung UKIP staffers and asking questions about non-incidents from years ago. I’m told that the paper has more mud ready to throw. Listen up for the sound of barrels being scraped. The Thunderer has become the Blunderer.”

                • Steve Cheney

                  Well, I am aware of Roger Helmer – and I am aware that he has said some truly disgusting things in the past, so it doesn’t surprise me that he chooses to deride journalism that might remind people of those things as “mudslinging”.

                  However, since Helmer’s source is “I’m told that…”, I’m not sure how credible it is. It is obviously in UKIP’s interests to claim that any scrutiny it comes under is a “smear campaign” – regardless of whether what is said is true – and to dismiss their critics as part of some organised attack.

                  None of that means that individual commenters on a message board can reasonably be assumed to be being paid to criticise UKIP though, and I will mention again that since the party is not popular with the British people, it would be fairly likely that the majority of comments about UKIP would be opposed to them rather than supportive of them. If you scan down these comments, you will see the vast majority of users supporting UKIP; I would think that that would be a lot more suspicious than the few opposing, given the polling figures.

                • Denis_Cooper

                  I’d be more inclined to believe Helmer than you.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Why would you think it suspicious that “the vast majority of users (here are) supporting UKIP” ?

                  And why would you think it unlikely that other political parties would be paying cash to dig up dirt on UKIP ?

                  Either you are very naive or you’re simply disingenuous.

                • Wessex Man

                  He’s probably from the Lib/Dem “UKip wrokshop” team who are being urged to try and insert the three words-populist, racists and xenophobes in their letters to regional and local Press letters pages to discredit Ukip as often as possible. If these people were to put as much effort into doorstepping at elections they might manage to drag themselves out of last place in the last few elections.

                • Penny

                  Coming under scrutiny certainly isn’t a smear campaign in and of itself. It’s quite legitimate to scrutinise a party’s manifesto, its actions and its players. But this isn’t exactly what is happening here.

                  There is almost no media scrutiny of UKIP’s EU policies or its arguments for withdrawing our membership. Where are the articles outlining the arguments for the Conservative proposal for reform and referendum? Or Labour’s position of “no referendum”? We have some idea about the LibDems because of the Farage / Clegg debate – but Clegg performed poorly so more needs to be discussed. This is the entire underpinning of an election: to scrutinise the policies of a party. decide whether or not you think they are right and cast your vote accordingly. No one in their right mind votes for a party based only on whether the leader employs his wife; whether a girl in a poster is a party member, whether poor remarks were made by some supporters – and so on. The policies are the bread-and-butter of the elections. Where are they?

                  What the media is doing instead is taking a label – “racist” and plugging it endlessly in the hope it will brand and intimidate voters. This is wrong on several levels – not least the hypocritical. UKIP is a new party. It is said to be attracting voters from the three main parties. Therefore, it stands to reason that if these voters are truly racist, the three main parties must stand accused of having had racist members and voters themselves. Furthermore, the only reason to plug the “racist” slur is to reduce the UKIP vote. A vote they hope to gain themselves – meaning they want the “racists” back in their ranks!

                  And there are racists in every party. There are people who make awful remarks, too. Google “councillor suspended” and you’ll come up with a few examples. No party has a hope of knowing how many racists, homophobes, conspiracy theorists or loons vote for them. To suggest they all reside in, or are attracted to. UKIP alone is utter nonsense.

                  This is a poor state of affairs. You cannot disparage and accuse people like this. Instead, you should be able to convince them based on the merits of your argument.

              • Conway

                It’s surprising, if UKIP is so unpopular, that I haven’t come across it when leafleting or campaigning. Responses have been very positive.

                • Steve Cheney

                  Presumably you aren’t sent to campaign in areas where UKIP haven’t got a prayer. They send Farage to those places.

                  Seriously though, you can deny the polls with your anecdotal experience all you like, but it’s still a fact that the majority of people aren’t going to vote UKIP, and a good half of people have ruled out ever voting for them. They might not actively slam the door in your face, but that’s just because British people are polite.

                • Conway

                  I’m not “sent” to campaign anywhere. I choose to do it of my own free will in the town where I live. Oddly enough the people I hear who have ruled out voting for a party are Lib Dems who won’t vote LD again. Until we actually count the votes, my anecdotal experience is on a par with your “facts”.

      • Wessex Man

        better than dodgy Dave’s Hooky baby is that why so much sour dough spews from your lips?

      • Cyril Sneer

        Oh the shock horror – they used an actor who just happened to be Irish, to play a Brit – for a photo. Utter desperation by you lot and again all this detracts from the point made on the poster.

    • telemachus

      Sad to hear that 30% of the folk of East Lindsey are racist

      • Wessex Man

        you poor dear.

    • Steve Cheney

      Why do UKIP supporters have so much trouble speaking the English language?

      Smearing someone means telling lies about them, and yet time and again I see UKIP supporters insisting that provably factual claims about the party and its members are “smears”.

      The simple fact is, factually accurate reporting of UKIP’s conduct makes UKIP look bad to the vast majority of British people. That doesn’t mean UKIP are being “smeared”; it just means that people dislike them for what they do. That is why they are doing so badly in the polls despite blanket disproportionate coverage from the media for the past few years, and why they have succeeded in making staying in the EU significantly more popular than it was before Farage and co became household names.

      • Ooh!MePurse!

        Well put.

        • Penny

          But wrong. Steve isn’t up to speed on the tactics of a smear campaign.

          • Ooh!MePurse!

            Disagree. Ukip don’t like being treated like the big boys, it’s so unfair. That big old nasty liblabcon is out to get them. Doesn’t matter though as everyone in the whole world is even more determined to vote Ukip and it’s got to be true because Big Trev down the Red Lion said that his missus said that all of her friends said that they’re probably going to vote for them, as long as it’s not a wash day and provided that they get their step scrubbed on time.

            • Penny

              You disagree on what? The definition of a smear campaign?

      • Bill_der_Berg

        I hesitate to disagree with the authorised spokesperson for the vast majority of the British people, but I think that your ‘simple fact’ may be the product of wishful thinking. You might be interested in this extract from an article in the Guardian.

        “The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain. Dismissing seven out of every 10 voters as racist is not a clever way of fighting a radical right populist. On the contrary it risks reinforcing the perception that a London-based, university-educated and financially secure elite has no understanding of the lives of ordinary, struggling voters, and dismisses their anxieties as bigotry”

        • Steve Cheney

          Thing is, your quote kind of illustrates my point: if we accept the claim that 70% of people may agree with the very broad and vague thrust of one thing UKIP have said, that just suggests that UKIP have had to work harder to put those people off voting for them. After all, not even the most staunchly pro-UKIP polls put them at over 20% of the vote.

          That said, I would seriously dispute the claim made that accusing people who appeal to common prejudice and xenophobia of racism (which, okay, may be mild hyperbole, but significantly less so than, say, accusing anyone who doesn’t support UKIP of being a communist, which I’ve experienced more than once) creates the impression of being “a London-based, university-educated and financially secure elite”. After all, some of the most vociferous opposition to UKIP comes from the North of England, where unemployment is far higher than it is in London.

          It has been my experience that staunch UKIP voters will dismiss ANY criticism of their party in that way, whether it refers to racism or not; you only need hop over to the Telegraph to see UKIP fans jumping the gun and declaring “anti-racist is anti-white”. Then again, I haven’t seen that many white working class unemployed salt-of-the-earth British types reading the Spectator or the Telegraph lately either!

          My reading of UKIP’s rhetoric on employment is that it is mainly aimed at people who are either financially secure in reasonably well-paying jobs, or who have retired – which would square with the demographic of UKIP’s supporters, who tend to be older and live in affluent areas.

          (Here’s my source, btw – I don’t like the Mail much but the stats – if not the presentation of them – seem to be accurate enough: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572187/The-secrets-ballot-box-Tories-earn-Labour-voters-rent-home-Lib-Dems-better-educated-Ukip-voters-white-retired.html )

          Point being, when UKIP talks about white working class low income workers in unstable employment – i.e. the group that I fit into – it isn’t talking TO us. It is talking to people our parents’ and grandparents’ age, whose experience of the job market is largely vicarious. So their message is not “EU migrants are stealing your job”, but “EU migrants are stealing YOUR CHILDREN’S jobs”. And that’s a very different line. After all, anyone applying for jobs week in and week out can look at their own life, see that they actually have no idea who they are competing for jobs with or why Person X got a job over them, and recognise UKIP’s rhetoric as spurious, appealing to their sense of entitlement in a bid to turn them against people who are in basically the same position they are. We get enough of that from the DWP and the Mail to recognise that it’s about the least “anti-establishment” thing anyone can say.

          Whereas, if you are the father or grandfather of someone like me, there’s a good chance that you haven’t had to look for work for decades; possibly, it was before the introduction of the minimum wage; possibly it was before people applied for jobs online, when you were physically standing in a queue behind other applicants waiting to hand your CV in. I say this because arguments like “immigrants will work for less wages” are rooted that far into the past. The job market isn’t like that anymore; the minimum wage means that wages can only be “driven down” so far, but more importantly, employers set wages, not employees. Honestly, I’m not sure if the latter was ever NOT the case, but certainly it’s been a long time since anyone was in a position to say “I’ll work for less if you’ll give me the job”.

          That last part is important though. To believe that people competing with you for a job would beg for lower wages just to have the chance to work, you have to imagine them as being completely different from normal people in terms of their motivation. And that’s where the xenophobia and racism comes into play, because it’s a lot easier to characterise a whole group of people as different enough that they’d take a job on a pittance just to deprive YOU of what YOU are entitled to if those people also happen to look a bit different, or have funny names or whatever.

          But yeah, long ramble short: this is why I think that UKIP’s rhetoric on employment is aimed at older people, and why it does not really reflect how people who are looking for work in the UK actually experience the world. And that, in turn, is why UKIP struggles to capture their vote, but *can* get the votes of people who know them and care for them. I just wish more people would ask their kids whether they want them to vote for Farage for the sake of their future before committing to doing so, as most of us really don’t want you to.

          • Bill_der_Berg

            The pro-EU crowd have played the race card, the ‘Party of Putin’ card, the ‘Little Englander’ card and the anti gay-marriage card, without any noticeable success. New tactics are needed.

            Meanwhile, we have to look elsewhere for serious debate about the pro’s and con’s of EU membership.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …so you skulked back in here, after being caught out in a blatant lie, eh lad?

      • starfish

        in my dictionary smearing: “damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations”
        Anyone proved any of these allegations?
        Anyone placed these alleged comments in context? For example with reference to the numbers of main stream party members and MPs that have actually gone to jail?
        Anyone making a concerted attempt to look at similarly embarrassing social media comments from members of the other parties?(Other than Guido)
        Unbalanced reporting without context in an attempt to influence the electorate seems to meet the definition

    • Ooh!MePurse!

      Is that the best they can do? 100℅ failure rate.

  • Sapporo

    No coverage in the media of the threatening letters sent out to UKIP members in the past week from anonymous sources. Someone has accessed UKIP’s database and spent £thousands on print and postage. Who is paying for this? Then, suddenly a UKIP clone party has appeared on the voting slip, to deliberately confuse voters and dilute their vote. Who is paying for this? The MSM is deliberately collaborating with the established political parties to smear the newcomer. What has happened to democracy in Britain?

    • telemachus

      Voting for Ukip is democracy in the same way that voting for the National Socialists in Germany in 1933 was
      They are preparing enabling acts as we speak

      • Sapporo

        You spent a long time typing that illegible nonsense.

        • telemachus

          Well considered Bon mots

          • Sapporo

            I hope you appreciate the irony of smearing a Libertarian party, currently suffering a fascist like onslaught (physical attacks, vandalised offices and posters, threatening letters, public meetings disrupted, constant attacks from a supposed free media), as fascist. But, I doubt you possess the freedom of thought to realise this.

            • telemachus

              If you are correct then it is their just deserts

              • Sapporo

                Aah. Words of a fascist.

                • Andy

                  Let you into a secret: telemachus IS a Fascist. He works for the Fascist Labour Party, which should be a proscribed organisation like the National Socialist Party in Germany.

                • Bill_der_Berg

                  The Labour Party fascist? The party of Tony Blair, the man who saved us from the clutches of Saddam, the new Hitler? How quickly people have forgotten that we were only 45 minutes away from disaster.

                • Andy

                  Socialism = Fascism. Fascism = Socialism.

                • Wessex Man

                  I shouldn’t worry too much about the valiant detractors of UKip, one of our BANES members went to to check the ‘comedy’ roadshow that’s ‘Stop the UKip’ to see what it’s all about.

                  She was one of eighteen people in a capacity room and no one laughed. You couldn’t make it up!

                • Cyril Sneer

                  @telemachus

                  Having sand for pudding?

              • The_Missing_Think

                Spew it out daddy-O, feel that 1960’s lurve vibe.

          • Denis_Cooper

            Do you mean the Labour MP, and close colleague of Ramsay MacDonald, and committed member of the Fabian Society, Sir Oswald Mosley?

            Are you a member of the Fabian Society, like him?

            • telemachus

              The Black Shirt
              *
              By the way did you clock Farage’s brown shirt on Wednesday

              • Denis_Cooper

                Answer the question.

                Are you a member of the Fabian Society, like Mosley?

                • Wessex Man

                  You won’t get an answer from him, he still won’t tell me where he stood for UKip for Parliament then left after he became so so disillusioned!

              • Bill_der_Berg

                It is rumoured that Cameron is wearing brown trousers.

      • Wessex Man

        You must have been really really upset with someone in Ukip when you were a member tele boy.

      • Denis_Cooper

        “They are preparing enabling acts as we speak”

        Nope, they’re much more interested in repealing an enabling act, the European Communities Act 1972.

        • telemachus

          Farage already has the approval of the party executive for the Fire Decree

          • Denis_Cooper

            My comment went above your head, didn’t it?

            • Colonel Mustard

              Hard to believe given how big his head is.

            • telemachus

              I noted incitement which I chose to ignore

              • Sapporo

                Rather you only engage the weak links.

        • Steve Cheney

          If Farage was interested in pulling Britain out of the EU, he wouldn’t be wasting so much of the party’s resources on the European elections – since no amount of UKIP MEPs will ever be able to take Britain out of the EU.

          I contend, as others do, that UKIP’s main interest is in getting members into European parliamentary seats so that they can funnel as much public money into their own coffer as they can without having to actually do any work.

          • Denis_Cooper
            • Steve Cheney

              Can you not just give me the gist of it?

          • Conway

            The European elections are a dress rehearsal for the General Election. Once people are emboldened to put their X against UKIP it will be easier next time.

          • blingmun

            “UKIP’s main interest is in getting members into European parliamentary seats so that they can funnel as much public money into their own coffer as they can without having to actually do any work.”

            That’s the reason all parties get involved with Brussels isn’t it, to get on the gravy train?

      • saffrin

        Labour is the party that put CCTV on every street corner.
        Labour was the party that sent British troops to unlawful war.
        If any party in the UK resembles that of Hitler’s, it is the Labour Party you support.
        Labour’s thirteen years of war, descrimination and hate campaigns will be remembered.

      • Realpolitik

        BUT YOU ARE A SOCIALIST. And apparently a fascist seen as you want to crush democracy.

  • WatTylersGhost

    Someone please remind me where Coulson, the Tory’s ex publicity lad is today. Ah yes, that would be in the dock.

    • telemachus

      Coulson was a Ukip plant from the start

  • starfish

    The establishment smear campaign continues

    • telemachus

      Absolutely
      I am fully sympathetic to any cash strapped individual in Osborne’s society
      And given the discrimination against the Muslims they need every help we can give

      • dmitri the impostor

        telemachus – to coin an old Australian accolade, you are so stupid you couldn’t pour p1ss out of a shoe if the instructions were written on the heel.

        • telemachus

          But I can recognise racists and Islamophobes when I see them

          • Sapporo

            Move away from the mirror.

            • Andy

              The mirror cracked from side to side, the curse is come upon cried telemachus !

          • Colonel Mustard

            You couldn’t recognise a barn door at two feet even if you extracted your big fat head from Ed Balls backside.

            • telemachus

              Ed has more integrity in his little toe than Farage could scrape together for a whole year before the General Election to dupe the voters that he does not have sinister intent
              *
              I am astonished that apparently intelligent people are taken in by this man

              • Colonel Mustard

                I’m not astonished that you are taken in by him because you are not even ‘apparently’ intelligent.

                • telemachus

                  The one thing I give Farage is that he makes you smile
                  *
                  Before he turns your stomach
                  *
                  Ed makes you smile and then take away a warm glow because you know he will make things better

                • Sapporo

                  I think you need help and need to get out. Its not healthy to spend all day trolling forums and masturbating.

                • Realpolitik

                  READ IT TELEMACHUS!

                  1. they start taxing at £6,500…….. compared to the coalition’s £10,500..if they represented the working man why tax low-paid workers so harshly forcing them onto benefits as they are better off on them?????)

                  2. they didn’t regulate the banks in 13 years. (Blair now a banker worth upwards of 60 MILLION- and he started the new labour movement…..) Google “Peter Mandelson on yacht with Nat Rothschild” “Google Brown at Bilderberg” etc.

                  3. more tax has been paid by top earners EVERY year under the coalition than ANY under labour.

                  4. They want to increase debt BY £3,200 per person

                  5. spend 11.6% more than they take in tax.

                  6. they destroyed our economy. Labour presided over the slowest growth in 50 years, they produced the fastest decline in British manufacturing since manufacturing began, they left us mired in the longest recession since the war, they bequeathed maybe the largest deficit in peacetime history, and they handed over a debt so huge we will still be repaying it when the earth is swallowed by an expanding sun, a cosmological termination which might therefore come as some relief.

                  7. they want to continue to send 57million a day to the EU

                  8. they want higher immigration (last time allowed the biggest mass immigration into the United Kingdom in our nation’s history: three million people, possibly more than entered these island in the preceding 1,000 years combined.)

                  9. they have destroyed the NHS in Wales (where they are currently in power, why wouldn’t they do it here too?????- the coalition have ring-fenced our NHS budget so they CAN’T cut it, but labour will.) Our last labour government blew £250,000,000 on private surgery because their NHS was so bad1,200 died in Mid-Staffordshire Hospital alone, that’s more than died in Mid-Staffordshire during the Black Death.
                  along with their gagging orders on whistle blowers within the NHS

                  10. they raid the pensions.

                  11. Iraq+Afghanistan.

                  12.They sold off 400 tons of UK gold reserves and invested the money in euros, compare the change in the value of gold to the change in the value of the euro in recent years if you have some free time.

                  13. run by the unions

                  14. They bloated the welfare budget.

                  15. They didn’t keep up with house building when demand rocketed, allowing house prices to triple

                  16. They failed to build a lot of necessary infrastructure such as power stations.

                  17. they didn’t invest in infrastructure (despite borrowing 1 trillion and taking 13 years of tax) Well, yes: they built the Millennium Dome. It’s easy to forget the Millennium Dome, because, after all, who would want to remember it, but this thing burned up 800 million pounds, was maybe the greatest marketing flop in recorded time, and it turned out to be a great big dirty tent where queueing families could pay £60, just to look at uplifting representations of litter.

                  18. They continually increased fuel duty by over 107%, harming motorists.

                  19. They signed the Lisbon treaty, giving vast amounts of power to the EU and going against their own manifesto in with they specifically said they would give the people a referendum.

                  20. Allowing rich people to buy peerages.

                  21. Started HS2

                  22. They left us with the largest budget deficit in the G20 relative to GDP.

                  23.They lumbered the NHS with vast PFI repayments which are coming out of Foundation trusts and straight into the pockets of the private sector. £50 Billion’s worth of loans which are costing us £300 Billion in repayments-genius!…….

                  24. Housing waiting lists DOUBLED under Labour

                  25. Europe. labour’s biggest achievement in Europe was to give away half our precious rebate, won by Thatcher, at a cost to you and me of £9 billion so far – and in return they got precisely nothing, unless you count a chortling, after-dinner promise from Jacques Chirac, that he’d make Tony Blair President of the EU, which he didn’t. A small mercy.

                  26. Education. ensuring English youngsters are amongst the worst educated in the western world, and closing the grammar schools preventing the poor from achieving.

                  27. giving everyones personal information to america

                  28.google “labour MP wants muslim prime minister”

                  29. they can’t even run their party finances ( lost 2 million recently in banking)

                  30. The party is almost identical to the previous labour government who got us in to this mess (ed balls).

                  31. Google “labour25”

                  32. Medi Hassan wrote Miliband’s biography is a militant muslim who described westerners as animals (a video you can find on here)

                  33. The espouse the same political policies and views as the French President Hollande which are destroying France, where the rich have left youth unemployment is at 25% and they have seen the largest drop in investment for over 60 years.

                  34. 5 Labour MPs—and no Tories or Lib Dems—have been found guilty of expenses fraud by a court and sent to prison. Ed Balls claimed £33 parliamentary expenses for poppy wreaths he had laid at his constituency ceremony.

                  35. you’re voting for the racist Diane Abbott, weak and incompetent Ed Miliband and the oaf who destroyed our economy 4 years ago- Ed Balls,

                  36. labour corruption privatisation of Qinteq defence service making LABOUR Lord Drayson worth over £542 MILLION

                  37. The gap between rich and poor was wider when Labour were in power.

                  As for the Labour Party right now, they’ve opposed every cut that aims to tackle the deficit their party created and are not offering a plan of what they would do differently. Apart from keeping all the cuts (which they are opposed to)

                • telemachus

                  I did last time

                  “they want to continue to send 57million a day to the EU”
                  Remind me how much we get back particularly to the poor regions
                  As far as I can see this is the only way we can redistribute resources from the Home Counties to the poverty stricken North

                • Realpolitik

                  Well take the CAP policy, we pay 16.7 billion into it and get under 5 back. This is the same for every policy we pay for. It’s like a big charity scheme, except it’s far more corrupt.

                  Did you know the EU loses 162 billion a year due to their corruption?

                • Des Demona

                  Your usual distortion of the truth. The 16.7 billion is not paid into the CAP – that is some spurious figure dreamed up by UKIP based on how much cheaper they think they could source food from non EU countries.
                  Your corruption figures are again a gross distortion. The figure mentioned is quoted as being what corruption in general costs the member states of the EU , nothing to do with the EU budget per se, and corruption is the remit of member states to tackle rather than the EU.

                  The net cost of membership of the EU is less than 5 billion annually. Trade with the EU is 12 billion a month.

                  If you have any more spurious figures or downright lies I’d be happy to dispute them.

              • Realpolitik

                So that’s where Miliband keeps his integrity!

                • telemachus

                  Ed Balls

                • Realpolitik

                  The guy who smashes into cars and drives off? What about him?

              • Inverted Meniscus

                Leaving the scene of an accident without reporting it to the driver of the other vehicle or the police being an excellent example of his integrity. Only when the puce faced weasel was confronted with CCTV evidence did he admit to his involvement. How ironic, Labour who have done so much to create a ‘big brother’ society with a proliferation of CCTV etc find that one of their own is caught like a rat in a trap.

            • Jeff Milton

              “extracted your big fat head from Ed Balls backside.”
              Now you’re getting me excited.

          • saffrin

            No you can’t, If you could you wouldn’t be supporting Labour. The most positively racist party in the United Kingdom.
            And was it not one of your own leaders that engaged in unlawful war against two muslim states?
            Did Tony Bliar, the European Union both plug for military intervention in yet another, that being Syria?

          • Realpolitik

            have you seen UKIP’s weather forecast? Clears it up nicely.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25901814

            All parties have their fair share of nuts.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            I am an Islamophobe…that actually means FEARFUL of Islam.
            I add the meaning in case the thought police are watching.

            I also would prefer the UK to remain overwhelmingly white.
            We are only 10 % of the world’s population.
            Am I asking too much ?

          • mark

            Islam is not a race.

            Islamophobe is a term started by the terrorist muslim brotherhood to try to stop anyone exposing islam and muslims as lying to disguise islam.

            We are used to muslims doing their warfare lying… no matter what they try to disguise themselves as.

        • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

          To be accurate it would depend which way the text was written on the heel whether the piss emerged.

          If nothing came out telemachus would probably put the shoe on and blame racist xenophobes or the English when his foot got wet.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        You really do have a very odd slant on ‘things’ in general and Islam in particular.

        Our political establishment has showed ridiculous levels of leniency to fundamentalist activist Muslims.
        Do you remember the call to murder after the ‘cartoon’ incident.?
        No response until the right wing press asked some very difficult questions.

        Only after the bombing incidents did attitudes change.
        The UK is under ideological threat and you appear to approve of that.

      • cartimandua

        What you mean is Muslims have made themselves unemployable with their “requirements” and then whine like a baby when no one hires them.
        My best friend had the misfortune once to try to “do something in a bank” which required communicating with an aggressive niqabi.
        It proved impossible.

      • mark

        Yes all those poor muslims being discriminated against, when after the muslims say that islam does not teach so and so and real muslims would not do that and those are the actions of people false to islam, then have non muslims post all the verses from islams books, quran, hadith and sunna, the muslims own MAINSTREAM teaching books, showing not only are they islams mainstream teachings but allmost in every single case MUHAMAD DID IT!

        Poor muslims being victimised by being exposed as evil people doing islamic warfare lying…. as every single muslim does of course…. except for isis, boko harem, al quada etc etc etc etc.

  • Bonkim

    Wild boar killed by cars are usually taken home and eaten. What is wrong with that?

    • mightymark

      Not pre stunned!

      • Bonkim

        Stunned and killed instantly. That is very humane.

  • Brigadier Mustard

    Following my promotion, I have had to promise to mellow my views and so I will continue to post in my pre promotion persona with the usual edge.
    All I will say on the subject of the current thread is that the media as usual are making a mountain out of a stone or is it molehill.

    • Andy

      You should really be a Major-General.

      • Steve Cheney

        He is the very model of a modern major-general.

    • Wessex Man

      Congradulations Brigadier!

      • Kitty MLB

        Oh who is this new military person and is he any relation to our
        very own Colonel. All somewhat intriguing and they sound rather similar. Poor Telemachus but feel quite torn.

        • Colonel Mustard

          No. He is an impostor making mischief.

          Colonel Mustard lives and dies a Colonel.

  • you_kid

    More pure comedy gold from the little Engalnd theatre of dreamers.

    Their recent ill-conceived campaign exposes how a bunch of milksops believe that employing a foreign footie manager was no big deal but having pizza and curries served by foreign waiters and waitresses before and after the match somehow was.

    • Wessex Man

      go and suck your dummy.

      • you_kid

        Go bonk your missus, dad. Let your frustrations out.
        You fork with me I knife back.
        Your call.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …you musta taken a knife and fork to the goat, then, as he seems to have disappeared.

          • Wessex Man

            Who’s disappeared?

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …one of that nutter’s previous identities was a goat of some sort.

        • Wessex Man

          Communicate in English and I will willingly carry out a dialogue with you kiddy.

          • you_kid

            Wonk off trollboy. You choose to follow me around?
            Your inane blatherings are of no relevance to the debate.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …your only point is the one on your head, lad.

  • dmitri the impostor

    You seem to be on a full-time anti-UKIP retainer, Mr ShereHite, or whatever your name is.

    It is therefore only fair to let you know that you are on a hiding. Your ultimate paymaster, Cabbage Patch Doll, saw fit to spit in the faces of his core vote and now, as God is our witness, we are going to spit back in his.

    Pleasant dreams, you stoat-faced establishment stooge.

    • Wessex Man

      I cringe that I am a member of the same party as you! Please resign and go and join the BNP.

      • dmitri the impostor

        Wessex – It’s only your (wrong) assumption that I am a member of anything. You for your part sound like a doughty champion of the postal vote as you evidently feel qualified to tell me where to cast mine.

        The fact that UKIP contains a smattering of morons is not going to persuade me to compromise with the putrid political class and any attempt at such persuasion I treat as moral blackmail. It is your privilege to call me for a moral cripple. It is my privilege to call you for a rustic simpleton and a sanctimonious twerp. O-and-O.

        • Wessex Man

          I wallow in immense relief that you are not a member, any insult from you I take as a badge of honour!

          • dmitri the impostor

            Didn’t used to stop you slavishly up-voting me though, did it, you cowardly little creep? Till the next time.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Are we really supposed to believe there is no such thing as national character and characteristics and so offence-obsessive that they cannot be lampooned? That whilst people dare not generalise about the characteristic habits of any foreigners in case the thugs of UAF set a screaming lynch mob upon them the English are fair game for any amount of vile racism, especially homegrown? Look at what Jack Straw said about the English. Curious that the usual suspects never huffed and puffed their way through pages of faux outrage about that one.

    Reminiscent of the attitude towards Christianity which makes it seem more about inverted hatred than equality, respect or even good manners.

    • telemachus

      What do you think is bringing folk to say such things about the English
      Could it be that the jovial racist isolationist message peddled by Farage is stimulating this

      • Sapporo

        Why be a little European, when we have a global economy? Farage seeks to share in the growing markets not isolate us in the shrinking, corrupt, protectionist, ideologically driven, collapsing EU market.

      • Wessex Man

        Are you sure you were a UKip member who stood as a Candidate and became disillusioned? Where was that by the way?

        • Cyril Sneer

          They probably chucked him out.

      • Colonel Mustard

        “What do you think is bringing folk to say such things about the English”

        Hatred.

        • telemachus

          Yes the hatred we saw peddled by Farage on Wednesday

          • Colonel Mustard

            I don’t think Farage hates the English. He is however the target of plenty of hatred from filthy scum like you.

            • telemachus

              Of course he does not hate his concept of the english, a curious group of white Anglicans living in the Home Counties
              But woe betide anyone who has an accent does not worship 1666 or horror of horrors have olive skin
              *
              Or worse

              • Colonel Mustard

                Thanks for proving my point.

                Again.

                • telemachus

                  I had not finished when you commented

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I had!

  • Minnooli

    “Those looking to smear Challice need to try a little harder …” Oh, I don’t know. I think Mr Challice will oblige us before long with another choice comment.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here