The Leadership Contest, Brexit, Terrorism in France, The European Court of Justice and our own Supreme Court are the subjects of today’s letters. The first letter is about a rather disturbing development in the Leadership Contest. It is by our contributor Jack Russell:

Sir,

Last evening I received the link to an extraordinary ‘Open Letter’ by ‘LGBT* In UKIP’, in which the undersigned demand that David Kurten, one of the favourites in the Leadership contest, be suspended (!) for “[…] the disgraceful, offensive, homophobic and transphobic comments published by ‘Pink News’ quoting David Kurten”, and that this should be taken into account when the NEC vets the candidates tomorrow. I checked out the articles in ’Pink News’, here and especially here, where Ms Suzanne Evans is reported saying: “David Kurten’s comments are utterly disgraceful. Sadly I am not surprised by them: Kurten has on numerous occasions shown himself to be vehemently opposed to homosexuality, yet as a protege of Nigel Farage, thrust forward onto the London Assembly, his obvious flaws have so far been ignored. In my opinion he is not fit for elected office nor leadership of a political party.”

David Kurten made the remarks on a written questionnaire at the site ‘Support4theFamily’, see here. quoting research. AFAIK, there is not (yet) a prohibition against having an opinion on LGBT which is contrary to their views. So why are David Kurten’s views suddenly deemed to be ‘disgraceful’?

There’s another interesting point. ‘Support4theFamily’ is run by Alan Craig, manager of David Kurten’s campaign. He is (surely incidentally, right?) the man Suzanne Evans wanted to have thrown out of the party for his beliefs in the run-up to the London Assembly elections.

Must Kippers now have one, and only one, opinion on LGBT? Must Kippers now suppress their own views? Must Kippers now face suspension from the Party for disagreeing with the LGBT Agenda? Doesn’t this make the claim that we’re a Libertarian Party sound hollow?

Also, I cannot help but wonder why it is that “Pink News”, Ms Evans, Mr Whittle and ‘LGBT* In UKIP’ – all this taking place yesterday afternoon and evening only! -have not cried ‘foul’ on the strikingly similar views John Rees Evans, expressed in that same ‘Support4theFamily’ Questionnaire, right below those of David Kurten.

You might think that it’s because Kurten rather than Whittle looks like the frontrunner in this contest – I couldn’t possibly comment!

Respectfully, Jack Russell

The next letter comes from our correspondent and author ‘Roving Reporter, and is about Brexit and the MSM:

Sir,

There was yet more Silly Season/While Cat’s Away fake news leaked over the weekend, in the form of a civil service plot to offer 40 billion euros in the form of continued contributions after the Release, but only in return for a deal on other key elements of the Agreement. The Brexiteers not on holiday have of course come out in a blue fit over this, insisting quite correctly that nothing is payable under Article 50.

So, another August day, another August Brexit rumour.

However, although the figure is too big, and currently should be in the region of 15 billion euros, the plot bears distinct similarities to the “variation on a theme” thing I did in June (see here).  It remains a runner, but only if it is done in the way I suggested, which would mean getting all the enabling legislation through super quick, and all the” internal reallocation of payments “ and “regulatory authorities” complexities sorted out pronto; but none of that is beyond the wit of man, especially as the prize is a quick, sensible, mutually beneficial Agreement and coterminous Release from the Treaties.

Respectfully, A Roving Reporter

Letter No Three is by our correspondent Septimus Octavius and is self-explanatory:

Sir,

I was appalled to hear Judge Neuberger’s comments on the news; unlike me, he obviously has no faith or confidence in his fellow judges.  On Release from the Treaties, of course we must contemporaneously cease to have the ECJ as our Highest Court.  How can he possibly think these Eurocrats know what is better for the UK than our own judiciary does?

Needless to say, as a matter of UK domestic law, decisions of the ECJ made prior to the Release remain binding on the UK courts insofar only as they may still be so relevant.  From that time onwards, however, the UK is in charge of its own laws.

Despite all its many shortcomings, the UK legal system is still the best in the world, and the forum of choice for many international treaties.

And why does he not trust UK judges with discretion in making their judgments?  Particularly in Family Law, domestic UK statutes already give judges a vast amount of such discretion; I do not hear Neuberger complaining about any of that.

No, this man is just another lackey in the Remoaners Brigade, someone who despises the democratic vote to leave the EU.  Normally he talks good sense, but like so many others, when he gets onto the topic of Brexit, he starts speaking rubbish.

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

Finally, Mike Hookem MEP sent in these observations on the terrorist attack in France, where “a car” driven by “a man” ploughed into French soldiers as they were leaving their barracks:

Sir,

I condemn the latest terror attack in France as yet another abhorrent attack by those who seek to undermine our democracy and way of life.

The attack on Wednesday morning saw six troops rammed by a car as they were leaving their barracks to go on patrol. Early reports suggest four soldiers have minor injuries, while two are ‘seriously hurt’. The local mayor, Patrick Balkany, said he had “no doubt” this was a deliberate act after the car was driven ‘at speed’ towards the group. Troops have been a visible presence on Paris’ streets after the declaration of a state of emergency in 2013.

My thoughts and prayers are with the injured soldiers and their families this morning. It is at times like this when the whole of Europe must stand shoulder to shoulder, despite our political differences.

However, many of the current issues with terrorism on mainland Europe stem from the ease with which those who wish to perpetrate these horrific crimes can move freely around the Schengen area; easily contact terrorist groups, and make everyday objects into weapons.

Only through using radical thinking of our own do we have any hope of stopping these horrific attacks. Suspending the Schengen agreement and reintroducing border controls would be a good start.

How many more attacks must we see before the EU’s unelected elite decides to act?

Principles such as free movement are all well good, but when groups seeking to undermine the very fabric of European society can exploit the rules, they become a danger to every man, woman and child on the continent.

Respectfully, Mike Hookem MEP

Print Friendly, PDF & Email