Latest from UKIP Daily

My Statement Regarding the Support4The Family Survey

Until this week it had been a pleasure to be in this leadership contest for UKIP, which I joined partly because of its commitment to freedom of speech, truth, honesty and its stand against political correctness.

On Sunday 6th June, I completed a leaders’ questionnaire for Support4The Family (see here), which I updated on Tuesday 8th June to clarify one of my answers.

On Wednesday 9th August an article appeared in a blog publication entitled ‘Pink News’ which was in my opinion a hatchet job designed to cast me in the worst light possible, for the consumption of the liberal metropolitan elite. It is unsurprising that this has caused a backlash among the politically correct media class, but the response from some quarters in UKIP has been astonishing.

Without contacting me at all, some people, including another candidate for the leadership and another person who previously attempted to have me deselected as a candidate for the London Assembly, have either attacked me publicly or signed an open letter calling for my exclusion from the contest, simply for expressing traditional views and mentioning the results of some studies.

I have always stated my opposition to teaching sex education in primary school, and been clear about my belief that secondary school sex education should simply teach the scientific facts about reproduction and chromosomes. Parents are the primary educators of their children and the current push to sexualize them, particularly with transgender education from a very young age, is harmful and damaging to children’s natural development as boys and girls.

I also stated that my personal opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the definition of marriage in the vast majority of countries, and my personal opinion is that the millennia old definition of marriage we had in Britain should not have been changed in 2013. This is an issue of conscience, but in the event that there were a free vote on it, I would vote to restore traditional marriage.

Another of the main points of the survey was the point of reasonable accommodation. This is a tolerant country, but as we have seen recently, with the Ashers bakery case, the National Trust debacle and the closure of Catholic adoption agencies, tolerance is turning into forced participation of the ‘progressive’ agenda.

UKIP must be the party which stands up against political correctness, or cultural Marxism to give it its proper name. If we do not, then the country will lose its freedom.

With the Conservative party now fully embracing the ‘progressive’ agenda, only UKIP is left in the political sphere to fight for the freedom for people to express traditional, Judaeo-Christian values and the right to say that you believe in traditional marriage and the traditional family.

The most contentious point of the blog headline is the implication that I believe that homosexuality is caused by child abuse. This is not what I said, and it is not what I believe. I did not suggest at all that all homosexual people have been abused. What is true, however, is that there is no evidence for a ‘gay gene’ – a specific set of codons in our DNA which pre-determine sexual orientation. It is also true that some studies have concluded that there is a higher incidence of childhood abuse among homosexual people, including Johnson and Shrier (1985), Tomeo (2001), Wells (2010) and Lehovat, Molina and Simoni (2012).

If it is now politically incorrect within UKIP to mention and discuss the conclusions of independent scientific studies, however contentious to politically correct orthodoxy, then we have succumbed to totalitarianism ourselves. I will, however, continue to fight political correctness and act in favour of seeking truth through honesty, debate and discussion. Part of that is to fight for traditional values, which have now been replaced in this country by ‘modern values’. The Conservative Party has joined in with the ‘progressive’ left in undermining traditional marriage and the family.

For the sake of the nation, it is vital that UKIP does not go the same way. It is not surprising that people have entered UKIP who also support the agenda of cultural Marxism, as UKIP stands for freedom and liberty. It is now clear that there are certain entryists who wish to close down the ‘wrong opinions’ just as much as the mainstream media who we must to continue to fight for our freedom of speech.

I hope that I will be allowed to stand in the leadership contest so that members have a choice of whether we are to truly be a party which stands for freedom of speech or not.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About David Kurten AM (3 Articles)
David Kurten AM is a member of the London assembly. He is currently a candidate in the UKIP Leadership Contest

101 Comments on My Statement Regarding the Support4The Family Survey

  1. Agree with everything except “Judeo/Christian values”, just Christian values.

    • It should be Graeco-Roman Judeo-Christian. Why does religion always trump philosophy? If we’d have left things to religion we’d never have got democracy.

  2. Anthony people keep saying that Ben Walker is naive politically and has little experience….

    He founded the branch he is now a member of. He was a town and district councillor, a deputy mayor an stood for parliament in 2015, he did not stand i 2017 to honour the stupid ill thought out idea of giving way to a brexit favouring Tory (he hated that notion)

    I think cutting you teeth inthe cut and thrust of local politics prepares anyone for office within this party, including that of leader.

    I would point out that John Rees Evans has never been elected to any political office ! he is a self proclaimed business man. Ben is also a business man, JRE is a family man, Ben Walker is a family man with four children…..

    • I was really very impressed by Ben in the informal hustings in London – the recording is on utube. I hope he stays with UKIP. He is a major asset.

    • Stephen, I was pleased to meet Ben recently. He has much to offer, and I am particularly pleased that he wants humane treatment of farm animals. I do however think he needs to get up to speed on Islam, and I understand that he is doing so. Hopefully my suggestions of source material have been helpful.

      Indeed all candidates must be familiar with the Koran, “abrogation”, “taqiyya”, and the writings and videos of those who know what they are talking about, such as Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Douglas Murray.

      We are facing a huge challenge. Whoever becomes leader must make use of the talents and knowledge of the other candidates. For the good of the party, and more importantly for the good of the country.

  3. David Kurten becoming the leader of UKIP would be as disastrous as David Coburn becoming the leader of UKIP because UKIP is a hated fringe party in London and Scotland. Not only that, David Kurten is socially-conservative, which would alienate socially-liberal UKIP members and supporters/voters, who would defect to the Tories or Labour if David Kurten became the leader of UKIP. In the GE, Labour beat the Conservatives by 21.4% of the vote in London. That is the best result Labour have ever had in London. In Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide victory, Labour beat the Conservatives by 17% of the vote in London.

    • In the mayoral election hustings Whittle was out of his depth and looked every bit a weak candidate compared to some others.

      London was 60% remain in the referendun but Brexit won overall. The imagined effect of someone socially conservative should not measured by London.

      The history of UKIP in London is no basis for choosing a national leader.

  4. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATES (371 words)

    David Allen. He has a good voting method but cannot sell it. Otherwise not a good speaker.

    Henry Bolton. According to Thoshammer, he is competent but boring.

    David Coburn. According to Thoshammer, he is a known failure.

    Jane Collins. According to Thoshammer, she makes frivolous statements.

    David Kurten. He speaks well and realises UKIP cannot go on the way it is at present. He is strong on the traditional values that the Conservatives used to champion before they slid to the left. He can be controversial and is also strong enough to defend his position.

    Marion Mason. Nothing known so far. Someone please enlighten us!

    Aiden Powlesland. He understand a lot about UK problems but not solutions. Mister softy, in manner and on policy.

    John Rees-Evans. Christian. Spent time in an expensive school in South Africa. Has served in the military in Africa or Middle-east before coming to the UK. He has started several businesses but I don’t know how he funded them. He might be a son from a rich family now playing politics.

    Ben Walker. Former Navy man involved in logistics. Good speaker but naïve politically. He might be alright in a few years time but is too inexperienced yet to lead a party.

    Anne Marie Waters. Formerly a radical left-winger. A political activist that now seems to have put on the clothes of the middle ground. Many support her main policy of being against the Islamification of Britain. The main stream media would go into a frenzy if she is elected and they would just keep chipping away at her so she would become toxic. It is possible she is using UKIP as the most convenient vehicle to become a serious politician, just like Tony Blair did with Labour. I am pretty sure that UKIP is too weak now to support her as leader.

    Peter Whittle. Good speaker with a wealth of knowledge about UKIP and also good with the media. He is without a doubt an integral part of the present UKIP structure for which I have coined a new term, Newton Abbott Clique or NAC for short. He is part of UKIP’s problem and would perpetuate its decline. He is not a solution.

    • @MarionMasonUKIP. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/marion-mason-50653420

      Marion was a PCC candidate and is currently on the NEC, but her term ends this year, when she may decide to stand again. No candidacy website, AFAIK 🙄

    • Anthony,
      You might find this 5 minute video from Nov 2016 (link below) gives you some indication of JRE’s background and business funding etc.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5etgp28RRY8

    • Completely agree about Whittle except he is not – you know- that good a – you know – speaker or with the –
      you know – media. He had a very unconvincing, lacklustre performance on his last Question Time appearance.

    • Dear Anthony

      Thank you for these summaries. It has helped put quite a few things into perspective for me. You are also the voice of common sense.

      I have said before that you have a good way with words and I stand by that.

      Kind regards
      Brenda

    • Anthony, if you check JREs website you will find he attended a seminary instead of university to train as a priest or missionary, which was probably his family’s choice for him. He served in British military but unclear whether or not this was the regulars, it seems to be more like reservists as the time lines don’t seem to fit and he says somewhere he was advised to take up a commission, i.e. he wasn’t on an officer track in the regulars.

    • Not a great choice, there is nobody who stands out and I feel Bill Etheridge should not have stepped down so quickly. Rather than a single candidate sweeping all before him/her, it seems now that factions will congeal around (i) AMW anti-islam, (ii) DK anti-cultural marxism pro-christian, (iii) PW establishment choice, LGBT (iv) JRE because he isn’t any of the other three. Perhaps Jane Collins could come through but she is coming from a long way back with a slow start. So I would say the four mentioned candidates will get around 80% of the votes between them, and most of the others should drop out and line up behind PW so that he would then come through.

    • Standing up for abused victims in Rotherham is hardly “frivolous”, Anthony, and that’s what’s causng her to possibly face bankruptcy 😢

  5. On a purely anecdotal note re membership numbers: almost everyone I know who was a member has now either left or is on their way out. Including myself. Statistics show that UKIP lost 1/7 of its members after the referendum, and excluding the AMW supporters (who can’t vote anyway and probably total the number that joined) it’s probably even smaller. When I had access to membership lists it was clear that a lot of members I contacted had already left. I suspect that of the small list I had access to, only about a 3rd of them were still considering themselves members. The party I suspect is keeping numbers artificially high, or at least forgetting to properly write people off if they let their membership lapse.

    On the subject of David Kurten, I’m hoping he’ll be allowed to stand. But I should make this clear: I would not vote for UKIP as it currently stands unless there was a decent candidate in my constituency. Most people I know wouldn’t at all, of all demographics. Every instinct tells me the party is over, with a small chance of survival if JRE or David Kurten gets elected. AMW will be dragged through the mud far too easily, Ben Walker is too PC, Henry Bolton is competent but boring, David Coburn is a known failure, Jane Collins is being bankrupted by frivilous statements and the other two are clear no hopers.

    • Interested to hear your views, Thoshammer, and you may well be right about the haemorrhaging of UKIP’s membership. But I cannot agree with you about not voting for UKIP. As bad as UKIP currently is – and I should know I am a member – the only alternative is either not voting or to vote for the LibLabCon cartel. A vote for Labour is a vote for open borders and bankrupting the country, and a vote for the Tories is a vote for the likes of Anna Soubry, Amber Rudd and Justine Greening and will be taken as an endorsement of Cameron and May’s policy of taking the Tories ever further to the left.

      A vote for UKIP is a vote against the cartelisation of our politics and to influence the Tories to move back to some real conservative policies.

    • Thoshammer. Your comment raises many questions for me.
      Regarding the people you know who are dropping their involvement with UKIP. Why are they leaving ?
      Are they dropping out of politics or joining the Conservatives ?
      Do they believe that it is in the best interests of their grandchildren for the UK to be a nation state with full sovereignity on all matters ?
      Do they realise that supporting UKIP is the best and most pracical option for saving the UK as a nation state ?
      Do they realise that abstaining = give the globalists are a free run.
      Do they realise that voting mainstream = hastens the dismantling of the UK.
      In my experience people vote for the party and not care about the candidate. I automatically vote UKIP whoever stands. Many, including me, would probably vote for their preferred party even if a ‘monkey’ was the candidate.
      Regarding the quality of the candidate standing. Nigel Farage qualifies as a decent candidate. He has stood in general elections. Was he not good enough for the people ? I think people vote for parties and he was in the wrong party.

      • Why are they leaving ? At the last leadership election I decided that if Evans won I would cancel my membership immediately, and if Nuttall won it would lapse in due course, unless he proved my feelings wrong. He was far worse than I could have imagined, in thrall to the nasty (and they are still at it), divisive Evans/O’Flynn clique. Thus my membership duly lapsed. That does not mean I do not take an interest or would not vote Ukip. No other party comes near to representing my views even now. And should a new leader and the party resume a narrative that I can whole-heartedly endorse, I would gladly rejoin.

        • Well Phil what percentage of the population would you guess share your views – whatever they are.
          How about starting the ‘Philosophy Party of Great Britain’.

      • It’s a complete mix. I left politics as did several others, some joined the Tories, some for career and some were pushed. Others went for the Liberterian Party (UK) etc.
        Nigel is great but he isn’t the only person you’re voting for. One man can’t run a cabinet. When your local branches are terrible, nobody manages to inspire, and UKIP is failing go deal with clearly rubbish career politicians people just leave.
        The people I know are not tribal, I’ve personally voted UKIP,Indy, Tory and Labour (for the candidate) in the past. I vote based on the candidate is, only for party in the EU elections and Welsh Assembly Regional list.

      • Maximus, I can’t speak for Thoshammer but I can tell you what I have gleaned in the rather too long time I spend on social media (for my age!). In the run-up to the last Leadership election John Rees-Evans inspired a lot of young, especially in YI I think because he recognized what they could do for the Party and how left out they had been. Suzanne and John second and third had not many votes between them, and many were expecting that JRE would be brought in to reorganize the on-line (lack of) presence and include YI. It didn’t happen. Suzanne got offered 2 jobs but JRE was ignored. A lot of people were disillusioned and left at that point – and it led to an ex Kipper setting up an online Democracy Direct. Some of these, who joined Democracy Direct I note have rejoined (?) and do anyway support JRE. Meanwhile….more and more were getting disillusioned with the last Leader, culminating in the Stoke leaflet which Raheem, who has a huge number of followers, many UKIP, put up on Facebook first. It was the Halal support that did it. It may have been policy, but that got lost in the furore. The actions of the current cabal has also been a cause for disillusion. This is why I keep asking how many voting members do we actually have. I know many re-joined or joined (incidentally some staunch Nigel supporters, who now support Anne Marie in spite of Nigel). But they may be barred from voting, and if Anne Marie can’t stand they will leave. So I don’t believe we currently have 30,000 members. And I agree with Thoshammer on that. It is crucial that an accurate record of voting- able members is made available before this election, imo – the last election was fairly shambolic in that department if we remember.
        From what I see, the behavior of those currently running UKIP has led to only the staunchest supporters remaining in the Party, hoping things will change.
        That’s why I fear Peter Whittle could be a disaster, because he is seen to be part of the problem, and part of the old UKIP. Whether that applies to David I’m not sure – I don’t think so – sorry David but up to now I haven’t read much about you on social media! That could be good, or bad – who knows.

      • Thanks for the detailed replies. My insight into the soul of UKIP has deepened.
        My position is simple. Abstaining or voting for any mainstream party other than UKIP is against the nations long term interest. And its people.

    • The number of members at 31 December 2016 is shown in the audit report available online from Companies House and from memory it was 36,000, down from 42,000 the year before. Not sure if this is the year-end figure or the average for the year. So to be at 30,000 now is within bounds of possibility, but if you strip out all the people who have no intention to renew then I guess 24,000 ish? WHich isn’t bad when you consider the referendum was won and lost and nobody has since put forward a convincing mission for the party.

  6. That’s settled then. I’ll be voting for David Kurten to lead this party.

    If there’s one place which should be free of Cultural Marxist bullying and censorship, it should be UKIP. Indeed, we should be the ones leading the charge against it.

    We will find out tomorrow whether or not this party is running scared of democracy.

  7. On declaring policies is it known if UKIP have shared beliefs other than Brexit and control of immigration?

    (These days it would be simple to do online surveys of member opinions. I did one for another group that had 17,000 replies to 10 different questions. It took 3 days to get all those responses. This is one of many online systems that I would recommend to the Party.)

    • But that’s not leadership is it Liberas? It’s market research followed by a change of policies…in the hope of getting elected. This is how the DimLibs have operated for years ‘if you don’t like my principles I have others!’ – and they’ve always failed.

      • With respect, Russell, I think you are being a little hasty. Liberas is not suggesting a survey of a sample of the whole electorate but a survey of the entire UKIP membership to establish what, if anything, UKIP members agree about other than Brexit and controlling immigration.

        I think this would be a useful and informative exercise and that UKIP would be well-advised to take advantage of Liberas’s knowledge and experience in the field of online surveys in order to do this.

        In any case, I am not sure your description of how the DimLibs use market research is completely accurate. True they use focus groups to test policy ideas, but their policy is not entirely determined by what is electorally popular rather than by their core principles. If it was the DimLibs would have ditched their pro-EU, pro-immigration stance years ago.

    • Indeed you can do such a survey very easily with a simple tool like survey monkey. They know this, but don’t care.

  8. Great statement David. Bold, clear and RIGHT. These are the principles that the vast majority of people believe in. Pandering to noisy minorities must stop. When it comes to the ballot box, people will vote for the person that has the guts to state the truths that are the bedrock of our civilisation, not the latest Channel 4 babble or BBC baloney.

  9. Been checking on David’s research references.

    One says “We took a life-course approach, looking at where people had come from and where they have got to. But there was no opportunity to ask people why they [identified as homosexual or bisexual] and whether they thought that was linked to their childhood experiences.”

    Another says “Several studies have demonstrated that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than heterosexual women to report childhood abuse and adult sexual assault. It is unknown, however, which sexual minority women are most likely to experience such abuse.”

    Bearing in mind that correlation is not causation, and that “research” was analysis of questionnaires without probing or evaluation of the answers, it would seem this research has a) no bearing at all on the question asked which was `Is our sexual orientation (gay or straight) fixed at birth or not?’ and b) certainly does not support any conclusion about the `causes’ of sexual orientation. One researcher even remarked “there was no way of knowing from her study why there was a link between negative events in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation.”

    It was an imprudent reply to an un-decidable question for which a one paragraph answer cannot possibly cut it. I stand by my error of judgement diagnosis though to me it is a fairly harmless error.

    It was NOT “disgraceful, offensive, homophobic and transphobic” as Suzanne Evans and others publicly allege nor does it mean he is “not fit for elected office” as they have publicly stated. If the odd injudicious remark rules anyone out then Evans should have gone long ago. After all, last autumn, she was on TV bemoaning racists in the party which she, if elected leader, would sort out.

    I cannot stand the tyranny of the politically correct and of virtue signallers. They have gone far beyond what is warranted by David’s sincere but possibly poorly worded comment. They do so, I believe, because David is becoming a threat, as Anne Marie has become, to their preferred candidate.

    The signatories to the letter calling for David’s comment were made aware (by whom?) coincidentally just before the NEC meet to vet candidates, on a statement two months’ old. Hmm.

  10. David, if you have read my Meeting 5 Candidates article you will know you impressed me more than the others.

    Thank you for responding to the attacks but I would advise continuing as a straight talker. Let them attack you and your position and stoutly defend it, just like Nigel used to do. It shows courage and forces an open discussion that others are trying to shut down.

    You have my support and if UKIP chooses the wrong new leader I hope you and AMW and maybe JRE will all get together with the mass exodus from UKIP and form a new grassroots party.

  11. David, I love your honesty and principles and may I say the way you have approached this in a analytical scientific way, mostly due to your education and history of a chemistry teacher. I deplore how the others in UKIP namely Suzanne PC Evans and ‘common purpose’ Peter Whittle have attacked you really by showing their ignorance and obvious bias, however, it may turn out to work in your favour as they have been shown up and not you, as they do not seem to inherit any true UKIP fundamental beliefs.

    I have always found Ms. Evans to have wimpy leftard tendencies, and her latest outburst just bears that out, but am somewhat surprised at Peter Whittle doing the same, but then again you are both fighting for the same prize, but there is no need to resort to such dirty tactics IMO.

    Anyway, keep up the good fight by continuing to be true to yourself and your supporters and thankyou for coming on this site and clarifying the ‘untruths’ that have been hurled at you. You are entitled to an opinion in line with your Christian faith and if that rubs people up the wrong way then so be it, they need to grow up and learn to listen to another point of view.

    • Thanks Donald,

      It’s great to have your support and that of many other people here. I expected vitriol from the left, but it has also shown who is who in the party. I’ll continue to fight the good fight.

      Best wishes

  12. Sorry.
    Misunderstanding.

  13. Here are Suzanne Evans’ comments in full ““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”

    Its amazing, she even gets a dig in at Nigel about this! What is wrong with this woman? JB talks about discussion on UKIP Daily being ‘political suicide’, so what about her endless attacks on fellow kippers?

    • Graham, IMO Suzanne Evans and those that agree with her are the ones that should go, her poisonous vindictive rants have no place in UKIP, we would function much better without them as it is them who are destroying the party’s prospects, preventing us from moving forward.

  14. David was asked his views on certain subjects by a UKIP group. He decided to give HIS views which may help some members on their decision who to vote for. Even if he is elected that does not mean his views will become UKIP policy, I would have thought.

    Any other group within UKIP may also decide to ask the candidates for their opinions. What is wrong with that?

  15. Another referendum merely devalues the one we’ve had.

  16. Perhaps we ( UKIP DAILY ? ) could produce a list of political words or actions with a remark or definition. one that can be added to. and anyone can see. Perhaps a “political correctness for dummies” website.It’s main nastiness is that it’s not common knowledge, or what it is. It would be a significant arrow for ukip’s quiver. Someone with a gift for brevity.

  17. GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // August 10, 2017 at 4:38 pm // Reply

    Dear David,thank you for having the courage to defend what surely is what the vast majority of us believe in,that we need to restore traditional family values.It seems as if the whole world has gone insane.It was totally wrong of O’flynn and Evans,to attack you in this manner,and shows them up to be both spiteful and vindictive.Their objective has indeed backfired,and if anything David,more will surely support you,as echoed by other colleagues and contributors here today.I have always had my doubts about Evans,I have in the past described her as someone more akin to an attack dog ( bitch of course).I have also objected to sex education being taught at primary school.God knows what stuff and nonesense my granddaughters heads have been filled with,I dare not contemplate.The girls are indeed growing up,far too fast,they don’t seem to enjoy their childhood,which should be just that,their innocence has been ended prematurely.To those of you who say that David,should
    not have said what he did,I totally disagree with you,David is prepared to speak the honest truth,and that is why I like about him.As someone else on here said,that Pink News were protesting about David’s sponsor,Alan Craig,who appart from being a loyal UKIP member,is also a Christian,oh shock horror! The despicable Suzanne Evans claimed Mr Kurten was”not fit for elected office”,and It was Peter Whittle who condemned Mr Kurten’s remarks,really how absurd.David thanks for attending our meeting last Thursday,at The Neon in Newport,organised by the great team there.
    I enjoyed meeting up with you again,and good luck.Finally David I will leave with this:
    First they ignore you,then they laugh at you,then the fight you,then you win!

    • Dear Geoffrey,

      Thank you for your kind comments and encouragement. This episode has certainly shown up who is an enemy of free speech.

      Best wishes,

      David

  18. The very things that we, as people, are expected to keep quiet about and toe the pc line are the very things that UKIP should be shouting about. Anyone who stands for truth and honesty these days can expect to be shot at, the enemy doesn’t like truth and dishonesty is a major tool of theirs. As I recall, Christ was quite a mud-stirrer and said things that many didn’t like!
    The greater percentage of folk are sick to death of being strong-armed to accept minority lifestyles and put them up on a pedestal to worship. Years ago, they were known about but just quietly ignored. Why we can’t do that today, I just don’t know.
    The one thing about gay and islamic issues is that one quickly finds out who one’s friends and enemies are…..they are great revealers. Maybe UKIP still needs a good enema.

  19. @ DK
    I can see only your and JR-E’s responses to the survey. Was it mandatory for every candidate to respond it? If so, it’s a bit of a cheek for a sub-group within UKIP calling itself ‘Support4theFamily’ to have the kind of leverage over candidates that ordinary members don’t have.

    If response to the survey was voluntary, it’s a pity you bothered to enter the minefield of answering leading questions from a group with a very clear agenda. This has given the PC enemies of free speech an excuse (weak as it is) to leap on your back and pummel you with manufactured outrage, as is their wont. For certain toxic members of the hierarchy, any stick will do to beat a candidate they wish to undermine. Those people are precisely the ones I won’t vote for, and I’m sure many on here feel the same.

    As the mother of a gay son, I have speculated on what role, if any, I played in his sexual orientation. It’s my belief that for many people this is fixed before birth. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because whatever the explanation for it, men and women who prefer their own sex have existed since the beginning of the human race as we see it today. I see no reason why they should not have the same human and civil rights as heterosexuals.
    Equally, I see no reason why anyone with a more traditional view should not be allowed to express how they feel. There are plenty of other cake shops! Book into another B&B instead of resorting to the law! Once upon a time, landladies chucked unmarried heterosexuals out of their boarding houses; perhaps some still do. I can’t recall lawsuits being brought.
    What really counts is that there should be no disapproval or shame attached to homosexuality, or to those who dissent from the current PC view of it.

    • And with that last sentence Panmelia sums the entire debate up –
      ‘live and let live’ used to be the British way. We should make it so in UKIP.

    • As a gay man, I agree with you Panmelia – and wishes candidates avoid groups where not everyone can ior does take part…

    • GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // August 10, 2017 at 8:22 pm // Reply

      Dear Panmelia,i would like to thank you for your frank and honest comment,regarding your son being gay.I don’t have a problem with wether someone is gay or straight,and why indeed should I ? Does homosexuality harm anyone ? Is it anyone’s business? I don’t object to the wonderful Anne Marie Waters,of course not,
      would that make them any less human,no it would not.Many years ago,I discussed with my wife,how we would deal with the knowledge that one of our sons,or either of our grandsons had told us that they were gay.Would I love them less,of course I wouldn’t,my only concern would be their happiness,of course I want them to be
      successful,but above all my main concern would,as I keep telling them,I want them to be happy in their own skin,and more importantly I want them to know that.
      Panmelia,there is indeed a fine line wether a child is born gay or hetro,and this has always existed,remember the ancient graffiti found in Pompeii.In my family we have two lots of friends who are gay,the eldest happen to be retired Dentists,whom we have known for over fifty years,they are both charming,and are very wealthy,with three homes,one near Nice.The reason we all met was because one of my Cousins Ann was in medical college with one,and always fancied him,at the time she was quie upset when he told her he was gay.The second gay couple are successful in business,and are great friends with my eldest son and his wife.Panmelia I love your use of these two words “manufactured outrage”.I take your mention of B&B concerns the lawsuit brought by two gay men,who were refused a room in a guest house,owned by a Christian couple who were ordered to pay them damages.Much later it was revealed that it had all been invented,to teach the Christian couple a lesso.BTW when I was engaged to my now wife and she was still in Teacher Training College,I always used to book us in as Mr &Mrs Jones,my wife never accompanied me to reception,so Panmelia please be discreet,I wouldn’t want the World to know!

      • Don’t worry, Geoff, your secret is safe with me!
        Of course, you are right, any parent who loves their child continues to love them just as much after finding they are gay; perhaps more, because they could have a harder road to travel in life than their siblings. I’m thankful that my son was born 12 years after the law was changed in this country to decriminalise homosexuality.

    • The group that commissioned the survey is a religious group within UKIP. The two fundamentalist Christian candidates chose to respond to buttress their position with our large Christian constituency. The others saw it as a lose-lose and stayed away! So far JRE has had an easy ride but believe me, he will be next for the same treatment. Evans hasn’t forgiven him for running against her last time.

  20. If Evans is attacking you, you must be doing something right. Welcome to the world of incessant backbiting and smears that comes with leadership of UKIP. If I were you, I would adapt Groucho Marx and say in the face of hostile questioning ” I have my principles, and if you don’t like them….I’m afraid I don’t have any others.

  21. By the way David, this morning I sent you an email re whether you would support offering a referendum on the issue of mass immigration as a headline policy of your leadership. Some on here think that would really get the nations attention and be well supported at the polls. As far as I know – so far – none of the candidates for UKIP leadership are offering direct democracy on this issue.

  22. Dear David.
    I strongly support you standing for leader and pushing back against the progressive agenda and cultural marxism whereever it is having influence. I am strongly in favour of you standing up for the traditional marriage and family. These are the foundations of our civilisation. The truth and facts will always trump being politically correct with me.
    I have no idea what the media saying as I rarely look. The way forward for UKIP is to ignore the media and make direct contact with people via social media a la the Donald.

  23. Dear David your courage and honesty are an inspiration. I’m sure there are many Kippers who will agree with you. I for one would definitely rejoin UKIP if someone with your character and integrity were elected leader. Don’t let the B’stards grind you down.

    “I hope that I will be allowed to stand in the leadership contest so that members have a choice of whether we are to truly be a party which stands for freedom of speech or not.”

    I cannot believe even NuUKIP as I sometimes call it, would even consider not allowing you to stand. If that happened then the last vestige of integrity will have evaporated from the party.

    • Dear John,

      Thank you for your feedback. I hope that UKIP will truly be the party which restores Britain to its former glory, and that means being able to have freedom of speech, thought and conscience.

      Best wishes,

      David

  24. Leaving the actual issue to one side, I think the problem I have here is that what is needed from a party leader today is an innate ability to be able to avoid stepping onto unnecessary mines. God knows the media are after us enough without exploding hand-grenades in our own pockets.

    Sexuality and religion are highly emotive subjects that are so personal, to so many people, that any specific pronouncement made in truth or ignorance will inevitably upset a huge proportion of people. It should go without saying that areas such as these need to be handled only when necessary and with great care. The mere fact this article has needed to be written is a waving flag of failure.

    UKIP desperately needs to re-establish itself and a new leader has to primarily concentrate on the areas that most concern the electorate such as Brexit and the economy. Getting yourself tangled up in issues that have a myriad of differing viewpoints and few clearly defined right and wrong positions, to my mind, shows a serious error of misjudgement.

    Surely the leader of a libertarian party has to have the ability to display dignified diplomacy on handling intensely personal issues, whatever their own feelings, and to have a meticulously intelligent approach when forced to deal with specifics?

    • He quoted some research without intent to hurt anyone’s feelings. Salman Rushie said the the right to be offended is the new human right. He was being disparaging. For now none of us have the right not to be offended.

      No-one cares about Survey4thefamily or Pink News. It has been blown up because David’s political opponents – or one in particular plus acolytes – wished it so.

      To get back on the national stage UKIP will need to be provocative. Looks like David is our man.

      • I posted a reply, Stout Yeoman, but your message here now really negates it.

        I really agree with you that UKIP must be provocative, rationally and positively, in all the areas that come up on here over and over.

        Faint heart never won fair maiden. As analogy, the country is a long way from fair or maidenhood.

      • Actually, I would strongly argue that people have the right to be offensive, but that is not my point.

        Like it or not, politics is a tricky game and our new party leader will need to be good at playing it or UKIP gets nowhere. What I was trying to emphasise is that it’s not smart to deliberately go looking for trouble in any area that’s highly emotive yet is not an issue to the majority of the electorate. Just what is to be gained from opening a door through which opponents – and even some on your own side – can punch you?

        Having a strong opinion on an emotive and contentious issue is fine, but while ordinary members can and should debate, the leader has to look at a bigger picture and be politically smart. That often means being forced to keep some opinions to yourself for the good of the party. Anyone who does not understand when to speak out and when to hold back will not make a good leader.

        • David. This suggests a method for UKIP to engage our opponents. Initiate debates on issues the mainstream parties prefer to avoid.

          • Yes, you are right, we should initiate debates, but on areas that are of major importance.

            We rightly attacked mass immigration at a time when even mentioning the word ‘immigration’ earned us the tag of ‘racist’. Gradually we won that battle because eyes opened and it became a burning issue for the majority of people. We proved by observation and common sense that it was unsustainable and we won both the battle and the referendum. The point is that we fought a battle that needed fighting and was one that could be won.

            Although hugely important to some, areas such as the rights and wrongs of gay marriage are very divisive. You can argue the issue one way or the other until the cows come home and still get nowhere as, in the final analysis, it is about belief and not hard facts.

            Other parties avoid it because they know there is little to be gained and much grief to be had. They know that even their own party members are likely to be significantly split over such issues.

            We need to choose our battle areas carefully and make sure that like immigration, we are fighting the ones we can win and importantly, those that really matter to the bulk of the electorate.

          • Yes David. The issues on which we choose to fight. That would be a good subject for an article.
            So we need to identify the issues that resonate with the public but the mainstream parties avoid. Fight on just a few fronts. Trump had maybe 6 headline policies. He took hold of the agenda by breaking the rules of politically correct speech.
            Keep on talking about mass immigration especially in labour constituencies.

    • Perhaps you should make a list of views not to be openly discussed by a libertarian party. Or is that a contradiction?

      • A party can and should discuss anything and everything, but a leader must understand they have less verbal freedom than individual members as every word uttered will be taken as if it were existing or potential policy. If a leader speaks without considering the consequences, the risk to the party is considerable. All our candidates need to demonstrate an understanding of that element of the job.

        The proof of my concern is right here. David Kurten’s inexperience has resulted in him now being on the defensive. He and others need to learn to avoid political gaffs fast because who ever gets elected to fight our corner of the bear pit do not want to find themselves defending and on the back foot for making comments that were not needed.

  25. To take a principled stand against the rottenness of Political Correctness is surely a policy that UKIP stands for or it stands for nothing. Don’t be put off by the usual caterwauling of the Left David; keep going. Again on the leadership contest; on my facebook page a couple of days ago I was somewhat surprised to see that one prominent candidate had become my ‘friend’ without so much as a by-your-leave. Needless to say they won’t be getting my vote (or was it an underhand action by someone connected to another candidate?)Has anyone else in UKIP been subject of a similar move?

  26. Let’s face it, David is only stating what was accepted almost universally up until 20 years ago. I wasn’t amazed to see Suzanne Evans and O’Flynn attack however, as she gets into mudfights with so many people (Nigel of course, but the David Coburn exchanges are particularly bitter, him calling her a pashmina frankenstein). This does reveal a fault line in the leadership battle that many are afraid to name out loud; religious fundamentalists versus gay mafia. JRE (trained as a priest in a seminary instead of going to university) and DK (backed by Alan Craig, who is the real target of the pink news article) are on the religious wing, PW and AMW on the gay wing, although clearly each wing is a very broad church. SE sees herself as a champion of the gay wing for some reason as I don’t believe she is gay herself? People may be asking ‘where’s the atheist straight option’? BW perhaps?

    • > People may be asking ‘where’s the atheist straight option’?

      I’m essentially in that grouping, but I don’t need an option tailored for me. Others may be asking:
      “Have we forgotten the virtues of keeping church and state separate?”

      I don’t like quoting the loathsome Alistair Campbell with approval, but his advice to an infamous politician “We don’t do religion” seem to be about right.

  27. Thank you very much for posting your statement here, David – I had already seen it on Twitter but it is much easier to read and inwardly digest in this format. As I said on Twitter, the fact that you have been publically smeared has definitely enhanced your credibility in the eyes of this member! It is also, interestingly, flushing out the Cultural Marxists in the Party….the very thing you, and to my mind UKIP, are and should be fighting against. Whatever your views, or anyone’s views, they should be both able to be expressed and discussed rationally, and not shut out with hysterical labels – a tactic we are, or should be, well used to in UKIP. In my eyes this is just one of many examples of how far UKIP has fallen from credibility. I had thought that if Anne Marie was barred it would be the end of my time in UKIP – on a matter of principle – if you are barred, the same criteria applies.

  28. Your answer, research notwithstanding, should have been “I neither know nor care” for you do not know if homosexual sexual orientation is fixed at birth or not. No-one does. Instead, you answered a question that was not asked – are there statistical differences among abused children? – and in the context was taken as having an implication for the question that was asked. An error of judgement David.

    That said, I deplore the virtue signalling witch hunt that certain party members have gustily embarked on. You have been gaining ground and that makes you a target now. You were (wilfully I am sure) misrepresented and I’m glad you have chosen UKIP Daily to make the correction. We Daily readers are much misrepresented and frowned upon too!

    I really hope no-one is banned from standing by tomorrow’s kangaroo court at which the various accused are not present or represented before sentence is passed. Everyone is a member “in good standing” until they are not and thus far all the candidates are members in good standing.

    Good luck

    PS Enjoyed your excellent article in Conservative Woman.

    • I think the fact that David was able to show that he had done some thinking and was able to cite some research is creditable. In the light of what we presume he has read,
      was he supposed to feign ignorance of available findings?
      How is a ‘don’t know’ answer preferable?
      He may have got brownie points if he had said he disagreed with it but he would have gone down in my estimation.

      We have suffered for decades from the influence of people who are ignorant of the history of our country, our religion, and civilisational history generally. They do not appear to read much or if they do seem unable to transfer the lessons of the past into the present.
      Many seem to have seen fit to keep from us a lot of things they do know however in order to pursue career and agenda.

      Islam, freedom of thought and expression and gender politics are very much issues, not just of today but also, sadly, tomorrow.

      UKIP needs a leader who will stand up to be counted on all these in addition to clear and workable ideas elsewhere.

      • No he is not supposed to feign ignorance. The question was an obvious trap – a yes/no on an un-decidable issue. He fell into it by answering a question that was not asked. My point is one of tactical naivety or judgement.

        I still maintain that “don’t know” is the correct answer to whether sexual orientation is fixed at birth. May be it is for some, may be not for others. Who cares and why?

        I applaud David puncturing various PC shibboleths. That does not mean his judgement is unfailingly flawless. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
        I do not mean to detract from support for David and please do not take my observation that way.

        If the NEC try to censure or ban David I will be in the forefront of the reaction.

        • “Who cares and why?”

          Obviously David Kurten does. If there is certain evidence to suggest there may be value in support and counselling in certain circumstances he sees this as perhaps a good thing.
          His was the thoughtful answer and he need do no more than tell his detractors to read his words.

          The knee jerk baying of the politically correct crowd and gay lobby means they are typically incapable of recognising subtlety and nuance except when it suits their purpose then their manipulation and twisting of argument is second to none. They do not like any focus on ideas of self determination preferring instead to fixate on victim hood status neither are they generally too keen on facts that do not sit with their world view.
          One of the researchers predicted such reaction to her findings.

          I realise I am playing devil’s advocate here by arguing that David gave at least a valid answer and I do take your point that generally you are very much in favour of David so there we both agree.

          Finally, if the right candidate is elected, the multiculturalists, Marxists, islamapologists and many other ‘ists’ besides will find themselves getting upset on a regular basis so they had better start aquainting themselves with the art of rational debate.

  29. Rest assured Mister Kurten that in my humble opinion you represent the vast majority of UKIP members with your statements on this subject.
    Good luck – it would be outrageous if you were barred from standing for leader.

    • I will add here that it is wrong for Suzanne Evans to make the comments she has made to the media about David Kurten. She is bringing the party into disrepute ( as Bill Etheridge did regarding AMW a few weeks ago). She is stifling free speech and attempting to control UKIP agendas and policies by the power of censorship. This is unacceptable; I call upon the NEC to expel Evans from the party.

      • Seconded

      • PurplePottymouth // August 10, 2017 at 5:29 pm // Reply

        With you there. Slagging fellow candidates off is a sure sign you are not leadership material

      • Then you need to use the official form to start the process.

        • Why don’t you tell us which form,where to access it and how to get it progressed? You keep telling people about rules and constitution without references. Try being a little more helpful or is that part of the UKIP/NEC training?

        • I just checked UKIP’s website. The rule book states: ”

          AA.1.2 Under Article 11.3 of the Constitution, any member “in good standing” may refer the conduct of any other member to the General Secretary using the Disciplinary Complaint Form in Appendix 2 to these Rules of Procedure. The General Secretary shall then act in accordance with the rules made under this Article and the rules of natural justice.”

          but scroll down and there is no “Appendix 2 to these Rules of Procedure”.

          Nor is there any information on how to contact the General Secretary.

          You complaint will be ignored for not being on the prescribed form which Head Office does not supply for your use.

          And McWhirter wonders why we have a low opinion of Head Office!

          • Missing because I didn’t have a copy when I reformatted the rule book a year ago. I have a now copy, and can forward by email if necesary, ot better still, you can start with the party secretary, legal@ukip.org, which will help encourage the rule book to be updated…

          • Rely to Mr McWhirter: You left the reformatted rule book with a missing appendix for a year? It is just UKIP Daily readers you like to correct, but not yourself or anyone else responsible for these things in the party?

          • Stout: I updated some appendices, BB and CC, and reformatted at the same time. Then handed back to the party secretary, once the NEC approved my changes. It’s HIS job, IMHO, to maintain it ordinarily.

            Ideally, the relevant PDF should be on MyUKIP, and I am working to look into imoroving MyUKIP with the rest of the technical sub-committee.

          • Courtesy copy of the form sent to yourself, Dee and CitizenKain…

          • Noted. The link to the rule book though is on the main ukip.org site (tiny thing at the foot of the home page). Better to retain perhaps as part of the rule book so that members can at least refer to rules they feel another member is in breach of. It is a disciplinary form after all and potentially a document for court disclosure. That is, the party should encourage care in its completion by keeping it linked to the rule book. Just a suggestion

          • Thanks for suggestion which I will raise at next tec sub-committee meeting.

    • And if you and AMW are barred from standing there will be a mass exodus from this party, and an election turnout that will make the result risible.

      • After we write the missing names on the ballot paper to record the number of “spoilt” votes.

      • Now you touch on something that people are going to roll their eyes at my mentioning, Sussex man. I would like to know how many members we actually have. No good Mr McWhirter saying it ‘fluctuates’ and is always around 30,000 – I really do believe we should have someone completely separate from Head Office, like say, Toby Micklethwait (sorry Toby!) who hopefully would only charge the travel expenses involved, to check the numbers. Not just that, but we gather that many new members, and there have been estimates of up to a thousand who joined when Anne Marie announced she would be standing, may not be able to vote – or some may, and some may not. I have always been surprised that the numbers of members so greatly exceed the turn-outs at events like the hustings – 30,000 is an awful lot of members – one would expect to see at least a couple of hundred at events or hustings. Call me suspicious – no, not that, it’s just that openness seems to be in short supply at the moment, so we should be open about the number of members actually entitled to vote.

        • My information is about 24,000.

        • In the accounts as at 31 December 2016 there are around 35,000 members which should be correct as the auditors will have reviewed it. This is down from around 42,000 the year before. It doesn’t seem as precipitous a drop as some might have feared, but there will also be a lot of people in that number who were simply running down their memberships. 30,000 sounds about right at the moment, but still trending down if you exclude the AMW fans

          • 30,000 was once about right but Stoke was costly – in terms of members not renewing and in terms of the party spending £99K on Nuttall.

            The trend is still downward all right. Newly joining AMW fans have been hyped up.

            If any leadership candidates are banned look forward to a further plummet in membership.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*