Latest from UKIP Daily

Young Independence Conference – The Tip of the Iceberg

Looking at the Young Independence conference cancellation the first reaction is one of shock/outrage/anger/disbelief/fear/panic. My first reaction was that the UK is now a one party banana republic. Ok, that’s not quite true, yet, but we are rapidly heading that way – but hopefully not if UKIP have anything to do with it.

We first have to understand what happened there. To put it simply: it was an act of far Left terrorism. There I said it: terrorism. Open any English dictionary and it will likely define a terrorist as

“A person who uses, or the threatens to use, extreme violence for political purposes.”

I think you will agree this describes the situation above succinctly. Their aim was to shut down an opposing viewpoint, and they succeeded in this instance. We have become so hung up on Islamic terrorism, we have overlooked hard Left terrorism. Make no mistake, the latter is just as dangerous as the former.

Now we have to understand why this is happening: the whole episode stank of U.S. Alinsky style tactics. The U.S. Left have been using these tactics for many years, now the U.K. and European Left have adopted them. Why? Because they are effective, nasty, shut down debate, force conservatives to concede ground and help the Left to control the agenda. Google ‘Saul Alinsky’ or ‘Rules for Radicals’ and you will learn about these tried and tested tactics.

I’m going to digress somewhat to make a point: anyone who has worked in retail knows a customer who complains is the best customer. This is because they are advising you on a shortcoming within your business. We should treat this as no different: it has shown us where a lot of weakness lie within UKIP. We have to learn to adapt, prevent, but at the least minimise repeat occurrences for the future.

The incident in my opinion is so typical for that of UKIP:  it’s a school-boy error. We need to become professional, look professional and think professional. It is little wonder Peter Hitchens described UKIP as ‘Dad’s Army’. Could you imagine this would have happened to Labour or the Tories?

Let’s look at areas where there should be question marks:

Venue

Never, ever, pick a venue from a company that could be lobbied or scared. Private companies are easy to lobby, and the Left are experts at this. Look at what happened to the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs for example. Always go for a public building, one that is owned by the local council. It is less likely to have the plug pulled from it. Corporations don’t like bad publicity, it sends their corporate communication teams into meltdown. In summary, pick a venue that outside forces are unlikely to interfere with.

Know Your Enemy

Learn their tactics and then learn counter tactics, otherwise this will happen again. Look at how other conservatives in the US have dealt with similar threats: knowledge share! If you know the risk is going to be high, expect the worst and have a contingency plan. Did we have a contingency plan and was a threat risk assessment carried out before the speakers were chosen?

Use UKIP’s Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)

I find it amazing that an organisation which contains so many former military and police personnel doesn’t properly utilize their knowledge. I heard this problem discussed at a leadership hustings I attended: UKIP doesn’t use sufficiently the wealth of knowledge within its ranks. Did the leadership use any SME’s?

Security

This will become an issue in future. At the moment the Left are deciding UKIP’s future speakers – after all they managed to cancel a conference with emails. How will UKIP up security? Depending on the leadership results, security may become an even bigger issue.

Legal Recourse

Can we take legal action against the individuals responsible? I’d be very surprised if the hard Left emails do not fall foul of the Communications Act! UKIP need to push this. Have they written to the Chief Constable, Crime Commissioner, Home Secretary for comment? Has the Hotel provided the emails to the Police? Can some of UKIP’s former police officers offer help here? Doing nothing or being seen to do nothing is the worst case scenario!

Inaction in this instance is not an option. If this succeeds we are now being ruled by the mob. They will decide our agenda, our speakers, our venue, our policies and eventually everything. We will have lost our freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and our liberty.

UKIP cannot afford to let these terrorists get away with this. If they do, UKIP can forget about Torquay, or indeed anywhere in the UK for a conference venue. We may as well wind things up and turn off the lights….

—– ooOoo —–

Ed: we add below the full statement from Jane Collins MEP/UKIP United on this issue, which we only received yesterday evening:

“I was disappointed to hear that the YI conference on the 2nd September was cancelled and those who had spent time organising the event had their time wasted by those on the left who seem determined to remove any vestiges of political opposition to their views. I understand that the venues took the decision because of the threats of violence due to the hard left activists who seem to have time to congregate at events, even during working hours when one would imagine they might be at work.

This isn’t the first time it has happened in UKIP’s history and there are lessons to be learned.

Firstly, I have to ask how this situation was allowed to escalate: we have people in the party who should have advised the leadership of Young Independence rather than, perhaps, concentrating on getting mentioned in the media.

Secondly, that planning and security have to be taken seriously and this includes liaising with the police ahead of any events.

Thirdly, I have to question the judgement of whoever decided that having a very controversial figure like Martin Sellner as lead speaker, when we already had a controversial figure in Anne Marie Waters attending the event, was a good idea. 

There is one thing encouraging free speech: it is quite another to poke a hornet’s nest particularly in a Left wing city such as Sheffield. 

If I am elected leader I want to include YI as part of the reforms I will make to UKIP; including a representative from YI on the executive board whose job it will be to ensure two way communication and stop these situations from occurring.

I value the youth in our party: they are energetic and bring a vibrancy which benefits us. But they need to be mentored, not just left out in the cold.

Just as the party needs to reform and professionalise, so does YI and I think the fault for this not happening has to lie with the central party. I want to change that and I hope that members of young independence will support me in mine and my team’s plans to put this party back on track and get back to being that driving force in UK politics.

Jane Collins MEP, UKIP United

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

34 Comments on Young Independence Conference – The Tip of the Iceberg

  1. Perhaps Jane Collins could answer this: if say the Green Party youth wing had a controversial speaker, on say, a commitment to world open borders and held it in my conservative (small c) town, would they be poking a hornests nest by having their meeting in a right wing town? Would their potential leader be blaming their choice of venue? Would their potential leadership be blaming themselves for inviting controversial speakers?

  2. Let’s try a dose of REALITY, folks. We, the party, paid a fortune so Nigel could have private security to defend his freedom of speech.

    He was a democractically elected MEP, and leader of the 3rd most popular party in the UK, but the government refused to help with security costs. No budget from the police, either.

    At least one donor looked at helping, then walked away when the bill was revealed.

    With that in mnd, if YI book controversial speakers, why should they expect any different treatment? If they can’t afford venue appropriate security, then they should choose uncontroversial speakers.

    It’s that simple, however tragical, in thus day and age.

    NO, it’s not fair, but life frequently isn’t.

    • Sorry, Rob – it’s the ‘reality’ bearing down on us that I believe many commenters are complaining that we should be facing up to. If UKIP don’t, who will?

      There is a lot we can do together as an entity that we are quite unable to do on our own. Had YI been supported by the UKIP interim Leader, a strong case could have been made to the Police. Not much might have come of it, but at least we may have got something done – we will never know.

      I strongly refute the idea that from now on we choose ‘uncontroversial’ speakers – who gets to choose what is controversial? The bullies? If that’s the case and we all agree on it, I don’t see any point in having a Leadership election, or a Party at all.

      Who is speaking isn’t the point – unless they have been banned from entering the country. The point is that a group of people didn’t want this speaker, or this event to take place, and threatened people – which, last time I looked, was against the Law.
      Henry Bolton is a Police Commissioner – surely he knew that?!

      It’s about our ‘interim Leader’ not having the balls to complain, and being supported in this by all of the MEP’s except Gerard Batten, and apparently the Leadership candidates. I do except AMW, because she cannot ever be accused of ducking controversy. Some members agree with the stance taken by the Leadership. I am quite certain they will rue the day they didn’t take a stand and nip this in the bud by showing they would not cave in to such behavior.

      It isn’t even about what YI should or should not have done. There are obviously lessons to be learned about venues and so on – but the truth is, when push came to shove those at the top bottled it, and by so doing they made life so much harder for UKIP in the future. How hard is it to complain to the Police? Life will be a lot harder from now on because we didn’t – unless, of course, we go down the ‘uncontroversial’ route. We will soon know.

      • By the way, John, we have all concentrated on the second article – I do apologize, because your article states the case perfectly, I could have cut and pasted most of it (if I knew how!) in answer to Rob McWhirter! Three resounding cheers!

    • Rob – perhaps you could contact the various lefty organisations and ask them for a list of speakers that YI should not invite and a list of towns where YI should not hold meetings. Perhaps you could also ask them which brand of toilet rolls it is acceptable for Kippers to use.

      • The point, John, is that we went down this route on NIGEL’s behalf, and learned that for UKIP, freedom of speech means deep pockets.

        YI, therefore, are welcome to have controversial speakers, providing they also have a donor ready to stump up the necessary dough for security.

        NO, it’ NOT fair, but we’ve learned the hard way that the establishment will do ZILCH to support us, and we need to be realistic in accordance!

        • Yet, Rob, no-one, having had this experience, seems to care a jot about the danger they put Anne Marie in, with their hysterical smearing and accusations, which are a gift to Lefties and MSM.
          That’s the most shocking thing of all. Truly, only the Establishment care nothing for the safety of those they knowingly put in danger.

        • Hello Rob,

          The main issue here this is that to do nothing is NOT an option. If UKIP do nothing, then the same elements who sent the hotel the email will do this again, and again, and again. Essentially they have now spotted (and will exploit) a massive hole in UKIPs armour.

          Eventually UKIP will have NO conference, because they do not want you to have a conference and will use the speaker excuse time and time again.

          Whom decides who can and cannot speak? Anyone could take offense to ANY future speaker, because these elements WILL find offense, any offense, whether actual or perceived.

          YI could have billed the Austrian as a ‘secret guest speaker’ and not disclosed who he was until the start. They could even have used VTC and had him as a virtual speaker (no need to even travel to the UK). Poor planning and no-one able to think outside the box?

          There is a strong possibility that what happened breaches laws that currently exist, i.e. Communication Act.
          UKIP could write to the Chief Constable, Crime Commissioner and even Home Secretary demanding action. A well publicized letter costs no more than a piece of paper and a stamp. However, you would have made a stand, and possibly the opportunity to make some political capital if the response is inadequate. Some prosecutions could act as a future deterrent, we have to use the law and set an example.

          You mention the cost of security, but allowing this element to get away with criminality not only encourages them, but raises the real prospect that in the face of a weak response increases the risk to UKIP members in general. Ergo, inaction and indifference means they will declare ‘Open Season’ on UKIP. Out security costs are likely to get even MORE expensive.

          As Churchill said, appeasement does not work. ‘It is feeding the crocodile in the hope it eats you last’. He was dead right, as history has shown time and time again.

          To me this whole episode is the first real crisis that any of the potential leaders have faced.
          The worrying aspect for me is no-one seems to realise the gravity of what we have witnessed and the potential implications of inaction for the future.
          If UKIP can’t fight its own corner, how could the public expect us to fight THEIR corner?

          V/R,

          John Locke

          • John, you are so right, you have nailed it. I think the only candidate who possibly wouldn’t be thrown is AMW – she had a mini episode at her attempted launch, did she not, and simply re-grouped.
            But for the other so-called serious contenders not to seem to grasp the implications are shocking. And that some people seem to think that they shouldn’t have done anything was really the point of my letter. If this attitude is the way people choose for UKIP, they are, as I said, entitled to it and those of us who would like a different approach must, sadly, leave UKIP to it. It may be the way forward, but in the current climate I doubt it.

          • Secret guest speaker? What a brilliant idea!

  3. Maybe we can salvage something from this for the future. When our members next seek to hold a private meeting, as the YI date was, the local Police should be approached and protection demanded to ensure that the meeting goes ahead. Sheffield can be quoted as a current example of our need for protection. The recent Football Lads March only went off peacefully because antifa were directed, on pain of arrest, to not approach the march. We tend to lose sight I think of the fact that a tremendous number of the public are with us and believe in what we believe. 4 million voters weren’t simply voting for us to represent the UK in Europe, many – surely – voted UKIP because we had the balls to stand up and be counted and take on the ‘elites’. We weren’t the ‘same old, same old’. We then smacked them on the nose again with our energy and commitment in the Referendum (with like-minded others). We need the public as much as they need us. Clegg said last year, “We (the liberals) need to address the corrosive caricature of us being unpatriotic, cosmopolitan elitists”. Who views them like that? – a remarkable number of voters that we can represent. Throw in ‘Corbyn’s (traitorous) comics’ and we can make much hay.

  4. I would just like to mention that while we have been slating Ms Collins for her article – at least she has said something!

    Where is the great Cultural Marxist fighter – David Kurten? Does he not recognize this as an attempt to silence free speech ? Certainly his indignation has been undetectable, his silence deafening.

    Mr Henry Bolton, he of the Army background, who wants Britain to be Britain again, has apparently failed to notice that in Britain we are supposed to be able to meet lawfully and listen to free speech. And we can’t. I thought you were a Police Commissioner! You must have a phone number somewhere!

    John Rees-Evans I would have expected to see you standing outside the venue with a microphone reciting Churchill in defense of YI – oh, sorry, I forgot that Paul Weston got arrested for reciting Churchill – but even Betjeman would have done! Perhaps you put something on Facebook? But otherwise I have heard and seen nothing, even on Twitter.

    Aiden, well, I wouldn’t, to be honest, expect you to notice, – mind on higher things?

    But Peter Whittle, our ex-Deputy Leader? Perhaps it’s because the YI are “people like those” that they weren’t worth a mention. You have been big on cultural Marxism as well, I recall. Could you not have had a word in the ear of our ‘interim Leader’, and told him to contact the Police?

    Lastly, Anne Marie – I am disappointed, although you do speak at rallies, and will be doing so again on Saturday in the teeth of opposition, and will probably be among many YI members, you could have said something!

  5. “I understand that the venues took the decision because of the threats of violence due to the hard left activists who seem to have time to congregate at events, even during working hours when one would imagine they might be at work.”

    Don’t be silly, these rent-a-mob leftist types are the work-shy unemployed, earning a living off the state, and topping up their ‘income’ with bungs to attend ‘protests’ and threaten people by email.

    You only have to see some of Tommy Robinson’s videos, where he interviews random people at these protests, and half of the time they have no idea what they are protesting about. Paid stooges.

  6. MEPs and loyalty.2014 24 UKIP MEPS elected
    2017 If AMW becomes leader the following are likely to leave the party and/or continue their separation.
    Arnott; Atkinson; Bashir; Bours (?); Carver; Coburn; Collins; Etheridge; Hookem; James; O’Flynn(?); Woolfe HALF THE PARTY!
    16 of 24 MEPs refuse to financially support HQ staff by tithing their generous EU salary and expenses. Despite a firm promise to do so before being elected. I think we should know the names of the 16.

  7. Jane Collins, oh, dear! Many UKIP MEPs seem to have spent too much time hobnobbing with liberal, progressive counterparts in the watering holes and troughs of Brussels and Straz. They have become demob happy and lost sight of what makes UKIP tick.
    A totally “out to lunch” comment by her, if I may say so.

  8. purple blood in my veins // September 7, 2017 at 1:43 pm // Reply

    So Jane Collins is for “encouraging free speech” but against allowing “controversial” characters to speak. Does she not realise that these two points are mutually exclusive? Essentially, then, she is the Leadership Candidate who will clamp down on freedom of expression by the YI and, no doubt, all the Branches. I’m glad we found out before we received our ballot papers.

  9. I am surprised that none of the candidates has exploited this.

    Left wing violence, intimidation, fear within companies, shutting down political opposition, curtailing free speech, attacking a political party… so much to shout about.

    Any candidate could get publicity when contacting the organisers and the police while doing the right thing.

  10. I have been complaining about this since last Sunday. Despite requests to HQ and here on Daily Ukip to various leadership candidates it has taken 5 days to get a reply from anyone.
    This antifa action is criminal behaviour and should be dealt with as such.
    Martin Sellner is not a criminal but a good friend of what UKIP stands for. Let us suppose for a moment his views are ” extreme right wing” so long as he does not break the law why is he not allowed to debate with ukip members and/or the liblabcon blob?
    I have a right to attend meetings of public interest and make my own mind up, I do not need to be warned off by warnings of “poking a hornet’s nest”.
    We have a much bigger problem than ukip HQ and many MEPs and councillors realise. This is not going to stop until the perpetrators are in jail. A few exemplary sentences to these young student fantasists ( no girlfriend and still live at their parents mid twenties and degrees in media studies) would shake them up.
    Yes security and planning and publicity need a big overall but there will now be a problem booking rooms anywhere as UKIP. Indeed the problem is maybe extant due to local authority rules that No Platform ( ie no room bookings) for racists and fascists. By the way the left definition of racist and fascist is anyone who is classified by them as being racist and fascist. George Orwell was right.
    I also call upon Jane Collins to apologise to AMW in her attempts to stop AMW speaking at her own leadership candidate launch in Rotherham a few weeks ago. This is the behaviour of the fascist left and has no place in UKIP.

  11. I don’t believe in dissing people unless the deserve it, and in my opinion Ms Collins shows in this article precisely why she would be a disaster as Leader.
    While she makes some valid points she simply cannot help herself – equating Martin Sellner, who isn’t as far as I can make out, but is said to be a ‘Nazi’ with Anne Marie Waters.

    Anne Marie is only controversial, Ms Collins, because you, Bill Etheridge, Nigel, Steven among others have pushed that narrative relentlessly. Full points for virtue signaling, but nil points for using the tactics of the left and SJW’s, aided by your usefully delighted idiots the MSM to firmly hammer this perception home in the public mind.

    Presumably these tactics will be used, since you have shown that you cannot help it, against anyone who tries to say anything you personally don’t like – and you have plenty of willing ears into which to drip poison.

    Unworthy, Ms Collins! Unworthy of both UKIP and its members – I don’t care what policies you put forward, your tactics are a disgrace – although to be fair, you are not alone.

  12. Well, before we get upset about the YI event, let’s also get upset about one of our own UKIP branches with the support of a certain Jane Collins speaking out against AMWs campaign launch in Rotherham. And again Jane just can’t resist digging at AMW in her statement.

    Also, I thought Katie Fanning is on the NEC and is also senior in YI? Along with Anish Patel who quit the NEC ina huff. How come Jane doesn’t know this?

    As for the YI conference, why they put their fate in the hands of the globalist corporatist enemy like Hilton? Maybe in a privately-owned hotel in Devon next time. Its like Donald Trump’s story of the Snake that he told on his campaign trail. You knew it was a snake when you picked it up, so why are you surprised when it bit you?

  13. Let that statement from Jane Collins be a warning to anyone considering voting for her as UKIP Leader.

    Firstly it confirms her as a hypocrite. She is “disappointed” that threats lead to the cancelling of this venue, but welcomed the venue for Anne Marie Waters manifesto launch being cancelled at short notice under similar circumstances. You’re either in favour of free speech and opposed to thuggish intimidation or you are not.

    Second, the line about “not poking a hornets nest” confirms UKIP under her leadership will continue its decline into electoral irrelevance. What is the point, exactly, of a UKIP that doesn’t poke hornets nests? We have several political parties who play it safe, UKIP must be the party willing to say what others won’t, or it is nothing.

    UKIP must be a stalwart champion for free speech. No ifs, no buts. It is the most important right we have, it is under attack from all sides, and nobody else will defend it. “I believe in free speech but we mustn’t offend or poke hornets nests” means you do not believe in free speech.

    • This is possibly the best possible dissection of Jane Collins’s response.

      I am rather unnerved that someone standing for leader has such a poor grasp of the notions of what constitutes free speech. Perhaps if ‘stirring up a hornets nest’ and ‘free speech’ go into different categories, perhaps she could enlighten us as to which is which, how interchangeable they are and who decides. Or perhaps we could get away from ridiculous notions that the person speaking freely can be somehow responsible for intimidation and violence inflicted upon them.

      Furthermore Jane Collins’s behaviour previously over Anne-Marie Waters makes me think of the saying that those who do not defend free speech for those they disagree with are not supporters of free speech at all.

  14. I would like a reply from Jane Collins MEP on what actions the party has taken on reporting the criminal intimidation of legitimate business and our youth by political thugs to the Police and what are they doing about it?

    What mentoring is required to report a serious crime against ordinary law abiding workers, organisations and members of the public?

    We need answers

  15. In my day, the NEC invited a YI rep to attend, but they never did, for some reason…

  16. If the aim of YI was to make a point about free speech or left wing bullying, it worked very well, though It’s UKIP here, the nasty party, with AMW trying to be leader, don’t they deserve whatever they get ? The media have of course largely ignored it anyway.
    On the other hand if they actually wanted a meeting, it was a complete disaster. The second option seems most likely. There were so many ways of avoiding this. If you offer direct confrontation, that’s what you get from the other side. There are many ways of dealing with a problem, the best being persuasion and use of the law. Another is careful planning and a fall back position. We need to learn from this, neither conflict nor surrender is necessary.

    • Who’s side are you on Iceni? Young Independents or antifa? I cannot tell be reading your posting above. Why is it confrontational to have a conference of speeches about the future of UKIP which ends in criminals threatening succesfully to shut it down?
      Was it not confrontational to challenge the entire metropolitan elite in their disgusting acceptance of the creeping end of UK sovereignty as a price worth paying for staying in the EU? What is the difference?

  17. I drew attention to this situation at 11.30am yesterday (Endorsement of AMW)and John sets the matter out in greater detail. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, then how will we ever convince the British voter that we will stand up for them? I’ve said the following many times during my membership: ‘it’s almost as if there are other influences at work’.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*