In the following we publish a remarkable correspondence between one of our most venerable members, Christopher Gill who was Hon. President of  the Freedom Association, Paul Oakden and Richard Bingley. It is about an item published on the Party’s main website on January 20th 2018. Torquil Dick-Erikson, the eminent author of important articles on the EAW, EGF (Eurogendfor) and the EU’s ‘Corpus Juris’, picked it up and initiated this correspondence. It is a case study in how our “leaders” deal with our concerns. Here are the relevant emails, unreacted:

From Torquil Dick-Erikson on January 23rd:

Dear Christopher,

Here is the leading item on ukip.org!

That a member of UKIP should wish to send personal best wishes to this or any other MP would be quite all right. But that the PARTY should do so, in the name of all the members, is absurd. Lots of MPs in other parties have surely had health problems. Why single out this one? I don’t know who is in charge of ukip.org, but presumably these “good wishes from UKIP” have the authorisation of the “Leader”.

Brokenshire was May’s mouthpiece as Home Office Minister in June 2012. When answering a PQ by Dominic Raab, he told Parliament that “of course” we would welcome “special intervention units from our EU allies onto British soil”, “if needed”. I highlighted this extraordinary, recklessly dangerous, statement in my submission to the House of Lords in 2013. Nobody else appears to have noticed or remarked upon this outrageous statement, which would open the country to effective military occupation by lethally-armed, paramilitary Eurogendarmerie units, controlled directly from Brussels. At that point votes for independence would count for nothing, it would need bullets, not ballots to get us out of the EU.”

This email was the cause for Christopher Gill to email Paul Oakden immediately:

Dear Paul,

Please tell me who authorised the message on the UKIP.org website to the Conservative former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ……and WHY ?

Yours sincerely, Christopher.

Paul Oakden answered back that same day:

Dear Christopher

Thanks for your email, I hope you’re keeping well.

The press release was issued by our excellent Home Affairs spokesman, Richard Bingley. I am copying him in on this reply so that he might answer your question as to why.

Kind Regards, Paul Oakden, Party Chairman

On Jan 24th, Christopher Gill again emailed Paul Oakden:

Dear Paul,

Nothing heard from Richard Bingley.

As I write the “UKIP Send Best Wishes to James Brokenshire MP” is still the lead headline on our UKIP.org website and the as yet unanswered question is WHY ?

Are you aware that on 11th June 2012, James Brokenshire, then a Home Office Minister, in a written answer to Dominic Raab MP who had asked “In what circumstances she (i.e. Theresa May, then Home Secretary) envisages that the UK would request special intervention units from other EU member states to operate on UK soil ?” said that “Should we identify the need to seek the support of our allies in managing a crisis, we would of course do so.”

It is difficult to interpret Brokenshire’s reply other than an acceptance that EU jackboots, i.e. the paramilitary European Gendarmerie Force, on British sovereign territory would, in certain circumstances, be acceptable, not only to him but also to his then boss who just happens to be our current Prime Minister!

Paul, you really ought to get a grip and sort this out pronto, rather than pass the buck.

Yours sincerely, Christopher.

No reply was forthcoming – so Christopher wrote on January 25th:

Dear Paul,

Here we are, five days after the offending article was posted on UKIP.org and still nothing done, nor any answer as to WHY it was posted in the first place.

If you think that I am wrong to be cutting up about this ridiculous post then please say so, but, in my opinion, publishing messages of this nature is simply not on.

Richard Bingley has a perfect right, in his own private capacity, to communicate with whomsoever he chooses, but that right doesn’t extend to expressing sentiments, such as his unprecedented message to Brokenshire, on behalf of the Party membership at large.

Do you and/or the Party leader condone this aberration ?

Is anybody going to answer/apologise or should I simply consider this correspondence now closed ?

Yours sincerely, Christopher.

That got a reaction. On the same day, Richard Bingley emailed Christopher:

Dear Christopher,

I hope that you are well. Thanks for the email to Paul.

I authored the Press Release for the following reason. Until recently, Mr Brokenshire was a senior front bench politician of Cabinet rank. Because UKIP is a significant mainstream political Party, I feel that it is incumbent upon us to exercise professional protocol, which in this instance is to express personal support and sympathy at a time of known acute health difficulty for any senior competitor. This would be the case for any senior front bench representative of any Party.

Underneath the above rationale, for further context, I serve within the UK security community whereby Mr Brokenshire was a popular and closely involved minister since 2010 (despite his views to remain in the EU, potentially running contrary to most of us in that professional domain). However, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since 2016, Mr Brokenshire made a significant attempt to block the public funding and processing of legal actions against alleged historic actions of British soldiers (dating back to 1971). Although I do not seek to make an amateur legal judgement on such individual cases, the point is that Mr Brokenshire suffered severe personal vitriol within that post for defending now retired and elderly British soldiers whilst several dozen violent terrorists on all sides have received legal amnesty.

The press release was written by me and issued by the Party’s head of press as per normal procedure.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. My very best wishes to you and in Shropshire.

Kind regards, Richard Bingley

Here is Christopher’s reply from Jan 26th:

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your email in response to my expressed concerns about the goodwill message to James Brokenshire MP, posted on the UKIP website.

I cannot accept the explanation in your first paragraph because it is simply not proper for UKIP to be publishing sentiments of a personal nature that are not necessarily shared by the Party membership. That is quite apart from the other question which inevitably arises viz. where does this all end ?

By your standards we should have sent goodwill messages to Tessa Jowell and, doubtless, many , many others. I don’t for one moment think this would meet with the approbation of Party members whose opinions haven’t been sought, nor, realistically, could they be.

Turning to your second paragraph you state that you “serve within the UK security community”.  For my better understanding of your role perhaps you would be so kind as to explain in what capacity you serve in the ‘security community’.

Yours sincerely, Christopher.

On Feb 9th (!), I received this email from Christopher:

Dear Viv,

A whole fortnight has passed since I invited Richard Bingley to elaborate on his statement that he serves “in the UK security community”, but still no response.

The message to James Brokenshire MP posted on UKIP.org on 20th January, which is what started this particular hare running, is still up there !

I am content for you to publish the complete correspondence but leave it to your discretion as to how you go about it.

The only condition that I would seek to impose is that you do it sooner rather than later so that folk can read it well in advance of the EGM on 17th.

Yours aye, Christopher.

Torquil Dick-Erikson commented on the same day in his email:

Bolton said during his first press conference that his means of support was “consultancy in the security field”. Now Bingley says in his email to Christopher Gill that he too works (NB not “used to work”) “in the UK security community”. Why their reticence as to details?

In particular Bingley’s failure to even comment on May’s and Brokenshire’s declaration in 2012 when one was Home Secretary and the other was Home Office Minister, that they were more than willing to call in EU “special intervention units” onto British soil “if needed” is HIGHLY SUSPECT.

As he is Home Affairs spokesman this to my mind is a dereliction of duty.  And as he is also a “security specialist” it is even worse.

Have we been taken over by mysterious forces? And one was a former LibDem candidate, and the other a professional Press Officer for the Labour Party, indeed “head of Labour’s East of England and London media operations during Tony Blair’s second and third terms as Prime Minister”,  forsooth. If Bingley has some innocent explanation why does he not answer Christopher Gill’s email?

In case you’ve never heard of Richard Bingley – here is the official Party note on his joining in 2014.

I think we all would like a proper explanation – but given the disdain exhibited in Mr Bingley’s answer to valid questions by eminent members, I believe we ought not to hold our breath.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email