Latest from UKIP Daily

A Case Study in Corresponding with our ‘Leaders’

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!

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, 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 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 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 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 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
About Vivian Evans (324 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

13 Comments on A Case Study in Corresponding with our ‘Leaders’

  1. Viv,
    Thank you for publishing this piece.

    If one is regularly involved with social media (ie. all the stuff people are really talking/screaming about on the other side of the concrete wall from msm), you will already be used to seeing the phrase Civil War more and more frequently, and be well aware precisely the subject matter. Now one sees the phrase Pressure Cooker, again more and more.

    For the govt department MI5/MI6 or whoever, special forces “as needed” could well be a contingency plan for when the cooker blows its top.

    Of course, no-one can prove this conclusively. Which in itself adds a bit more pressure to the Pressure Cooker don’t you think?

    It is bleedin obvious that UKIP has been taken over by some clandestine organisation and the most likely suspect is Common Purpose. Laugh if you will, or suggest a realistic explanation for the sinister silences from the UKIP Ivory Tower Group – over and over and over again – for years now.

  2. This exchange is nothing to do with me Viv. Presumably my near-namesake.

  3. Chris has, unfortunately, a big black mark on his CV – like me, he has served on the NEC 🤣

  4. This is all very interesting, could it be that the powers that be fear the Russians mounting some surprise attack on a European country? so they are sticking together, but do not wish to alarm the people.

    This is just a wild guess by the way, but this is the first I have heard of one of ours being on this security community, whatever that means.

    Sometimes I feel we have been heavily infiltrated and there is not much we can do about it, except make a start by getting rid of Bolton. But I cannot understand how all the members that support him cannot smell something suspicious about him.

    • Highly unlikely. Why would the Russians wish to do that? The force intended to keep the Bolshevik empire at bay was NATO; this was not disbanded when the Bolshevik empire collapsed but has been busy occupying ex-vassals in order to threaten Russia. Generally speaking, NATO has been refashioned as the globalists’ international militia, furthering their nation destroying agenda in Europe and out of theatre.

      As to the nascent EU Army, it will exist for the United states of Europe just like that of the US.

      • Dear forthurst,

        Why would Hitler want to invade Poland? I agree it is hard to say but he did.

        Having watched the Russian Foreign Minister explain that the Russian forces occupying Crimea were not Russian forces occupying Crimea in 2014 it strikes me that in a competition since 2000 for nation breaking the score is Russia one and NATO nil.

        You say that Russia invading a European country is highly unlikely. I guess you were not following events on 24-Feb-2014. Or perhaps it is because you think that Ukraine is no more European than, say, China since, after all, they both occupy parts of the Eurasian land mass.

        My correction makes a point about the defence of the Kingdom. When you are planning a military defence it is not the most likely risk that you need to focus on. It is the net danger of the risk incorporating both severity and probability. It is perhaps more likely that IS will attack the Kingdom or the EU than that Russia will. However if IS had attacked Crimea on 24-Feb-14 it would still be in Ukraine. Russia is the appropriate focus of for both the armed forces of the Kingdom and the EU because it has the wherewithal to destroy all human life on earth (with 2,500 front line nuclear weapons and 1,500 in reserve) as well as a first use nuclear doctrine and a track record, over the last 15 years and under its current President, of twice invading independent nations.

  5. I am so glad that SOMEONE in UKIP has noticed that we are now in the process of integrating the British and French Armies. I have no expertise in this matter, but I would have expected Mr Bolton to be all over this. Here is the very latest on where we are now, as the UK News Column led with this on this Friday.
    Some time ago when UK News Column were discussing this I noted that Brian Gerrish said that Nigel Farage had been kept updated on the situation by the UK News Column and had been disappointed that he hadn’t taken it forward.
    However, as a Military /Security man, surely Mr Bolton must also be aware of what is happening. Why is there a deafening silence from UKIP on this, which is so crucial to the survival of the UK as an Independent Nation?

  6. Purple Potty Mouth // February 10, 2018 at 11:04 am // Reply

    The sharp eyed amongst us may have spotted that Henry and Richard both joined UKIP in 2014. That may be purely coincidence of course – just saying

    • Was it also coincidence that the Ukraine was talk of the town at that time and Nigel was pointing out that a lot of the trouble was caused by EU interference – was that about the time the Russians became “the enemy”? I think Fallon was later, but it was already being voiced and I also think there was a turn in Russian involvement in Syria..
      Perhaps for some in military intelligence UKIP required bringing into line.
      Just suggesting!

    • 2014 is also the year when:
      – UKIP achieved 26.6% in the European Elections, a significant breakthrough and a historical first;
      – in consequence, Patrick O’Flynn became an MEP, meteorically rose to prominence within the Parety and moved the Party’s policies sharply leftwards (together with his fellow traveller Suzanne Evans, who a year after that mysteriously shot up from being a nobody within the Party to talking about herself as a potential Leader – was that not a red flag?);
      – Red UKIP came into existence (Tim Wigmore, “Red Ukip: a new political force?”, 26 September 2014 –;
      – Patrick O’Flynn started spreading bizarre stories that the Party was divided (presumably between himself on the left, and the rest of the Party on the libertarian right). The Party was totally united in libertarian values at the time, but since then, those who would divide us have been spectacularly successful.

      So yes, my guess is that UKIP is highly infiltrated, at very high, if not the highest, levels. It is infiltrated by the LibDems, it is infiltrated by the Tories, it is infiltrated by the Labour Party, it is infiltrated by the security services. In fact, it is probably infiltrated by various competing factions of all the above. It probably has been infiltrated for a long time, but overt internal sabotage by infiltrator sleeper agents probably started in earnest in 2014, when UKIP started to become perceived as a real threat by the establishment. Until then, their strategy was just to ridicule us. I used to worry that we would be infiltrated and destroyed from within when we became successful. That was before we became very successful. I expressed my concerns to many, including Nigel, at the time. Today, I am convinced that it is too late to worry about becoming infiltrated as in my opinion, we already are. The most successful and the smartest infiltrator is probably someone who to the best of my knowledge was first identified as such by Godfrey Bloom, and who some like to refer to as Mr Common Purpose.

      • FWIW I concur with your view, Mr S.

        I have no credibility within UKIP, nor would I expect any. I joined just after the Ref. Since then I have been to precisely one Branch meeting, turned out to leaflet door-to-door for the GE (my admiration for anyone who has done this more than once is unbounded), thought I would go to last year’s AGM but thought better of it, and am considering going to the EGM but am unsure what difference my presence can possibly make. I am as complete an outsider as could be, considering I am a paid-up member.

        I don’t think most people yet understand how our national politics has entered completely new territory now, in terms of the control and management of political narrative by undemocratic means. The two major parties are busy marginalising any possibility of real debate within their ranks – a situation more reminiscent of wartime than the allegedly peaceful times we are currently inhabiting. The situation with UKIP seems to be different, but aimed at the same result – the crushing of any significant focus for effective dissidence, the demolition of any platform that might support an alternative narrative based on liberty, sovereignty and an awareness of nationhood.

        Any party which is subject to endless unresolved factionalism, at the same time that its own internal communication mechanisms are so totally f*cked, is obviously infiltrated. It is simply not natural for that state of affairs to persist without resolution for more than a few months, so the fires of discord are obviously (and expertly) being stoked from within and without. I have written on another forum about the mechanisms required to drain a swamp – referring to the DS that exists within and around our political and economic elite. I refer to the dislocation of trust, the disruption of communication, and the strategic introduction of uncheckable untruths into your opponents’ stability mechanisms, as a means of destroying their network ability – as a way of focussing them entirely on their own survival as opposed to devoting their energy to promoting their ideas effectively among the wider society.

        I very much suspect this is exactly what has been done to UKIP – a constant drip-feed of chaos-inducing triggers has rendered it utterly ineffective as a political force. This does not happen by accident.

        What do I know? I know virtually nothing about this party – only that it became an affront to the establishment, because it undermined their otherwise successful entombment of our national identity, culture and history (as is similarly the case across much of Western Europe). And now it is not.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.