First, an Open Letter from Freddy Vachha:
From: Freddy Vachha, UKIP London Regional Chairman
To: James O’Brien @ LBC
Despite many people suggesting to me that I should phone LBC and give Mr O’Brien the drubbing he so evidently needs, I have no interest in doing so.
Only a fool or a masochist would call in to LBC and subject themself to Mr O’Brien’s kangaroo court techniques and assorted parlour tricks with audio buttonry.
The playing field is not level – it’s so tilted it might as well be vertical.
I do challenge Mr O’Brien to a 3-hour, face-to-face stage debate, before a live audience, on matters of importance both to London (originally, the “L” in LBC), to the country and to “the West” as a whole.
This is to be pre-advertised, held in a mutually convenient neutral venue (funded equally), neutrally chaired, and be video-recorded.
Parliamentary language rules shall apply.
Though I am but a first-generation immigrant lacking O’Brien’s undoubted skills using, and in my opinion enormously misusing and abusing, the English language, I promise Mr O’Brien a set of verbal refutations, humiliation and exposure the like of which he’ll never forget.
Or live down.
Respectfully, Freddy Vachha
Next, Stout Yeoman sent in the following observation:
On 5th September, Michelle Brown (Welsh Assembly) had an article in the Telegraph in which she said:
“Fringe arguments about women wearing full-face coverings or the abolition of the Welsh Assembly are, at best going to lose Ukip as many votes as they attract. There simply aren’t enough people for whom those issues are more important than other priorities in their lives, to make them switch from other parties to Ukip.”
While she is entitled to her opinion I wonder why she feels she can publicly dismiss UKIP’s policies or potential policies in public. That is unlikely to persuade people to switch to UKIP. She does not explain why what she calls fringe issues cannot be part of a more comprehensive manifesto.
Polling after the Boris Johnson `letter box’ affair showed a majority of the public do not like full face coverings by muslim women. It’s not as fringe as Ms Brown thinks.
I had not given much thought to the Welsh Assembly but now Ms Brown has spoken I come down on the side of abolition.
Respectfully, Stout Yeoman
Jim Stanley sent in the following letter:
in my recent letter regarding UKIP Members joining the Tory Party, I looked carefully at our Rules and Constitution. Our Rules seem to allow this, unless you are a UKIP appointee, or Elected Branch/Association Official, however, our Constitution, under the Revocation of Membership, part 4, section 4.3 a), states, 4.3
“If after becoming a member of the Party a person a) joins another Party (whether registered with the Electoral Commission or not) or any organised membership which the NEC has declared incompatibile with membership of the Party.”
I have spoken at length with Head Office, and our Legal Eagles are now involved, and I disagree with their viewpoint. The opinion from HQ is that this means that joining an incompatible organisation, not a blanket ban on any other Party. My view apart from the fact that the Conservative Party is a very different Party, with many ideas that are against our aims, is effectively incompatible with UKIP. If, and a big if, we were allowed to join another non-proscribed Party, why put this in the same section as the banned groups? If joining another Party is OK, why place this under Revocation of Membership?
This placement can only lead to confusion, surely, if “legal”, it should not be placed where it is, but under the general membership rules. I understand that this is being referred to the NEC Meeting this weekend for clarification. UKIP is a unique Party, formed to fight for an independent Nation, and other unique policies. To join another Party is to contribute financially to those who do not agree with our core aims, effectively giving support to our opposition, hardly the action of a dedicated Kipper.
I shall write again when I am informed of the result of the NEC deliberations.
Respectfully, Jim Stanley, Chair and County Organiser UKIP Oxfordshire
Finally, Gerrie Williams sent in this letter:
I am quite sure that our members will have had sight of the SNP Brexit Minister, one Mike Russell, seeking to discredit Brexit by use of the specious argument that ,“there never was an explicit mandate for the hardest Brexit”. Is it not amazing how people of his ilk, can trot out these pronouncements, with never even a nod toward the opposite opinion.
One would so like to inform the gentleman ,that he may not consider that there was, but for the majority of the 17.4 million, there very DEFINITELY WAS AND STILL IS, and that they would say further, that there certainly NEVER WAS, and STILL IS NOT, any ‘mandate’ for the so called ‘Chequers Plan’, which is Remain in the EU by a silly name.
Mr. Russell should know that Brexit voters will never countenance that total betrayal, and on balance, would probably prefer to let Scotland devolve,( and subsequently starve to death, generously helped to that end by an increasingly failing and cash strapped EU), than be stuck in the maw of that Totalitarian regime.
Respectfully, Gerrie Williams, Press and Campaigns Secretary UKIP Newton Abbot Branch