chikrodah

DN, It's nice to see that I'm not one, but 5 disinformation specialists. It makes me feel so much more special. Shame your passionate denunciation got in the way of both spelling and sense.

twizzel and DN, you are frothing at the mouth so rapidly, you'd almost think you were sharing the same IP

It's a shame the record's stuck. I've known parrots with a better range of stock phrases.

I'm delighted to know that twizzel's not obeyed any law passed since 1953 - it explains how his hobby bobby career ended so quickly once he joined the TVP. I'm only surprised the Met didn't find out sooner.

As for you, DN, I'd have more respect for your much-vaunted 'research', if you actually bothered to do any. IMHO, you can't even get your basic facts straight about people you consider to be your enemies.

You two, together with aarable and Ashley Mote, are turning the eurosceptic movement into political pariahs. Congratulations. The EU doesn't need disinformation specialists - you lot are damaging our chances much better without any interference at all.

Why on earth don't you get together with others who, funnily enough, won't agree with you on everything but who might share your professed goals of "getting out"? IMHO, it's because you all have a shared need to feel like martyrs and it's easier to do that when you're fighting a hopeless cause, beset by special enemies that only seem to target you.

You don't listen to others, you won't accept their points of view if different from your own and you persist in courses of action that seem pointless to the general public. Why?

You could use the effort and passion you display in attacking me and others to work with eurosceptics to get out of the EU in other ways, but you don't. Why?

Why is your way the only right way? Why is your only defence not reason, despite your claims, but repetitive rubbish about how your enemies will fall and then they'll be sorry? Why are any opposing points of view malicious disinformation?

I had better debates as a teenager at school. I've debated on a national level where the only way to win was to have solid, well-articulated facts ready to put forward. Your responses are, IMHO, pathetic.

Oh, BTW, I'm not going anywhere I'm going to be here for a long, long time. I look forward to your next posts.

chikrodah

It would not be entirely surprising if the siege mentality of some of the UKIP HO staff and MEPs was due in part to the high level of eccentric campaigning done by a percentage of its members and ex-members, not to mention the endless power struggles amidst the upper echelons. It's very easy for a branch to be destroyed or diminished by the actions of a few obsessives; that happens in all political parties as MikeUK has already pointed out elsewhere.

I have a lot of respect for the hard-working grass roots in certain branches as well as several of the HO staff and IndDem researchers. Many forget that UKIP has minimal funding compared to the Big Three. I once calculated that minimal funding for a new party would be in the region of £3 - 5 million over the first 5 years, assuming that party wanted to hit the ground running and be taken seriously. If UKIP is guaranteed 25% of that from independent sources this year, I'd be pleasantly surprised. We've come a long way in understanding what can and cannot be done with MEP funding. That is, in itself, an achievement of sorts. It means we can approach the next Euro election with firm guidance in place, hopefully.

Having said that, UKIP needs to act firmly and quickly to shape the party into an entity that can win next year in Euro, local and possible general elections. It will be interesting to see who gets voted onto the NEC; that will show how the active membership wishes the party to progress. At that point, many of us both within the party and on the fringes will have a better idea of the next step.

UKIP is certainly trying to define itself. I'm just not entirely sure what that final definition will be.

I do know that I don't want to belong to a party that believes the actions of certain members and ex-members (including senior UKIP members) are both acceptable now and in the future. I want a eurosceptic party that expects its members to act professionally, to put aside personal gripes and obsessions in favour of acting together for the common good. I'm not sure UKIP can do that, unfotunately, as my experience to date shows otherwise.

Aardvark

twizzel,

As ever your information is wrong and out of date. I last worked directly for the FCO in September 2002. I was a sub-contracted service provider on a 4 month contract and not a civil servant. I am a self-employed service provider with a wide range of clients. The person who told you I have a little job at the "foreign office" is either telling you porkies or, as is usual with the person I think it is, getting completely the wrong end of the stick. So yes, you do need to say more.

A number of things concern me, as demonstrated by the above quote you cannot do research and get your facts correct. You cannot even spell my name correctly - it begins with 2 As. You have a certain amount of antipathy towards the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (not Colonial for those still living in the late 60s) and seem to think that the people who work for it are in some way the enemy. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The FCO, as with all government departments, is staffed by a cross section of people who, as civil servants, have to do the bidding of their political masters. Some will provide good advice, some will have an agenda, some are very patriotic, some more inclined towards the EU project. To lump all civil servants together to abuse them or criticise them is to turn potential allies against us. If UKIP were to come to power we would need the civil service on our side; attacking the poor blo@dy infantry is not going to remove the generals.

I note also, twizzel, that you appear to have declared yourself to be a hypocrite. On the one hand you do not recognise the laws passed since 1971, but on the other you make great play of your time enforcing them and no doubt arresting and charging and giving evidence against people who have broken laws that you do not accept. IMHO you were being disingenuous when you took your oath as a Special Constable to uphold those very same laws. I had little respect for you before tonight, but on the basis of your recent posts, contradicting everything you supposedly stood for, I cannot see how any person could ever give you any credibility ever again. Your oath was supposed to be solemn and binding, but it appears to have been nothing of the sort. How could you charge someone under the Theft Act 1978 when you didn't even believe in it?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

davidnoakes

You asked chikrodah if we could withdraw from the EU. Why you would ask a disinformation specialist and expect the truth beats me.

We've been in the EU since the Treaty of Accession 1972. We have never been allowed a vote on the abolition of our nation, and yet for most of those 36 years a majority of the British people have wanted to leave.

Once the six and final EU Constitutional Treaty, Lisbon, comes into force on 1.1.2009, the treaties make it very clear we can only leave if the EU allows us to. It is the Soviet system - our position will be like Hungary's in 1956.

Use your common sense - if we we failed to get out when we were half in, the chances when we are wholly controlled by the EU will be zero.

Chikrodah misled you - that is what an FCO disinformation asset is paid for.

__________________
David Noakes.
http://eutruth.org.uk

07974 437 097
drjnoakesdel@yahoo.co.uk
(delete the letters del - I\'m trying to stop spam.)

Millennium3

DN, I do believe that we will continue to hold elections after the LT has been ratified and therefore have the capacity to vote into office individuals who are committed to changing our relationship with the EU, the fundamental question is whether we are legally entitled to leave now, after the LT has been ratified and after QMV comes into force. The fact that the electorate has not chosen to do this before does not really bear on the matter.

C has given me a link to Article 188n which I cannot open as I have a Mac without the necessary software:

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/do...CLE%20188N.mht

If there is something in this Article that you believe prevents us from leaving could you say what it is.

If there is nothing stopping us, what is necessary, since we know from the mini referendums held by IWAR that the vast majority want a referendum and would vote NO to the LT, is that UKIP or some other party forms itself in such a way that it will appeal to voters across the left/right spectrum to take advantage of public opinion and get candidates elected to HofC.

chikrodah

DN, your obsession with outing me is beginning to make you look unhinged. Sie haben vielleicht ja nicht alle Tassen im Schrank?

M3 is entitled to ask anybody on this forum for information. He is also entitled to ignore it, argue about it or believe it.

When I respond to others, I tend to provide the underlying references wherever possible. These come from a wide variety of sources, including *gasp* the EU's and UK government's own databases. I don't point people to my own websites and fileservers for bowdlerised and opinionated versions; I provide access to original documents and do others the honour of allowing them to make up their own minds based on their own interpretation of those documents.

I note you have not yet debated with me with counter-references based on similar source material.

It's a shame that the passion with which you persist in 'denouncing' me is not matched by attention to detail:

1. Parliament signed the Treaty of Accession on 22 January 1972. It did not come into force until 1 January 1973.
2. We haven't been 'allowed' a vote on the abolition of our nation because our nation has not and is not being abolished. I refer you to the detailed analyses at STATEWATCH - monitoring the state and civil liberties in Europe.
3. Where are the statistics for 'most of the people have wanted to leave'? A link to an independent source will do. As it happens, my instinct is to believe you on this, but I'd like evidentiary proof.
4. With regard to 'we can only leave if the EU allows us to', I obviously disagree with you, based on a thorough reading of not only the Lisbon Treaty, but the draft Reform Treaty, the draft Constitution and a lot of other documentation on the subject. I refer you to Article 35 of the LT in particular. Article 188n is appropriate to mention at this juncture as it deals with how the EU negotiates with non-EU nations ('Third countries').
5. We can, by becoming other than that which the EU claims to value, be suspended from membership. I refer you to the LT again. A favourable government might manage to 'poison the water' of our membership enough for the EU to want to get rid of us. The UK government has in the past refused to co-operate with the EU, notably over the beef ban. It's a valid resistance tactic, as I'm sure you appreciate.

We need a parliament prepared to negotiate withdrawal in accordance with our constitutional requirements. The legislation already in place to aid rubber-stamping of EU legislation might also be used to rubber-stamp those constitutional requirements if a favourable government was devious enough.

To get a favourable government, or a large and dynamic favourable opposition would, however, require a different set of tactics from eurosceptics to those employed by yourself and others at present. The eurosceptic movement needs to build bridges, not burn them. At the moment you are, unfortunately, a liability to that movement. Francis Maude, for example, is unlikely to ever want to negotiate with a party that has you as a member. Neither are other influential members of the Big Three.

If you think we can only get out of the EU by either persuading everybody else in the UK to think your way or by denouncing those who disagree, then you are right - we will never leave.

But if you genuinely want out, then stop this nonsense and work with others towards a long-term goal. Use your passion in the right way and we can move mountains. Waste your time like this and be left on the sidelines of history. Your call.

chikrodah

Sorry, M3, didn't realise you had a better class of computer! If you look on the European Foundation site (Untitled Document) and search for the appropriate article, you might have more luck. If not, PM me and I'll send you a copy (let me know your preferred format).

I rather like the European Foundation (motto: Yes to European Trade! No to European Government!). It was created by Bill Cash, if that's any help in determining its bona fides.

Aardvark

...but Hungary wasn't in the Soviet Union, it was part of the Warsaw Pact.

DN, you had me down as being based in Northampton working for some body or other. Now Burgess, Barnby and yourself have me down as a disinformation specialist working, apparently, for the FCO.

I wouldn't mind if I were being paid, but when Barnby (aarable) or Burgess (twizzel) or yourself rabbit on about such things you all know yourself to be one hundred per cent wrong.

You all claim to be good at research, but you can't resist making up stories about me and others. Barnby should know better. He has drank with me and dined with me. We've been to each other's houses. He has seen the cars I drive. He knows that there is no way I am paid by anybody to do the things he alleges and in many ways you 3 are the disinformation specialists.

This is an all time classic:


How can anybody believe your absurd assertions about paedophiles in positions of power at the behest of the EU masters (no names, no departments, no links, no evidence - just a Sun reader mentality)?

I asked you to report the paedophiles you know of, but you haven't. You can spend all day wandering into police stations making allegations of time-barred treason against dead men, but you won't lift a finger to protect our children.

People on this forum have congratulated you on your research. Prove their, IMHO misplaced, faith well founded. Walk into your local police station and make an allegation against the perverts and paedophiles in positions of power. Present the evidence you have accumulated that allowed you to make your assertion. Provide the police with your unassailable facts. Show the police the evidence that will allow them to prosecute these dangerous individuals to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

DN, you made that assertion. I don't believe you have named a single name to the police. I don't think you can name a single name. Don't just pick on a convicted paedophile councillor or priest, but provide proof that they were put in their position by the EU. Back up your assertion or withdraw it and admit that, like so much of your diatribe, you made it up for effect.

YCHTT, twizzel, aarable - you're all mates of DN's - do you genuinely believe that assertion and can you, if Noakes can't, support it with any evidence whatsoever?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

chikrodah

Aardvark, you only have to look at his website: http://www.eutruth.org.uk/bfpjanall.pdf

I've no intention of pasting the article as it may lay the forum open to legal action, but amongst his claims are:

1. The EU has a vested interesting in promoting paedophiles into power as the threat of exposure increases its control over them.
2. There has been a sting operation at a named hotel with intelligence agents taking photos of politicians with rent boys.
3. The murders at Dunblane were paedophilic (sp?) as the murderer was a procurer for unnamed Scottish politicians (but see below).
4. The government has forced the police to close investigations when they got too close. It's implied that the reason the Cullen report has been 'sealed for 100 years ' is - you guessed it.

The killer at Dunblane is linked in a similar vein with Gordon Brown and the aforementioned hotel in another of Noakes' papers.

He makes unsubstantiated allegations of perversion in the Tories based on links to gay Tory groups on certain Tory websites in various articles.

It appears to be another obsession, based on his own views and values and is not backed up in any coherent way with documentable evidence. It doesn't stop him from making these allegations in print at every opportunity, though.

IMHO, he is not currently an asset to the eurosceptic movement.

Aardvark

..but why doesn't he name a living paedophile in a position of influence who is blackmailing people. If he has the evidence and shares it with enough of his supporters they wouldn't dare come after him.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008