Anthony Butcher

The problem with official forums is that people can quote them. For instance, we had someone sign up a few days agi specifically with the intention of causing trouble here. Activists from other parties sign up, post something undesirable, slanderous, rumour mongering etc. Then the moderators have to delete it or ignore it. If they leave it, it embarrasses the party. If they delete it, they are accused of censorship.

Because this is an unofficial private forum, we can deal with problems far more easily.

Millennium3

I can understand your reasoning - perhaps there is another way to address my concern.

It seems to me that some very good ideas are suggested on these threads but they are not followed to a conclusion they just fade away. I thought that with an official site, perhaps with passwords, there might be a way for a proposition to be debated to conclusion so that gradually a ‘forum manifesto’ would be developed.

The possibility of real success for UKIP would be much enhanced if policies were developed with the involvement of members. Policies developed in this way would not only have the commitment of the party workers, but are also more likely to find approval with the general public - the voters.

Alex McKee

1. There are graphics. The logo, the bits on the side.
2. What do you mean unreadable? It's Arial, the most ubiquitous and pervasive font on the planet. I hate it, but then I'm a designer and like nice typefaces; that's neither here or there. If you mean it is too small, there are tools to increase the size, both on the site, or use the one in your browser.
3. I can find the manifesto easily enough.
4. "Link System" as you call it, is not all over the place. It is quite logically placed.

As a web designer, I know what I am talking about. No I didn't design it, before you ask Anyway, if you feel that strongly, send an e-mail to the site designers.

vimto

Say what you like about this web site - is is clear and functional - two things required for good communication.

Isn't that what the site is about?

warm regards,

One Londoner

I am being as precise as I can without naming names. I can't prove who at the top level in UKIP is leaking info to GLW, nor could the NEC when it investigated in 2003 and nor could the Metropolitan Police when it investigated the theft of the membership database in 2000. No-one was prosecuted, and the source of the funds provided to pay for a mail-out to all the members using the stolen database was never proven.
I said "certain elements within the leadership" - not the same thing at all. Be careful not to regard 'the leadership' as a single entity, look at the way individuals within the leadership come and go and look for the consistent pattern. And look at who benefits from GLW's activities, within UKIP as well as outside.

Your analysis of psyops is sound, Doug, but the sensible response is not to ignore an effective psyops campaign, but to counter it. The fact that someone in the UKIP leadership feeds him information should be a matter of concern to you, as it has been at the root of most of the destabilisation in UKIP for many years. Of course anyone who does effectively counter GLW's activities will come under attack, both from GLW and within UKIP itself. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.