johnwest

I find it a bit worrying that some UKIP members are using this Forum to talk about certain items that should really be kept out of the public domain. We all know that the Tories, BNP, Lib Dems and other parties use this site to keep tabs on UKIP activities. I feel we are giving too much away on proposed protests, future policy, attacks on certain senior party members and so on. I feel that we all should be more careful about what we discuss on this site. By saying too much we are helping the enemies of this Nation. We need to keep them in the dark about what we are planning. I for one will not be posting anything on this site about proposed party activities in Suffolk until after they have happened. Why give Labour and the others the chance to disrupt any proposed protests etc.

John Page

There's been an exchange today in John Youles's discussion group about campaigning on regionalisation, which I've certainly no intention of reproducing here.

mkpdavies

Everything we post here is a decoy, our real plan to take over the world is in the secret section.

But seriously, I agree no one in a position of power should post planned strategy here. The rest of us plebs can have a open debate though as those in power can pick and choose what they believe is worth using or not.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

For the moment, I think that we can operate safely in the assumption that no one particularly cares about UKIP. We are politicaly inactive in effect.

However, once things start to pick up again after the NEC/leadership elections then it may become more important to maintain some secrecy.

We have discussed the idea of security before, and we need to be careful about what is thought to be secure. For example, people assume that the ind-uk email list is a safe place to discuss things because it is only open to UKIP members.

Hence £20 buys you INTO phpbb_a secret UKIP discussion area. Do we honestly think that the other parties won't do that?

It is more dangerous to have a perception of something being secure than to put everything in the open where we have to be cautious at all times.

At least here we know that everything is out in the open and can modify what we say accordingly.

One Londoner

What is the timetable for the leadership election? Roger was elected (uncontested) in April 2002, so his time is up in little more than three months, and I know the leadership is very keen that people leave office dead on time. :wink:

If UKIP plays its cards right, it may be able to get some positive publicity.

[SUBSEQUENT EDIT: Sorry, I got the date wrong ops: (see below)]

Anthony Butcher

http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=w...horogerknapman

One Londoner

Not correct. Roger was elected in April 2002. Because it was an uncontested election this was ratified at the October conference in accordance with the party constitution.

[SUBSEQUENT EDIT: Sorry, I got the date wrong ops: (see below)]

Anthony Butcher

That's very interesting. I had no idea it was coming up so soon.

Tom Wilde

Surely Roger Knapman's term of office started neither when he was 'elected' nor when his 'election' was ratified, but when he actually took over the duties of party leader from Jeffrey Titford?

I can't remember when exactly in 2002 what we might (for want of a better phrase) call the "handover of power" took place. Does anybody else remember? Did it really happen before ratification of Knapman's leadership by the conference in October? That seems surprising. I do have a vague recollection that Knapman became leader rather late on in the year.

One Londoner

Profuse apologies, chaps, my memory is playing tricks. ops:

Jeffrey announced he was resigning in the August newsletter and Roger did indeed formally take over in October. Sorry if I set some pulses racing prematurely.

My original point that it is a good opportunity for UKIP to generate some good publicity still stands.