John Page

Actually I didn't know anything about it until I saw the exchange on this thread.

Indeed, I've even had to ask Matt what the point was about you censoring the laughing face. Matt had indicated it was a joke but you wanted the point to look serious.

But anyone going there would see this first paragraph anyway -
I say "going there" because my comments about David Bannerman's website are still on the web.

So are my comments about Nigel Farage and his site.

Anthony Butcher

I haven't received a single complaint about the article.

The forum is here to allow discussion. The moderators will delete content that is libellous, aggressive or a personal attack (generally if there is a complaint). Doug's posting doesn't fall under any of these headings.

Percy the Poodle

Some people need to remember that this site is not an official part of UKIP and is hence subject to the law not to UKIP rules.

Some people also need to remember that a new rule book to go with the new constitution is not as far as I am aware in existence.

The whole situation is a typical UKIP mess delivered to the usual standard.

Nikki Sinclaire

By that logic the Telegraph is not 'part of UKIP' therefore anyone bringing the party into disrepute using that media would be safe from answering to their actions?

IF there is a valid complaint against Douglas AND the DC finds so then it should follow that the person providing the means to broadcast the 'offence' should also be answerable (esp if an NEC member)

Nikki

Anthony Butcher

This is ridiculous. You wouldn't hold the Telegraph responsible for printing Doug's comments - it is just a medium to do so.

Also, since we operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' policy, on what basis would I remove the content, even if the party had any say in what goes on the forum (which it doesn't)? Even if this was an official UKIP website, there would be no obligation to act until the DC found him guilty and requested the content removed. It isn't libellous or offensive and doesn't warrant a DC complaint in my opinion.

There are probably still a few members out there who remember those old pledges from UKIP that we would stand up for free speech, tell the truth etc. Now we are seeing the nonsense of those claims when the vague 'bringing the party into disrepute' accusation is used to attack members.

BTW, I have already passed on my opinion to the DC that others have done far worse than Douglas and that it would be unfair to bring a case against him under these circumstances. Doug is perfectly entitled to give his opinion on a decision that is already in the public domain. I don't approve of his methods and think that he should have gone through the NEC first, but this is mild in comparison to many other incidents that go uninvestigated.

Percy the Poodle

You really don't seem to get this do you.

Douglas is a supposedly responsible adult who is party secretary. He choses to make a statement on an internet forum which is not in anyway illegal or libellous. This internet forum is not the property of the UKIP nor does it claim to represent them. Therefore Douglas Denny has chosen of his own free will to make public statements. If he had chosen to speak to Tony Butcher privately and Tony had then published the comments publicly the situation would be different.

You're blaming the gun manufacturer for the shooting.

mkpdavies

Utterly bizzare!

Providing the means? That'll be the owner of the internet then ulimately; good luck with that one!

You're not even shooting the messanger, but trying to kill his horse!

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

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

michael mcgough

What is going on,Douglas is still shown as Party Secretary on www.ukip.org. Is this some kinda foul play?

Anthony Butcher

Douglas will remain Party Secretary until the 31st August, when Goeffrey Kingscott will assume the role.

michael mcgough

Who elected Geoffrey and is the position now a paid post?