under my rock

I have lifted the post below from another thread and used it to start this one as I think it perfectly illustrates the important point that many people on this forum are here to cast UKIP in as bad a light as possible and used circular arguments and spin anything they can to "prove" how bad it all is.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard from a member of this forum and there have been some wondrous ones in the past. It ranks with "When did you stop beating your wife" as an example of deciding guilt then looking for questions that prove it. Just because he hasn’t denied it can’t be used as evidence to prove he did it! That’s circular logic of the worst kind and my old Classics Teacher would have had me in detention for trying to use a proof like that!

I cannot find any UKIP Publication, interview, website, newspaper article or even Clive Page Press Statement where Nigel states quite clearly that he is NOT going to be spending his holidays in a static caravan in Filey.

Unless we see our leader on the golden sands of the North Yorkshire coast sometime soon will this failure to deny his holiday plans mean he is a liar? What else hasn’t Nigel denied? Has he denied responsibility for the sinking of the Titanic? Has he denied being on the grassy Knoll when Kennedy was shot? Has he categorically stated he was NOT in Paris the night Dianna died?

Obviously the UKIP Membership must be supplied immediately with a totally comprehensive list of everything Nigel has NOT done, has NOT said, is NOT going to do and is NOT going to say.

Over to you Clive Page!!

harryaldridge

Good One!

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

Resigned Member

Fraid you are a bit behind the times. Farage has admitted that he employed his wife secretly despite the fact that the MEPs agreed not to do so in 2004 at Farages instigation.
He has now admitted that he is being investigated by the auditors of the European Parliament over alleged abuses.
As to his sons employment he is locked in discussions with the Sunday Times over the precise form of this wording.
Next you will be telling us that Nigel does not like a good spanking after a days work-performed by a lady he picks up in a pub.

under my rock

What Nigel does or doesn’t do in his private life is up to him. The point I am making, and which I don't expect you or any other Farage hater to grasp, is that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. It's like health and safety, you can't prove you haven't have had an accident because of all the risk assessments, method statements and other **** you are forced to produce now a days. Saying we've done it like that for 50 years without a problem no longer counts because legislation has taken over from common sense.

In your case a desperate desire to rubbish Farage and UKIP has taken over from any objectivity!

Barboo

You have grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely, UMR, which is always likely when you quote posts out of context, and doubly so when you separate them from their thread.

Nigel Farage's initial denial statement posted on UKIP's website said there is not a single grain of truth in the statement that he is employing his son using EU allowances, so there would appear on the face of it to have been no room for manoeuvre between the paper's claims and Farage's denial.

However, if you consider the actual words NF used, rather than just the impression they conveyed, you will see the possibility of a couple of 'get-outs'. One was that he could have employed Sam in the past, whilst truthfully stating that he is not currently doing so, but that was subsequently ruled out in the Bromley Times article where he said his son has never worked for him in any capacity. That was one get-out door shut.

The other was that Sam might have been employed by another UKIP MEP as suggested by someone on the thread where my posting first appeared. Someone else there said it was rumoured that Sam was remunerated in UKIP SW, and I pointed out that this would be stretching the 'not a single grain of truth' denial, because as leader of every part of UKIP NF must ultimately be responsible for everyone employed in connection with it. Bellatrix then claimed, "Nigel Farage has always stated quite clearly that his son was not employed by the party or anyone in it". I don't think she's right there. I don't think Farage has ever claimed that, but if he has it slams the door on any possibility at all of a get-out from his 'not a single grain of truth' claim. I think Bellatrix screwed up over this, but am happy to be proved wrong if she produces a source for what she claims Farage has said.

The thing that sticks with me in all this is that if there really isn't 'a single grain of truth' in the ST article, why didn't Nigel Farage simply say so when first confronted with the allegation? He said later that the newspaper asked him "ridiculous questions", but that's what newspapers do. It's their job, and Nigel isn't a novice at dealing with the media. Why was it so difficult for him to say at the time, 'no, that's not true'? Contrary to what UMR obviously believes, I have been trying to sort out the truth from other people's spin, not create spin of my own!

under my rock

The above post just proves my point. It doesn’t matter what Nigel says those people determined to prove him in the wrong will twist what he says. There are none as blind as will not see! Nigel was asked if his son had been paid from his EU Allowances. He responded that there was not a single grain of truth in it. End of story!

Barboo and his ilk however are not satisfied! They claim Nigel is not being completely honest because Sam could have been paid by another MEP so Nigel should have denied that as well. Of course he wasn't asked that so how could he have denied it in advance? Once people have made up their mind then they selectively filter the evidence to show they are right. I am a UKIP member who thinks Nigel is doing an extremely difficult job and deserves support not brickbats. Any disagreements I may have with him I will have in private. I started posting on this forum a while ago and gave up because I realised it was mainly used by people who wanted UKIP to fail at all costs. However, its like picking at a scab, you just have to do it every now and then to see what’s happening underneath. Well I know nothing has changed so I’ll leave it alone for a while again. When the attacks come from Tories, Labour, Lib-Dims, BNP, Greens, etc then that's politics. When they come from your own side then that's just disloyalty and egotism. If Barboo is a UKIP Member then he should be ashamed. If he is a member of another party he should say so. If he's former UKIP then he should take his sad, bitter little vendetta and ****** off!

Independent UKIP

I admire your sentiments 'under my rock'. Though I'm sure some others here might seek to rip apart every sentence you wrote at 5.20pm. I will just say that Barboo (not that I have ever met her) is most certainly a female, just so you know.

On a separate matter I wonder if Barboo still maintains her comments about the insignificance of the NEC 'minutes' regarding the Sunday Times. Subsequent comments by Barboo and others do not appear to me to support that initial assessment.

Barboo

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.

douglas denny

Barboo is an 'it' as far as I am concerned until such time as IT makes ITself known by ITs correct name.

IT is certainly a pedantic grizzling troll who's only remit appears to be to rubbish UKIP and everyting UKIP stands for, and especially when there is any mention of NF.
I don't think I have seen any positive contribution from IT yet about UKIP; just bile and spite. If it is in UKIP It should leave - we can do without such negative counter-productive people. There is a job to do - getting out of the EU - or haven't you noticed that bit yet Barboo?
I now know It is most likely someone I know near here in the Chichester area - there cannot be many to claim to have known Peter Hunt well. (slipped-up there Barboo!) I have an idea who.
I admit the constant nagging from IT does have some resonance for the stereotype of the female of the species ........ perhaps you might be proven right Ind.UKIP.

DED.

Independent UKIP

The above is what I mean.