johnwest

Agenda


11.00. Introduction by John West & Chris Hudson, Conference Organisers.

11.10. Rob Burberry on modern policing. Rob is a Special Constable and a member of Young Independence.

11.30. Alison West on juvenile crime. Alison is the UKIP PPC for Suffolk Coastal.

11.50. Paul Nuttall on the need for zero tolerance policing. Paul is a UKIP researcher for the Ind Dem Group in Brussels.

12.15. David Fraser on making British citizens safe. David is the author of the best-selling book ‘A Land Fit for Criminals’.

12.35-1.35. Lunch.

1.35. Raffle draw. Chris Hudson on crime and punishment. Chris Hudson is a UKIP member, a public consultant in Parliamentary affairs and a former national secretary of the Monday Club.

2.00. John West on immigration and the rise in crime. John is a UKIP Ipswich North/Suffolk Central PPC, a UKIP Suffolk Press Officer and a governor of the Suffolk NHS Mental Health Trust.

2.25. Gerard Batten on terrorism. Gerard is the UKIP MEP for London.

2.45. David Campbell Bannerman on UKIP‘s law and order policies. David is Deputy Leader of UKIP and a UKIP PPC for Suffolk South.

3.05. Tea break.

3.15. Question Time. Chaired by Chris Hudson. John West, Gerard Batten MEP, David Campbell Bannerman. Paul Nuttall and Alison West will be taking questions from the floor.

4.15. Vote of thanks.

4.30. End of conference.

Legin

chikrodah

Congratulations on organising a conference with such strong Suffolk links.

At the risk of being told I'm attacking people again, I'm concerned that a review of David Fraser's "best-selling" book includes the following:

As somebody who's worked, inter alia, as a senior specialist in the prison sector, I'm concerned that the author's knowledge is less current than it should be.

The issue of criminal control and deterrence is extremely complex, as I'm sure David Fraser is well aware. Many look to UKIP to provide well thought out answers to such issues, rather than the knee-jerk reactions of the big 3 parties. It would be unfortunate if there was a membership reaction similar to that when Sean Gabb "came out" about his adherence to strict libertarian principles.

If UKIP's membership and supporters include members of the prison and probation services, legal profession and judiciary, are they still likely to support UKIP when Mr. Fraser's views are made known?

ukiprule

Good luck John hope everything goes well , i was going to attend but got tied up last thing.

__________________
Membership of the European Union costs Britain £60.1 billion per annum UKIP wants to leave the European Union and spend the money here in Britain.

To put this figure in perspective, just £1 billion would pay for:

222,000 hip replacements
Or 46,893 nurses
Or 38,782 teachers
Or 34, 585 police officers

Agree? Join UKIP
www.ukip.org

HULKMAN

This person never has anything good to say about anyone in UKIP it seems. Now they are attacking Fraser and his book . He helped compile the law and order policies so no doubt you will start attacking Nigel for allowing him to have input.

chikrodah

Hulkman, you don't read many of my posts, do you? I have a lot of respect for decent hardworking members of UKIP, some of whom I am lucky enough to count as friends. I have a lot of respect for some of the UKIP staff, both in HO and Brussels. I have a lot of respect for some of the current NEC members as well as some of the ex-NEC members. I think Farage has many qualities that make him a good UKIP MEP. I am careful never to comment on individuals without personal experience of their attitudes and behaviour. (Posting on this forum does give me an indication as to their attitudes and behaviour. )

Now, I must admit to not having read the "Law and Order" policy in detail as the UKIP press release had been enough to make me wonder how UKIP planned on achieving any of their aims. But, what the heck, I've read it now.

BTW, Fraser didn't help write the policies, UKIP commissioned him to write a briefing paper.

I agree with having more police on the beat. I agree with less red tape. As a No2ID member and speaker, I agree with the stance on ID cards. I agree with a revision of legislation relating to smoking in public buildings. I agree that legislation relating to the HRA needs reviewing and revising. I agree that the principle behind the European Arrest Warrant is counter to that of our body of law. I agree that detention without trial is contrary to our legal principles, but I can see occasions when it might be necessary under controlled circumstances. I agree that confronting the criminal with the victim and their reactions is a salutory experience.

I am bemused by UKIP's desire to give schools the option of re-introducing corporal punishment.

Directly elected Chief Constables strike me as leading the UK down the path of the American experience. I'm not convinced that's necessarily a good thing.

I am wary about the singling out of minorities. I am wary about the assumption that criminals should never have the same rights as their victims. (I'm sure our justice system is wonderful and the rumours of people being framed on occasion are just that.) I am wary about the reintroduction of unfettered SUS procedures.

But what really makes me despair is:

Yet again, we have spelling mistakes. Yes, I'm critical of presentation. I am, amongst other qualifications, a trained proofreader.

Yet again, we have stale quotes from newspapers. Some of those quotes date back to 2005. What's the matter? Could the current situation be not as bad as it was then?

Yet again we've got wooly statistics. "Up to 25% of young people committed a crime in 2006". Not, "18%...." or "23%..." but "Up to 25%....". Couldn't the policy authors agree on which statistics they wanted to use?

Yet again we have spin. Take the doubling of crime since 1997. Nowhere is it acknowledged that part of that increase is due to the increased reporting by the public of those crimes.

Yet again, we've got nonsensical soundbites: "The most distressing forms of crimes are violent crimes." No, surely not!

Yet again, we've got targets we couldn't achieve within the timescales. Double prison places in 10 years? It would take that long to get the buildings up and staffed. It would take that long to build prison ships. If we're still part of the EU at that point, we'd have to put all contracts out to tender. UKIP could be in the interesting position of getting Poles to build our prison ships for us.

Yet again we've got stupid ideas. Place a copy of the Magna Carta in Parliament. What on earth for? Apart from anything else, the security arrangements would be a nightmare, and for what? Why is that part of a policy on law and order? What benefits would it bring?

Yet again we've got sweeping statements. Serious physical or verbal attacks on serving personnel will be a treasonable offence. The authors have obviously never spent Friday night in a garrison town with representatives of more than one unit around. This from a party that thought handing out fines for calling a police horse names was a daft idea.

Yet again we've got ideas that are already being done. Criminals are already being confronted by their victims reactions to crime in certain cases. Prison places are already (slowly) being increased. Schools are already being given increased powers in regard to disruptive pupils. Judges have, in the past, 'encouraged' young offenders to sign up for military service before they return for sentencing.

Yet again we've got contradictory statements. UKIP wants to get rid of PCSOs but they want more civilians doing desk work. UKIP wants to get rid of police paperwork but wants the individual police forces to take over the role of the CPS.

Still, it's nice that the staff of a Gloucestershire pub get a mention.

Aardvark

There should be a copy of each of the Magnae Cartae in the store of original statutes in Parliament - they're all there.

Creating new treasonable offences is a dangerous thing. It shows an ignorance of the history of our law and a lack of understanding of the world we live in. Having worn HMTQ's uniform in public on many occasions I never experienced any problems, but things might have changed. I'm not sure the servicemen are demanding extra protection that will single them out and could exacerbate the situation.

Books that slag off lawyers, prison offices, police and judges are great if we don't want any of the tens of thousands of people in those professions to vote for us. When I consider the abuse I have received on this forum for having legal qualifications I wonder why I bother. My local branch committee contains a person, aarable, who thinks that legal training and time at university is almost beneath contempt. UKIP attacking, further, an embattled group of professions will not get votes.

Unfortunately I was working overseas for much of the time when the law and order policy was being drafted otherwise I would have volunteered my assistance. Somebody in the UKIP hierarchy must get a proof reader to check documents.

Poor presentation and poorly thought out policies will be the death of us.

__________________
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

Bob FM

More constructive UKIP support I see. It strikes the theme seems to always be, don't tell the truth we may offend someone. I guess UKIP are supposed to be like the other parties.

chikrodah

Bob, I appreciate that you wish to promote UKIP with evangelical zeal. That's laudable. I appreciate that you want to become of of UKIP's first MPs. That's commendable. I appreciate that you are working hard to get elected locally. That's constructive.

I understand that you detest the EU. I have no problem with that.

Maybe it's time you took a step back from your constant barrage tactics of "UKIP good; EU bad" and took a less emotional look at the posters on this forum.

A lot of the members that you've locked horns with are also active UKIP branch members. Some have been or are councillors, PPCs, accepted as candidates by UKIP or active in other ways. They are not out to destroy UKIP. They simply have opinions that differ from yours.

Some of the forum members that you clash with are ex-UKIP members who have left, not because they hate UKIP or want to destroy UKIP from without, but because they cannot stay true to their own personal views and values and still be members. Again, they simply have opinions that are different to your own.

Hulkman, Legin, Star and fordtit are all apparently UKIP members with their own agendas. At least two of those four appear to want to oust the YI co-ordinator, presumably because they feel they could do the job better. At least two of them appear to want to destroy Stuart Gulleford's political career. Yet you never complain about them, despite their disloyalty to the NEC, MEPs and HO staff. Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why?

UKIP is like other parties. It shares a common ground of financial hiccoughs, mismanagement, debt, petty rivalries and in-fighting with parties that go all the way back to Plato's Greece. The problem is, for many, that UKIP was supposed to be different. It had an opportunity to rise above sleaze, corruption, cynicism and weak management at all levels. So far, it hasn't managed to do so. A lot of that is due to human nature in general; a lot is due to the type of personalities that UKIP attracts.

UKIP, having badged itself as the saviour of the UK and the sole upholder of solid, traditional, British moral values, attracts those who have strong views of the role of the UK in the world and who regard themselves as having strong, if not rigid, beliefs. Managing a party full of members like that is not so much like herding cats as persuading a coachload of teenagers to behave themselves for the duration of the trip. I have a great deal of sympathy for long-term UKIP members from the top of the pyramid downwards.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, UKIP has unruly 'teenagers' who won't listen and insist on following their own syllabus; it has 'teenagers' who, when told to work together and produce reports, produce something that HO obviously either didn't have the time to proof-read or couldn't be bothered to argue about; it has 'teenagers' who believe that the way to get on is to be the "teacher's pet".

That doesn't help those who have served their political apprenticeship in another party and know how things should be run. It doesn't help those whose offers of help are continually ignored and rebuffed. It certainly doesn't help those whose motivation is ground down as they see the 'teenagers' hijack the coach.

All on this forum are entitled to their opinions, including those that affect your party. You suggest that we complain because UKIP is telling the truth; you avoid the point that maybe we have access to facts and truths as well.

Aardvark

BobFM,

I mentioned that I would have been prepared to help as I was with the policy groups set up by the Lechlade Group. All very constructive. I have a lot of experience to bring to the table, but I wasn't even invited.

I was also a candidate at the last GE and fought Cameron. That's what UKIP wants, but petty, and frankly childish, rivalries mean I have been deselected despite being the most successful candidate in Oxon last time round.

I try to tell the truth and get angry with myself when I fail. The truth is often unpalatable whether it be about the machinations before we joined the EEC (not treason, but dirty politics) or the internal wranglings of our own party. We're not perfect and it is not constructive to sweep our dirt under the carpet, far from it as it lumps us with the other lot.

Healthy debate is constructive, but it is frustrating when responses aren't reasoned or are downright lies (hence my swearing on a thread about twizzel - I tell the truth about the law over and over again and still the unqualified and terminally stupid refuse to see facts as facts when they are presented with incontrovertible evidence of them).

Taking a step back and considering whether blind support of the leadership constitutes loyalty or foolishness is no bad thing. There are some good men within the party hierarchy and they need to be supported, but there are some dirty politicians who are utterly ruthless and you need to guard against them. I won't name names, but will leave you guessing.

For instance, Geoffrey, who you have locked horns with on another thread, is a good man as I have discovered (I took an undue pot at him some time back) and he has experience of the party that you and I lack. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but you have to welcome his ideas as they are as valid as your own.

__________________
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