The Outrageous Ukip Donor

[Jomlett]

The Ukip donor who says gay people are incapable of love -

http://www.channel4.com/news/ukip-donor-donations-demetri-marchessini-views-politics

[Brenden]

Are you actually saying you trust any of them Krom - I question whom you consider insane.

[Kromovaracun]

" I question whom you consider insane."

Well, when it comes to individuals who believe that blacks were better off under slavery or that gay marriage caused the floods, or that abortions should be compulsory when the baby has a genetic disorder... I'm quite willing to consider them mad.

Note that I do NOT believe these people represent your average UKIP-er. I just (for the umpteenth time) believe that the leadership has been extremely lax about allowing such people into their party (including influential positions and fielding them as candidates) and does not seem to think it is a serious problem.

[jomifl]

What other party would have them kromo? Is the monster raving loony party still extant.

[mikey4444]

Such a pity that you have chosen to play the race card brenden. Nobody has mentioned any involvement from a "muslim led party" on this issue at all, until you brought it up.

If you had read my comments, you will have seen that I most certainly have not insinuated that UKIP are the only party to take money from dodgy characters. The incumbent of the Newark seat Mr Mercer has had to resign his seat because of a cash-for-questions controversy, and I assume that you are able to find Labour politicians that have been guilty of similar affairs.

But the OP raised by Jomlett is about UKIP, not any other Party.

I gave you plenty of opportunity to answer these very simple questions. You have chosen not to address the questions, so I have no choice but to assume that :::

A...you don't know
or
B..You refuse to say.
or
C..you think its a good idea to take money from loonies, not give it back when he is exposed and its also OK for Hamilton not to apologise.

I shall not be repeating these questions again, as just like Londons buses, there will be another UKIP faux pas along tomorrow.

Stop shooting the messenger brenden, and find out what the message is instead. Kromovaracun and I are trying to address the problem...you are not.

[Brenden]

mickey, Please don't throw the towel in just yet I am on a roll. You know quite well that I am not playing the race card, you cannot pillory one party whilst the other three are doing the same (one of which you support) It is inevitable that one day we will have a muslim prime minister whose deep beliefs on homosexuality etc differ from you and I - so again I ask you, would you demand their resignation on those grounds - not forgetting that beliefs are personal and deeply held - and please remember I do not agree with the messages you are sending. By the way, talking of buses where is my reply regarding Euracism and Euracist question. Oh and krom can answer for himself - he has his own opinions as I have albeit very different from you own -

[mikey4444]

I can see no evidence at all that we will have a muslim PM at any time in the near future. Muslims comprise less than 5% of the British population according to the last Census. But what if we did ? We have had Jewish, Protestant and Catholic PMs before, without the sky falling in, even though at least some of those religions being none too keen on homsexuals either.

Again, I accuse you of playing the race card. The topic that Jomlett raised contained no reference to Islam, of any other religion.

And you still have not answered my questions about whether it was a good idea for UKIP to take money from a nutcase like Marchessini, with his offensive and abhorrent views.

[Brenden]

mickey "we have had Jewish, Protestant and Catholic MPs before without the sky falling in, even though at least some of those religions being none too keen on homosexuals either" - own goal I think mickey - or were these MPs also nutcases. Monies will always be donated to parties irrespective of the donors beliefs and as I have stated, as long as there are no strings attached I see no reason why UKIP should refuse the donation, as all parties do, do I think any of them should - NO. Corrupt it may be but to politicians across the board it is normal practice, so if you are going to pillory one party you should in fairness pillory them all, otherwise it will look like discrimination. Are you OK with that - now my question on Euracism, Euracist still needs an answer - if you decline to answer I will assume nothing, your choice.

[jim360]

Doesn't this "other parties do it too" miss the point that UKIP is presenting itself as an alternative to the usual politics, though? And cases like these show that, after all, it clearly isn't -- which is not a good thing for a party trying to look new and fresh and clean and honest.

[Khandro]

I haven't read all of this thread, but the scurrilous attempts of Channel 4 News to link this man's personal and odd personal beliefs to UKIP was 'reporting' at it's worst. He had given them a mere 5,000 quid, -small change to him, and as he said "lots of people ask me for money" - and he was interviewed for 10 minutes about his views on homosexuality. As Neil Hamilton the next evening replied to Matt Frei when he'd been asked are you a serious party; "Are you a serious news program?".

[anotheoldgit]

Kromovaracun

/// Now might I suggest you actually respond to the point some of us are making? The disproportionately large numbers of people with insane political views is a serious failure on the part of the leadership to exercise control over their party. ///

It is all dependent on what one classes 'political views' (ie exact points that they would implement if they came to power) or personal views that they themselves happen to hold.

The leadership of UKIP has taken measures to rid the party of the more dangerous individuals and have implemented certain vetting measures, but there are good and bad in all parties it just happens that there is a witch hunt at the moment only focusing on the UKIP.

If only the same energy was used amongst the other parties, I think there would be some shocking disclosers.

/// I'm not actually expecting a response as you've been ignoring this point for the whole thread, no matter how many times it's been made, but I just thought it best to leave it on record. ///

Hope that answers your request for a response from me, now perhaps you would be good enough to address your real concerns regarding UKIP that is Immigration, come clean admit it.

You say you think it is a terrible idea to impose a 5 year ban on immigration from outside the EU, WHY?

You have also not address the fact that you purposely took the 'Christian only refugees from Syria' criticism completely out of context for your own purposes, once again WHY?

[jim360]

How many times do UKIP members need to "have their words taken out of context" before they learn to make their point rather more clearly, then? These gaffes happen far too often -- and whether they be the result of media scrutiny going a bit too far in seeking a scandal, or of UKIP members speaking before they think, it should be obvious that it's up to UKIP to work harder to avoid such gaffes. You, and more to the poitn they, cannot keep making excuses.

[Kromovaracun]

"The leadership of UKIP has taken measures to rid the party of the more dangerous individuals and have implemented certain vetting measures"

I disagree. UKIP says exactly the same thing every time one of these people comes up - "he's suspended"; "he's nothing to do with us"; "we're serious about stopping this happening" - but their actions don't ever seem to change. They only ever seem to care about them when the media is paying attention, and then go back to business as usual afterwards. The leadership has behaved in a half-arsed way about controlling their membership and it is now coming home to roost.

"perhaps you would be good enough to address your real concerns regarding UKIP that is Immigration, come clean admit it. "

No, it isn't. My main concern with UKIP is that I think they are lead by people who are untrustworthy and dishonest - even by the low standards set by the other parties. For me, that's a more important issue than their policy ideas - I have to be willing to trust someone before I listen to their ideas.

"You say you think it is a terrible idea to impose a 5 year ban on immigration from outside the EU, WHY? "

For two reasons:

1) I think it would be ruinous to our economy and many of our public services. I know this is a well-trodden path on AB, but I find this argument convincing.

2) I have a lot of friends from outside the EU who have needed to come through the UK's immigration system, and I actually think it's a perfectly good system that doesn't need freezing. I'm not convinced that it's as paper-thin as some of the tabloids say it is.

"You have also not address the fact that you purposely took the 'Christian only refugees from Syria' criticism completely out of context for your own purposes, once again WHY?"

Because I think the assumptions behind the statement are distasteful and somewhat bizarre. I don't see how Farage could make a statement like that without assuming that *all* Christians have a greater sense of kinship with British society than *all* Muslims do. And your "context" does not change my opinion.

[mikey4444]

Kromovaracun...I think this is a case of leading a horse to water, etc, etc.

It seems that no matter what mistakes Farage and UKIP make, there will always be somebody on AB that thinks they are marvelous. Can't see the point of continuing with this thread. We had better wait until the next UKIP dropped testicle, which shouldn't be long.

[Brenden]

Micky I don't know of anybody who has entered this thread say or even think UKIP are marvellous, myself I want them to do well in the local elections which hopefully will be a wake up call to our three main parties. Come the general election it would be foolish as well as unwise to elect a party who has no agenda. I like the idea of Nigel Farage being a EU commissioner, who will respond to anything he considers detrimental to the UK - pity his predecessors did not. I considered John Prescott a waste of space, but that is my personal view, I know yours is totally different and I respect that, so if people think NF is marvellous you may not agree with them but you have to respect their views - that is a fair playing field.