Hendon UKIP Party threatened to hijack BAPS hustings

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

UKIP members have threatened to “hijack” a hustings event after not being invited to sit on the panel.

Barnet Alliance for Public Services invited members of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties to sit on the panel at this month’s event.

But when the the vice chairman of UKIP’s Hendon branch, Adrian Murray-Leonard, requested to attend - he was told he was unwelcome.

A row then erupted when Mr Murray-Leonard said he and other members of the party would "crash" the meeting.

BAPS committee member Phil Fletcher said: “We discussed it at length and we have come to a democratic decision not to allow UKIP to sit on the panel.

“We are opposed to their policies on immigration, which we believe are racist. Our meetings are open to anyone who agree with our views.

“UKIP are not on the council in Barnet so it did not make sense to invite them.”

BAPS - who preach fairness and democracy - will hold four public meetings to give residents the chance to quiz party leader’s ahead of May’s elections.

Mr Fletcher added there were “logistical” problems with fitting members of all parties on the stage.

He said: “We just don’t have room for them on the committee and they asked if they could take part too late.

“I’m not sure if we would have considered them anyway, though - but now they’re threatening to crash and hijack it. They are still welcome to come as members of the public.”

The Times Series is awaiting comment from the Hendon UKIP Party.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

JohnnyHornet says...

I wonder if Phil Fletcher can allude to where UKIP views / policy on controlled borders is racist, I think you really have to look at a person who uses this as an argument, yet again another public official using rhetoric that has been thoroughly discounted by most of the media, there must be an election in the air with LibLabCon all running scared because they are all using the same old tired dead rubbish to try and con the electorate just as they have done for the last 50 years, A UKIP councillor would undoubtedly be more effective than any LibLabCon councillor as they can work for the local electorate free of any whipping by the main Westminster parties.
I wonder if Phil Fletcher can allude to where UKIP views / policy on controlled borders is racist, I think you really have to look at a person who uses this as an argument, yet again another public official using rhetoric that has been thoroughly discounted by most of the media, there must be an election in the air with LibLabCon all running scared because they are all using the same old tired dead rubbish to try and con the electorate just as they have done for the last 50 years, A UKIP councillor would undoubtedly be more effective than any LibLabCon councillor as they can work for the local electorate free of any whipping by the main Westminster parties. JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 18

10:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I have never heard of this group before but upon looking at their website I see they are funded by the TUC.

They are squirming a little because they have made the same mistake as Rotherham council by calling UKIP racist and for that reason refusing them a place on the panel. They also say that UKIP aren't on the panel because they don't have any councillors. They also say UKIP are not invited because they applied too late, although funnily enough the Conservatives haven't applied at all and and have not yet accepted a place on the panel.

It doesn't really add up to much common sense. They can't even get their wobbly story straight on why they are refusing UKIP a platform.

The fact of the matter is that all political parties, including Labour, funded by the unions, are trying to starve UKIP of the oxygen of publicity by denying them platforms.

It won't work. UKIP are here and they're here to stay. It's only a matter of time before we are elected to council in Barnett because people who do not have their eyes closed and ears covered like what they see and hear and are coming to UKIP in droves.

Vote UKIP!
I have never heard of this group before but upon looking at their website I see they are funded by the TUC. They are squirming a little because they have made the same mistake as Rotherham council by calling UKIP racist and for that reason refusing them a place on the panel. They also say that UKIP aren't on the panel because they don't have any councillors. They also say UKIP are not invited because they applied too late, although funnily enough the Conservatives haven't applied at all and and have not yet accepted a place on the panel. It doesn't really add up to much common sense. They can't even get their wobbly story straight on why they are refusing UKIP a platform. The fact of the matter is that all political parties, including Labour, funded by the unions, are trying to starve UKIP of the oxygen of publicity by denying them platforms. It won't work. UKIP are here and they're here to stay. It's only a matter of time before we are elected to council in Barnett because people who do not have their eyes closed and ears covered like what they see and hear and are coming to UKIP in droves. Vote UKIP! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 16

10:56pm Thu 16 Jan 14

JohnnyHornet says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Phil Fletcher wrote:
From Phil Fletcher

The above quote is not what I atated. What I stated is as follows:
" "BAPS is a campaigning organisation for pubbblic services, and anybody is welcome to come to our meetings.
As far as allowing the UKIP to be on the panel of our series of Question Times, as we are a democratic organisation with a spectrum of viewpoints, we would need to discuss this at our weekly meeting.
For the first of our series of Question Times it was simply a matter of restriciting the size of the panel."
I sent this as an email to Kate Jenkinson, who spoke to me on the phone, I told her that I would send a quote to her.
I would like what I am supposed to have said to be retracted and my actual quote to be used instead..
So Phil, will you state on here quite publicly that UKIP are NOT a racist party?

Please be crystal clear in your response as the answer is very important.
Good Point Mr Cox, I would be extremely interested if the alleged remark that UKIP is a racist party came directly from Mr Fletcher or was " twisted " by the media.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Fletcher[/bold] wrote: From Phil Fletcher The above quote is not what I atated. What I stated is as follows: " "BAPS is a campaigning organisation for pubbblic services, and anybody is welcome to come to our meetings. As far as allowing the UKIP to be on the panel of our series of Question Times, as we are a democratic organisation with a spectrum of viewpoints, we would need to discuss this at our weekly meeting. For the first of our series of Question Times it was simply a matter of restriciting the size of the panel." I sent this as an email to Kate Jenkinson, who spoke to me on the phone, I told her that I would send a quote to her. I would like what I am supposed to have said to be retracted and my actual quote to be used instead..[/p][/quote]So Phil, will you state on here quite publicly that UKIP are NOT a racist party? Please be crystal clear in your response as the answer is very important.[/p][/quote]Good Point Mr Cox, I would be extremely interested if the alleged remark that UKIP is a racist party came directly from Mr Fletcher or was " twisted " by the media. JohnnyHornet
  • Score: 5

1:01am Fri 17 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

I am totally stunned by what I have read here….

“We discussed it at length and we have come to a democratic decision not to allow UKIP to sit on the panel. "
“We are opposed to their policies on immigration, which we believe are racist. Our meetings are open to anyone who agree with our views."

These are unbelievably ignorant comments from Phil Fletcher! It is hard to understand how some people can be so ill informed.

UKIP is a mainstream party and is now regularly beating the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in all polls. UKIP are regularly winning council seats from Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives up and down the country. UKIP now represent the views of a significant percentage of the electorate, so for this BAPS group to say they have come to a democratic decision to effectively try and stifle democracy is gross hypocrisy.

Furthermore, to try to label UKIP as racist is clichéd, outdated and, as even the left wing mainstream media now accept, utterly wrong. UKIP has a constitution that is very explicit in being against racism. UKIP is the ONLY major party whose rules bar anyone who has been a past member of BNP and other similar parties.

Democracy requires that all electoral candidates are given equal chance to put their points forward. It is only common sense to understand that we must let the electorate hear what everyone has to say and then let them decide for themselves who they wish to vote for. However, Phil Fletcher says, "Our meetings are open to anyone who agree with our views." which says everything really. Can he and his committee really not see that by this statement alone they have totally destroyed the credibility of their hustings event? Organisers are supposed to remain neutral or it’s not a hustings, it becomes a political rally.


We had a similar problem in Watford four years ago where UKIP were not initially invited to a hustings but, to their credit, the organisers rapidly reversed their decision when they realised that their preconceived opinions about the party were completely wrong. I sincerely hope that this committee rapidly realise the enormous mistake they have made. If not, I expect many of their local electorate who support UKIP will turn up at the meeting anyway and grill the other candidates on what their position is on the fact UKIP has not been invited and if they think that it is fair and good for democracy.
I am totally stunned by what I have read here…. “We discussed it at length and we have come to a democratic decision not to allow UKIP to sit on the panel. " “We are opposed to their policies on immigration, which we believe are racist. Our meetings are open to anyone who agree with our views." These are unbelievably ignorant comments from Phil Fletcher! It is hard to understand how some people can be so ill informed. UKIP is a mainstream party and is now regularly beating the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in all polls. UKIP are regularly winning council seats from Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives up and down the country. UKIP now represent the views of a significant percentage of the electorate, so for this BAPS group to say they have come to a democratic decision to effectively try and stifle democracy is gross hypocrisy. Furthermore, to try to label UKIP as racist is clichéd, outdated and, as even the left wing mainstream media now accept, utterly wrong. UKIP has a constitution that is very explicit in being against racism. UKIP is the ONLY major party whose rules bar anyone who has been a past member of BNP and other similar parties. Democracy requires that all electoral candidates are given equal chance to put their points forward. It is only common sense to understand that we must let the electorate hear what everyone has to say and then let them decide for themselves who they wish to vote for. However, Phil Fletcher says, "Our meetings are open to anyone who agree with our views." which says everything really. Can he and his committee really not see that by this statement alone they have totally destroyed the credibility of their hustings event? Organisers are supposed to remain neutral or it’s not a hustings, it becomes a political rally. We had a similar problem in Watford four years ago where UKIP were not initially invited to a hustings but, to their credit, the organisers rapidly reversed their decision when they realised that their preconceived opinions about the party were completely wrong. I sincerely hope that this committee rapidly realise the enormous mistake they have made. If not, I expect many of their local electorate who support UKIP will turn up at the meeting anyway and grill the other candidates on what their position is on the fact UKIP has not been invited and if they think that it is fair and good for democracy. D_Penn
  • Score: 14

1:11am Fri 17 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Democracy is probably the last thing on BAPS mind or agenda. Otherwise it wouldn't be acting in this way.

I am still awaiting an answer from Phil Fletcher to my question above. Well Phil?
Democracy is probably the last thing on BAPS mind or agenda. Otherwise it wouldn't be acting in this way. I am still awaiting an answer from Phil Fletcher to my question above. Well Phil? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 9

1:28am Fri 17 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

@Phil Fletcher

You say that you do not accept the comments attributed to you in this article, but your version is so different to that reported, that you will understand that I have asked the journalist for source clarification and confirmation.

You will appreciate that democracy and principles of free speech are too important to not get to the bottom of this.
@Phil Fletcher You say that you do not accept the comments attributed to you in this article, but your version is so different to that reported, that you will understand that I have asked the journalist for source clarification and confirmation. You will appreciate that democracy and principles of free speech are too important to not get to the bottom of this. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

1:19pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Tee double you says...

Firstly, as the person who actually spoke with Adrian Murray-Leonard I can say that it is simply not true to say that 'he was told he was unwelcome' to BAPS public meeting. I told Mr Murray-Leonard that he and his party members are most welcome to come to the public meeting, like any other Barnet resident, and speak from the floor, about the issues of local concern that will be the focus of the meeting. To that he said that he will NOT speak from the floor and that unless he will be invited onto the panel they will come en mass and 'crash' the meeting. When I asked him to explain what he meant by 'crash', he said he meant that they will 'hijack it'.

I explained to Adrian, as I explained to another member of UKIP who rang BAPS earlier that day, and as a matter of fact, to a representative of another party (TUSC) who approached us for a place on the panel, that the reason they were not invited onto the panel is that we haven't seen or heard them in the last few years since we've been campaigning on the issue of privatisation of public services, and hence were not aware that any of these two parties have policies on local issues at all. Indeed, when I looked at UKIP's website I didn't find any such policies, apart from half a sentence referring (rightly) to the One Barnet Programme as 'high risk'.

BAPS never held any discussion about the issues of immigration or racism, hence we do not have 'official' stands on these. I suspect that most people among BAPS members and our many supporters share the common sense humanistic views that are also shared by many in the Barnet community: that people are people and they are equal and deserve the same respectful attitude as each other, whether in neighbourly relations or in access to services. Many individuals would also share the view that the question of immigration is being used to distract the public discussion from the real issues of losing democratic control over services, lack of housing, poverty and the general unnecessary deterioration in quality of life for most of the population while the fewer get richer.

Phil Fletcher may have expressed his own views in the course of conversation with the Times correspondent about UKIP, but Barnet Alliance does not have a position about UKIP, and it welcomes to our public meeting anyone who wishes to discuss the issues of the quality of our life in Barnet that I mentioned above, as we welcome to our activists' meetings and membership any resident or worker in Barnet who agrees with our views about public services. This is the sole focus of Barnet Alliance, as Phil had tried to explain to the reporter.
Firstly, as the person who actually spoke with Adrian Murray-Leonard I can say that it is simply not true to say that 'he was told he was unwelcome' to BAPS public meeting. I told Mr Murray-Leonard that he and his party members are most welcome to come to the public meeting, like any other Barnet resident, and speak from the floor, about the issues of local concern that will be the focus of the meeting. To that he said that he will NOT speak from the floor and that unless he will be invited onto the panel they will come en mass and 'crash' the meeting. When I asked him to explain what he meant by 'crash', he said he meant that they will 'hijack it'. I explained to Adrian, as I explained to another member of UKIP who rang BAPS earlier that day, and as a matter of fact, to a representative of another party (TUSC) who approached us for a place on the panel, that the reason they were not invited onto the panel is that we haven't seen or heard them in the last few years since we've been campaigning on the issue of privatisation of public services, and hence were not aware that any of these two parties have policies on local issues at all. Indeed, when I looked at UKIP's website I didn't find any such policies, apart from half a sentence referring (rightly) to the One Barnet Programme as 'high risk'. BAPS never held any discussion about the issues of immigration or racism, hence we do not have 'official' stands on these. I suspect that most people among BAPS members and our many supporters share the common sense humanistic views that are also shared by many in the Barnet community: that people are people and they are equal and deserve the same respectful attitude as each other, whether in neighbourly relations or in access to services. Many individuals would also share the view that the question of immigration is being used to distract the public discussion from the real issues of losing democratic control over services, lack of housing, poverty and the general unnecessary deterioration in quality of life for most of the population while the fewer get richer. Phil Fletcher may have expressed his own views in the course of conversation with the Times correspondent about UKIP, but Barnet Alliance does not have a position about UKIP, and it welcomes to our public meeting anyone who wishes to discuss the issues of the quality of our life in Barnet that I mentioned above, as we welcome to our activists' meetings and membership any resident or worker in Barnet who agrees with our views about public services. This is the sole focus of Barnet Alliance, as Phil had tried to explain to the reporter. Tee double you
  • Score: -1

2:46pm Fri 17 Jan 14

nlygo says...

the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here

the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council

and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded
the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded nlygo
  • Score: 3

3:11pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

nlygo wrote:
the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded
Reasons can always be found for excluding those you don't like and don't want there, or those you are afraid of. Some may sound almost reasonable to those of a certain persuasion if looked at in the right way, others not so.

I wonder therefore why BAPS chose to use the discredited "RACIST" argument against UKIP.

We have yet to recieve any comment from BAPS either re-affirming their racist comment or withdrawing it with an apology.

Currently BAPS just looks churlish.
[quote][p][bold]nlygo[/bold] wrote: the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded[/p][/quote]Reasons can always be found for excluding those you don't like and don't want there, or those you are afraid of. Some may sound almost reasonable to those of a certain persuasion if looked at in the right way, others not so. I wonder therefore why BAPS chose to use the discredited "RACIST" argument against UKIP. We have yet to recieve any comment from BAPS either re-affirming their racist comment or withdrawing it with an apology. Currently BAPS just looks churlish. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 9

3:18pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Not that Dave, another one. says...

A curious use of the word 'democratic' in their decision to exclude UKIP. Basically they're saying, 'everyone is welcome so long as they think the same as us'. This in turn dramatically undermines the authority of any conclusions they reach at these meetings, since they've effectively been limited from the start to only the options acceptable to the thought police on the committee.
It's also curious that they accuse UKIP of being 'racist' but by restricting the panel only to like-minded people, aren't they guilty of very similar prejudices?
Funny how words like 'racism' and 'democracy' are bandied around most by the people who seem to understand them the least.
A curious use of the word 'democratic' in their decision to exclude UKIP. Basically they're saying, 'everyone is welcome so long as they think the same as us'. This in turn dramatically undermines the authority of any conclusions they reach at these meetings, since they've effectively been limited from the start to only the options acceptable to the thought police on the committee. It's also curious that they accuse UKIP of being 'racist' but by restricting the panel only to like-minded people, aren't they guilty of very similar prejudices? Funny how words like 'racism' and 'democracy' are bandied around most by the people who seem to understand them the least. Not that Dave, another one.
  • Score: 8

3:26pm Fri 17 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

nlygo wrote:
the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded
On the principle you suggest, only the three old parties would be given a platform to get their message across which would be a massive advantage to them and help prevent even large parties with alternative policies from being able to compete fairly and get seats on the council. The idea of such a lockout would be an affront to democracy.

As can be seen from past recent elections, many, many people have given up voting altogether because in their view, nothing ever changes. On many areas of politics, the old parties have all ploughed for the middle ground vote and stayed away from difficult areas. The reason is that their parties are full of careerists who do not want to take risks and show leadership, but merely cajole the electorate and pander to the media in their desperation to stay in power.

Well, UKIP has made a big breakthroughs and now it terrifies them all that they can no longer maintain the status quo. UKIP took all the early flak for daring to ask the difficult questions and as a result, at last everyone is debating the previously ignored and taboo subjects of the EU's competence, issues caused by mass immigration and other areas too.

The old parties will still try to avoid these and other subjects but when UKIP shares a platform with them they are forced to address issues that concern ordinary people and are forced to show that they have no useful solutions to offer without abandoning entrenched ideologies. Without UKIP pushing, the old parties would still be sweeping these problems under the carpet, waving away concerns and and treating the public with same contempt we have witnessed for decades.

UKIP is making politicians deal with problems that have long being ignored. Even if you do not agree with UKIP policies, you should still be grateful that there is now a real force out there who will not let the present incumbents run Britain into the ground without a fight.
[quote][p][bold]nlygo[/bold] wrote: the Barnet Alliance are using the wrong argument here the reason UKIP should be excluded from the hustings is that they currently have no seats on the Council and for the same reason, the Greens should also be excluded[/p][/quote]On the principle you suggest, only the three old parties would be given a platform to get their message across which would be a massive advantage to them and help prevent even large parties with alternative policies from being able to compete fairly and get seats on the council. The idea of such a lockout would be an affront to democracy. As can be seen from past recent elections, many, many people have given up voting altogether because in their view, nothing ever changes. On many areas of politics, the old parties have all ploughed for the middle ground vote and stayed away from difficult areas. The reason is that their parties are full of careerists who do not want to take risks and show leadership, but merely cajole the electorate and pander to the media in their desperation to stay in power. Well, UKIP has made a big breakthroughs and now it terrifies them all that they can no longer maintain the status quo. UKIP took all the early flak for daring to ask the difficult questions and as a result, at last everyone is debating the previously ignored and taboo subjects of the EU's competence, issues caused by mass immigration and other areas too. The old parties will still try to avoid these and other subjects but when UKIP shares a platform with them they are forced to address issues that concern ordinary people and are forced to show that they have no useful solutions to offer without abandoning entrenched ideologies. Without UKIP pushing, the old parties would still be sweeping these problems under the carpet, waving away concerns and and treating the public with same contempt we have witnessed for decades. UKIP is making politicians deal with problems that have long being ignored. Even if you do not agree with UKIP policies, you should still be grateful that there is now a real force out there who will not let the present incumbents run Britain into the ground without a fight. D_Penn
  • Score: 7

3:51pm Fri 17 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

@Tee double you

I appreciate you trying to provide some clarity because obviously there is much confusion about what is going on here. I have still to hear back from the reporter behind this article confirmation of both source and quote, so what Phil may or may not have said on/off record is still to be resolved.

I would heartily support your sentence…

“that people are people and they are equal and deserve the same respectful attitude as each other, whether in neighbourly relations or in access to services”

However, I would make the point that where you go on to say…

“Many individuals would also share the view that the question of immigration is being used to distract the public discussion from the real issues of losing democratic control over services, lack of housing, poverty and the general unnecessary deterioration in quality of life for most of the population while the fewer get richer.”

You have obviously made a decision about what people should think BEFORE you have run your event. Your public meeting cannot be credibly neutral if you are already showing political bias because then your true motive in holding the meeting comes under question. For example, not having a UKIP representative means that you are avoiding having someone who would really challenge the assertions in your above sentence from being able to do so.

So why not just invite UKIP? It’s only one extra chair and will make 5 panel members – just like Question Time.
@Tee double you I appreciate you trying to provide some clarity because obviously there is much confusion about what is going on here. I have still to hear back from the reporter behind this article confirmation of both source and quote, so what Phil may or may not have said on/off record is still to be resolved. I would heartily support your sentence… “that people are people and they are equal and deserve the same respectful attitude as each other, whether in neighbourly relations or in access to services” However, I would make the point that where you go on to say… “Many individuals would also share the view that the question of immigration is being used to distract the public discussion from the real issues of losing democratic control over services, lack of housing, poverty and the general unnecessary deterioration in quality of life for most of the population while the fewer get richer.” You have obviously made a decision about what people should think BEFORE you have run your event. Your public meeting cannot be credibly neutral if you are already showing political bias because then your true motive in holding the meeting comes under question. For example, not having a UKIP representative means that you are avoiding having someone who would really challenge the assertions in your above sentence from being able to do so. So why not just invite UKIP? It’s only one extra chair and will make 5 panel members – just like Question Time. D_Penn
  • Score: 6

8:01pm Fri 17 Jan 14

rony says...

undemocratic says the party - which got millions from its European parliament members, has unlimited access to national and local media, and can run what ever event it wants - to a local campaign, which is running on a shoe string of affiliations fees and donations from its supporters. nice. now dear UKIP - invite barnet alliance to YOUR meetings, and i guess baps will consider inviting you.
undemocratic says the party - which got millions from its European parliament members, has unlimited access to national and local media, and can run what ever event it wants - to a local campaign, which is running on a shoe string of affiliations fees and donations from its supporters. nice. now dear UKIP - invite barnet alliance to YOUR meetings, and i guess baps will consider inviting you. rony
  • Score: -5

9:01pm Fri 17 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

rony wrote:
undemocratic says the party - which got millions from its European parliament members, has unlimited access to national and local media, and can run what ever event it wants - to a local campaign, which is running on a shoe string of affiliations fees and donations from its supporters. nice. now dear UKIP - invite barnet alliance to YOUR meetings, and i guess baps will consider inviting you.
I don't know where you got the idea of UKIP having millions. I wish! We are not funded by wealthy business or backed by unions. We struggle with what generous supporters donate.

Paul Nuttal, UKIP Deputy Leader is talking in Watford in 30th January. BAPS can freely come along if they wish.

Most importantly, UKIP would expect that any hustings event (I checked and BAPS are holding he meetings because of forthcoming council elections so whatever the format, it is effectivly a hustings) would allow all prospective candidates to attend. Indeed, I would not consider an event had credibility if any party who had candates at an elevtion excluded. So I'm afraid that overall your comments are simply nonsensical.
[quote][p][bold]rony[/bold] wrote: undemocratic says the party - which got millions from its European parliament members, has unlimited access to national and local media, and can run what ever event it wants - to a local campaign, which is running on a shoe string of affiliations fees and donations from its supporters. nice. now dear UKIP - invite barnet alliance to YOUR meetings, and i guess baps will consider inviting you.[/p][/quote]I don't know where you got the idea of UKIP having millions. I wish! We are not funded by wealthy business or backed by unions. We struggle with what generous supporters donate. Paul Nuttal, UKIP Deputy Leader is talking in Watford in 30th January. BAPS can freely come along if they wish. Most importantly, UKIP would expect that any hustings event (I checked and BAPS are holding he meetings because of forthcoming council elections so whatever the format, it is effectivly a hustings) would allow all prospective candidates to attend. Indeed, I would not consider an event had credibility if any party who had candates at an elevtion excluded. So I'm afraid that overall your comments are simply nonsensical. D_Penn
  • Score: 5

9:57pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The four main political parties in the country are, in order of membership

Labour (200,000+)
Conservative (130,000+)
LibDem (42,000)
UKIP (32,000)
Greens (12,000+)

The four main parties in terms of support are

Labour (36%)
Conservatives (32%)
UKIP (16%)
LibDem (9%)

The predicted EU election results are predicted to be

Labour
UKIP
Conservatives

(No LibDems elected at all).

UKIP in many respects has overtaken the LibDems to become Britain's third Party.

When you consider that most of our laws are made by the EU, a reasonable person might think that UKIP is a party that should be represented everywhere there are hustings.

As I said before, BAPS just appear churlish with their petty insults and exclusion of UKIP from hustings. Churlish, and scared. Rather like the Conservative party.
The four main political parties in the country are, in order of membership Labour (200,000+) Conservative (130,000+) LibDem (42,000) UKIP (32,000) Greens (12,000+) The four main parties in terms of support are Labour (36%) Conservatives (32%) UKIP (16%) LibDem (9%) The predicted EU election results are predicted to be Labour UKIP Conservatives (No LibDems elected at all). UKIP in many respects has overtaken the LibDems to become Britain's third Party. When you consider that most of our laws are made by the EU, a reasonable person might think that UKIP is a party that should be represented everywhere there are hustings. As I said before, BAPS just appear churlish with their petty insults and exclusion of UKIP from hustings. Churlish, and scared. Rather like the Conservative party. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

1:31am Sat 18 Jan 14

Sarah R B says...

If they are opposed to their immigration policies, then why have labour and conservatives copied them.
If they are opposed to their immigration policies, then why have labour and conservatives copied them. Sarah R B
  • Score: 4

1:32am Sat 18 Jan 14

Sarah R B says...

The labour, conservative and liberal party are proven perverts, liars, fraudsters and traitors, and racist, which everyone already knows. UKIP have no racist views whatsoever, they have the same views on immigration as Austrailia.Churchill was correct, the facists come as the anti-facists. If they did actually think UKIP had racist views, then why would they not want to let it be seen by the public.
The labour, conservative and liberal party are proven perverts, liars, fraudsters and traitors, and racist, which everyone already knows. UKIP have no racist views whatsoever, they have the same views on immigration as Austrailia.Churchill was correct, the facists come as the anti-facists. If they did actually think UKIP had racist views, then why would they not want to let it be seen by the public. Sarah R B
  • Score: 2

1:56am Sat 18 Jan 14

Sarah R B says...

May be they are scared of UKIP telling the peoplethe true facts, such as we have no say and no control over what happens to any of our services, which we all pay dearly for, until we leave the EU, which the old 3 parties illegally made us members of, without our consent.
May be they are scared of UKIP telling the peoplethe true facts, such as we have no say and no control over what happens to any of our services, which we all pay dearly for, until we leave the EU, which the old 3 parties illegally made us members of, without our consent. Sarah R B
  • Score: 3

2:35pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Kirk D says...

'Our meetings are open to anyone who agrees with our view"..........no room for contrarian views then...........I'll get me coat! This is just the sort of attitude we would expect from the Council of Ministers in Europe.......agree with us or forever be a pariah!

Keep calm & vote UKIP on 22nd May!
'Our meetings are open to anyone who agrees with our view"..........no room for contrarian views then...........I'll get me coat! This is just the sort of attitude we would expect from the Council of Ministers in Europe.......agree with us or forever be a pariah! Keep calm & vote UKIP on 22nd May! Kirk D
  • Score: 2

3:29pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Kirk D says...

Not that Dave, another one. wrote:
A curious use of the word 'democratic' in their decision to exclude UKIP. Basically they're saying, 'everyone is welcome so long as they think the same as us'. This in turn dramatically undermines the authority of any conclusions they reach at these meetings, since they've effectively been limited from the start to only the options acceptable to the thought police on the committee.
It's also curious that they accuse UKIP of being 'racist' but by restricting the panel only to like-minded people, aren't they guilty of very similar prejudices?
Funny how words like 'racism' and 'democracy' are bandied around most by the people who seem to understand them the least.
Dave, your post was very witty & made me laugh. Sardonic or what! But you speak the truth where others merely hide behind left wing 'factoids' & self proclaimed 'truism! Your reference to 'Thought Police' also made me smile. Big Brother is watching..........'W
e are the dead' unless we wake and realise that we will one day be residing in 'Oceanaia'. No democracy, no truth, & a United states of blandness! We hate you Big Brother! Time for my 2 minute hate................
,
[quote][p][bold]Not that Dave, another one.[/bold] wrote: A curious use of the word 'democratic' in their decision to exclude UKIP. Basically they're saying, 'everyone is welcome so long as they think the same as us'. This in turn dramatically undermines the authority of any conclusions they reach at these meetings, since they've effectively been limited from the start to only the options acceptable to the thought police on the committee. It's also curious that they accuse UKIP of being 'racist' but by restricting the panel only to like-minded people, aren't they guilty of very similar prejudices? Funny how words like 'racism' and 'democracy' are bandied around most by the people who seem to understand them the least.[/p][/quote]Dave, your post was very witty & made me laugh. Sardonic or what! But you speak the truth where others merely hide behind left wing 'factoids' & self proclaimed 'truism! Your reference to 'Thought Police' also made me smile. Big Brother is watching..........'W e are the dead' unless we wake and realise that we will one day be residing in 'Oceanaia'. No democracy, no truth, & a United states of blandness! We hate you Big Brother! Time for my 2 minute hate................ , Kirk D
  • Score: -1

10:00am Mon 20 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

D_Penn wrote:
@Phil Fletcher You say that you do not accept the comments attributed to you in this article, but your version is so different to that reported, that you will understand that I have asked the journalist for source clarification and confirmation. You will appreciate that democracy and principles of free speech are too important to not get to the bottom of this.
For clarity, I have now received confirmation from the journalist that the quotes in the article are correctly attributed to Phil Fletcher and are accurate.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Phil Fletcher You say that you do not accept the comments attributed to you in this article, but your version is so different to that reported, that you will understand that I have asked the journalist for source clarification and confirmation. You will appreciate that democracy and principles of free speech are too important to not get to the bottom of this.[/p][/quote]For clarity, I have now received confirmation from the journalist that the quotes in the article are correctly attributed to Phil Fletcher and are accurate. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

AverageBarnetResident says...

The reality is that BAPS is a small group of extreme left-wing agitators who occasionally hold rallies masquerading as 'panel discussions'. Of course they don't want to run the risk that people with different opinions might turn up and derail the far-leftist agenda and general Barnet Council-bashing. That would defeat the point of the exercise!

I am, however, very much enjoying BAPS' attempts to backtrack and dissassociate themselves with Mr Fletcher's comments. Squirm my little beauties! Squirm!!
The reality is that BAPS is a small group of extreme left-wing agitators who occasionally hold rallies masquerading as 'panel discussions'. Of course they don't want to run the risk that people with different opinions might turn up and derail the far-leftist agenda and general Barnet Council-bashing. That would defeat the point of the exercise! I am, however, very much enjoying BAPS' attempts to backtrack and dissassociate themselves with Mr Fletcher's comments. Squirm my little beauties! Squirm!! AverageBarnetResident
  • Score: 1

7:29pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The headline is misleading I believe. The hustings, which are not really hustings at all as they are completely biased, have already been hijacked by the Trade Unions who sponsor this undemocratic group.

Not so much hustings as hustle, eh BAPS?
The headline is misleading I believe. The hustings, which are not really hustings at all as they are completely biased, have already been hijacked by the Trade Unions who sponsor this undemocratic group. Not so much hustings as hustle, eh BAPS? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree