What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.

[otolith]

I fear that one reason that the other parties appear to have fewer loons might be that they are better whipped.

The trouble with professionalism is that you end up with parties standing for not much more than obtaining and keeping power. I'm not sure that amateurism is playing badly to the electorate at the moment.

[Blib]

I'm still minded to vote UKIP at the Euros. The present bunch in Westminster need shaking up and UKIP seems to be the only way to achieve this.

Would I vote for them in a general election? Would I fk.

[santona1937]

otolith said:

I fear that one reason that the other parties appear to have fewer loons might be that they are better whipped.

The trouble with professionalism is that you end up with parties standing for not much more than obtaining and keeping power. I'm not sure that amateurism is playing badly to the electorate at the moment.

exactly, the career politicians have not shown themselves to be better for being in a career, so an amateur might be just the ticket in the publics' mind ?

[Bill]

Blib said:

I'm still minded to vote UKIP at the Euros. The present bunch in Westminster need shaking up and UKIP seems to be the only way to achieve this.

Would I vote for them in a general election? Would I fk.

That's the thing IMO. They can't change the EU from the inside, they're too small and the EU too big. So it's a protest vote, but not a wasted one because the EU is vast so whoever you vote for the EU is still in charge.

The only way to change things is using the UK government, which won't happen unless UKIP stand down at the next GE and throw their lot in with the Tories. We'll see...

[anonymous-user]

santona1937 said:

exactly, the career politicians have not shown themselves to be better for being in a career, so an amateur might be just the ticket in the publics' mind ?

There you are, falling for the spin again. Farage may run an amateurish show, but he isn't an amateur. He is a professional career politician. He's been an MEP since 1999.

[10 Pence Short]

Breadvan72 said:

There you are, falling for the spin again. Farage may run an amateurish show, but he isn't an amateur. He is a professional career politician. He's been an MEP since 1999.

Yeah, but before that he was in the business of talking up what may be worthless assets in order to make large profits from pretty much nothing.

[eharding]

10 Pence Short said:

Breadvan72 said:

There you are, falling for the spin again. Farage may run an amateurish show, but he isn't an amateur. He is a professional career politician. He's been an MEP since 1999.

Yeah, but before that he was in the business of talking up what may be worthless assets in order to make large profits from pretty much nothing.

There is a strong case to made that he's still very much in that line of business.

In light of the rather spectacular ongoing UKIP self-immolation-by-election-broadcast, poor old Nigel is probably reflecting that he probably needs fewer amateurs around the place at Kipper Central Office.

[FredClogs]

Builders eh!

[handpaper]

Guam said:

Too slow already on the main thread

Scumbag of the first Order who has I gather already been sacked, your bailiwick BV how much (if any ) of that filth could be criminally actionable?

Not only is it not actionable, you may be surprised at how many people agree with large parts of it. Take a look at the comment thread over at Guido's blog.
The opinions on Islam, dolites and the advisability of interfering in Africa would probably find considerable support here, too.
For myself, I am upset that UKIP failed to see this one coming but don't think it will severely hurt them next month.

[anonymous-user]

I gather that the current 'Kipper line is "we throw these people out straight away, which shows what stand up guys we are". Fabulous! UKIP keep on having to throw out hatey idiots, and then have the front to try to make a virtue of how quickly they chuck the hateys out when they get caught being hatey. Might UKIP not stop and think "hmmm, isn't it odd that we keep having so many hatey idiots to throw out"? Nope, press on!

[eharding]

handpaper said:

Not only is it not actionable, you may be surprised at how many people agree with large parts of it.

So, what proportion of the core UKIP vote do you think would agree with a substantial part of Andre Lampitt's instant kipper-hero-to-kipper-zero views?

[brenflys777]

FredClogs said:

Having said that if my employer had hung me out to dry as Farage has done with this lady then I'd be inclined to piss on his tea bags and take my services elsewhere.

UKIP RESPONSE TO THE LIZZY VAID STORY IN THE SUN TODAY:
Miss Vaid has been the victim of domestic abuse and a continued campaign of psychological and emotional intimidation and harassment from a previous partner of hers. The police have been informed of these events over the course of the past eight years. The photographs described were taken under duress when she was 19 years old and have left Miss Vaid with significant psychological trauma that she has battled hard ever since to overcome. Miss Vaid is understandably extremely distressed that this should now be in the public domain. Both the Devon and Cornwall and Metropolitan Police Forces made contact with The Sun over its proposed publication of this story.

UKIP appear to be dealing with the vile behaviour of those who've tried to make mileage of this ladies disgusting ex and his behaviour in a fair and mature way.

As for the twitter comments builder. They've suspended him, if it turns out that he posted those things and the account hasn't been hacked I will be very glad he's been jettisoned.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/UK-Department-of-Cu...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/05/dcms-tw...

[PRTVR]

Breadvan72 said:

I gather that the current 'Kipper line is "we throw these people out straight away, which shows what stand up guys we are". Fabulous! UKIP keep on having to throw out hatey idiots, and then have the front to try to make a virtue of how quickly they chuck the hateys out when they get caught being hatey. Might UKIP not stop and think "hmmm, isn't it odd that we keep having so many hatey idiots to throw out"? Nope, press on!

But what is the options open to them? They are gaining members at a fast pace, 2500 just this year, how you manage that is a major problem, unprofessional, probably, but as time passes things will get smoother, how many new members have the main parties gained this year?, people appear to be prepared for mistakes, its human, deal with the problem and move on, personally I don't think it will make any difference to UKIP, but it appears there is a few people out there that hope it will.

[league67]

longblackcoat said:

As someone who's used staff in advertisements, I can assure you that these questions are asked.

We sat down with the employees concerned and pointed out to them that their faces would become public, that people would look into their background, and so if there was anything embarrassing out there it would better to let us know (and probably withdraw from the process) than wait for their secrets to become public, as they inevitably do. We made a point of saying that if they wanted to pull out, it wasn't a problem, and no questions would ever be asked. Equally, if they mentioned something to us about their past which we all agreed was not an issue, then no matter what happened they'd get our support. Several people pulled out, and nothing was made of it.

The ex-boyfriend was indeed a total bd in doing what he has, but there's no way she didn't know the pictures existed, and therefore she must have known that there was a risk this might occur. I feel very sorry for her - she didn't expect any of this, and it's absolutely not deserved - but she should have thought about it before she agreed to appear in a national campaign.

I feel sorry for the girl, and whoever posted pictures which were meant to be private is the despicable st.
I'm sure she didn't expect this, but someone using her for the poster knew that it'll come out. If she was an event organizer, a lot of people, some clearly not UKIP supporters, would know who she works for. One call to the media and that would be it.
Is it possible, that whoever decided to use her for poster, didn't know that her employment details would come out and therefore all dirt digging that that guarantees.
I guess my question, not very eloquently posed, is it possible that someone decided to use her, knowing full well the repercussions, and yet decided to do it to generate more media buzz? Genuine curiosity. And I don't think that there is anything wrong to use employees for advertising purposes as long as they are aware of what that entails, so they can make informed decision.

[Timsta]

league67 said:

I'm sure she didn't expect this, but someone using her for the poster knew that it'll come out.

Really? So how did the person using her for the poster know that they existed?

[league67]

Timsta said:

league67 said:

I'm sure she didn't expect this, but someone using her for the poster knew that it'll come out.

Really? So how did the person using her for the poster know that they existed?

You really are not the quickest of cats, are you? If you read the next sentence you'd see that 'it'll come out' that she is employed by UKIP.

Once again, I feel sorry for the girl. I doubt that, if someone said to her 'Look, some people who don't like us know that you work for UKIP. They'll use that to dig up any dirt about you and they'll have no mercy, or respect any boundaries. Are you sure that there is nothing from your past that can come to haunt you?'.

Is that clear now? Stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.

Edit to add; question was more for longblackcoat as he seems to know how campaign world works.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

I gather that the current 'Kipper line is "we throw these people out straight away, which shows what stand up guys we are". Fabulous! UKIP keep on having to throw out hatey idiots, and then have the front to try to make a virtue of how quickly they chuck the hateys out when they get caught being hatey. Might UKIP not stop and think "hmmm, isn't it odd that we keep having so many hatey idiots to throw out"? Nope, press on!

Maybe they should adopt the Labour line of just outright taking on ex-BNP and ex-neo Nazi types as councilors, because at least their hate credentials are pretty obvious and not hidden, rather than having to trawl the online past of everyone involved, or ask if they were once victim to a mad boyfriend who forced them into sex photos.

I'm sure someone will say that Labour are not exactly a racist party, so ex-BNP members as councilors is all good and fine as long as it's for the votes and there's nothing racist in it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of BNP types are attracted to Ukip, which would be enough for Fred Clogs to think case closed, game over. Someone else may wonder why that is though and ask the question if they don't see Ukip's limiting of immigration as the closest they'll ever get to the racist ideas about doing it on skin colour. Add in the fact that they can see Ukip has already had some success on the subject and knowing that the BNP's vote is never more than about 2% on a good day, and I think it's obvious a lot will support Ukip and vote on that issue or get involved. There ( the hatey types ) and my ideas on a limiting of immigration are two different things.
Think of it like when you write a reasoned reply, but then Fred Clogs/Matt Nunn turns up thinking he's on your team/side but can't do much more than say 'racist' at every turn and think that it matters not how much he lies, fabricates or exaggerates. He's an embarrassment with his own agenda, but he has aligned himself with you.

[longblackcoat]

league67 said:

I guess my question, not very eloquently posed, is it possible that someone decided to use her, knowing full well the repercussions, and yet decided to do it to generate more media buzz? Genuine curiosity. And I don't think that there is anything wrong to use employees for advertising purposes as long as they are aware of what that entails, so they can make informed decision.

It wouldn't be the first time.

It now appears it wasn't just a case of a few bedroom pictures, it's been an ongoing campaign against her. In which case it's genuinely surprising that she's now surprised that appearing an a national campaign for a contentious political party could have lead to anything other than this. I reiterate that I feel for her, but there's a certain inevitability about the way this has unfurled.

Gentle questioning by UKIP would have revealed that there was indeed something in her part she didn't want revealed. At this point UKIP should have simply dropped her from the campaign, partly out of common decency, but mostly because it would detract from the message. She should have been told that even if she wanted to go ahead, it wouldn't be in her interests.

If, however, she made UKIP aware of the issue and they decided to go ahead, then it would be a hugely cynical step, and one which traded the distress of a loyal supporter for column inches. She might been somewhat naive about how this would play out, but those in charge of the campaign would have known. Given the fact that Miss Vaid is now said to be very distressed (and assuming this to be true), it's clear she was in no way prepared for what's transpired.

At the very least UKIP have been incompetent in failing to both check the background of their employee and to prepare her for the consequences of being exposed to the public eye; if they knew about it and went ahead anyway then they're guilty of the worst sort of cynicism. Either way, it's not been a good day at the office for UKIP.

[10 Pence Short]

PRTVR said:

But what is the options open to them? They are gaining members at a fast pace, 2500 just this year .

Isn't there a difference between vetting someone who wants to be a rank and file UKIP party member and someone you're going to use as the face of a typical UKIP voter on television?

The rhetoric employed by UKIP makes it a natural harbour for people with xenophobic or worse tendencies. The only way to stop this would be change the rhetoric.

[PRTVR]

10 Pence Short said:

PRTVR said:

But what is the options open to them? They are gaining members at a fast pace, 2500 just this year .

Isn't there a difference between vetting someone who wants to be a rank and file UKIP party member and someone you're going to use as the face of a typical UKIP voter on television?

The rhetoric employed by UKIP makes it a natural harbour for people with xenophobic or worse tendencies. The only way to stop this would be change the rhetoric.

How far do you go checking people out ? Do people always tell the truth, far easier to just deal with the problems as they arise, controlled immigration is a corner stone of UKIP policies and very popular, yes it may attract some undesirable types along with thousands who just see it as common sense, so long as they get rid of them as soon as they are known about I see no problem, the world is not a perfect place mistakes are made and will be made but in the big scheme of thing matter very little.