UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[HonestIago]

I for one am a lot less worried about Britain First than I am by Unite Against Free-speech and "Hope Not Hate". They actually use violence as a means of intimidating those who disagree with their positively loony hard-left and anti-British views.

Britain First is the natural result of a policy of open-door mass third world immigration which the public were NEVER asked whether they wanted. I wholly sympathise with its supporters even if their grasp of the situation is overly simplistic.

[jogon]

HonestIago said:

I for one am a lot less worried about Britain First than I am by Unite Against Free-speech and "Hope Not Hate". They actually use violence as a means of intimidating those who disagree with their positively loony hard-left and anti-British views.

Britain First is the natural result of a policy of open-door mass third world immigration which the public were NEVER asked whether they wanted. I wholly sympathise with its supporters even if their grasp of the situation is overly simplistic.

Good article yesterday about them and worth looking at the UAF founding signatories list, Dave and all the other liberal stooges currently destroying our country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gill...

[Zod]

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

[Esseesse]

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

Thanks for the info. I cannot see anything in the article. Please post what from the article you think explains why.

[brenflys777]

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

If what you say is true he seems to regard being an MP as being more important than being a city lawyer. I think I like him more already

[mrpurple]

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

So what is the connection between your company and the Spectator? Why would The Spectator try to sabotage his attempt to get elected because he reneged on a promise to your company....sorry but being a not very bright kipper I can't see the link in the article.... in my book anyone that pees off lawyers is a good person not a bad one.

[FiF]

mrpurple said:

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

So what is the connection between your company and the Spectator? Why would The Spectator try to sabotage his attempt to get elected because he reneged on a promise to your company....sorry but being a not very bright kipper I can't see the link in the article.... in my book anyone that pees off lawyers is a good person not a bad one.

The only thing I can see in the article is that it was because Oborne thought that the Labour candidate was the true Conservative candidate.

If, as above, he is someone who has pissed Zod off in the past then I warm to him somewhat.

No reasons are given as to why. So is it an unsubstantiated smear with a touch of It was the Sun wot won it?

[don4l]

Guido has published a piece about the socialist nature of Cameron's Conservative party. It succinctly explains why many traditional tories would never vote for the current lot.

Guy Fawkes said:

So who immorally raised VAT to an eye-watering 20%? Who has maintained high combined national insurance and tax rates on everyone earning above minimum wage at Gordon Brown levels? Who allowed inflation to push some million more of the middle classes into the higher rate bracket?

Who introduced 509 tax rises since being elected in May 2010? Who is planning to increase the share of GDP that is taken in taxation by the state to higher levels than under Gordon Brown?

£513 billion in 2009-10, representing 36.5% of GDP
£648 billion in 2014-15, representing 37.0% of GDP
£778 billion in 2018-19, representing 38.1% of GDP

Full story here...

[Scuffers]

not that I follow twater, but last couple of days this has appeard:

https://twitter.com/nigelohno

and managed to make 6,000+ posts in this time!

I have to assume it's an account setup by Lib/Lab/Con or the like? all pretty sad really.

[FiF]

Scuffers said:

not that I follow twater, but last couple of days this has appeard:

https://twitter.com/nigelohno

and managed to make 6,000+ posts in this time!

I have to assume it's an account setup by Lib/Lab/Con or the like? all pretty sad really.

As mentioned the other day, people started banging on about cyber-kippers with the same distaste that was reserved for the cyber-nats in the Scottish Independence debate;.but whilst there are some ukippers who are certainly vocal, even raucous one might say, it's obvious to anyone but the most biased observers where the really nasty stuff comes from and it certainly ain't from the herring smoke house.

[Zod]

Esseesse said:

Thanks for the info. I cannot see anything in the article. Please post what from the article you think explains why.

Sorry. You are right. I read it weeks ago and my memory conflated it with the original campaign. Peter Oborne drafted Bob Marshall-Andrews' election pamphlet with an attack on Mark Reckless because he was widely loathed in the COnservative Party. He was also loathed when he was at my firm. It's a word that comes up frequently when Reckless is mentioned (other than to UKIP supporters and members, of course).

[Zod]

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

If what you say is true he seems to regard being an MP as being more important than being a city lawyer. I think I like him more already

Not really. It was important to him to earn the salary while doing what he had promised not to do.

[don4l]

I've just seen something very interesting.

It looks like Labour could lose up to 35 MP's in Scotland to the SNP. This would make a Conservative minority government, supported by UKIP, a very real possibility.

http://order-order.com/2014/10/30/ipsos-mori-poll-...

Guido has updated the article to include a forecast.

SNP to go from 6 seats to 54 (+48).
Labour from 41 to 4 (-37).
LD's from 11 to 1 (-10).

Edited by don4l on Thursday 30th October 15:32

[Scuffers]

don4l said:

I've just seen something very interesting.

It looks like Labour could lose up to 35 MP's in Scotland to the SNP. This would make a Conservative minority government, supported by UKIP, a very real possibility.

http://order-order.com/2014/10/30/ipsos-mori-poll-...

so, one positive thing to come out of the Scottish referendum

[Esseesse]

Zod said:

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

If what you say is true he seems to regard being an MP as being more important than being a city lawyer. I think I like him more already

Not really. It was important to him to earn the salary while doing what he had promised not to do.

If he did the required hours and worked to the required standard, should you be dictating what he does in his out of work time?

[mrpurple]

Esseesse said:

Zod said:

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

If what you say is true he seems to regard being an MP as being more important than being a city lawyer. I think I like him more already

Not really. It was important to him to earn the salary while doing what he had promised not to do.

If he did the required hours and worked to the required standard, should you be dictating what he does in his out of work time?

Given the nature of the business would it be safe to assume these restrictions were legal and enforceable in law? If so then why not sue him for breech of contract? Or is it the case that a lawyer relied on another (trainee)lawyer's word to do, or not to do, something and not draw up a legally binding employment contract?

Edited by mrpurple on Thursday 30th October 15:42

[brenflys777]

Zod said:

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

Esseesse said:

How The Spectator stopped Mark Reckless from reaching parliament in 2005

Does anybody know the why to go with this stupid article?

It's in the article.

His behaviour speaks for itself. When we was interviewed for a training contract at our firm, he was told that training as a City lawyer would leave no time to pursue a parallel political career and was asked to confirm that he would not stand for election if he took the job. He gave that confirmation, took the job and stood for election.

If what you say is true he seems to regard being an MP as being more important than being a city lawyer. I think I like him more already

Not really. It was important to him to earn the salary while doing what he had promised not to do.

That doesn't make sense to me. If being a city lawyer wasn't less important to him than being an MP then he wouldn't have risked upsetting the Herbert's at the law firm by running for election.

I don't know the man, never met him and I can only go on his actions, but when I joined the police I was asked if I was fully committed to it, at the time I was, but I changed my mind. There was no dishonesty just pragmatism of moving on to something better for me. His lack of honesty with the Conservatives on leaving seems pragmatic to me but deceitful to conservatives.

One positive for me is that after your comments I looked him up on wiki, he's only 4 years older than me but he seems to have done a lot, quite an impressive cv, the fact he's moved on from two safe, well paid but drone like positions ( big city law firm and conservative MP) really does encourage me

Edited by brenflys777 on Thursday 30th October 15:43

[AJS-]

A lawyer with political aspirations going back on his word? Unheard of.

[mrpurple]

brenflys777 said:

That doesn't make sense to me. If being a city lawyer wasn't less important to him than being an MP then he wouldn't have risked upsetting the Herbert's at the law firm by running for election.

I don't know the man, never met him and I can only go on his actions, but when I joined the police I was asked if I was fully committed to it, at the time I was, but I changed my mind. There was no dishonesty just pragmatism of moving on to something better for me. His lack of honesty with the Conservatives on leaving seems pragmatic to me but deceitful to conservatives.

One positive for me is that after your comments I looked him up
On wiki, he's only 4 years older than me but he seems to have done a lot, quite an impressive cv, the fact he's moved on from two safe, well paid but drone like positions ( big city law firm and conservative MP) really does encourage me

Trainee lawyer gets one over a big city law firm............that will do fine for me

[don4l]

I can sort of understand where zod is coming from. New staff, in my business at least, are not productive for at least 6 months. During that they are getting paid. If they leave during this time, then they have cost you a lot of money.