A member of the Question Time audience eviscerated UKIP’s panellist over immigration scaremongering — before it was revealed she was a paid Labour staffer.

Amy Rutland, who works for the party as a Regional Policy Co-ordinator, was applauded by the audience for tearing into UKIP’s Eastleigh candidate Diane James on misleading statistics:

“How are four million Bulgarians going to come to our country when they only have a population of seven million?”

She has a point. This is the kind of thing that UKIP see fit to distribute:

UKIP Bulgaria Romania leaflet

But Rutland suffered a backlash from UKIP supporters on Twitter after it emerged she worked for the Labour Party. Question Time is filmed “as live” but is delayed by around an hour.

Before protecting her account, she had tweeted that she had been working with panellist Stephen Twigg earlier in the day and that she had “ripped into” Diane James during filming:

Amy Rutland UKIP tweet

The programme frequently provides a platform for “ordinary members of the public” frequently turn out to be local party activists and councillors.

Good on Rutland for holding UKIP to account  — but its wise to draw the line at party staffers when it comes to “placed” questions.

  1. johnat farnham says:

    Amy Rutland told a lie which of course is typical of that type of audience member who is invited to Question Time. She said that UKIP were saying that the number of Bulgarians that were coming to the UK was greater than the population of the country. That is not so to wit the poster which says that the EU will allow 20 millions Bulgarians and Romanians to have the right to come to the UK which is an entirely different thng. Bearing in mind the average wage and benefit in those countries is way below ours then it is obvious that they will wish to come to the UK and are already queueing up to do so. Well done Diane for answering the question so well despite typically rude interruptions from Amy Rutland

  2. Cheap slur politics from Labour again, despite what Miliband said about how Labour got it wrong and how it was ok to talk about immigration, here comes one of there mouthy co ordinators shouting racism at someone who questions immigration. Same old Labour, if you want to use audience plants, don’t choose a blonde, she was very obvious

  3. Amy’s question was how 4 million Bulgarians were coming to the UK despite Bulgaria having a population of only 7 million. She did not in any way say that the number was higher than the population. She did not lie. Yes she came accross as aggressive or empassioned but that was simply regarding the bad data used and published by UKIP. The survey said that 56% of the population would rather live elsewhere and UKIP have used that to scare people into believing that 29 million immigrants will be arriving at Dover next year. UKIP have lied. Amy simply called them to task on it.

  4. She came across instantly as a Labour Stooge, pushing cheap nasty slurs, and was a great asset to the Conservative Party. Nasty left mouthings do not work, well done to Melanie Phillips for shutting her up.

  5. @Col perry no it is not a lie, no one said that they would all come on day one, that is just your inability to read and therefore make false assumptions. Read the literature correctly it doesn’t not say “29 million Romanians and Bulgarians will arrive in Dover on the 1st of January 2014″ It simply states that it will allow them, which it does that’s a fact by EU law. Also you come to assumption that when a immigrant comes to the UK they instantly stay for life when in actual fact these immigrants come and go as they please and so this not only further overloads the system of benefits and other institutions it will make the economy more chaotic and harder to predict. so after 2014 after a year at least it cane quite easily get to the amount UKIP predict coming into the country. No lies just predicting what will happen and Nigel predicted a lot of things to happen in the EU and has been right. I trust him on this prediction.

  6. Yes she works for Labour. This is because her personal views align with the party’s. She was not placed by Labour to appear on Question Time which you’ll find is evident in the lack of planning prior to her appearance. She made an open tweet, her twitter did indeed say that she works for Labour – do you really think that if Labour had placed her in that audience that they wouldn’t have asked her to prevent disclosing such information. Her comments were voicing her personal view which happen to obviously fall in line with the political party she dedicates her time to. Now she’s receiving harrassing comments from UKIP supporters who have no argument of any depth and resort to insulting her physical appearance (see twitter). Labour Stooge… Laughable.

  7. @Col Perry Yes you did, and your pathetic rebuttal just proves you have nothing to say in return. UKIP have told no lies on there literature, they simply stated EU which funnily enough helps us gain support because the laws themselves are ridiculous. And about the Labour girl, there supposed to be from the Dover public not from party activist that travel the country. The whole point of question time is to hear the public questions not petty political name calling, which I may point out that Labour are profound in as name calling is all they are good at. Not thinking for the working class, just name calling and electioneering

  8. Labour Stooge, not laughable, just obvious cheap dirty nasty mouthed politics, and it doesn’t win votes, it didn’t work in the 80’s

  9. Things I did not say –

    1. All the immigrants would be arriving on the 1st of January 2014.

    2. I assume that when an immigrant comes to the UK they will instantly stay for life.

    3. I care about your petty insults.

  10. @Col Perry, Well if you do not mean that how is it a lie? Its not even happened yet! You can say they are wrong or misinformed but lie is a strong word to be throwing around. However she was very insulting to the British citizens saying that they were “vulnerable”. Actually if you go on the street a lot of people see immigration as a major problem and don’t see a problem with a points based system, what UKIP is calling for long term wise. Labour is just sour because they cant promise anything because they are simply a puppet party of the EU. Oh and most importantly of their corporate masters, who tell them constantly that corporate short termism like mass immigration for cheaper wages is the way to go! Poor girl if she thinks she’s fighting for the working class man and woman, when your in Labour your fighting against them.

  11. Interestingly, the EU will allow 60 million Britons to relocate to Finland THIS year.

    What are we going to do about it?

  12. Bryan Tomlinson says:

    The Labour Party activists like the immature and inexperienced lady on QT give me the creeps. Labour never talk about unemployment, an affordable housing emergency and a million disenfranchised young people.
    Amy Rutland typifies the modern Labour Party. Pro globalisation and no empathy for struggling British workers.

  13. I will be voting Ukip at every election until the day I die , How many names and accusations will the main 3 parties throw at us to try and stop people voting for us , I seriously do not think people care anymore if Ukip is a racist party or anti immigration ,people are opening their eyes to drastic changes this country has gone through over the last 20 years and want a strong and British people first attitude going into the next election and what is wrong with that !! The lady in the audience needs to wake up she must be working for labour or lib

  14. THIS WOMAN IS SERIOUSLY DELUSIONAL! VOTE UKIP AS WOMEN LIKE HER IN THE PLANTED AUDIESNCE HAVE RUINED GREAT BRITAIN

  15. This is a non story. The most interested and engaged individuals are the ones who are also activists/ councillors/ staffers; by definition of the previous 3 titles they are aware of politics and should not be held ransom for appearing on the show.

  16. @ Tris -You simply cannot compare Finland with very poor eastern European nations ( Romania and Bulgaria ranked 54 and 75 by the IMF respectively in terms of terms of economic GDP)!

    What this Labour individual did was expose the kind of people that represent the Labour party. Despite what Ed Milliband has admitted about the Labour mistakes on immigration, his party is clearly still comprised of individuals like this woman who label anyone or any party questioning mass uncontrolled immigration as ‘disgusting’. Ukip are used to the barrage of hate filled rhetoric spewed by the LibLabCon’s, and yet for some reason, Ukip just keep on growing in popularity! Good on them, they are the voice of the average working man and woman in this country!

  17. Tubby Isaacs says:

    That was the serious face of UKIP there? They take a population of 7 million, a survey that says 56% of Bulgarians would like to move, and come up with 4 million coming to Britain, then when challenge claim the Bulgarian government said that?

    They then say you can double your Bulgarian wages in benefits in the UK, not mentioning the cost of living or the restricted entitlement?

    And all they can do when challenged is say “look at people calling us racist for opposing immigration”? It was the lies that were disgusting, for about the dozenth time.

    Pub bores party.

  18. Have to say I was totally disgusted not so much on the attitude of the girl because I have come to expect that from idiots but disgusted more so in David Dimbleby, he was actually badgering Diane James to answer a question when she was trying to respond to a rude statement. There was no question made by Amy she was merely stating her rather strange opinion. After the dimbleby badgering and Diane actually being able to post a question at her she did ask something about the immigration figures but as you can see from the actual leaflet she was far off the mark on what she was saying. Another disgusting thing I witnessed on last nights Question Time was a lady in a yellow top wearing a blue flower asked the most sensible question about the problem with mass immigration and was totally ignored. It is true that the majority of immigrants send anything above their own needs back out of the country and this is vastly effecting our economy. That should have been responded to by the panel more so than the rantings of some Labour activist with an axe to grind because they got thrashed in Eastleigh.

  19. I am sure young Miss Rutland is eyeing up a Parliamentry career alongside the Neo Marxist elite that run her beloved party. Right on sister, up the workers and claim those expenses, few year in the future another one sending her kids to private or very exclusive state schools while the rest of us plebs make do.

  20. “Your view differs from mine therefore you are a lesser being and I am entitled to insult you.”

    For a relative newcomer to the national stage Diane James did brilliantly in a tough environment. Great to see UKIP showing strength in depth.

    Bob Crow did well too. Even though most of what he says is b*ll*cks he appears to articulate his own authentically held views rather than those pre-programmed by party HQ – exactly what is switching people off LibLabCon.

    Ken Clarke was woeful. Flanneling away like John Prescott, a bruiser past his prime.

  21. Charles Lovelace FMM says:

    Diane James maintained her composure under an unpleasant and graceless verbal assault.

    Melanie Phillips was an excellent arbiter and dealt with the general tenor of the question in
    a sensible and polite manner. Nevertheless she put the young lady in her place.

    Hopefully as Labour always used to bleat; lessons will be learnt.

    Courtesy costs nothing………even in politics.

  22. Tubby Isaacs says:

    So UKIPpers complaining about rudeness. That’s the party who’s leader did the “Belgium’s a non country” speech? Dish it out but can’t take it.

    We’re supposed to be thankful Diane James kept her composure? I’d rather she answered the question, myself. Ooh, look over there, the issue’s the manners of Amy Rutland and David Dimbleby. Not that Diane James was caught spouting utter rubbish and tried to pretend it came from the Bulgarian government.

    I see Tim has chosen to respond with some drivel about “neo-Marxists” (yeah, New Labour, Marxist) and some “right on” insults. What a lovely polite, focussed on the issues bunch you are.

    Timewasters.

  23. Political comment from any member of the public is welcomed. We all have our own opinions, some are perhaps more realistic, gained by a life of practical experience, than idealistic.

    However, stacking the Question Time audience with a known party activist and ( I wonder why she was the one conveniently picked by Dimbleby to offer the BBC-approved pov), allowing constant interruption to the lady trying to reply, reminds me of the reason I no longer bother to watch QT, or indeed pay any heed to what I hear on the BBC, as I fear that it is all manipulated to reflect the present ‘right on’, politically correct viewpoint.

  24. I am glad Amy said the things she said. I often watch question time but never has it encouraged me to get envolved with the political process (bar voting that is). As i watched this vile woman set about her nastyness I felt compelled to try and track her down. It took all of about 2 minutes, tweets boasting about her triumphant tirade were soon found and shock of shocks she’s a milliband girl, a labour activist. Well Mr Milliband, Amy just lost you my vote and gifted it to UKIP.
    Talking about mass uncontrolled imigration is not rascist, its realist. Lets turn to maths, can anybody in the Labour part say ‘exponential function’ or do any of them understand even how this equates to population growth. Something as simple as a 3.5 percent yearly rise in a towns populous will see the doubling of human occupants in as little as twenty years. That means within twenty years your overcrowed school will need another overcrowed school, the same with the hospitals, doctors, DENTISTS (although there should be plenty on the way), housing, welfare, transport and so on.
    Do you think Amy gets any of the above? nope, nor do I. Ukip seem to get it but they also seem few in numbers. Its time to stand up and be counted, I now intend to use this vile womans rant to fuel my future Ukip activism.

  25. Tubby Isaacs says:

    “, stacking the Question Time audience with a known party activist and ( I wonder why she was the one conveniently picked by Dimbleby to offer the BBC-approved pov), ”

    Stacking usually refers to more than one. I reckon she got picked out because she had her hand up or something.

    ” indeed pay any heed to what I hear on the BBC, as I fear that it is all manipulated to reflect the present ‘right on’, politically correct viewpoint.”

    Someone manipulated that the 4 million Bulgarians was rubbish?

  26. Tubby Isaacs says:

    “That means within twenty years your overcrowed school will need another overcrowed school, the same with the hospitals, doctors, DENTISTS (although there should be plenty on the way), housing, welfare, transport and so on.
    Do you think Amy gets any of the above? nope, nor do I. Ukip seem to get it but they also seem few in numbers. Its time to stand up and be counted, I now intend to use this vile womans rant to fuel my future Ukip activism.”

    I don’t think she does get that, no. She might though be able to balance against that the benefits of a younger population profile.

    “Vile rant” here being catching you lot lying?

    You had no intention of voting Labour, did you?

  27. The fact that the EU will allow 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians to come here to work, or claim benefit after three months is the TRUTH!

    If you think the TRUTH is ‘scaremongering’ then you are a totalitarian bigot.

    Freedom of speech means the truth should always be told, especially when it is uncomfortable.

    The dreadful reality is that 29 million people, currently living in two very poor countries, in one of which a shocking half of everyone questioned in a survey by a local newspaper, stated they would like to emigrate to Britain.

    The fact is they would be mad not to come, when benefits in Britain exceed the average wage in their countries.

    The other fact is our Government are mad if they allow it.

    Sign the petition to maintain controls on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration
    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41492

  28. Augustus Yaffle says:

    Reading through many of these comments is proof positive of Amy’s point – it’s scarily shocking that so many of the Kippers are plain delusional: economic simpletons, duped by the tabloid memes of the Mail and Express and devoid of any capacity for critical reflection.

  29. David Marshall says:

    Pathetic Amy you got about a dozen people clapping, Vunerable????? do you think we are that weak that we can’t come to or own conclusions, if anything UKIP are feeding of public opinion I doubt 7 million will come but I can see this costing the country a fortune and leading to rising crime as bulgaria is mafia run, but in your pathetic mind Amy as long as you get the Labour vote nothing matters

  30. Reading through many of these comments is proof positive of how much of a delusional twonk you really are. Millions out of work, an economy in the toilet. A government without a clue, a fool for a chancellor and a Wallis and Gromit characture as opposition leader. Why not open the border to another wave of ‘millionaires’
    As for economic simpleton, you dont have to work in the city to understand that fiat currency only works when people have faith in that currency. No faith, no growth, no economy, simple(tons-not even remotely).
    Duped by tabloid papers, what papers do you read. Does any one even read papers these days. With a world of news at your finger tips, who is content with one sided left/right wing biased publications. Give people credit for once, allow them to have their own opinions, or would you simply have us all believe what YOU believe.
    Amy showed her self for what she really is, probably the best Lizard impersonator i have ever seen.

  31. @Augustus Yaffle,

    Economic simpletons? Are you stupid? 28 million of the poorest people in Europe will be allowed to live here- gee, I wonder why highly skilled qualifications they’ll bring? Or more likely their 6 kids…….. which do you think is more likely?

  32. Your Headline said ‘Diane James of UKIP eviscerated by Labour party activist ‘ – What absolute NONSENSE Diane coped very well and held her own against the ridiculous Labour placement and Melanie Phillips rightly exposed the bigoted intolerance , hypocrisy and complete lack of reality of this Milliband Labour stooge. Well Done UKIP for not being afraid to speak the truth.

  33. It is a little sad that a post about a placed audience member – which happens regularly by all parties including the racist ones – causes an outrage no less than 40 comments long. Yet the post recently about the Councillor calling for disabled children to be put down only received 1.

  34. A Ukip member and Mad Mel on the QT panel. No wonder I don’t watch that programme anymore. A ‘Jeremy Kyle’ style show for the lower middle classes.

  35. I couldn’t believe Amy’s rantings on QT, what a silly little girl. Does she really think that it’s OK to allow untold numbers of people from very poor countries to come to the UK and take jobs, homes, welfare, healthcare, etc?

    Only the loopiest, leftie would be OK about the rampant immigration that this country has had inflicted upon it. Labour’s stooge has backfired massively and just goes to show why labour should never be allowed power again.

  36. Amy Rutland- the Stalinist plant- just shows the over-emotionalism of typical Labour Party smug twats. As for the ‘writer’ of this blog- OBVIOUSLY a Eurofascist- why not team up with the chinless child???

  37. Rob Hudson

    “Stalinist”!? Seriously? Get a grip on realiity. One woman (whatever her physical appearance) voices her own views on a panel show and people resort to fucked up name-calling like that. Show some class. Obviously I don’t expect anything said here to change anyone’s opinion because such is the calibre of twat that insults people anonymously on the internet.

    Also I for one shall just plain be voting against UKIP. I used to live next door to a resentful, disgusting UKIP supporting builder who sold drugs and stole my bike and now I live next to a sweet Polish lady who teaches english and bakes us cakes. It’s not immigration that’s the problem here.

  38. It is Labour that is disgusting. They have councillors originally elected as BNP or NF (Milton Keynes, Darwen). Their parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh regrets that Mrs Thatcher had not been killed in the Brighton bomb blast.

  39. ” I used to live next door to a resentful, disgusting UKIP supporting builder who sold drugs and stole my bike and now I live next to a sweet Polish lady who teaches english and bakes us cakes.”

    How fantastically convenient.

  40. I do think the BBC could make more of an effort regarding the amount of obvious political activists who stuff the Question Time audience. This woman is merely the first to be stupid enough to publicise what she really is. Week in, week out that audience is clearly filled with people like her (and not all left wing to be fair) trying to pass off their group’s dogma as the thoughts of ordinary people. The one time I’ve seen the programme where this wasn’t the case was after the MPs’ Expenses scandal, where suddenly the public were there in force, and boy was there a difference! I understand people who aren’t “political” are less likely to want to spend Thursday night being talked down to by Stephen Twigg and Ken Clarke than a party activist but the point of the show is the public ask the questions and the BBC could make some effort to try and get the tickets to the community in general, not the same activist assholes every week.

  41. ” people like her (and not all left wing to be fair) trying to pass off their group’s dogma as the thoughts of ordinary people.”

    Thank heaven we’ve managed to dodge that bullet here.

  42. UKIP trolls seem to be promoting the Bulgarian/Romanian petition all over the place and have got about 89,000 signatures. Meanwhile, 38 Degrees has a petition against Hunt’s latest ploy to privatize the NHS and it has got nearly 350,000 signatures. Maybe people are more worried about what the government is doing to the NHS.

  43. Firstly regarding the QT Labour plant, Dimbleby had asked a question about the budget, two on the panel answered, three had yet to respond but hang on Dimbleby cuts off (no doubt instructed by his producer) to point at Miss Ranty Rutland so she can shout her nasty little diatribe directly at Diane James, her rant totally off topic from the Budget question, now Diane already thinking about her budget answer is thrown deliberately off, Dimblebum the bastard badgers her, she handles it well but as far as I am concerned it was a very obvious cheap planned trick. @TubbyIssacs you sir are a pathetic Labourite ass licker who doesn’t care what this country turns into, I am a patriotic member of this country who would die protecting it’s freedom and true democracy, the EU is a draining entity which cares not a single jot for the welfare or needs of the people of this country, it is a gravy train for those who ride it and sod the rest of us. I want out, none of the other parties do, UKiP make sense. Labour does not support the working class of this nation, they are just in it for themselves.

  44. @deadukiploons If you are a typical Labour supporter I pity them, you all seem very good at being stupid.

  45. @ Jimmy… Jimmy you are a first class Labour supporter (snigger) your opinions have the same validity of a Labour party election manifesto (lying bullshit), they also have the same effect on me as one too (puke) I will not be voting Labour ever and all of the hard working people I know, yes Jimmy THE WOKERS won’t be voting Labour either.

  46. I know I’m late to his story but can I just dispute what the blog post and commentator says:

    “She has a point. This is the kind of thing that UKIP see fit to distribute”

    But that poster is TRUE and does not mislead except if anyone wants to willfully misunderstand it.

    “Next year the EU will allow…”

    I agree with Sam D and disagree with Col Perry: it isn’t saying they will come, or that all or some will come, it is just saying the truth, that the EU will allow that number to come.

  47. @Span Ows – Amy’s follow-up point was that their printed material is preying on the vulnerable (impressionable) in society who are fearful of their local areas being taken over by unemployed immigrants. Yes, anyone with the ability to scrutinize literature and seek a deeper meaning like you or I can clearly see that the subtleties are inherently true – while the EU “would” allow 29m immigrants into the country, there is no reason to believe that this will lead to an actual 29m immigrants signing on for benefits next year. Nor should we assume that of 29m people who simply claimed that they would prefer to live somewhere other than Bulgaria/Romania that we can expect every single one of them to move to Britain.

    Some people, however, as displayed by the shallow, meaningless online abuse Amy has suffered (which, is what caused her to lock her twitter account) have hardly taken the time to assess the situation. These are the people who will take the poster at face value and cry out against the “decline of our nation” at the hands of immigrants, and these are exactly the people UKIP are targeting with their campaign material. It’s scaremongering toward the vulnerable and impressionable who will vote because they do not want 29m immigrants to move next door to them and cannot be bothered to read further into an issue than what is put in front of them. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying every single UKIP voter/supporter is illiterate or unable to grasp the concept of interpretation (and neither was Amy), but people who are willing to perceive an idea as contradictory and retaliate with sheer hostility are exactly the kind of impressionable members of society that UKIP are targeting and, while I do not affiliate myself with any political party, I find this to be extremely manipulative and, yes; a disgusting underhanded tactic.

  48. Amy had no arguments whatsoever and just kept repeating slurs hoping that they would stick. The problem is that she was not an ordinary member of the public but a paid activist for a rival political party masquerading as an impartial or disinterested member of the public. Well done Melanie Phillips for owning her.

  49. Think I’m most annoyed at the fact that someone has posted her home address in a hurtful comment. Who the hell can be THAT annoyed about an opinion?!

  50. Col Perry, i think you’ll fnd it is Labour who are attracting vulnerable impressionable people, the people who are being attracted to UKiP are the people who are most disconnected with the LibDems, Labour and Conservatives, people who have seen this country slip into a mess under these career politicians who have the same agenda but wear different bloody rosettes at poling day, the same people who can see that the EU is steam rolling this nation and it’s democracy with more and more of it’s legislation, we want to be able to have a say in what goes on in this country and most of us will never get an opportunity to work in Europe or want to, most of us want to stay here and make something of this country other than a giant distribution warehouse for the rest of the EU members businesses, we want to make our own decisions on legislation and not be dictated to by an organisation which is gradually clawing more and more of our democratic right to choose what we want with regards to laws and how we live, it is dictating what our children should learn in schools.
    I suggest people should look back at how the EU has been created and which countries seem to be profiting most from the EU, I suggest researching which companies profit most from EU legislation regarding projects the EU is actively trying to enforce on the UK (HS2).
    The main agenda of UKiP is to gain independence from the EU, not racism, Nigel Farage is not planning to deport any races from the UK, UKiP aren’t talking about a Xenophobic plan to shut the UK off from people who want to live and work in the UK, we want to be able to control the influx due to social economic reasons and not because we are racist and hate other countries, I have spent some time in Bulgaria, Slovenia and Germany, I love Europe, I just hate what the EU is doing to Europe and funnily enough so are many groups across Europe, they can see the bigger picture too, I suggest you have been brainwashed into believing UKiP is a fascist party by the very same people who want the UK to stay in the EU for their own benefit.
    My last word is that UKiP has people of various races supporting it, do you think if UKiP was racist in any way they would want to support it? I know they wouldn’t, so quit the racist slurs against UKiP and live with the fact they are on the move, getting more and more support from defectors of all parties except the BNP and EDL who aren’t allowed to join.

  51. Oh I forgot to mention, the EU is trying to rename WWII the European civil war!.. whats all that about? Considering all the nations and races who were involved in beating the 3rd Reich, it is an insult to those of all nations who fought against the tyranny which swept across Europe, funny how many of the German corporations involved in supplying the 3rd Reich are still going strong and have a finger in the EU pie. Again, I suggest all those who have been drawn into believing that UKiP is racist should research the background of the formation and planning of the EU which was being planned way back before 1945. We were made to believe it was just a ‘commonMarket’ and that is how we got in, Edward Heath the Tory prime minister at the time lied to us in order to join, he knew what the end game was, all the treaties that have been signed ever since were planned years before, the EU is not the beneficial system they would like you to believe, they are hell bent in total control of all of Europe. That is why we must get out before it is too late.

  52. “Oh I forgot to mention, the EU is trying to rename WWII the European civil war!.”

    Let me guess. Daily Mail?

  53. Dave,

    No you’ve convinced me to take my head out of the sand. Please tell me where I can find details of this entirely genuine and in no way made up story.

  54. This is really interesting, Dave. Do tell us about the source of this European Civil War thing. Will we go to jail if we call it WW2?

  55. Not attracting ex BNP and EDL? Google Kim Gandy UKIP. Ex member to be sure but what attracted her in the first place, if not UKIPs policies.

  56. I’m always amused that UKIP supporters seem to believe that the fact they need a special rule about ex BNP members proves they’re not a far right party.

  57. Dave

    I see the point you’re making and sincerely, thank you for being the first to explain it rationally and politely.

    I get that our involvement with the EU carries a turgid history and somewhat turgid potential for the future, but like everyone I can’t even fathom aligning myself with a party whose policies act against me. I can speak only from personal experience/beliefs. I work for an international university in the UK and my career prospects centre heavily on the possibility of moving freely about Europe to work in several different countries – with the threat of closed borders and fostering negative relations with the EU, UKIP threatens this for me. Another reason UKIP does not appeal to me is the fact that I intend to marry. Under current government, the plans for equal marriage are (albeit slowly) progressing, met largely with resistance from the right-wing (admittedly from all parties), with UKIP clearly stating their policy on abolishing the plans altogether. Their completely misleading statistics/publications on the Bulgarian/Romanian immigration (which is one area I’m afraid I will not concede on) and prizing “pub-culture” so highly (see “savethepub.co.uk”) seems to scream volumes about their target market. They claim to be fighting the good fight for the “every man” and “working man” but I too am a man who works and yet an issue which would affect no one negatively (i.e. marriage equality) is being actively campaigned against on account of nothing more than prejudice and bigotry. I find them to be a party that I could never identify with and following the abuse of Amy (some of which is truly vile and possibly illegal) has shown a number of it’s members to be racist, hateful, misogynistic scum.

    As I say, these are my opinions, based in personal experience, not what I have been told by other political parties. I just hope you can appreciate the angle I am coming from.

    Many thanks

    Col

  58. Col Perry you make a few questionable statements:

    How can you claim Rutter was not placed by Labour you say there was a lack of planning prior to her appearance. Yet she spent the day with the Labour Member of the panel Stephen Twigg when he refereed to her later in the program he called her the lady from the audience as if he had no idea who she was, yet we now know he already knew her to be a paid Labour party activist.

    Was it simply chance that before calling James to speak Dimbleby called Rutter and allowed her outburst then forced James to respond to Rutter and not allow James to address the main question whilst allowing Rutter to badger James throughout and even joined in himself. Then he called Twigg who confirmed Rutter’s take and then again was it by chance, that he called another member of the audience, who backed Rutter. If it was simply chance then the ambush could not have been better planned.

    You say Rutter made a tweet in which she said she worked for Labour her tweet said no such thing it is printed above if you are not certain.

    You claim it was abuse which caused her to close her Twitter account how do you know, it could equally have been an attempt to close the stable door and hide information about her work for Labour. She also changed her picture and removed all the Labour material, was that because of abuse or was she trying to hide something she did all this as soon as realised she had been rumbled ?

    You also seem to think it perfectly acceptable for Rutter to use prejudiced abusive vile insulting language about a political party on national television but not for anyone from that party to respond in kind.

    Your last post mentions your personal reasons for not supporting UKIP that is of course totally your prerogative, but that is not the point. You cannot do what Rutter did which was to call millions of people in this country disgusting racists simply because you hold different political views, in a democracy your views are no more relevant than those of others, Rutter attempted to claim they were and thus to define the debate.

  59. Ken

    Thanks for your reply. Amy’s name is Rutland, not Rutter. The point she made was a vallid statement about the maipulative nature of the publications and the people behind printing them. She did not call millions of people disgusting racists, she said that she feels that UKIP are disgusting.

    Also I know for a fact that she closed her twitter due to abuse from vile, misogynistic, racists. She happens to be a friend of mine.

  60. Oops… I hope the fact that I mentioned that won’t lead to me receiving threats of rape, death and having my home address posted alongside comments inciting petrol bombing. At the very least there are a fair number of disgusting people aligned with UKIP.

  61. The funny thing is that I followed the Eastleigh by-election results the week before live on BBC TV and kept seeing the lady in question bobbing around John O’Farrell. This led me to recognise her on Question Time and think it was a bit dodgy having someone who was clearly a Labour member of staff on.

    And I am a Labour activist and CLP Secretary myself.

  62. Thanks Col I apologise for getting Miss Rutland’s name wrong I did know it I just stupidly typed Rutter instead.

    We could argue about the validity of a Labour plant who had spent the day with one of the panellists posing as an ordinary member of the public on national television and using prejudiced abusive vile insulting language to vilify a political opponent who had only last week pushed them into 4th place in Eastleigh.

    No matter how you dress it the UKIP leaflet was factually true, what Rutland did was to create a straw man by claiming UKIP were saying something they were not then she demolished the straw man ably assisted by the chair.

    You say you know for certain it was abusive language that made Rutland limit her twitter account so why did she remove any mention of Labour why also disinfect her facebook account.

    At the very least there are a fair number of disgusting people aligned with Labour and a few nutcases aligned with Conservatives and the Libdems.

  63. @Col Perry – You say that UKIP, by stating a fact, “is preying the vulnerable” (which is more Labour claptrap), firstly Rutland appears to be out-of-touch with Miliband, secondly didn’t Nu Labour state, “we have 24 hours to save the NHS? “the end of boom and bust”, Not to mention the fact that your ex-leader has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. Labour and tthe behaviour of its activists is the party of the gutter and nothing your say on here will change that for many years to come.

  64. Incidentally, talking of disgusting people, wasn’t it the Labour candidate John O’Farrell (the man Rutter was supporting) who wrote in his book concerning the Brighton Bomb and Margaret Thatcher: ”

    ‘Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?’ The bathroom of Lady Thatcher’s suite was wrecked in the explosion. She had been in it shortly before the bomb went off.”

    Rutland has a rather selective and strange interpretation of disgusting don’t you think?

  65. As I see it, 29, million Romanians and Bulgarians will have the right to come to the UK after Jan. 1st 2014. Now, notice, ‘will have the right.’ Not, ‘will.’ There is a difference. So UKIP are not lieing, they are being accurate in their pronouncements. Of course Labour will attack as the young woman did in QT. They know what they have done and they are running scared.

    UKIP are not scaremongering, they are stating the facts. The people of this country need to know what possibly could happen next year. No one else will tell them. Clegg, Cameron and Miliband lie every time they open their mouths on the immigration issue. They claim they do not know how many might come here. yet senior Tories say they do know. They have seen the projected numbers. Lies. Lies.

    Keep putting the facts before the people UKIP. The country needs you.

  66. “The people of this country need to know what possibly could happen next year.”

    Yes. 300 million Europeans could decide to move in next door to you on New Years’ Day.

    You should probably leave no before it happens. Have you considered Bulgaria? You’ll have the whole country to yourself.

  67. @Col Perry “How are four million Bulgarians going to come to our country when they only have a POPULATION OF SEVEN MILLION?” Really what was that you were saying about Rutland NOT mentioning the POPULATION OF SEVEN MILLION?

    “Yes she works for Labour. This is because her personal views align with the party’s. She was not placed by Labour to appear on Question Time which you’ll find is evident in the lack of planning prior to her appearance.” Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Yeah right!! A Labour Member, who spent pre broadcast time with another high ranking member, appears in an audience meant for NON political members of the public to ask questions?

    She was seen on TV at the East Leigh election and SHE JUST HAPPENS to be asking a question of the representative of UKIP that BEAT her party? Ummmm. Nothing to do with Labour being bitter they came behind even UKIP?

    When people clapped for her it soon faded out because they realised she was full of it.

    And since Yvette Cooper has said that Labour think immigration needs to controlled (just like the Conservatives) it is a little RICH for them to claim UKIP supporting the same is DISGUSTING.

    So stop the excuses. Because all Labour have now is excuses and insults but not policies.

  68. Dear Political Scrapebook,

    Well done on being another Liberal lapdog. This is one non stop excuse exercise for Labour and Amy Rutland.

    “A member of the Question Time audience eviscerated UKIP’s panellist over immigration scaremongering – before it was revealed she was a paid Labour staffer”.

    So, that’s why you have a title : “Question Time Audience Member”….? Wow no bias there!

    No she wasn’t a audience member but a plant. She was completely fake so she wasn’t even a normal member of public either with real views but a BIASED opinion against the party.

    “She has a point. This is the kind of thing that UKIP see fit to distribute:” Nothing biased about that sentence either eh? And it’s stating precisely what EU law and the government have stated themselves. UKIP don’t make EU law or the law of either governments coming here in 2014.

    “Good on Rutland for holding UKIP to account – but its wise to draw the line at party staffers when it comes to “placed” questions”.

    On what? FALSE Labour information?! Bulgaria stated the information of how many would like to come here so it WASN’T UKIP at all.

    Wise? They shouldn’t EVEN BE THERE in the first place! Stop being SPINELESS. You’re not fooling ANYONE as it’s quite clear where you loyalty lies.

    So just like Question Time YET another biased and FALSE attempt at smearing UKIP (while trying to look balanced)

    Unlike Labour don’t plant people in the audience (with assistance of the BBC) and then get upset that they’ve been caught out resulting in getting their just CLOWN SHOES.

  69. David Aston

    You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve been supporting my friend for nearly a week. Could you point me to the part where I claimed she didn’t mention the population of Bulgaria? I must’ve forgotten about doing that. I said that she didn’t claim that the number coming here was greater than the population. Was that what you were thinking of?

  70. @ Col Perry – you’ve been supporting you friend????? Tell me, how does you friend feel, supporting and campaigning for a man who supported a terrorist act against this Country, maybe Rutland, your supposed friend, should think a little more before she starts throwing around labels of ‘disgusting’ because that’s what I thnk of her and her terrorist supporing scum.

  71. @ Jimmy, “300 million Europeans could decide to move in next door to you on New Years’ Day”,

    if your figure is actually correct, then yes, that could happen, it’s would be a fact; so with that and based on the fact that this Country is already broke and still borrowing, that public services are already stretched to breaking point, that we have 5 million unemployed, our roads are in a shite state, we are closing A&E up and down the country, we are killing off pensioners, people in hospitals are dying needlessly, what lunatic would allow even more into the Country???

    As for moving, why would people want to? All we need to do as a Country, is have the right to determine who comes here and when.

  72. Hello Pickle.

    I’m tired of explaining my reasons for supporting my friend (where did you get “supposed” from? I’ve said she’s a good friend of mine) and the point of her outburst. You can find anything you would like to know on this page where I explained clearly and concisely, my personal opinions on the subject (along with facts about how the Diet EDL have published their “statistics”).

  73. @ col Perry. Protecting borders does not mean the freedom of movement ceases, it means that we as a naion have more control of who comes here, it works for Norway and Switzerland very well and worked for this Country prior to us being part of the EU too, so now who’s scaremongering. Secondly, UKIP did not use misleading literature or statistics at all, the figures are fact, therefore why then do you attempt to insinuate otherwise?

    Lastly, answer the question I posed earlier “how does your friend feel, supporting and campaigning for a man who supported a terrorist act against this Country”?

  74. Answer to your question. She feels fine about committing her time to the Labour party. A party is based on the merits of its members, not its leader.

  75. @ col perry – I didn’t ask about how she feels about supporting the Labour party, I asked (for the third time), how does your friend feel, actively supporting and campaigning for a man ( John O’Farrell ), who supported and laughed at a terrorist act against this Country and its people”? A terrorist act that killed 5 people and maimed 34?

  76. Find me evidence of John O’Farrell supporting and laughing about a terrorist act on this country. Then I’ll ask Amy as I am not her.

  77. Read his book but also, one of many sources:

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10233755.Labour_candidate__disappointed__Mrs_Thatcher_didn_t_die_in_Brighton_bomb/

    “John O’Farrell told of his “surge of excitement” on hearing of the IRA bomb attack on Brighton’s Grand Hotel in 1984 – adding that he was “disappointed” the assassination attempt had failed.

    The satirist, aiming to take the seat vacated by shamed Chris Huhne, wrote that he asked himself: “Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?”

    It was a reference to the fact Lady Thatcher’s bathroom was destroyed in the explosion, which claimed the lives of five people including Tory MP Sir Anthony Berry.

    Mr O’Farrell also wrote that he wished the former Prime Minister had lost the Falklands War in 1982 – a conflict in which 255 British servicemen were killed. “

  78. From his book:

    “In October 1984, when the Brighton bomb went off, I felt a surge of excitement at the nearness of her demise and yet disappointment that such a chance had been missed.

    ‘This was me – the pacifist, anti-capital punishment, anti-IRA liberal – wishing that they had got her. “Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?” I asked myself over and over again”

    Miss Rutland, your friend, should be careful who she lends her own support to before throwing insults about.

  79. Personally I think the Labour Party are a “poor excuse for a political party” I think it is “disgusting” that they support terrorists in this way.

  80. Jimmy sorry I do not understand what your comment or the link have to do with us controlling our own borders.

    The link shows the results of a Swiss referendum, the fact that they voted yes in this instance indicates they had the choice, they can control their own borders, we cannot.

    That was the point being made.

  81. Sorry when I say they, I mean Switzerland the country, using a referendum to decide issue is an internal matter for them. I was not suggesting we hold referenda on every single issue although it might put the political elite back in their box if we had the opportunity sometimes.

  82. @ Jimmy – I’ve read enough of his book to know what kind of a man he is and that this man is a terrorist sympathiser, do I need to read any more than that?

  83. @Jimmy said “Where do you get this rubbish? You people need to realise that most of the Daily Mail is made up”

    From the “http://www.swissinfo.ch” maybe you should do your research before ‘running your mouth off’. Either way. access is restricted to Switzerland and unlike the EU, that Country has a right to change its system when and whenever it so chooses.

    “Work permits for EU/Efta nationals can be broken down into several categories and are defined by letters. Here’s what they mean:

    L: Short-term
    The length of the employment contract determines how long this permit is valid but it typically ranges from three to 12 months and is given to people who will work in the country for less than one year. EU/Efta nationals looking for a job also receive this permit after being in the country for three months. You are allowed to change where you live (cantons) and jobs.

    If you plan to work in Switzerland for less than three months per calendar year, you may not need a permit at all. Under certain conditions, EU/Efta citizens with a job in Switzerland, those who are providing services in the country, and workers of other nationalities posted briefly to Switzerland by EU/Efta companies can take advantage of an online registration procedure. It only applies to employment in Switzerland lasting up to three months per calendar year and must be done before a person actually starts to work for the Swiss employer.

    The exact preconditions for this procedure depend upon the nationality of the worker and/or the location of the company dispatching the worker. The Federal Migration Office has specific information on this.

    B: Initial residence permit
    This residence permit is granted to persons who have an unlimited employment relationship or one lasting for at least 12 months. It has a period of validity of five years and will be automatically extended for five years as long as the employment relationship continues. That said, the extension may be limited to one year if the person is unemployed for longer than 12 consecutive months. Persons who settle in the country without gainful employment (provided they have enough financial backing) also receive a B permit.

    Persons wishing to be self-employed can get a B permit valid for five years provided they can prove they can make ends meet being self-employed.

    C: permanent residence permit
    Nationals from the 15 old EU countries and Efta can get a C permit, valid for an indefinite length, after a regular and uninterrupted stay of five years in Switzerland. This permit allows holders to freely change where they live (cantons) and employers.

  84. “that Country has a right to change its system when and whenever it so chooses.”

    Only in the same way that the UK can leave the EU. It cannot cherry pick the terms of the single market. Switzerland and Norway are in the single market. UKIP policy is to leave. To use those countries as illustrations is profoundly dishonest.

  85. “do I need to read any more than that?”

    I’n not sure whether the question is specific or general, but either way the answer is almost certainly yes.

  86. Jimmy I think you will find Switzerland is not a member of the single market its relationship with the EU is framed by a series of bilateral treaties which give it accesses to the single market. Why do you say it is profoundly dishonest to use Switzerland and Norway as illustrations of two possible settlements with the EU?

  87. “Switzerland is not a member of the single market its relationship with the EU is framed by a series of bilateral treaties which give it accesses to the single market.”

    And the distinction between “membership” and “access to” in your view is what precisely?

    The Swiss bilaterals effectively amount to EEA membership. Switzerland can’t tear an individual treaty up without making the others voidable. The Single Market is the EEA and Switzerland. By definition. Biggles says he wants out of the Single Market, not just the EU. The appropriate comparisons therefore would be Serbia and Albania.

  88. Here we go again, you write of dishonesty yet you respond with vague replies and soundbites

    @jimmy said – “Only in the same way that the UK can leave the EU. It cannot cherry pick the terms of the single market. Switzerland and Norway are in the single market. UKIP policy is to leave. To use those countries as illustrations is profoundly dishonest.”

    Switzerland and Norway already has cherry-picked the terms under which it has secured access to the single market, permits being but one, fiscal policy being another, banking , security and she isn’t obligated to access or ratify treaties unlike the UK, is not subject towards full political integration as we are now.

    @Jimmy – “I’m not sure whether the question is specific or general, but either way the answer is almost certainly yes.”

    No, i’m absolutely sure and positive that I don’t need to read any more in the same way that I don’t need to read any more mein Kampf to determine that Adolf Hitler was a scumbag either.

  89. I do not think we need to read the whole book, it is quite clear from the passage this person was disappointed the IRA were not successful in their attempt. After all the Labour party are notorious for using material out of the context it was intended Mrs Thatchers quote on society for one and Miss Rutland’s interpretation of the UKIP leaflet for another. Fat for the gander springs to mind or you reap what you sow!

  90. “The Swiss bilaterals effectively amount to EEA membership. Switzerland can’t tear an individual treaty up without making the others voidable. The Single Market is the EEA and Switzerland. By definition. Biggles says he wants out of the Single Market, not just the EU. The appropriate comparisons therefore would be Serbia and Albania”

    EFTA membership and EEA/EU membership are not one of the same. You’re also confused with the guillotine clause which BOTH parties have the option to invoke but only applies to the bilateral treaties that Switzerland has signed up to, which is not full membership, doesn’tt even put Switzerland into the same category as us. It’s perhaps ironic, that despite threats of isolation when seeking referendum on joing the EEA, the swiss continue to prosper, unemployment is about 3%, they have for more most part maintained their border controls and is, like Norway, still coonsidered to be one of the most desirable places on earth to live.

  91. Jimmy membership of the EEA could well be on the cards is we left, in fact it might be the only option we have if we do not join the Euro. We will negotiate our relationship with the EU when we leave, that relationship could be like Switzerland or like Norway or like neither, so why do you say it is dishonest to use either as illustrations UKIP are not saying they would not trade with the EU nor are they saying they would not have treaties or arrangements with the EU.

  92. @Jimmy, btw, the guillotine clause is not obligatory and it can be used by both sides to assert its position, ironically, the Swiss, despite pressure towards further integration, is firmly resisting such attempts, I’m quite sure that the EU cannot afford to threaten 67billion euros of imports from the EU zone so should be careful who it threatens.

  93. “Jimmy membership of the EEA could well be on the cards is we left,”

    Indeed it could. It is not, however, your party’s policy.

  94. @ Jimmy said”Indeed it could. It is not, however, your party’s policy”

    Since when does “not being part of a policy” exclude it from appling any option it so chooses?

  95. “Since when does “not being part of a policy” exclude it from appling any option it so chooses?”

    It doesn’t. They could decide tomorrow to be pro EU if they wanted, but I was under the impression we were discussing your party’s actual policies rather than other, less barmy ones it might adopt instead.

  96. Jimmy I should have said I am not UKIP just anti EU.

    You are wrong UKIP policy is to have a Swiss style trade agreement,we are already in the EEA leaving the EU would not affect that as far as I understand, then there is the European Free Trade Association. Leaving the EU is not shorthand for stopping trade with the EU, sorry if that does not fit with the caricature of UKIP you have in your mind.

  97. @Col Perry

    “She did not in any way say that the number was higher than the population. She did not lie”

    She didn’t have to lie. QT and the BBC simply allowed her on the show as ‘question from the audience’ so she did it with their blessing.

    If QT this week completely fails to refer to it or does in a smug way the viewers will know how much they knew and how they regard viewers.

    And if this week’s QT or in the future someone uses what happened to take a dig at either Labour, QT, BBC or Dimbleby…. I bet there won’t much of a smug know it all look on Dimbleby look.

    But from the look of it they only invite you if they can control what you say.

  98. @Jimmy said – “It doesn’t. They could decide tomorrow to be pro EU if they wanted, but I was under the impression we were discussing your party’s actual policies rather than other, less barmy ones it might adopt instead.”

    I thought we were discussing a number of items in this thread, primarily Question-time and Ms Rutland, as for ‘barmy’, that is a subjective opinion of which evidently a considerable number people do not consider to be the case.

    As above, In Europe but not run by Europe, a free trade area such as the efta, which was originally proposed as part of the common market, UKIP have always stated as being a reasonable proposition, instead however, we now have nothing more than a political project that is drawing nearer to a federal European States of Europe that nobody in this country has a) been asked whether they wish to join b) subsribed to at all.

  99. @Jimmy Stop making excuses Labour lap dog. So what if the Daily printed it?! Other papers have re printed and makes no difference as it was taken from O Farrel’s own 1998 book.

    It’s all there proving he supports terror in the SAME mould as Galloway. Who once a upon a time was……. a Labour supporter.

    Labour & O Farrel were upset that he’d been exposed as the terror symphasier and to make it worse they came behind both Conservatives and WORSE still UKIP.

    And later a Labour Member JUST HAPPENS be in the QT audience to attack and insult the SAME UKIP lady that beat O Farrel into FOURTH place ??!!

    So he wrote this pile of feel sorry for me crap just like Labour and Rutland are doing now after their sad attempt to get REVENGE. And it’s in the Guardian! Wow there’s a surprise. We know how they never play favorites to Labour :P

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/01/eastleigh-wont-stand-for-election-2015

    The tweets (shown in the Guardian) from fellow MPs make him sound like a holocaust survivour LOL! I mean seriously the DUMBASS writes it in his OWN book that he’s SORRY Thatcher DIDN’T DIE from the bomb and quite simply SMEARS himself.

    And he has the NERVE to feel sorry for himself?!

    All a case of wanting to get REVENGE and smear UKIP except they simply achieved owning themselves and proving (through Rutland) how stupid and bitter little people they really are.

    YOU LOSE.

  100. David

    I’m seriously not following you at all. I understand you have some beef with a woman’s opinion but all you keep doing is misquoting different sources with no real point.

    Also, Pickle

    I haven’t asked Amy how she feels about vicariously supporting John O’Farrell but I’m sure it’s with good reason she does so. After all, he has shown no sympathy or support for terrorism so I think your roundabout comparison to Hitler is a bit shit.

    While I’ve stated previously that I hold no affiliation with any of the main three parties I can tell you that my loyalties will never lie with a party who so actively campaign for rampant acoholism and show such flagrant disregard toward the dangers of exaserbating a “binge drinking” nation through their “Save The Pub” campaign. They do know that Al Murray’s Pub Landlord character is a charicature, right?

  101. “Leaving the EU is not shorthand for stopping trade with the EU, ”

    No one has ever suggested otherwise, this simply a straw man argument raised by UKIP supporters. I have heard Farage repeatedly express the view that it is not enough to leave the EU because that would not get rid of all these frightful Bulgars (who are also free to move to Geneva or Oslo should the fancy take them), which is why he wishes to leave the Single Market entirely. It’s clear that few of his supporters appreciate the distinction.

  102. “It’s all there proving he supports terror in the SAME mould as Galloway.”

    Given your complaints about smears you are pretty free with them. What you say about O’ Farrell is a lie, as you would see if you read the book (a rattling good read incidentally which even a non lefty would enjoy). Galloway of course is a terrorist supporter, which is why, as you may remember, he was expelled.

  103. @col perry – I haven’t asked Amy how she feels about vicariously supporting John O’Farrell but I’m sure it’s with good reason she does so. After all, he has shown no sympathy or support for terrorism so I think your roundabout comparison to Hitler is a bit shit.

    I couldn’t care less WHY she supported/s him, it’s the fact that she has the audacity to support a man who actively laughed at and supported a terrorist act against this Country and Cabinet Ministers then call another political party and candidate disgusting.

    As for the comparison to Hitler, no, you are wrong, if you read the text properly, you would notice that the reference was to not needing to read a whole book in order to establish the character of the man when it is plainly aready obvious; read it again before you further misrepresent what I wrote:

    “No, i’m absolutely sure and positive that I don’t need to read any more in the same way that I don’t need to read any more mein Kampf to determine that Adolf Hitler was a scumbag either”

    A favourite slight-of-hand of the left is that they FAIL to answer any points made, instead preferring to subtract selective chunks of text that they feel they can throw back as a form of argument. It doesn’t work i’m afraid. ”

    As for the rest of your text, please feel free to point out which party “campaigns for rampant alcoholism” and what on earth do you mean when you say: “shows such flagrant disregard toward the dangers of exaserbating a “binge drinking” nation through their “Save The Pub” campaign”? please explain.

    I would have thought that most people would understand that Al Murray is a parody yes.

  104. @Jim said: “No one has ever suggested otherwise, this simply a straw man argument raised by UKIP supporters. ”

    Really? just UKIP members or are you telling porkies? I don’t believe this has ever been policy, if Nigel Farage has indeed, “repeatedly express the view that it is not enough to leave the EU because that would not get rid of all these frightful Bulgars” then you’ll have no problem at all providing the source and context of what was said will you?

  105. “This is the old con trick that was carried out back in the 1970s. Harold Wilson went to Brussels to renegotiate, he renegotiated nothing of substance at all, came back to the country and said ‘Look chaps, it’s just the Common Market, nothing to worry about’ and in a referendum the people believed him. What Cameron is going to do is come back and say, all we’ve got is the single market which is fairly innocuous sounding but in reality is the source of most of our upset and anger with Europe, that is what he’s going to try and do. But none of this happens of course unless there is a Conservative majority after the next election and that looks increasingly unlikely….

    ” I wouldn’t want Britain to have European Economic Area membership because we would go on with masses of legislation coming every year and with the free movement of peoples and I think that as I look forward to 2013, for UKIP the biggest single issue is going to be highlighting the fact that from the 1st January next year, 29 million people from very poor countries in Romania and Bulgaria will have access not just to the jobs market but to the social security system too.”

    Full interview here: http://skynews.skypressoffice.co.uk/newstranscripts/murnaghan-60112-interview-nigel-farage-leader-ukip

    I’ve heard him say this repeatedly. This is just one instance.

  106. For paragraph 1) you missed out the vital component regarding the negotiating position of Cameron, what Nigel Farage was saying, was that as with Harold Wilson, many promises are made but nothing actually changed, we’re still hit with a never-ending steamroller of legislation despite cast-iron guarentees and promises see below:

    [quote]“DM ” Okay but he’s going in to these, whenever they take place, these negotiations, he says he is going to come back and put that before the people. It might not satisfy you but it might satisfy a lot of people who said, well, you know, that’s why we support the UK Independence Party.”[/quote]

    For your second paragraph: He was referring to the European Economic Area, the EAA or the EU as we know it.Nigel Farage, would like to resolve to the original EFTA, or the European Free Trade Association of which originally comprised Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. By doing so, as with Switzerland at present, we would have much more control over our own laws and more power to veto those laws we don’t like.

    So in summary, you’ve actually taken out of context and misrepresented what Nigel Farage was actually saying.”

  107. “the European Economic Area, the EAA or the EU as we know it.”

    They are not the same thing. And that may be one of the worst attempts at spinning I’ve ever seen.

  108. Jimmy do those of you who support the EU not have any arguments that do not require bending the truth.

    Farage has never said

    “it is not enough to leave the EU because that would not get rid of all these frightful Bulgars”

    There is no suggestion that UKIP want to cease trade with the EU yet you seem intent on inventing things out of thin air to prove otherwise.

    So who is now scaremongering?

  109. Thomas Beckham says:

    We need to find where this disgusting girl lives and send some UKIP patriots over to put this ugly trout right.

  110. No that is just what we do not want to do, set aside the legality and the bulling, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

  111. the European Economic Area, the EAA [sic] or the EU as we know it.”

    @Jimmy-said “They are not the same thing. And that may be one of the worst attempts at spinning I’ve ever seen”.

    The EU as ‘we’ (most people ) know it combines the EEA and the EFTA ? There”s no spinning, it’s fact; out of 15 lines of text your one liner is “that may be one of the worst attempts at spinning i’ve ever seen” If that’s the case, you’ll have no problem in breaking down an disambiguating 15 lines of text and telling us all why then won’t you?

  112. @Ken Adams

    From a “not-that-far-left” to an anti-EU, many thanks for that display of humanity.

    @Thomas Beckham

    *sigh*

  113. @Thomas Beckham – ”
    We need to find where this disgusting girl lives and send some UKIP patriots over to put this ugly trout right”

    I don’t think that’s what UKIP or any democratic party would do at all and I personally think you’re trolling; ones’ appearance (which is subjective anyway), is of no relevance to their opinions. Although this woman (in my opinion), has exercised poor judgement by promulgating her “disgust’ for UKIP and one of its members while having supported a man who laughs at terrorist acts, she has an absolute right to that opinion. While that is the case, people in turn, have a right to challenge that opinion and ask that it be justified. The suggestion of “sending the ‘boys’ around is utterly abhorrent and has no place in legitimate debate.

    As for

  114. Thanks @pickle.

    I get that you’re not rushing to Amy’s defense (something I know I’m guilty of which may indeed cloud my rationality – apologies for any offence I may have caused you).

    On the John O’Farrell thing, I get that his comments were insensitive to people who lost their lives but it still looks like he just phrased his point poorly. He seemed to be using very inappropriate hyperbole to reinforce his disgust of Thatcher. I don’t think he was saying that he was glad it happened, or that people deserved to lose their lives… Just that he despised her so much that as a normally placid and peaceful man, he found himself wishing that she’d been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bearing in mind that his background is as a satirist, I personally can see his intent for dramatic statement, as opposed to sympathising and supporting terrorism. I get that you don’t agree with that and that’s OK. As a kind and caring person, I dare say that it is not the (inappropriate) words of John O’Farrell that Amy supports, but the policies and plans of Labour. They just happen to also be supported by John O’Farrell as well… I’m sure if he had no place in the Labour party, she would continue to support them without him. No. Not sure. Certain.

    I’m not the most eloquent of people so I may have expressed myself poorly. Hope you can determine what I’m trying to say.

    Regards

    Col

  115. @col perry,

    No offence taken at all Col. You have expressed yourself admirably as is your conduct by sticking up for a friend; I understood fully what you’re getting at. I’m not going to dwell on Mr O’Farrell’s remarks for that is for his conscience; politics, as no doubt Amy has learned, has become more brutal with careers lost but by a single word (plebgate etc), it’s become a game that is a two-way street, a soap opera that consumes soundbites that in reality has put people and the state of the country second-place to scoring points. It is human nature of course to challenge like-for-like, I wish it coul dbe more polite however the status-quo is the best we have compared to the violence of the undemocratic and of the past.

  116. “There is no suggestion that UKIP want to cease trade with the EU”

    You miss the point. UKIPs opponents have never suggested they want to do this. It is a straw man argument they invented themselves.

  117. Part of the argument against Eusceptics has always been that we would loose trade and jobs should we leave the EU. So far from being a straw man is a subject we have to deal with rebutting on almost a daily basis.

    I am afraid I see your comments on this subject as a continuation of the theme, if you are not so suggesting that,then what does it matter if we are in the EEA or if we have a Swiss style agreement with the EU, these things will be negotiated at the time, the important feature is once we had left the EU we would be in a position to make our own agreements that benefit this country.

  118. Ken,

    The problem with being in the single market but not the EU is that we are subject to the same rules without having any input to them. Farage’s argument appears to be based entirely on the premise that he would get a radically different deal than the Swiss managed to obtain. There is absolutely no basis for believing that. Tails do not wag dogs.

  119. Here I am not talking specifically about UKIP but about Eusceptics generally.

    We would need to look very carefully at the fax democracy suggestions to see if they hold water.

    How much say do we have at the moment?

    Looking at the banking bonus suggestion, not much, yet we have what is it 90% of the people who would be affected working in this country.

    So in fact we have no power, thus having a seat at the table does not help this country stop something it says would be bad for this country. Personally I am for a cap on bankers bonuses. I am just using that a recent incident, in order to evaluate how much power we actually have to stop something our government say they do not want.

    Then is it a fact that we would have no say in forming these rules, to begin the EU is actually only a conduit for much of the regulations affecting trade, and other areas of competence. Many of them originate is other international bodies and here we find Norway is well represented whereas the UK being part of the EU is represented not by itself for it own benefit but by the EU for the benefit of the EU. So in fact Norway has a greater say in forming EU regulations than we do because they are at the originating table.

    Then and sorry for the cut a pasting

    “The reality is Norway, as a member of EFTA and part of the EEA has a veto, and has influence in shaping decision relating to the single market that even the UK doesn’t. Whether it chooses to use the veto and how it decides to shape legislative decisions is of course a matter for itself. But the influence demonstrably exists in no small measure.” http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/?s=Norway

  120. Having a say does not, of course, mean necessarily having a veto. The Establishment Directive would be an obvious example of a policy which disproportionately favours the UK given our dominance in professional services. Swings and roundabouts of course. The point about Norway’s “veto” is disingenuous. The have the same veto as the UK. We can like it or lump it.

  121. just passing by says:

    ermmm a lot of these UKIP people seem to be a bit delusional, how did your representative on the panel handle this labour lady well, she was blooming terrible. You lot should buck you ideas up if you are going to move up in the world of politics, as if you ever form a government or become part of a collation, you will have a lot more people calling you out on certain issues that may arise and they wont be all Labour plants, they will be members of the British community that you claim to represent. You lot come across as very thin skinned.

  122. Jimmy I was asking the question what power do we actually have to protect British interests by being at the table. It is not a question of win some loose some, it a assessment of the actual power we have. In fact we have no power to protect British interests if the others choose not to allow us that privilege.

    We need to understand this because the argument is that we have to accept all the rules of the single market without having a say, yet being a full member of the EU and having a say does not give us the power to stop anything in order to protect our national interests.

    No Norway has a greater power than the UK follow the arguments and you will see how it works.

  123. Ken,

    I admit I’ve skimmed the articles but it appears to suggest no more than the mechanics of the arrangement give some scope for foot dragging, but there is no reference to anything having been vetoed.

  124. Here is one instance where Norway has just ignored the EU The first sentence is interesting.

    “The EEA Agreement obliges Norway to make a national decision”

    “The EEA Agreement obliges Norway to make a national decision on all genetically modified
    organisms that are approved in the EU. Amflora was given a green light by the EU on 2 March 2010
    and therefore the Norwegian authorities have considered whether to allow Amflora in Norway.
    DN has evaluated the available information regarding the product’s risk to health and the environment,
    social benefit, contribution to sustainable development and ethical issues in accordance with the
    Norwegian Gene Technology Act and Nature Diversity Act. DN has concluded that the potato should
    not be cultivated, nor used for industry purposes or in animal feed in Norway. DN has also
    recommended against allowing unintended mixing of the potato in food and feed products up to 0.9%.
    The evaluation report has been forwarded to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment who
    will make a final decision regarding the cultivation and use of the GMO potato Amflora in
    Norway”

    http://www.dirnat.no/multimedia/48829/Amflora-Impact-Assessment-DN.pdf&contentdisposition=attachment

    Puts a different light on the Fax democracy argument!

  125. I am aware the agriculture and fisheries are outside the scope of the EEA, so it’s unsurprising that they can prevent Amflora from being cultivated although I suspect they would not be permitted to prohibit imports.

  126. I hope you see that this is not as black and white as some like to make out, I think a lot of it boils down to having the political will to defend the nation state. Unfortunately none of our lot of any side seem prepared to do that, given Cameron makes a great deal of noise about it, but when you ignore the headlines and look at the fine print that is all it is.

  127. I’ve never thought it was black and white. Much needs to change. The fact, for example, that the Strasbourg plenary sessions continue is the sort of scandalous waste of money that gives the entire project a bad name. A can understand Norway deciding that membership is pointless and that they wouldn’t have much clout there as a small country anyway, but for the UK it seems a very defeatist line to take.

  128. I wonder if Norway rather sees that joining the EU would not be beneficial to either the country its democracy or its people.

    Where we differ is I see staying in the EU as stultifying and defeatist, it shows our leaders and main political parties as weak willed, insular, totally lacking in any vision and so terrified to stand up for this country, they are prepared to commit treason and destroy our Constitution and our democracy in order to hide their incompetence.

    I use the word treason with some justification it was Tony Blair who said

    “The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.”

  129. Amy Rutland has no class. She went onto QT with malice aforethought which proves that point. I’ve been debating whether to leave the labour party for 3 yrs now, after giving it a lifetime support. I am 70 now. Types like Amy Rutland actually agreeing to act out this charade shows how low Labour has sunk. I complained to my MP at my disgust of the removal of the foster children by Joyce Tasker last year because their carers vote for UKIP, an that if Labour continued stooping to such low tactics I might remove my support. Thank you Amy Rutland for making my mind up for me. I will be voting UKIP in defiance of your personal actions on QT.

  130. Steve Carter says:

    Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
    Mass immigration and “assimilation” imposed on ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
    This is genocide according to international law
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

  131. Great to see that the odious Amy Rutland was thrashed in the local elections today with the seat she was fighting being taken by UKIP. The best kind of revenge for her behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *