Quote:
Originally Posted by mrabody
I was commenting that John is professing to be outraged about the release of the video on youtube, and may be instigating legal action against the party, yet he still intends to carry on as both a branch chairman and PPC as if nothing has happened. I'm sorry but if I was as thoroughly outraged and embarrassed as John professes to be I cannot see why I would even want to remain in those positions where I would be forced to work with the people who had treated me so badly.
|
Different people react in different ways to adversity. Maybe for JW, he is so committed to the idea of getting out of the EU that he truly believes UKIP is the only vehicle which remotely has a chance of doing so - therefore he wants to stay on board since, no matter how outraged he feels about his treatment, the option of not being in UKIP and therefore staying in the EU is far worse.
Or perhaps he feels the party is basically decent and wants to use this business as an opportunity to clean out those he feels have wronged him?
And I'll disagree (again) about
Quote:
|
It is a question whether he is a victim of the "Party". The evidence suggests that he is a victim of a party employee who has since left the party.
|
the key word is 'since'. At the time of the issue she was a party employee (your words) and accordingly the responsibility of the party as is the case for all employees engaged on the business of their employer. Whilst it is conceivable she acted as a maverick, the employer should have systems and management in place to prevent actions, and where these fail and where the acts are illegal, the party should pursue with the utmost vigour. To say 'shes left' and wash hands of the whole affair is basically weak management.