C_steam

Oh dear, the ad hominem attack we've come to expect.

1. Why sympathy for an employee who has lost her job through illegal actions? what is there to be sympathetic about?
2. I don't 'hate' the party leadership. Hate is a which requires personal knowledge of the individuals. I'm sure manyof them are nice people - I just think in this case, and many others, they have not shown good leadership and in general, act to take the course of least resistance.
3. Yes, the party should pursue wrongdoers with the utmost vigour. For the simple reason, if they do not, they will look as if they are complicit in the whole thing. A half decent lawyer could make mincemeat of UKIP based on the two FACTS of a) no disciplinary panel for JW and b) no follow up action for fuller. can't you see that?

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

mrabody

At last, someone talking sense. On the face of it John West may have reason to feel aggrieved. Unfortunately I can't feel much sympathy when he appears to have made matters worse after posting the video on this forum and then conducted a very public correspondence about it. I would remind everyone that John West had some email correspondence with Douglas Denny in which Douglas offered some suggestions to assist him in resolving the matter. I would remind everyone that Douglas Denny published this email correspondence on this forum after John West mischaracterized that correspondence as being unpleasant and self-serving. It clearly was neither. I remind you all of this because it suggests that Mr. West's actions have been somewhat self-serving.

Mr. West may have reason to feel aggrieved, I happily accept that. But I don't think that it is unfair to say that his efforts to resolve this matter have been in conducted in an unfortunate matter that have made resolution more difficult. This doesn't in any way take away from bad or stupid conduct on the part of party officials. But to give John West a bye simply because you think the worst of the party leadership wrongheaded. Until John West posted the video on this forum, I doubt that the party leadership knew anything of the matter. Aside from the impugned act, John West has had the initiative and must bear much of the blame for the trainwreck this has developed into.

For pointing this out I will no doubt be accused of immorality, syncophancy, unfitness for public office, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. I will consider the sources and wear these insults as a badge of honour.

C_steam

Reasonable. Personally I still think it should have been nipped in the bud with a disciplinary action. Both the party and John West deserve each other!

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

progcon.org

If John is genuinely doing everything in his powers to still help UKIP despite the issue over the video (a complete non-issue imho - someone publishing a video that he actually agreed to appear in) why does his ukipsuffolk site show nothing but his name and address now?

What happened to all the info that used to be on the site? How does stripping the site down to just his name and address help the party in any way?

Now:
UK Independence Party Ipswich Borough and North Ipswich and Central Suffolk UKIP

Before:
UK Independence Party Ipswich Borough and North Ipswich and Central Suffolk UKIP

I can't help but think that someone may have outgrown their boots...

Bob FM

AB that's interesting the quotes box can be manipulated to give the impression someone else made a post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob FM View Post
Therefore it would follow that either he isn't as outraged as he makes out, or he is delusional. This post was made by mrabody not me.

mrabody

It's as much an ad hominem as the following two comments made by some of those who agree with you.

The clear implication being that I am immoral.

By agreeing with Bob FM I am apparently nauseating.

I simply said that your behaviour was hypcritical. And none of those comments, as insulting as they may be to the person on the receiving end, was an ad hominem attack.


I happen to have a soft spot for that thing called mercy. I think it comes from having defended people in criminal court, some guilty various criminal acts and some not, but all of them human beings. I feel badly for Annabelle because she appears to have screwed up and has already suffered rather severe consequences. I happen to feel badly for John West despite the fact I've been really harsh on him on this forum because while he is clearly dedicated to the cause he has set in motion (and indeed kept in motion) a series of events that has culminated in the present difficulties that he and the party find themselves in embroiled in. I don't want John West thrown out of the party. I would like him to seriously reflect upon the problems he has caused and to let matters drop.

And I don't hate John West, but I think he has shown appalling judgement over the course of several months that has led us into the present situation.

I read in an article in the newspaper today the following account of one of the Australian Prime Minister's ancestors:

However, his crime is eclipsed by that of the prime minister's paternal fifth great-grandmother Mary Wade, a London street urchin who made a pittance by sweeping streets and begging.

In 1788, aged 12, she and an older girl coaxed an eight-year-old girl into a toilet where they relieved her of "her dress, petticoats, a linen tippet, and a cap and absconded".

Wade was sentenced "to be hanged by the neck til she be dead" after a trial at London's Old Bailey in January 1789 but the sentence was commuted to transportation to the colony of New South Wales.

I can't help but draw the conclusion from your various posts that in 1789 the Anthonys, Aardvarks, and C-Steams of the world would have been demanding that this 12 year old girl be punished with the utmost vigour, that is, hanging. They would have claimed that the authorities obviously had guilty consciences and were somehow complicit unless they dealt with her ruthlessly.

I do happen to believe in justice, but justice without mercy is a pretty horrid thing. And I don't happen to believe that justice only occurs when official procedures are followed. All the parties in the current controversy have already been punished, perhaps not formally, but punished nonetheless, and probably appropriately for the crimes both formal and informal that they have committed.

Annabelle breached her employer's confidence and caused them embarrassment. True she may argue that she was provoked by John West's silly, stupid behaviour into doing something very wrong but she still appears to have broken the law. She has lost her job.

The party brass didn't respond as quickly or as honestly as they should have and could have. They now look incompetent.

John West, engaged in a very silly campaign of innuendo and lies against a rivel to gain personal advantage. When his interview was wrongly posted on Youtube he then republished it on this forum and began complaining publicly. For his sins he as ensured that he will now never sit in Brussels as an MEP. He has also earned the emnity of many party members who are appalled by his conduct and lack of judgement. His future in politics, whether in UKIP or elsewhere is now severely circumscribed to say the least.

Everyone involved in this matter has paid the price for their sins. Unfortunately for too many people on this forum that isn't enough.

Justice without mercy is a horrid thing. Ponder that concept for a while before you reply.

mrabody

Read my last post for my full views. In the final analysis, a political party is like a tribe or a family. Going all formal and harsh on people and casting them into the outer darkness, or having them charged and convicted of a crime is very unpleasant, creates enemies, and sews discord.

I think the problem we have in UKIP is that there are not enough lines of communication between the grassroots and the party leadership. The appropriate method of dealing with this would have been for John Whitaker to take John West aside some months ago and tell him point blank when he first began his internet campaign that his behaviour was wrong, and that if he continued it would be treated as proof as his unsuitability to be an MEP. Unfortunately I doubt Whitaker had a clue. Which calls into question the composition and usefulness of the NEC as presently constituted. You would think that NEC members would be responsible for passing this sort of information on to the leadership to be dealt with, but despite the fact that hundreds of UKIPers frequent this forum, no one with any responsibility took the initiative to nip it in the bud.

Anthony Butcher

You said "... he has reported the party for violating the Data Protection Act, thereby possibly causing damage to the party."

While that is understandable, a professional organisation would go to great lengths to ensure that relations remained workable. There are many examples of employees suing their employers and continuing to do their job. You seem to be suggesting that this will be impossible and, having seen the treatment he has received here from fellow UKIP members, I agree with you.

If UKIP handled this properly, it would be those responsible for the mess who would be in the awkward position; Whittaker and Zuckerman. Oddly you still haven't made any comment on their performance (or lack of) in this matter.

If they had handled it properly, then no. If UKIP had acted immediately to remove the video, apologised to JW, started an investigation and disciplinary procedings and then issued a statement setting out proposals for ensuring that it never happens again.... then I am sure the police would have considered that settled.

Instead, I would say that there is a reasonable chance of at least a formal warning, if not prosecution. If that happens, you will have Whittaker and Zuckerman to thank for it, I suspect.

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure it doesn't work like that. UKIP was the body responsible, and if they had dealt with the breach swiftly and professionally that would almost certainly have been the end of it.

That's a fair criticism, although I would say that many UKIP members might feel they have a right to know what is happening. UKIP still hasn't issued a single statement on the matter.

I don't recall seeing your 'crusade' until this incident with the video arose and he became persona non grata in the party. Perhaps I missed it.

I agree with some of your more reasonable criticisms of the way the situation was handled, but your criticisms are so partisan that it seriously diminishes the quality of your argument.

Absolutely irrelevant. Their responsibility was to deal with it as swiftly and professionally as possible. They failed.

You appear to be suggesting that an organisations legal obligations are dependent upon whether they like the 'victim' or not.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

Anthony Butcher

Apologies. it was a copy and paste error on my part. I have fixed it now.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

C_steam

why so?

Willingly leaving your job is 'rather severe consequences?' No one made her leave. Are you saying I should have pity on her because she made a personal decision to resign?

Agreed.
I suspect that is what the party would want also!

Good. And stop accusing others of hatred. There's enough hatred in the world as it is without you inventing more.

Lol! A parable too far, I think.

and I feel that mercy without justice is pretty pointless. There has been no justice..yet.

Is a view. One that i would not subscribe to.

she has broken the law. Then she chose to resign. The two may not be connected, and if they are, then you cannot absolve a crime by making a voluntary gesture.

absolutely true.

True, but UKIP should still have put him through the disciplinary procedure. By not doing so it appears they cannot, in other words can't find a case for him to answer to.

No. The party gets away with weak and poor management - again.

OK. Pondered that. Now what?

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.