UKIP - NEC Elections - only running 9 months late!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

UKIP - NEC Elections - only running 9 months late!

Hi,

for growing details, facts and links on each of the 37 candidates see:

UKIP NEC CANDIDATES

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

UKIP - NEC Elections - only running 9 months late!

Hi,

for growing details, facts and links on each of the 37 candidates see:

UKIP NEC CANDIDATES

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Now hugely updated with pictures, CVs, personal data, mission statements added.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Now hugely updated with pictures, CVs, personal data, mission statements added.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Hi,

for THE most comprehensive and detailed FACTS & comments

On the entire Internet

updated with each new snippet

on the UKIP- NEC Elections 2010

CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

for THE detailed FACTS & comments on the runners and riders!

updated with each new snippet Now upto about 60 pages but easily indexed by candidate (there are 37!! for 7 seats!)

on the UKIP- NEC Elections 2010

CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

The full UKIP NEC placements are now available for those who didn't know who they would be weeks ago at:

CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Midas]

Greg, perhaps you could explain something to us. Virtually every link you present on UKIP leads to one or other blogs which you yourself write - what evidence do we have that anything you say about the party is other than your own biased personal opinion based on a number of apparent grudges? What completely independent web sites are there which give confirmation to most of what you've written about the party - I'm sure we'd all appreciate some verification of your sources.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Greg, perhaps you could explain something to us. Virtually every link you present on UKIP leads to one or other blogs which you yourself write - what evidence do we have that anything you say about the party is other than your own biased personal opinion based on a number of apparent grudges? What completely independent web sites are there which give confirmation to most of what you've written about the party - I'm sure we'd all appreciate some verification of your sources.

Hi,

good point but if you sell widgets probably the worst wholesaler to go to is a whotzit importer!

ALWAYS be sceptical - check out with the many sites I do daily.

As for accuracy I have an open challenge to UKIP or anyone else PLEASE let me know if I get something materially wrong and if you can show I'm wrong I will of course publish a retraction, correction and where apposite an apology. I'm rather proud that in some dozen or so years I have not been seriously materially wrong.

UKIP runs various in house sites to vend their wares which I'm sure you view then there are sites like Total Politics and I have UKIP on various Google alerts.

You will note, in that I published much more comprehensive information on their recent NEC candidates and was near spot on in my predictions and also knew the results before they were public and actually published prior to UKIP that I guess I need to try to be right.

Then there are both the friends and the followers, the enemies and detractors who all need checking to TRY to keep on the ball accurate.

Then of course I know a lot of people in UKIP or ex UKIP.

NO there is no way you should believe me - check it out.

I do read a fair bit to TRY to be 100%

I hope this helps - Let Google be your friend!
actually I use several search engines and alerts and of course over the years have a fair amount of info stock piled.

YOU may doubt what I'm saying but perhaps until you find a better lifeboat it is better in the one you know than swimming with the sharks!

You'll find if you read a few of my sites daily it is a fairly rapid process as the more you know your way around and the lay out the less time it takes - a bit like a daily paper, you get used to the format and style, do they have a point of view you becha and so do I.

Lifes fun and keeping ahead of the 8 ball is a fun challenge.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Major Sinic]

Hi,

good point but if you sell widgets probably the worst wholesaler to go to is a whotzit importer!

ALWAYS be sceptical - check out with the many sites I do daily.

As for accuracy I have an open challenge to UKIP or anyone else PLEASE let me know if I get something materially wrong and if you can show I'm wrong I will of course publish a retraction, correction and where apposite an apology. I'm rather proud that in some dozen or so years I have not been seriously materially wrong.

UKIP runs various in house sites to vend their wares which I'm sure you view then there are sites like Total Politics and I have UKIP on various Google alerts.

You will note, in that I published much more comprehensive information on their recent NEC candidates and was near spot on in my predictions and also knew the results before they were public and actually published prior to UKIP that I guess I need to try to be right.

Then there are both the friends and the followers, the enemies and detractors who all need checking to TRY to keep on the ball accurate.

Then of course I know a lot of people in UKIP or ex UKIP.

NO there is no way you should believe me - check it out.

I do read a fair bit to TRY to be 100%

I hope this helps - Let Google be your friend!
actually I use several search engines and alerts and of course over the years have a fair amount of info stock piled.

YOU may doubt what I'm saying but perhaps until you find a better lifeboat it is better in the one you know than swimming with the sharks!

You'll find if you read a few of my sites daily it is a fairly rapid process as the more you know your way around and the lay out the less time it takes - a bit like a daily paper, you get used to the format and style, do they have a point of view you becha and so do I.

Lifes fun and keeping ahead of the 8 ball is a fun challenge.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

In other words if you want unbiased, independent evidence find it yourself?

[Midas]

Hi,

good point but if you sell widgets probably the worst wholesaler to go to is a whotzit importer!

ALWAYS be sceptical - check out with the many sites I do daily.

As for accuracy I have an open challenge to UKIP or anyone else PLEASE let me know if I get something materially wrong and if you can show I'm wrong I will of course publish a retraction, correction and where apposite an apology. I'm rather proud that in some dozen or so years I have not been seriously materially wrong.

UKIP runs various in house sites to vend their wares which I'm sure you view then there are sites like Total Politics and I have UKIP on various Google alerts.

You will note, in that I published much more comprehensive information on their recent NEC candidates and was near spot on in my predictions and also knew the results before they were public and actually published prior to UKIP that I guess I need to try to be right.

Then there are both the friends and the followers, the enemies and detractors who all need checking to TRY to keep on the ball accurate.

Then of course I know a lot of people in UKIP or ex UKIP.

NO there is no way you should believe me - check it out.

I do read a fair bit to TRY to be 100%

I hope this helps - Let Google be your friend!
actually I use several search engines and alerts and of course over the years have a fair amount of info stock piled.

YOU may doubt what I'm saying but perhaps until you find a better lifeboat it is better in the one you know than swimming with the sharks!

You'll find if you read a few of my sites daily it is a fairly rapid process as the more you know your way around and the lay out the less time it takes - a bit like a daily paper, you get used to the format and style, do they have a point of view you becha and so do I.

Lifes fun and keeping ahead of the 8 ball is a fun challenge.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Thanks Greg. I wasn't doubting the veracity of what you write, but as Major Sinic implies, we're a sceptical lot here!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

In other words if you want unbiased, independent evidence find it yourself

Hi,

please try not to be quite so silly. Clearly my response was a caveat.

I am a private individual with opinions and views.

I am biased against treason, murder, sexual abuse, abuse, particularly of children and women, violence, dishonesty, corruption, pornography, drunkeness, obscenity, bigotry, racism, over regulation, centalised government, Communism, Totalitarianism, The EU - OK?

If you want unbiased reporting by all means let me know and we can negotiate a salary - till then just like you I am biased

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Thanks Greg. I wasn't doubting the veracity of what you write, but as Major Sinic implies, we're a sceptical lot here!

Hi,

I appreciate that and scepticism is a very sensible survival tool!

I am glad of the opportunity to point outt that the opinions I place in my name are MINE - I do not claim ANYONE supports or agrees with them.

In terms of reportage I TRY to be as accurate as reasonably possible.

I am glad of the opportunity to clarify.

AS A MODERATOR -

since this part of the thread has more to do with principles of posting than UKIP may I request that from your first comment here and subsequent relevant responses it is relocated to General Discussion Forum

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Major Sinic]

Hi,

please try not to be quite so silly. Clearly my response was a caveat.

I am a private individual with opinions and views.

I am biased against treason, murder, sexual abuse, abuse, particularly of children and women, violence, dishonesty, corruption, pornography, drunkeness, obscenity, bigotry, racism, over regulation, centalised government, Communism, Totalitarianism, The EU - OK?

If you want unbiased reporting by all means let me know and we can negotiate a salary - till then just like you I am biased

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

We are all biased, but when you make claims which you imply are factual in debate, you can only expect to be taken seriously if you are able to support your position with independent evidence.

When you put forward your own words contained in your own blogs displayed elsewhere, as evidence without any additional independent credible supporting sources, then you must recognise that others may, with some justification, consider your evidence as, perhaps, tainted! Not every one shares your own towering belief in the authority of your opinions or the accuracy of your claims, and neither should they without independent corroboration.

When asked by Midas why you don't provide independent support sources, you responded with a lengthy text of your normal convoluted waffle which was fairly succinctly summarised in my response. I fail to see why anyone other than you might consider that either silly or other than the fairly light hearted observation intended.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

We are all biased, but when you make claims which you imply are factual in debate, you can only expect to be taken seriously if you are able to support your position with independent evidence.

When you put forward your own words contained in your own blogs displayed elsewhere, as evidence without any additional independent credible supporting sources, then you must recognise that others may, with some justification, consider your evidence as, perhaps, tainted! Not every one shares your own towering belief in the authority of your opinions or the accuracy of your claims, and neither should they without independent corroboration.

When asked by Midas why you don't provide independent support sources, you responded with a lengthy text of your normal convoluted waffle which was fairly succinctly summarised in my response. I fail to see why anyone other than you might consider that either silly or other than the fairly light hearted observation intended.

Hi,

how terribly important you are - that you were light hearted and silly was as I said MERELY MY OPINION.

IF you don't like my postings - surrely you would not only be silly but stupid to read them.

I source most of my blogs in detail and cross reference them.

If you have doubt of the veracity of a specific then waffle no more - read no more and either querie it OR show alternative views based upon your opinion.

You are under no compunction to read my material and you are also welcome to question it.

However if you don't like the style DON'T READ IT.

I don't read James Joyce or J.P. Donlevy as I find their style tedious.

I TRY to be accurate and I put my name to it AND I am readily available by phone, snail mail and eMail - I have no need for anonymity as I seek to publish facts as they support my views and values.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

I gather from numerous sources that UKIP were not even able to hold a simple honest NEC election as shown on many counts it was ultra vires to their own rules.

Various witnesses attest that the election was so corrupted that it should not be allowed to stand.

Leaders abusing the data base to mail out a copy of the ballot paper with their choices of candidate filled in!

A UKIP candidate standing who was expressly debarred from standing in internal elections. An MEP standing who was legally elligible yet refused their rightful position under the rules and constitution.

Michael McGough permitted to stand having serially brrought UKIP into disrepute and a proven liar and cheat who had lied to members to gain status in election.

Elizabeth Burton put in a separate room to the count to count her own votes!

The election were it in a banana republic would have been condemned out of hand but in Farage's utterly corrupt fiefdom we can expect no action to be taken!

It was noted that The Party Returning Officer couldn't even be bothered turning up!

UKIP are clearly unfit to run a bath for lack of anyone with the integrity or ability to be trusted to lead a rubber duck on a string around the bath without help.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.