My question refers to PPCs, candidates, employees, and those at branch committee and above. Should they show any restraint?

Doug Denny, for example, is an NEC member. When he posts about what he doesn't know, that by implication reveals what the NEC don't know, and therefore breaks NEC confidentiality.

Bob FM is a branch chairman and PPC. His posts over the past month or so show inability to digest postings correctly, inability to indulge in reasoned argument or debate, and a stock response of insults. Having joined a 14 year old party only last year, he shows no understanding that many of us, having been around longer, (I was a founder member), might have a different take on affairs.

It well known that our enemies, and the press follow this list. Should those who are "more than ordinary members", therefore, by virtue of their position, think twice, or thrice? Should the "bringing the party into disrepute" clause hang like a Sword of Damoclese over them? Or should they, in the interests of "free speech" be allowed to say whever they like, no matter how much others despair?

Discuss.
[Rep]

Unsurprisingly, Spon, I'm in full agreement. I seem to recall posting the occasional request to senior UKIP members, asking them to remember just who reads this forum.

The current audience includes journalists, politicos of all persuasions, prolific posters on other fora/discussion lists, UKIP ROs, UKIP Press Office staff, UKIP HO staff, UKIP NEC members, UKIP MEP staff, UKIP branch committee members, (not to mention the associated spouses/significant others etc.) and the odd Google addict.

If UKIP is ever to shake off the "fruitcake and loonies" gibe, it will do so only by showing professionalism in everything that every member is involved in. That includes modern media.

It would be nice if the eurosceptic movement as a whole took that to heart, too. There's an awful lot of misdirected enthusiasm amongst the eurosceptic "loose collection of warring tribes"... :-)
[Rep]

My opinion is: When Anthony and friends started this forum I'm sure their intentions were to have an open democratic debating website. Unfortunately what has happened is, because it was started by people with a UKIP or former UKIP background the enemies of UKIP have used this open public site to pour poison on not only the UK Independence Party but also individual members. This site is also used by those with inflated egos, wind up merchants,school/college students who 'know' how to cure the World ills and old fogeys like me who have nothing better to do than have an occasional rant! It in my opinion has not become what Anthony and friends had hoped for! So it would be very unwise for UKIP officials to post on this site!
[Rep]

Individuals, in what ever capacity they are, must be allowed to say what they want. Surely we have had enough of the lobotomized comments of our current politicians. The fact that Bob FM and DD etc make fools of themselves is mainly their problem. We should not try to hide such people away. I know it reflects badly on the party as well but better the public know us for what we are warts and all. The fact that our leader allows such people positions of responsibility in the party reflects on his judgement but again Nigel is what he is and we should not try to pretend he is something he is not.

The only hope for UKIP is a new leader who will clean it up.
[Rep]

Sponplague - I think this is a very difficult question to answer.
Yes, I have no doubt that enemies of this party do read this forum, but it would be a very peculiar forum if every poster on here praised UKIP to the rooftops.
Plus, let us not forget, this is not a UKIP forum. It is a Democracy Forum.
I believe Doug Denny should be allowed to post his opinions, as long as they are his own opinions, not necessarily the decisions of the NEC. That would be breaking confidentiality, but he does not do that.
As for PPCs, (UK or EU) it would be in their own interests to counsel cautiously.
Bob FM is as you say, a branch chairman and PPC. I think this man would do himself a great favour as a PPC if he never posted on here again.
Woe betide any member who disagrees with his egocentric opinions, they are insulted & told to leave the party, this from a person who has a mere 12 month membership!!
Every party has to have its critics, which IMO is not a bad thing.
Branch Chairmen, Brach officers, committee & party members should be allowed to give their opinions without the threat of ex- communication!!
I don’t think that members who criticise what they believe are irregularities in the running of the party, or perhaps disagree with an interpretation of the rules, or maybe think there is a lack of leadership, could be classed as “ Bringing the party into disrepute" As members, they are giving their opinions. Long may it continue!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SponPlague:
My question refers to PPCs, candidates, employees, and those at branch committee and above. Should they show any restraint?

Doug Denny, for example, is an NEC member. When he posts about what he doesn't know, that by implication reveals what the NEC don't know, and therefore breaks NEC confidentiality.

Bob FM is a branch chairman and PPC. His posts over the past month or so show inability to digest postings correctly, inability to indulge in reasoned argument or debate, and a stock response of insults. Having joined a 14 year old party only last year, he shows no understanding that many of us, having been around longer, (I was a founder member), might have a different take on affairs.

It well known that our enemies, and the press follow this list. Should those who are "more than ordinary members", therefore, by virtue of their position, think twice, or thrice? Should the "bringing the party into disrepute" clause hang like a Sword of Damoclese over them? Or should they, in the interests of "free speech" be allowed to say whever they like, no matter how much others despair?

Discuss.

Comments:-

1)

Originally Posted by :
Quote Spongy:
Doug Denny, for example, is an NEC member. When he posts about what he doesn't know, that by implication reveals what the NEC don't know, and therefore breaks NEC confidentiality.

Very simple obvious fallacies in the logic above:

I do not post about what I don't know. And by not posting about an issue does not imply I do not know - I might very much know - and just be away or refuse to comment.

Also, I am careful about what I post. I am very selective.

Only posting about issues which have already been resolved by the NEC and therefore should be public knowledge anyway; or in a guarded way which only refers to a specific item which is in need of clarification - usually because someone here has just made a material error (or lie?) which clouds the factual discussion and/or truth of the matter.
My function (as I see it) is to then correct the factual incinsistencies which I know to be true or false.
I do not post about anything which is sensitive or truly confidential and which would damage the party in any way.

I also post my personal opinions only when it is opinon and not a factual point. I post facts only about factual information - which is true to the best of my knowledge.

To deny any of that with censorship or control here on a public forum would be to deny free speech.
It would be execrable in a free society.

I am not too happy about the fact there are 'moderators' anyway, with the theoretical power to alter/amend the postings; (something one would expect to happen in totalitarian societies, a la 1984) but here they do seem to be fair and very hands-off, unless it gets totally outrageous as in a slanging match. But then who's to say a slanging match should be stopped if you want total openness?

2)

Originally Posted by :
Spongy:
Should the "bringing the party into disrepute" clause hang like a Sword of Damoclese over them?

That is always present for any party member whether they post here or not. It only applies to situations of a grave nature, libel perhaps, - hardly for exercising free speech and "dubious" opinons.
Also to be viable in the disciplinary committee you have to prove damage to the party ocurred with the "disrepute to the party" .. something hardly applicable to comments, unless libelous and widely known in the public domain.

3)

Originally Posted by :
Chickadee:
If UKIP is ever to shake off the "fruitcake and loonies" gibe, it will do so only by showing professionalism in everything that every member is involved in. That includes modern media.

If there are professional staff of UKIP or others who feel they wish to express themselves, but not involve the party name - they can use an anonymous name. - as you do.

4)

Originally Posted by :
Kernoble: My opinion is: When Anthony and friends started this forum I'm sure their intentions were to have an open democratic debating website. Unfortunately what has happened is, because it was started by people with a UKIP or former UKIP background the enemies of UKIP have used this open public site to pour poison on not only the UK Independence Party but also individual members. This site is also used by those with inflated egos, wind up merchants,school/college students who 'know' how to cure the World ills and old fogeys like me who have nothing better to do than have an occasional rant! It in my opinion has not become what Anthony and friends had hoped for! So it would be very unwise for UKIP officials to post on this site!

Agreed it would be better to have a 'mature clientelle' here discussing issues in a gentlemanly manner - but it would also be very boring indeed and no one would bother with it.
It is the rich diversity of the pond life here which makes it so interesting. As said above, UKIP officials can use a psudonym if they wish. (And they do, incidentally, I happen to know).

Besides ....... everyone is entitled to my opinon!

5)

Originally Posted by :
Nniiaall Warry: The fact that our leader allows such people positions of responsibility in the party reflects on his judgement

Wrong - as usual you let your hatred of NF get the better of you. It is the membership of UKIP that decides who is on the NEC. It is the membership of the branches who determine who are the officers - or should do so at annual general meetings. There are very few paid officials and none are posting here that I know of in their own, name except Clive Page. And he only corrects the nonsense.

6)

Originally Posted by :
Spongy:
Bob FM is a branch chairman and PPC. His posts over the past month or so show inability to digest postings correctly, inability to indulge in reasoned argument or debate, and a stock response of insults.

This gets to the heart of the matter:-
What you have stated above, (and seems to be the basis of your theme in this thread) is...

....YOUR opinon only.

BobFM has as much right to post with any inability to digest , any lack of reasoned judgement etc ..... in exactly an equitable way that you have. He might think exactly the same of you.... and has the same right to that opinon as you have.

Are you saying you wish to curtail that right?
(Shame on you for even suggesting it).

===========

And now my opinon: It is astonishing to me that anyone can seriously question this issue. You either believe in free speech or you do not.

I think anyone who remotely considers censorship of any form, self-imposed or not, on a public forum might as well accept going happily into the EU dictatorial superstate or any other totalitarian regime with their mouths gagged and their ears blocked and have their computers confiscated ...

..... in fact why don't they go and live in China or North Korea instead ... they would be perfectly happy there...
...off you go Spongy .. go and have a word in the ear of the eternal president Kim Jong-il, or Hu Jintao about it. They will like your ideas - which they already implement.

DED.
-
[Rep]

You have in the past, Doug, referred to the problems in the London region: is that wise?
You have also quoted detailed correspondence with John West, which reveals how much the NEC is currently aware of: is that wise?

Further, you say:

Originally Posted by douglas denny:
It is the membership of UKIP that decides who is on the NEC.

Yes, but not the membership who control the national approved candidates list, or who the party secretary is from amongst the NEC members...
[Rep]

Boob FM is the future. Get over it! :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SponPlague:
You have in the past, Doug, referred to the problems in the London region: is that wise?
You have also quoted detailed correspondence with John West, which reveals how much the NEC is currently aware of: is that wise?

Further, you say:
Yes, but not the membership who control the national approved candidates list, or who the party secretary is from amongst the NEC members...

London issue; John West issue:-
Why not?
If it is legal; if it clarifies the air somewhat; or just offers more diverse opinons? who is to say not? .... You?

Is it that you would like to set yourself up in some Black Chamber to decide on the ins and outs of discussion on this forum and elsewhere? Send out the Inquisition to hold court and burn me and others at the stake for heresy? daring to give opinon not conforming to that of yourself?
Oh Dear ...here we go ... back to the dark ages........

--------------
I confess to being confused over this point:
you say: Yes, but not the membership who control the national approved candidates list,

But it is the membership who decide in a region who is on the list and its order in an election. That it can be modified I am not sure about anymore without looking it up in the rules: but as I understand it, it is only with the consent of those already on the list anyway - that is reasonable, so where is the problem?
-----------------

this point is easily understood:
you say: or who the party secretary is from amongst the NEC members...

It is the NEC members who decide the NEC officers in a committee of equals under the elected regime that the NEC represents. That is as it should be. You cannot have a new election by the membership each and every time a minor officer of the NEC is changed - except the Leadership of the Party of course. That's different.
-------

Tell you what ...here's an idea...
let's make everyone have some indicator on their postings,, you know.. whether they are good posters or not.. and if you don't like them you can have a special avatar (or whatever the image is at the side) .. so we know who is who..

If they are Jews we can make them have a star of David if you like .........
just like they did where you now live, in the 1930's ....
....? !!

DED.
[Rep]

I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to post, Doug - I voted think twice. But not everyone agrees with you. I have, in the past, had libel lawyers from Olswang, on behalf of 3 NEC members, discuss public postings I made - and I defended free speech.

If certain PPCs wish to become the laughing stock of the internet, I have no objection - but if other PPCs find it damaging their cause, hypothetically, do they have right to object?
[Rep]