Abusive Lying MP Should Apologise

Letter to the press. Note how the press don't so much write stories as all copy them, often word for word, from the party/government spindoctors:

Sir,

      On Sunday Chuka Umunna got BBC airtime to say UKIP supporters are too stupid to use email. Since polls show that on our main policies as much as 70% of the British people agree with UKIP that is a sweeping claim.

      Today a whole train of separate papers have, spontaneously written, in almost exactly the same words, about how he has, allegedly, been "abused" by people he had already abused so disgracefully & dishonestly. It must be coincidence that they all spontaneously wrote in the same words, if our press is as free and independent as it claims.

    As a member of the Labour party he is a supporter war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide, child rape and worse actions so obscene you would not publish them, in Kosovo so perhaps more racially abusing than abused.

   The BBC's Charter legally requires them to be "balanced" so if the BBC respected law, they would give at least equal airtime to UKIP voters abused by Umanna. If the  press were attempting impartiality they also should report both sides..

   I can assure readers that I am perfectly capable of using email and take personal exception to Umanna's gratuitous and predjudiced blanket attack on us. I call on him to publicly apologise and on the media to give at least equal coverage to those attacked as  to those engaged in dishonest, gratuitous, fact free vitriol. Or if he refuses, on his party to.

Neil Craig

(by email)

 

Some of the spontaneous stories coincidentally written in similar terms

 

	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters LondonNews24 Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP for Streatham, was branded a "spear chucker" and a "cave man" on a Facebook page after he suggested "a lot of" ... Flag as irrelevant
	London News Locker A south London MP has been targeted by racist online trolls after suggesting that Ukip supporters can't use computers. Flag as irrelevant
	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters Got News Wire - Got News Wire Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters 'can't use computers'. A south London MP has been targeted by racist ... Flag as irrelevant
	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters CityNewsLine.co.uk A south London MP has been targeted by racist online trolls after suggesting that Ukip supporters can't use computers.... Flag as irrelevant
	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters News.nom.co A south London MP has been targeted by racist online trolls after suggesting that Ukip supporters can't use computers., News from standard.co.uk ... Flag as irrelevant
	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters World - Top News Today A south London MP has been targeted by racist online trolls after suggesting that Ukip supporters can't use computers. | World | standard.co.uk. Flag as irrelevant
	Chuka Umunna targeted by racist online trolls after saying Ukip supporters World News A south London MP has been targeted by racist online trolls after suggesting that Ukip supporters can't use computers. Chuka Umunna, the Labour ...

Another Unpublished Letter

Sir,

       I note Alex Salmond has replied to the rather worrying statement by the Swedish PM that he and other leaders would be worried about the "Balkanisation" of Britain.

 

      Salmond replied that this comparison was offensive - to the people of the Balkans.

 

      What a dash our prospective Holyrood Prime Minister is going to cut before the world.

 

 

Unpublished Letter DSisputing Yes Claims

  Letter sent to the Scotsman. They emailed me back asking me to cut it to 250 words, which I did,painfully, and then never published it. To be fair they did publish another from somebody else specifically answering the same person.

Sir,     

      In response to EL LLoyd's 6 part denunciation of a previous letter as wrong, may I point out where he is wrong?

 

1 - Independence did not keep many countries out of WW2 - Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Yugoslavia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia all noticed it. Switzerland kept out because they had a fiercely effective militia in which the entire population is armed. If this is SNP policy I have not noticed it.

 

2 - For many years the bank of England was controlled by Gordon Brown. If he was "ineffective"

can we expect any other Scots socialist politician to make use of power in a more constructive way?

3 - It is arguable that the "fair" taxation system he demands, in which less of people's earning remains with them, would not be beneficial to Scotland. Despite the claims of many separatists, the laws of economics would not be suspended for Scotland/

 

4 - The question is not whether England would refuse to buy our "renewable" electricity - nobody ever denied that - but whether they would elect pay several times the market price for it and guaranteeing us a supply, at commercial rates, when, being "100% renewable by 2020" we find, some winter night, that they are, again, producing under 1% of their nominal power. I find the SNP's guarantee that England would continue to elect a government willing to subsidise us unbelievable.

 

5 - He may be right that any likely SNP &/or Labour government would abandon capitalism as he hopes. Indeed it seems likely they would enshrine that abandonment in a new Constitution to prevent us voting in an alternative. That would not affect the proven fact that, worldwide, their is an overwhelming link between the existence and extent of market freedom and economic success. Indeed the probability that any likely initial Scottish government would destroy our economy (as the Greens have said they want) is a very strong argument against giving them the chance.

 

6 - He agrees that we would not be part of the Security Council or a powerful member of the EU. I am afraid I cannot see how this is beneficial.

 

   He also points out the possibility that a UKIP influenced referendum would take the UK out of the EU. Granted that the SNP are eager to ensure the scots are not bothered by any such democratic choice - we go in on basic terms that would cost us billions and no nonsense about an independence referendum under the SNP. Granted also that the other traditional parties feel the same. Nonetheless if one of the main arguments from Europhiles is that "we must stay in the EU because 40% of our trade is with them" is there not some incongruity that nobody in these parties is concerned that 80% of our trade is with a remaining UK their argument depends on the assumption will vote to quit the EU?

 

Neil Craig    

Scotsman unpublished letter

  Unpublished letter sent to the Scotsman in response to a rant by one of their BBC approved columnists:

Sir,

      Perhaps Joyce MacMillan's trauma at UKIP's success may owe something to the fact that up till now she has had more airtime given to her on the state owned BBC (legally "balanced" its Charter says so) than all Scottish UKIP's spokespersons put together.

 

UKIP Meeting - Scotsman Letter

   My letter on the UKIP meeting has, rather to my surprise, been published by the Scotsman today. The bits in bold were edited out:

Sir,

       Having attended the Scottish UKIP meeting with Nigel Farage may I point out a substantial factual error in your report of the event. Rather than a "couple of dozen" of us there were around 100. Granted this was probably less than the total of protestors but one must remember that they were drawn from, by their own admission, diverse viewpoints.

 

         From hooded and masked thugs at the, back of the crowd, to those waving IRA flags, SWP promoters of totally unlimited immigration, windfarmists, and various strands of gays including one young woman holding up a poster about her genitalia and another denouncing fascism, but spelling I with an H. The only common factors seemed to be their opposition to democracy and free speech and their commitment to the SNP's "Independence in Europe" (indeed at the meeting organising this spontaneous demo a few No campaigner supporters were made ostentatiously unwelcome).

 

        It is arguable that UKIP represent the views of the average Scot and perhaps even the average Scotsman reader rather better than these assorted totalitarians do. Which is why, despite almost total censorship of debate of our actual policies by the state broadcasting corporation and most of our media we are getting 12-18% here in polling for the EU election and the assorted thugs of the Yes campaign are reduced to protesting against Scots rights to vote for who they want.

 

      It is unfortunate that your newspaper decided to falsify its report in a manner designed to support what are, at least by Mussolini's definition of the word, fascists.

 ====================================

 

      This is a case where the editing clearly reduced the impact, but I nonetheless feel this makes the point. My only regret is that I did not, at the time, know of the LibDem leader's call on Alex Salmond to "call off the dogs".

 

     One commenter disputes my remark about policies, claiming "This censorship which Mr. Craig alludes to must be why I have never seen an actual policy document from UKIP" which is open to the obvious rejoinder that we have published many policies and it must indeed be because of censorship that has not seen them discussed on the MSM.

 

     Unfortunately I my email has been censored from the Scotsman for mentioning the dissection of thousands of living people by our KLA "police" in Kosovo - something which has since been confirmed by the Council of Europe but remains non grata in our MSM. If any of those who falsely call UKIP "racist" were not deeply and murderously racist themselves they could not possibly have failed to spend several thousand times longer denouncing the LabConDem parties who promoted and have legal responsibility for these obscene racist atrocities. There are no circumstances under which we should not vigorously counterattack anybody making such claims about UKIP when they have not opposed real racist atrocities - that particularly includes the state censors of the BBC.

 

    I trust our lead candidate David Coburn will approve of this contribution since, though he has expressed discomfort with other members participating in the campaign, he drew our attention to this article himself and did not ask us not to reply. 

Scotsman Totally Censoring Dissident Letters

   I found that a letter I had sent to the Scotsman alone was returned by them unopened. There can be no clearer instance of censorship than a blanket refusal to publish letters from certain readers. Over many years I have written letters there, some of which have been extensively praised (eg the quote in the letter below).

   Although I was censored from their online comments some years ago because I mentioned the dissections of thousands of Kosovo Serbs and Gypsies by the KLA/NATO police (formerly NATO armed KLA terrorists). This was before the Council of Europe publicly acknowledged that it was entirely true. being entirely true, when they wanted to censor mention of genocide, was not considered reason for reinstatement by the Scotsman..

   Nominally the Scotsman is "right wing" and "independent" of our political establishment. Clearly that is not so.

   I wrote them this, sent through 2 other emails there, which it was delivered to. They have not yet replied but I will report if they do.
------------------------------------

I note from this that the Scotsman are refusing any more to even consider publishing any letters from me. would this be because I am "a lone wolf howling in despair in the intellectual wilderness of Scots politics" and you don't want such intrusion, or merely because I have acknowledged being a UKIP candidate and you certainly don't want anything we say to go uncensored?

 

Neil Craig  

Censorship of UKIP in the Referendum "Debate" Means Some Of The Clearest Arguments Are Being Suppressed

  A letter to most Scottish & UK papers. It is long so when they decide not to publish I will send several cut down versions, probably amount to a couple of hundred separate submissions. That would effectively guarantee publication of our press were interested in balanced letters pages.
-----------------------------------------
Sir,

     At his Scottish conference, LibDem leader Nick Clegg has said how important it is that the Unionist parties work together to defeat the separation referendum. Liberals, Labour and Conservative. There is obviously something missing from this spirit of togetherness – any willingness to work with the 3^rd party in British politics UKIP (4^th in Scotland, but still ahead of Clegg’s own & likely to take 1^st place in the EU elections).

 

      I attended a debate hosted by a leftist charity where the 3 approved parties spoke but from which UKIP was censored. The audience vote showed the approved parties lost heavily. This failure was all the more unnecessary since all the “nationalist” speakers, even from the SNP, were antagonistic to nationalism. All based their pitches on the, in my view, unrealistic expectation that separation would make us independent of the laws of arithmetic and able to make enormous financial commitments without raising any money. One speaker even acknowledged, in response to my question, that he would be happy to see us in permanent recession as long as their shibboleths were satisfied. It should not have been difficult to win that debate.

 

     By comparison, last year UKIP’s leader Mike Scott-Hayward, candidate Stuart Maskell and I stood, without preparation, in debate against Yes campaigners (the traditional party representatives all pulled out at the last moment) and won convincingly.

 

     Part of it is that some of the most clear-cut arguments involve the EU. If Scotland were to join as a new nation we would, at best, get the basic new nation terms. This means we would lose our share of Britain’s rebate (£500 million); would have to sign the Shengen immigration terms, meaning border posts at Gretna; agree to eventually joining the Euro; and sign up to the working time agreements which, going by the far worse continental employment figures, would destroy 170,000 jobs. However, because the traditional parties are EU enthusiasts they are clearly reluctant to mention this, and do not appear to have their hearts in the fight at all.

 

    By excluding UKIP, for party political reasons, they (& the BBC whose censorship of UKIP in Scotland would have done the Soviets proud) are preventing Scots having a full and rounded debate. This is what happened in the AV referendum where the LibDems refused UKIP’s assistance, deciding to depend on the popularity of Clegg – and lost despite the polls starting in their favour. If Britain is destroyed and Scotland plunged into financial disaster under incompetent politicians who think wishing will make it so (& who have already threatened to repudiate the national debt, something no sensible chancellor ever merely threatens to do) it will not be because the extreme “socialists” and a declining covering of nationalists, have won the debate. It will be because the LabConDems & BBC have ensured Scots have not had a real debate. From experience both Clegg and I can confirm that those presenting the UKIP view can win in debate whenever we are not censored out of it. We can win the debate on whether Britain should have a future if we are not censored and Scotland’s future is too important an issue for it to be settled by party interests.

 

Neil Craig    

Refs - The Referendum debate UKIP won http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ukip-debate-independence-campaign-ukip.html

The one the approved parties lost http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/independence-debate-not-about.html

   Another of these letters which the Scottish press decide not to publish - either because it doesn't reach their demanding literary standards or because they censor, or perhaps for some wholly unknown reason:

Sir,
      We now have confirmation from Mr Miliband, that Labour are committed to staying in the EU without even a referendum.

 

       I remember back when Neil Kinnock became Labour leader. Then they were committed to leaving the EU, without even a referendum.

 

       In the intervening period Mr Kinnock and indeed his entire family have moved on to many many lucrative EU jobs. They have moved seamlessly from "no Kinnock in 1,000 years has gone to university" to leading members of the new Euro-aristocracy. An aristocracy who regularly glory in the word "technocrat" though in fact very few of them have any sort of technical knowledge that would justify that term. China's rulers, for better or worse, almost all have degrees in engineering or accountancy whereas ours mainly seem to have studied Politics Philosophy & Economics (known as "the bluffer's degree").

 

       What we have never seen is the massive open political debate within the Labour party that alone could justify this complete about face. The EU is the only world zone still in recession (the rest is growing at an average of nearly 6%). It has been calculated to cost our economy £170 billion. It means unlimited immigration from other member countries. If an "independent" Scotland were to join it on normal terms, since UK opt outs protect 2 million jobs, we would expect to lose 170,000. Yet none of this was seriously discussed as Labour reversed itself.

 

      Apparently the only thing old Labour and new Labour have in common is that the common people will not be consulted by referendum.

 

Neil Craig UKIP

BBC Desperately Looking For Somebody In Scottish Politics How Speaks For Other Than The PC 2%

     Yesterday Clark Cross was on BBC Newsnight Scotland (& at 6.30). Clark writes letters regularly in our papers and did this rather good one about the SNP immigration policy.

Alex Salmond wants more immigration but in a poll 69 per cent of Scots said immigrant numbers should be cut and a meagre two per cent said immigration should be increased.

I wonder how the 200,000 unemployed Scots feel about Alex Salmond’s immigration plans?
I wonder how those Scots on long social housing waiting lists will feel?
Then there is the growing hatred of wind turbines which do nothing but increase our energy bills despite what the spin doctors, developers and landowners would have us believe.


     He got a phone call, mid afternoon while he was out playing golf, saying they wanted him to speak and indeed he did get about 2 minutes on & was described by the BBC as a Migrationwatch "supporter". Obviously, for the sake of  their legal duty of "balance" they had Malcolm Bruce (LudDim) & Hamza Yousaf (SNP) on for nearly 10 minutes supporting the official view.

I am sending this to the Scotsman

Sir,
       Congratulations to regular Scotsman/Evening News letter writer, Clark Cross for his defence of his criticism of SNP immigration policy, on Newsnight and Reporting Scotland, from his recent letter (10th Jan) here. Followed by 2 heavyweight politicians given far more time by the BBC to repudiate him.

       It is interesting that despite opposition to the SNP's policy running 69%:2%, so detached from ordinary people are all 5, nominally separate, Holyrood parties that it was clearly impossible to find a professional politician to put the popular view. Or anybody at all among the 10s of thousands of political activists working for qangos or political charities (invariably ultimately funded by the taxpayer).

       Well when I say it was impossible to find a single party politician who could have given the argument I mean it was impossible to do so without BBC Scotland breaking its policy of censoring any appearance from Britain's 3rd (& Scotland's 4th) party, UKIP who everybody knows oppose the SNP enthusiasm for mass immigration.

     There is a legal requirement for "balance" in BBC reporting, at least in party political issues. Is this one of these laws that those in power are allowed to ignore? What sort of referendum campaign is it when the state broadcaster is censoring dissent?

Neil Craig

       In theory this should be a no brainer. Competently written. Under 250 words. More importantly every paper lives for stories about local heroes. And when it is also showing the other media picking up something the Scotsman published first.

      So if it doesn't get published it is unequivocally because of deliberate censorship. I'll let you know if it does,

      I'll also send out an edited version to other papers.

      It is not widely known and certainly not widely reported but there is an SNP plan, if they get the power after independence, to import enormous numbers of farmers, presumably from the 3rd world, to resettle the Highlands.

Dredge the Clyde

   I sent this letter to all the main Scots papers today and a number of national ones. I will confirm if any of them find it to be an issue which should be discussed.

Sir,

      Dredging of the Clyde was stopped in the 1980s. Since then there was serious flooding in Paisley exacerbated by the fact that drains backed up, being unable to flow out because of the silt build up. Scotstoun has been warned it faces flooding too.

 

      Over the last few days we have seen how the Environment Agency deliberately allowing the silting up of the Somerset Levels is destroying the land and may return it to the sea it used to be before Britain hired Dutch engineers, in the 17thC to reclaim it. One agency operative has been notoriously quoted as wanting to put "a limpet mine in each pumping station" to hasten the destruction.

 

     A few years ago there was serious flooding in Cockermouth which was immediately publicly blamed on "climate change" by believers. Strangely enough, whenever we get particularly cold weather the same people tell us "proves nothing, that is just weather" - such are the mysteries of modern science. However it has since been shown that the main cause was that environmentalists had ensured that the site, confluence of 2 major rivers, had silted up.

 

    I fear that if we do not learn form this lesson our own "environmentalists" who have tied us down with the most expensive and destructive Climate Change Act in the world, unanimously voted through by the 5 Holyrood parties, may ensure disaster on the Clyde.

 

    Dredging should be reinstated. If people in the 17thC could tame the waters and recover land I simply do not believe we cannot maintain the land now.

 

Neil Craig

Prospective UKIP candidate Glasgow North

 

Reference 

Christophe Booker on the Levels being destroyed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2547732/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Its-deluded-greens-whove-left-Somerset-neighbours-10ft-water.html

Cockermouth silting http://www.cockermouth.org.uk/floods2009.html

ending of Clyde dredging http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5319