Thursday, 29 April 2010

Report from Kettering

The Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph reports Lord Pearson's campaign on behalf of Philip Hollobone, the Conservative candidate in Kettering.
Lord Pearson praised Philip Hollobone's 'brave' views on Europe, immigration and banning the burkha and promised UKIP members would campaign for his election.
UKIP has withdrawn candidates and has pledged itself to back those candidates only who are definitely in favour of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, even if means a set-back in their political career.


  1. I find contradictions in UKIP's policies. For example, under "Restoring Britishness" UKIP proposes banning face covering in public places. Apart from this being a very un-British thing (it reminds me of the ban on wearing the fez in public places imposed by Atatürk as part of his reforms to Europeanise Turkey), it also contradicts UKIP's claim to believe in less government. Furthermore, there are people with facial deformities who understandably do not wish their faces to be on public display.
    I feel UKIP should have concentrated on EU withdrawal and presented a set of uncontroversial policies that would have allowed anybody of almost any political persuasion to feel comfortable with voting for them on that issue alone.
    As it is, their policies seem to be increasingly orientated towards the far right.
    There are many people who wish the UK to leave the EU, but at the price of what sort of government? I don't fancy living in a Britain governed like pre-war Turkey. And that is what UKIP seems to be offering us at this election.

  2. I don't think people with facial deformaties would be included in such a ban.
    The burkha is exclusive in the fact that it alienates the wearer. Facial recognition is important in our world, especially in communication. I think banning the burkha would ease some of the stress involved with multi-cultural intigration into Britain.
    As for the EU. I wanted to vote on the Lisban Treaty. I would would have felt better about being in it, if I had been given a voice. The Independence party should have pushed this fact to the voter during this election campaign.

  3. The fact that full-face and body covering has been used to disguise identity while carrying out criminal acts is more than enough good reason to ban the things. Young people are vilified for wearing anoraks with hoods, so what's the difference?
    The EU is a creeping death. It doesn't take much intelligence to read between the lines to see that the EU is a force that will intervene in every aspect of people's lives; telling us what to think, how to think, how to go from cradle to grave in the "correct" manner. I dont think many people understand just how much psychology is at play here, being used against us by those in EU power.
    I dont feel UKIP is "controversial" at all. There are bound to be some policies that one might feel a little less than neutral about, but one has to look at the whole picture. And as far as I'm concerned, escaping the EU's political clutches and "ever-closer union" is the first and foremost priority. Everything else can be debated afterwards.

  4. >>I don't fancy living in a Britain governed like pre-war Turkey. And that is what UKIP seems to be offering us at this election.

    If this piss-poor nonsense is the best you can come up with, I suggest you go back to the drawing board & try again.

  5. The first anonymous has made the usual mistake of using Turkey as an example on the wrong side of the argument.

    Turkey has been a secular state since 1923. Not just the burkha but also the headscarf are banned there. Women who insist on wearing headscarves are often excluded from education and employment.

    When secularists are asked why they support these bans they say that they are worried about the spread of radical Islam.

    The Turkish secularists know what they are dealing with here.