Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
.
.
.
Clearly only a child or a fool would believe such a statement or of course someone who was a proven liar and utterly corrupt sycophant like Mick McGough – of no personal merit or worth who found with his tongue firmly placed for licking their incompetence and vile personality was overlooked!
.
Hi,
I have unfortunately only received the comments of the main protagonist and an aside from Steve Allison – suffice to say with information leaks there are perforce some parts missing!
Though it seems Douglas Denny is in his dottage waking up to the reality that he has been duped and taken for the fool he so clearly was.
Perhaps it is his conscience after so many defamatory lies and general dishonesty that Denny used in the past to abuse people who dared to seek out the truth which so embarrassed him he felt the need to cover his personal involvement and that of his ‘chums’.
Unfortunately I do not have the whole of his confession nor the documentation which he had but I understand he has now handed to a UKIP MEP – lt us see what integrity that MEP can muster!
In answer to the Strap Line:
Those who seek to undermine Farage undermine UKIP.
It would seem Douglas Denny comments:
This statement is heavily loaded with innuendo and is inaccurate. Not everyone who wishes to undermine the Leader are ( -actively- for that is what is implied) {wishing} to undermine the party. They may have other valid reasons for not wishing to co-operate with the Leader. It happens in all political parties.
This is not to approve of course, of Marta biting the hand that fed her – and I mean the party.
I have read the “blogg” article and and it is a very pro-Nigel Farage homily spun with no acknowledgement or account of the known failings of NF which, in themselves, have in the past and possible present, caused problems for the party.
The author forgets: it takes two to Tango.
———–I made it clear I did not want Nigel to be Leader again at the leadership elections and said exactly why – and those reasons are now becoming apparent, especially the main one which I will now repeat. (On this private forum only).
I emphasise have not publicly criticised Nigel since the leadership election as he is the Leader, and does indeed have a large mandate from the membership.
That is not to fail to recognise and deny he has faults however, but I do not fully express them now as it is counter-productive to the party. If this is the only point Mr. Heaver is trying to make, then I agree with him.What I think is worth repeating though is: I think the main problem with any leader of a political party is they develop enemies and malcontents within the party and without, with their leadership, over a long period of time if they stay in the job for a very long period. Margaret Thatcher is a classic axample of this. She was an excellent Leader, but they still threw her out for spurious reasons. That is why I think leaders should stand down, or be changed regardless every now and then. (Every three or five years? -debate).
This effect causes problems of the kind we are now seeing. It is up to those who are malcontent for whatever reasons to either pull their weight behind the party or re-consider what they are doing.
Leadership does not mean there is an automatic requirement of blind obedience from others however (unless you are in the military) – it means bringing people together towards a common cause through example and charisma so that people want to to follow….. Douglas Denny.
Steve ALLISON SAID:
Whatever our differences, we must now unite behind the Party Leader http://michaelheaversblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/those-who-seek-to-undermine-nigel.html
I have read the “blogg” article and and it is a very pro-Nigel Farage homily spun with no acknowledgement or account of the known failings of NF which, in themselves, have in the past and possible present, caused problems for the party.
Steve Allisons comment:
Doug, you didn’t need to read the blog post to know this. All you need to read was the title and the name of the author. There are certain people in this party for whom the concept of Nigel not being 100% correct is something they cannot even imagine, let alone actually put into words. To expect Michael Heaver to question Farage in any way is like expecting a blog post by a Catholic Cardinal questioning the doctrine of Papal Infallibility! Unthinkable.
All Hail!! Gaius Nigellus Caesar! Those who speak ill of him do so of the Republic! Yea, kneel down and kiss of his arse, mortals!!!Nigel’s a good bloke, we get it. I certainly support him; but there are reasons to criticise him and the one thing that is guaranteed to destroy a political party in a democracy is a sycophantic personality cult that rewards toadying – sorry, “loyalty” – to a man over wisdom and competence and devotion to a cause.
If UKIP takes that route, it is no better than the LibLabCon parties and its high admonitions on the lack of’democracy’ and ‘liberty’ are not worth a fig.
Steve Allison’s response:
This is exactly the route that UKIP is taking! Any organisation that believes it is 100% dependent upon one man for its success or failure has started down the path to ultimate destruction. Graveyards are full of people who were indispensable!. If the crash last year had been serious enough that Nigel had died, which I would never wish on anyone, even my worst enemy, or he had been so badly injured that he had to leave politics, are these people who claim Nigel is UKIP’s only hope also saying the party would have collapsed and now no longer exist?
When Nigel departs UKIP, because it is WHEN and not IF, then UKIP will continue and may even be stronger in the long term, in fact I think it will be stronger in the long term without Nigel. Any gardener will tell you that when one branch on a bush grows so large that it overshadows the rest of the the branches then it’s time for the overgrown branch to be pruned back, otherwise the shape of the bush is destroyed and the longer the singe branch is allowed to grow the harsher the pruning becomes!
Douglas Denny adds his farthing’s worth:
I disagree with this statement too which is also inaccurate.
There were other suitable candidates, two of which would have made perfectly good leaders in my opinon; an opinon based on having supported three Leaders already in the past and seen their efforts.
As Steve Allison rightly says – if Nigel had been killed in the aircraft crash UKIP would have gone on regardless, and would still achieve the kind of success we already enjoy. The party would have gone in a different direction in some respects, which might or might not have speeded up that process. Overall though, it is my experience in politics that leaders efforts are more useful during thier term with infrastructure changes and general party direction, and the aspect of personalities only becomes important and into the forefront of politics if they are in the focus of the media, – which for UKIP is at election times – and only if they get the media presence, and that only in the last week before an election.
——–The reason Nigel had such a large poll with the members is because they have never heard of the others much at all, excepting DCB perhaps. He did not do well, so cannot have such a well-known or acceptable profile in the party as I thought might be the case. Nigel, however, is so well known in the party you could put him up for election as God and he will probably get 60%.
Tim Congden would have made an excellent leader, and I like his stance on MEPs and UKIP’s efforts being more UK-centric, which resonates with me a lot, so if there is another leadership election in due course and he stands I shall have to think carefully next time who to go for depending on the candidates and their policy in this respect. Who knows? TC could be the one !
Some others might make good leaders too, but were total unknowns.Douglas Denny.
Then in response to an apparent interjection Denny continues:
No spat here on this subject. It’s called rational, informed debate.
——–
This minion, dogsbody, jobbing party worker would like to know what the MEPs are doing exactly too but does not actually know, as he is not told.
Whatever it is, it is, but one thing’s for sure – if it’s in Brussels, it is of little use to getting Britain out of the EU.I find snippets of information about what they do from the internet like you.
Douglas.
It would seem that Douglas Denny is making steps, all be they tiny, towards honesty and telling the truth which must be very difficult for him after so many years telling lies, cheating and inventing childish conspiracy theories to cover up the corruption he was party to.
Leopards DO change their spots – it is a measure of their maturity!
Though I doubt Douglas Denny will ever be man enough to apologise for his lies and his defamatory comments and inventions regarding myself, Niall Warry and others.
See the original article at CLICK HERE
.
Ukip-vs-EUkip 