.

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

UKIP’s undeniably Racist credentials & the stance of anti democratic organisations and ill considered opinions!!

.

having read your article on your blog your stance of somewhat loaded statistics seems more obsessed with race than that of the core grass roots members of UKIP.

To present numbers on a racial basis as a defence is clearly, in and of itself, racist.

Do be minded that an immigrant arriving here has not only not contributed to the system, but nor have their antecedents or. One must wonder at their reason for coming here and sadly all too often it is to avoid the mess their ancestors and associates have made of their own country!

I do feel that there is every reason to withhold benefits for a given period, until their long term commitment to contributing to Britain is ensured.

The open door policy forced on us by the laws made by our Parliament in The EU without care or democratic input of any validity is clearly unwise; as it puts undue strain on our basic resources, paid for by our own tax payers.

We have a shortage of jobs suitable to our own labour force in today’s market, as with housing that is suitable, and educational facilities are planned and funded in line with our own tax payers’ needs.

Our NHS is forced to expand for both immigrants and health tourists leaving insufficient funding for the levels of care selected by British tax payers, and insufficient surplus to train adequate doctors, nurses and other front line staff – thus resulting in our wholesale theft (by enticement) of the most valuable resources of third world economies in the importation of nurses, doctors and carers!

The levels of influx in percentage terms is unarguably disadvantageous to the indigenous population and its best interests and is altering the very culture and economy which the hoards of immigrants would seem initially to be attracted by.

It is bunkum to claim mass immigration enriches a country when all the evidence is to the contrary and even the Labour party now admits to its irresponsible governance in terms of immigrants – perhaps one day they will develope sufficient integrity to admit their catastrophic economic illiteracy and utterly corrupt engagement in war crimes and crimes against humanity as a result of the lies of their leadership!

No sir I do NOT concur your basic premise for your contentions, regarding immigrants on an uncontrolled basis as we currently see it!

That said having been a very active campaigner against racism and having liver in numerous countries around the world I am forced to wonder what your theioretical contentions are based upon in substance and experience – beyond childish and ill thought out jingo.

I did state earlier that I teust the fundamental grass root supporters of UKIP but please be assured I have little but contempt for the biggotry and self serving support of racism, xenophobia and outright prejudice of the most vile nature of UKIP’s leadership team and its chosen allies in The EU and thus some of its more extreme racist parasites such as Gerard Batten and his odious superstition which he deems license to befoul UKIP with in the nature of his publications against Muslims which I believe incline to incite racial hatred – nor the vile racism of Lord Pearson which likewise incline to incite racism nor the overt support of Zionists and thus their terrorist oppression of the peoples of Paleastine.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

HOPE not hate takes a position on UKIP

Monitor and oppose when necessary

Last Thursday HOPE not hate launched a consultation of our supporters asking their views about UKIP. This was done on the basis that whilst we absolutely believe UKIP not to be a fascist or even an ideologically racist party in terms of its leadership or constitution, there are significant questions to be asked regarding their recent rhetoric and campaign themes. HOPE not hate isn’t questioning that UKIP also very clearly operates within the British democratic tradition, nor are we trying to restrict free speech, rather we want to make sure that the public space for debate is a positive environment rather then one driven by hate.

On a personal level, I was unsure what the position of HOPE not hate should be. I appreciate the arguments both for and against a HOPE not hate intervention. Several of my colleagues and some of our close supporters have asked us in the last 6 months to take UKIP more seriously due to genuine and legitimate concerns about their international connections with the likes of the French Front National or the Italian Lega Nord.

There were even more concerns after the recent Eastleigh by-election and the totally exaggerated claims about the number of likely immigrants to be expected from Bulgaria and Romania in January 2014.

Research by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford showed that while UKIP is best known for it stance against membership of the European Union, its supporters were also hostile to immigration and multiculturalism more generally.

UKIP is a very different political party from the BNP but the drivers for its appeal is quite similar.

Others were fundamentally opposed to any HOPE not hate involvement in campaigns against UKIP, as being clearly out of our purview, but even they did question why Marine Le Pen chose to name check UKIP as her closet ally in the UK, when she spoke at Cambridge recently.

This is why we asked you all for your views. After all it is you that help fund our work, campaign with us in rain and snow and have helped us drive the BNP out of council chambers across the country. Fundamentally this should be your decision not mine.

The response has been incredible. Over 1200 people replied to our email within the first 48 hours and hundreds more gave us their views via Facebook, twitter and email. These numbers show the interest in this subject and justifies us asking the question in the first place.

There were a handful of abusive replies, mainly from UKIP supporters who were outraged at us raising the question, but overall the comments – both for and against – were passionate, measured and thoughtful.

In terms of a simple vote, our supporters back HOPE not hate campaigning against UKIP by a margin of just over two to one. 67% voted to campaign, while 33% said we should continue to ignore them.

However within the attached comments the position was much more nuanced. Many of those who believed that we should campaign against UKIP believed that we should just focus our efforts and resources on those people and campaigns which are very clearly racist and plainly unacceptable to HOPE not hate’s vision for a positive and diverse society rather than the party in its entirety.

There were others who voted no who said exactly the same.

Historically this approach is clearly in line with HOPE not hate’s tradition of exposing and highlighting the unacceptable extremists in all of the mainstream political parties. From the Conservative Party’s Monday Club, to last week’s revelation about Lord Ahmed’s antisemitism, HOPE not hate operates on a platform of zero tolerance towards political and cultural extremism. That means we believe we have a duty to expose any racist campaigns, comments or activities and where necessary run localised campaigns against specific candidates.

And this goes for UKIP too.

For now, and because of the nuanced comments you made, I don’t believe there is a clear mandate to run a national campaign against UKIP. However, we will monitor them more closely than we have done in the past, especially at a local level, and we will be prepared to speak out against them when we believe that they are deliberately stoking racism by telling lies about immigration or multiculturalism. We will also be prepared to run campaigns against individual candidates who put out racist leaflets or get involved in anti-Muslim campaigns. And we will do this as vigorously as we have opposed the BNP in the past.

We will review this position in November, six months out from the European Elections.

Following the launch of our consultation last week we have been invited to meet the leadership of UKIP. We immediately agreed and while we are keen to hear what they have to say we will also be outlining our position and the red lines between what we consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

I will add one final thought of my own. As I have written several times on my blog in recent months, I am extremely worried about the shift in the tone of the debate on migration. This has largely been driven by some newspapers but also adopted eagerly by some politicians, including the leadership of UKIP. This has led to an increasingly hostile and toxic environment, both in the media and on the ground in local communities. My fear is that left unchecked this will only get worse. Next January, Romanians and Bulgarians will be allowed to work in the UK and with the European Elections only a few months away increasingly aggressive racist rhetoric will be ratcheted up even further. And, with mainstream political parties worried about UKIP coming first in the European Election, there will be a tendency to drift to the right themselves. HOPE not will oppose this and work with, where possible, and against, where necessary, any political party that seeks to play the race card.

I hope I can count on your continuing support for what will be a busy 15 months.

Nick Lowles

SUPPING WITH THE DEVIL? UKIP & HOPE NOT HATE

By Larry O’Hara (with assistance from David Pegg & Heidi Svenson) 20/3/13

With wry amusement Notes From the Borderland (hereafter NFB) has watched closely recent public posturing by Hope Not Hate (hereafter HNH), purportedly triggered by ‘concern’ at racist trends within the UK Independence Party (hereafter UKIP), set in motion on their blog 14/3/13 and issue 7 of HNH magazine.   There is far more to this story than meets the eye, and NFB are happy to provide context, albeit partial, in that much detailed proof of our assertions lies in past issues of NFB magazine, namely: issue 4 (highlighting the secret state plot to undermine UKIP in 2000), issue 5 (reproducing in full the strategy document Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate wrote for the European Movement), and issue 10 (detailing exactly how much HNH are in the pay of the current government, specifically the Department for Communities and Local Government).  To obtain these magazines, visit our sister-site www.borderlandmagazine.co.uk or alternatively click on the top-right of this site where it says ‘How To Buy NFB By Post/On-line’.  Nonetheless hopefully enough evidence is cited here to substantiate our argument that HNH are in no position to comment with either accuracy or good faith regarding any UKIP matter, and anti-racists within UKIP should give these shysters a wide berth.  A timely intervention, given HNH are to meet the UKIP leadership imminently.

After briefly looking at HNH’s stated motivation, we discuss HNH’s ‘dialogue’ with supporters, pointing to the absurdity of any pretence this is a genuine grass-roots organisation.  Next we probe HNH’s tendentious ‘History of UKIP’, and misrepresentation of what UKIP supporters actually believe.  Then, we look at two explanations for HNH dishonesty: first, the political past/ideology of head honcho Nick Lowles, and second, HNH’s position as hirelings of the DCLG, and therefore servants of the political establishment rocked by UKIP.  Finally, a few comments on what anti-racists in UKIP and elsewhere should, and should not, do.

(1) WHY ARE HNH CONCERNED?

The cat was let out of the bag right from the start: to quote HNH’s initial blog post “UKIP is surging in the polls and could well come first in next year’s European Elections.  How should HNH respond? Should we begin to oppose them or should we stick to extremist groups like the BNP?”[i].  In other words, it is UKIP’s electoral threat to the old order that bothers HNH, not their essential nature.  They claim “UKIP is increasingly taking an anti-immigrant tone and as anti-racists we cannot ignore that”[ii].  Yet twelve years ago Lowles said virtually the same thing “UKIP has swung to the right in the last two years…UKIP now represents a nationalist rump”[iii].  If this was true, or he really believed it to be so, HNH and the Searchlight organisation from which they sprang would have opposed UKIP consistently.  Yet they haven’t.  We are not talking about principles here: Lowles wouldn’t know what one was  The real motives for HNH’s opposition to UKIP I will return to, but suffice to say, anti-racism isn’t chief among them.

(2) A PSEUDO-CAMPAIGN?

HNH has no democratic structures whatsoever, and the mugs who give them money, even assuming the incessant online polls aren’t rigged, are ignored anyway.  This ‘consultation’ was meaningless like other fund-raising gimmicks that HNH presents as such.  Firstly, the question asked was skewed: with only two options, counterposing “campainging” (i.e. something active even if mis-spelt) to the negative phrase “just ignore them”.   There is no option for supporting UKIP in any form, therefore from the outset anti-racist UKIP sympathisers are excluded from participating as themselves.  Second, not only was the stated turnout/response pitifully low (“over 1200”) the results were discounted anyway.  For “67% voted to campaign, while 33% said we should continue to ignore them”[iv], yet apparently HNH are not going to campaign against UKIP, because, according to Lowles, “within the attached comments the position was much more nuanced”, consequently “because of the nuanced comments you made, I don’t believe there is a clear mandate to run a national campaign against UKIP.  However we will monitor them more closely”.  Yet 67% is a clearer mandate than any elected UK government has received this century, or last!  If Lowles had objected on the basis of turnout, fair enough, but this arrogant twerp is objecting ostensibly because of ‘nuances’, thereby discounting the very views he pretended to canvas.  Such disdain for the punters is, as we have shown in NFB 10 (p.64) integral to the HNH model of pseudo-participation.  Supporters don’t control policy, rather they are the object of endless marketing/fund-raising campaigns dressed up as participation: clicktivism.

(3) FALSIFYING HISTORY: UKIP AS PORTRAYED BY HNH

To encourage supporters to see things their way, HNH got erstwhile photographer Joe Mulhall to cobble together a distorted account, verging on the libellous[v].  He refers to leader Nigel Farage MEP having “admitted meeting Dr Mark Deavin (the BNP’s then head of research who had briefly infiltrated UKIP…at the latter’s request, to discuss his defection from UKIP to the BNP”.  Inasmuch as Deavin is described as infiltrator, not ‘defector’, Mulhall seems to imply the defection of Farage himself to the BNP was on the menu: or else he (Mulhall) is an illiterate idiot, the charitable view.  Wonder what Nigel makes of this?  Equally dishonest, UKIP founder Alan Sked (the real subject of the Farage/Deavin meeting) is given an easy ride, described as “alluding to the damaging revelation that a…close ally of his Mark Deavin, was actually a BNP infiltrator”.  This is not the half of it.  Firstly, it was Sked himself who introduced Deavin to the higher ranks of UKIP, without him even being a member.  Secondly, the whole murky business of Deavin’s involvement in UKIP, and the subsequent Cook Report documentary on the BNP/UKIP was one in which Searchlight themselves were intimately involved from start to finish.  While HNH have now split from Searchlight (in a deeply acrimonious dispute fully chronicled in NFB 10) they share both a common past and approach.  As argued in detail in NFB 4 (p.18-23), the Deavin affair, and the attempt to set up Nigel Farage by photographing him with both Deavin and Tony Lecomber of the BNP was orchestrated not so much by the BNP (as some believe)[vi] but by Searchlight (who Lowles worked for) themselves.  Deavin was in UKIP’s orbit before he was involved with the BNP, for instance.  Other fascists Mulhall mentions with past UKIP involvement have a more interesting past than he discloses, such as Trevor Agnew and Matt Single, both featured in NFB as acting in a way entirely consistent with them being in the orbit of both Special Branch and Searchlight[vii].  Is this the standard of research you get for one day a week’s work? Even if it is, Lowles knows Mulhall’s account is poor fiction, yet evidently approves it being on the site.

Aside from rewriting the past, HNH consciously misrepresent the views of UKIP supporters, by exaggerating differences between them and other voters.  To that end, research by Rob Ford of Manchester University is cited, along with that of Matthew Goodwin, to show how extreme/racist/supportive of violence UKIP supporters are.  These self-styled and lavishly-funded ‘anti-extremism’ experts we will deal with another time, suffice to say racist attitudes are very common in society at large—in 2010 the Citizenship Survey found that of 16,200 adults 76% wanted a reduction in immigration[viii].  An even larger YouGov poll for Channel 4 of 32,000 voters in May-June 2009 found that while 76% of UKIP voters saw immigration and asylum as one of the top 3-4 political issues, 58% of Tory voters and 46% of Labour’s wanted a halt to immigration[ix].  The real problem with racism therefore, is much broader than UKIP (or the BNP) and to single out UKIP supporters is misleading, intentionally so.  No more so than when castigating UKIP supporters for being “hostile to multiculturalism more generally”[x].  In a March 2011 Searchlight magazine editorial, Lowles wrote of a David Cameron speech criticising multiculturalism, “by demanding integration, an end to state multiculturalism and an acceptance of a core liberal belief system Cameron is not playing to the far-right gallery, as some have argued, but creating a firewall between the mainstream middle and those totally opposed to immigration”.  Thus, UKIP are not allowed to criticise multiculturalism, but Tories are.  Furthermore, Lowles and co-author Carl Morphett (for some silly reason persisting with the pseudonym Simon Cressy) wrote that “while UKIP is not a far right or fascist party many of its members and supporters hold views little different from those held by the BNP”[xi]. 

(4) HNH’s REAL MOTIVES

Anybody who thinks Lowles an honest broker regarding UKIP clearly does not know his political past regarding Europe.  In 1996 he wrote an infamous document (while working for Searchlight) offering to provide pro-EU propaganda for the European Movement in the struggle against anti-EU forces.  The proposal (which was taken up and is reproduced in NFB issue 5 p.54-55) ends by saying

 “this research will be a unique insight into the anti-European network in Britain.  Utilising sources inside these organisations, the European Movement will be furnished with information not otherwise easily accessible.  The report and the drip flow of information will provide your organisation with invaluable ammunition to add to your cause”. 

Note the charming phrase ‘drip-feed’.  How can anybody think that a venal pro-EU disinformation-peddler like this should be listened to by anybody genuinely concerned about opposing the EU in an anti-racist way?

In case it be argued, utterly implausibly, that Lowles has changed his pro-EU spots, consider two further things.  First, the clique of which he is a part now running Hope Not Hate is largely composed of the pro-EU hard right Labour faction ‘Progress’ (see NFB 10 p.59-60/75), chief among whose patrons is the oleaginous pro-EU Peter Mandelson.  It gets even worse.  In both February 2012 and (we understand) in February 2013 (see NFB 10 p.61-62), HNH have been in receipt of substantial funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, brokered by DCLG ‘Integration Division’ boss Andrew Jordan, and HNH speakers are frequent participants at DCLG-sponsored seminars, along with Matthew Goodwin and various spooks.  In this respect, whereas originally funding was forthcoming to counter the EDL, it now seems legitimate to argue that here we have government funded HNH turning its sights on a political party, UKIP, that is a major problem for their Tory paymasters.  That cannot be right, and is surely questionable legally.

(5) WHAT NEXT?

Hopefully, readers will now understand just why NFB regards HNH’s stance on UKIP with wry amusement, especially this announcement: “following the launch of our consultation last week we have been invited to meet the leadership of UKIP.  We immediately agreed and while we are keen to hear what they have to say we will also be outlining our position and the red lines between what we consider to be acceptable and unacceptable behaviour”[xii].  Just why would anybody of good faith listen to what the likes of Lowles, known Europhiliac and DCLG hireling, might have to say by way of ‘advice’ to the anti-EU movement generally/UKIP in particular?  Rather we suggest:

1. UKIP itself acts against racists in the ranks and expels them.
2. No meeting with HNH, and especially no handing over of membership lists, as Sked did in the past[xiii]
3. Those on the Left/Greens abandon their shameful acquiescence (by & large) in the racket that is the EU, thereby shifting the anti-EU debate Leftwards and linking it to a transformative political strategy.  Unless and until the Left deals with Elephant in the room that is the EU, they will (rightly) remain marginal.
4. Urgent Freedom of Information Act  requests concerning  ongoing HNH funding by DCLG and other government departments, as a prelude to legal action to ensure this is not used for tawdry (pro-coalition) political purposes.  Opponents should not baulk at taking legal action against HNH: they don’t ‘do’ genuine debate.  For example, in the dispute with Searchlight they have threatened legal action/called in lawyers on no less than six occasions (NFB 10 p.73 has details) rather than have genuine public debate over differences.  What is really at stake is taxpayers money being used for proxy campaigning on behalf of the coalition.
5. Further examination of the way political discourse is being polluted by anti-extremism discourse, as bought into by the DCLG/HNH/the Home Office/spooks and various intellectual prostitutes posturing as academics like Ford and Goodwin
6. If there is to be a meeting between Lowles and others in the HNH orbit with anti-EU forces, a clear red line should be drawn, preferably at the top of some stairs, and the whole rotten lot booted out over it into the gutter where they belong.

YET MORE PLOTS AND RUMOURS OF PLOTS: DID MI6 INFILTRATE UKIP?

Introduction

One thing that unquestionably facilitates spook intervention in politics is the studied unwillingness of people on one part of the spectrum to take an interest when perceived opponents are infiltrated.  No more so than suggestions that the Euro-Sceptic movement might be the subject of secret state jiggery-pokery.  This not only ignores the political past–both the Labour Party & the Green Party once favoured withdrawal from the EU–it allows spooks greater maneouvrability in the present. 

 Something that we at NFB definitely think is a bad thing.  We would only ask that those who have no sympathy for UKIP put that aside for a few minutes and look at the issues…

TEBBIT WEIGHS IN

Just before the 2001 General Election, Tory bruiser Norman Tebbit wrote in The Spectator that UKIP had two ex-MI6 agents in the ranks, and by standing in seats against Tory Eurosceptic candidates was perhaps following an MI6 (and New Labour) agenda [132]. His argument had two aspects–the presence of MI6 assets on the one hand, and UKIP electoral strategy on the other.

UKIP did indeed stand against Tory Euro-sceptics who lost their seats, such as Patrick Nicholls. However, standing against those they are politically close to was no new policy–UKIP opposed the Referendum Party in 1997 and prior to that election were distinctly antagonistic [133]. In any event, whatever Tebbit’s own views on the EU, the suspicion is this article was written for (Tory) party motives to some extent at least. Tebbit hardly proved his case as to what M!6 might have been up to in UKIP. He did however, to use his phrase, ‘strike gold’ in one respect-ascertaining there were indeed two ex-MI6 agents inside UKIP. For that, we should all be grateful, as too for putting the question of spooks infiltrating politics on the agenda.

MI6 & PARTY POLITICS—A DEFINITE CASE TO ANSWER

Without question MI6 cultivate assets in political parties. Raymond Fletcher (Labour MP for llkestone 1964-83) was on MI6’s payroll while in parliament. Another former MI6 officer was influential Tory Cranley Onslow MP, later instrumental in recruiting 1970s MI6 provocateurs the Littlejohn brothers. Former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken was so in with MI6 he used this to defend his libel case against The Guardian. The most high profile former MI6 officer is Paddy Ashdown. As Lib Dem Leader his first act was persuade the party to ditch their unilateral nuclear disarmament policy. And who really believes his interest in the former Yugoslavia has nothing to do with Paddy’s MI6 past? Not us. At the very least we can say former MI6 employees entering politics retain links with SIS, which are of use in, and affect, their political life.

THE JONES ALLEGATIONS

Tebbit did not name his source, but others did. It was Chris Jones, sometime Labour Party Press Officer, more recently a UKIP Press Officer. He held this post for a few months before departing in contested circumstances. Jones, contacted by NFB, readily conceded he was Tebbit’s source, but added little, and seemed unenthusiastic about his previous claims. Undeterred, we continued investigating and obtained his two known relevant letters anyway.

First up is Jones’ letter to Jeffrey Titford MEP dated 26/9/00. He raises seven main points, yet none concern MI6 or even party policy. They all impinge on his employment contract and related financial matters, of little help in determining MI6 involvement in UKIP. At that time (and still) Jones had a court case pending relating to his employment. Maybe he was sidelined after discovering an MI6 plot in UKIP–but this letter does not directly support that. Indeed, inasmuch as he says “alarm bells started ringing in my head in my second week in [UKIP] employ”, no allegation concerning MI6 is even implicitly substantiated. A mundane motive for alleging MI6 infiltration (revenge) is however potentially substantiated. Luckily, we already know via Tebbit two were definitely ex-MI6.

A second Jones missive is more helpful, dated 14/1/01. His letter to the ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal’ refers to “my allegation, based on detailed circumstantional {sic) evidence gathered over 5 months that UKIP has been penetrated and is largely controlled by British Intelligence agents”. Unfortunately there is no evidence in this letter, although a request is made to “call upon files on UKIP: myself: Dr R AE North: G Franklyn-Ryan: Nigel Farage MEP: Heather Coyningham a former FCO official; Christopher Skeate also FCO: Tony Stone: Mark Daniel (alias): Janet Girsman and G Lance Watkins”. Given he presumably doesn’t see himself as a spook, maybe others on this list are victims too according to Jones. What caused whittling down 8 names to 2 (when he met Tebbit) is not ascertainable. Perhaps Mr Jones might say more on these matters, and we hope he will. One further point-in our opinion, the last people to go to if concerned about spookery is the Home Secretary or any spook monitoring body. If there is no secret state involvement, it’d be a waste of time. If there is involvement, they wouldn’t admit it but simply cover their tracks.

SIFTING THE EVIDENCE

According to preliminary research the following things are known or claimed about Heather Coyningham & Christopher Skeate, the two ex-MI6 staff. They worked in Latin America together (possibly Peru) and were both in the Referendum Party, the latter as a 1997 candidate. As UKIP Press Officer, Skeate recruited Coyningham to a secretarial role. Fluent in languages. Coyningham now works in Brussels as secretary to both Titford and Farage. No evidence has been found of her factionalising, but it has to be said if she were still operating to an MI6 agenda, this apparently mundane but in reality crucial job is exactly the sort of task she would perform. We have heard that Coyningham played a key part in the recent General Election campaign, and helped change party policy concerning a referendum on EU membership. We do not know this is so, but report it: such a policy dilution is something MI6 would favour.

Skeate has a higher profile. He attended the crucial New Alliance foundation meeting 7/6/97 and in February 1999 lobbied NEC members to prevent suspension of Liz Milton from that body. Also that month, he accused then leader Michael Holmes of being responsible for posting defamatory material concerning himself (Holmes) on the Eurofaq internet newsgroup. Skeate drifted in and out of the various internal conflicts, surfacing at the October 1999 AGM claiming “the NEC had achieved nothing in the last year or so-and attempted to put the blame on Michael Holmes” (according to one critic) [134].  Maybe Skeate’s participation in factionalism was innocent-and after all, a lot less than some. However, if he too were still working to an MI6 agenda, encouraging factionalism at pivotal moments is something one might expect. Early in 2001, Skeate left UKIP, over an undisclosed matter. His internet argument with Holocaust Denial supporter Alistair McConnachie (mentioned earlier) found its way to the Guardian in February 2001. Of course, Skeate probably genuinely opposes anti-semitism, although we doubt pro-Jewish sympathies were encouraged in MI6. After all, his Latin America posting will have included dealings with the Cayman Islands, which play “an integral role in money laundering for several of the Arab intelligence services” [135].

REACTIONS TO TEBBIT

Ordinary UKIP members saw Tebbit as pursuing a Tory agenda: fair comment [136], The Telegraph covered it straight [137]. The Guardian snidely dismissed Tebbit as a ‘conspiracy theorist’—yet Tebbit had incontrovertibly established Skeate and Coyningham were MI6 [138].

Next up was Andrew Pierce inThe Times (24/5), who in 1999 broke the Farage/Lecomber/Deavin photo story. He poured scorn on Tebbit, implying UKIP was the province of MI5 (if anything) not MI6–but why not both? He stated “there have been so many personality clashes within the party they would not have needed any external help to disrupt it”. Like Pierce for example? His was a disingenuous remark, for not only may spooks accentuate personal rivalries (the COINTELPRO model) genuine rivalries are good cover. Obviously speaking of the Jones Memo, Pierce claimed to be “trying to locate” it. We think it unlikely he didnt already have it. He asked of a plot ‘what is the point?’, knowing full well even the tiniest groups get infiltrated, never mind ones with MEPs whose main plank is a foreign policy issue. Pierce then deliberately blurs the Carmichae! (MI5) case with this (MI6) one, attributing such (manufactured) confusion to Tebbit! And so on–all in all, a professional snow job. Clearly, at some time between 1999 and 2001, Pierce’s public line on UKIP has undergone a radical change. Reporting the Tory attempt to bribe UKIP early in 2001 Pierce was respectful of Farage, quoting extensively from his internal UKIP report in a way doing UKIP (as opposed to Tories) no harm [139]. The uncharitable might think Pierce got instructions from above (or below) to enthusiastically rubbish Tebbit’s claims. We couldn’t possibly comment.

Recent coverage in the BNP’s Spearhead says little but is again reminiscent of Dr Deavin, using the name Barry Preston [140]. To date, neither Searchlight nor Francis Wheen have said anything. Maybe the drip feed is clogged up?

During the whole controversy, only one UKIP luminary spoke–Nigel Farage. He said a lot–and said nothing. To The Telegraph he admitted the “party could have been infiltrated by all sorts of people”. Not specifying who. For The Guardian he mused over whether leaks from UKIP had been “the far left, the far right, or the Conservatives, but I just don’t know”. Not spooks then. Strange, considering Tebbit’s Spectator article reported “no shock at UKIP when I told them what I know about the person who had left”. Or perhaps Farage believes an MI6 asset in UKIP would not be infiltration? So what would? On the BBC (23/5/01) Farage rhetorically asked “who is to say whether we were infiltrated by the security services”. Actually, Norman Tebbit. Farage’s most fatuous offering is the last. According to the Daily Express (25/5/01) after questioning Coyningham, Farage said “she thinks these claims are nonsense”. So do any number of people up in court–shouldn’t a party leader properly investigate, as the Express headline ‘Party starts spy probe’ promises? Topping it is this riposte. “Asked whether either had ever worked for MI6, Mr Farage said ‘I haven’t got a clue'”. Does this ridiculous response indicate irresponsible incompetence or something else? Your call. At the very least, former Tory MP John Browne could head up an inquiry. That really would be fun.

FOOTNOTES TO EXTRACT

132) The Spectator 26/5/01
133) see for example UKIP Press Release 28/11/96 & leaflet ‘Why UKIP is not in alliance with the Referendum Party’ (1996)
134) letter in Independence issue 30 October 1999 p.5
135) John Loftus & Mark Aarons ‘The Secret are Against the Jews; (St Martins Press NY) p.394
136) Brian Lee letter to The Spectator 2/6/01
137) Daily Telegraph 24/5/01 (Sarah Womack)
138) The Guardian 24/501 (Nicholas Watt).
139) The Times 2/3/01 (Andrew Pierce).
140) Funny goings-on in UKIP’ Spearhead 92 October 2001 p.18-19

For further reading on the subject and in much the same style:

• Introduction
• UKIP a party to oppose?
• UKIP’s allies in Europe
• UKIP a short history

No they are not racist:

• Baroness Warsi is wrong: UKIP are about as racist as Nelson Mandela
• Ukip are not closet racists – but we’ve had enough

Yes they are racist:

• Ukip shares more with the far right than it admits
• The Latent Support for the Extreme Right in British Politics
• A party of idiots, paranoiacs, whores and vagabonds
• 25 things you didn’t know when you voted for UKIP

A bit of both:

• Are Ukip Supporters Racist?
• Are Ukip Supporters Intolerant? Another Look

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance