Enough is enough – we must stop treating drivers as cash cows

UKIP North DownBritain’s road policing chief today declared that ‘enough is enough’ as he urged a zero-tolerance policy on speeding motorists. 

But UKIP’s transport spokesman Jill Seymour responded by saying that ‘enough is enough’ regarding the constant victimisation of road users, and determination to use them as revenue-raising cash cows.

Motorists can currently exceed the speed limit by 10% before being at risk of speeding fines, but Anthony Bangham, chief constable of West Mercia Police, called for this flexibility to be scrapped.

And since he is the road policing lead for the National Police Chiefs Council, other forces are expected to take his comments seriously.

Mrs Seymour – a West Midlands MEP who is based in Mr Bangham’s West Mercia area – said: “I’m not for one moment advocating that drivers ignore the legal speed limits on our roads.

“But there is a perfectly practical and accepted reason for this 10% margin – it’s hard to read many non-digital speedometers to the nearest 1mph, and can sometimes be slightly inaccurate anyway.

“Anyone who uses a satnav on a regular basis will see that it often shows a different speed to the dial on the dashboard. Which one do you believe?”

She added: “On the new ‘smart motorways’ which are being questionably introduced at great expense, speed limits can be changed at the whim of an officer in a control centre, every few hundred yards.

“If Mr Bangham has his way, motorway drivers could spend more time looking nervously up at gantries than on the road ahead, and that raises all manner of worrying safety issues.

“Once again, the driver is being treated as a cash cow. I would urge our police chiefs to put more emphasis instead on catching the real highway criminals – those who  are driving with no tax and insurance, or using their mobile phones at the wheel.”

But Mrs Seymour did agree with Mr Bangham on one issue – that it’s time to clamp down on the use of speed awareness courses as an alternative to penalty points.

She said: “There are a lot of people whose pockets are being nicely lined by the operation of these courses. That’s the real reason we are seeing more and more of these so-called ‘safety camera’ vans on our roads.

“Drivers on a speed awareness course still have to pay almost the same price as they would to have three points on their licence and a fine, and there is no evidence that the introduction of these courses has made life on our roads any safer.

“In fact, if the Chief Constable is now calling for this 10% tolerance buffer to be scrapped, I can only conclude that he feels they simply don’t work.”

£££ Says they will

UKIP North DownDespite even the most recent Republican slap in the face of Unionism in the form of the McElduff Kingsmill video; the establishment Unionists of the DUP appear to remain wedded to the notion of sharing power with the butchers of our people.

No matter the provocation; it would seem that the DUP above all else, are committed to clinging to the earning power of Stormont. The lure of ministerial salaries, cars and  the trappings of office seem to be their primary focus.

This week their Spokesmen have described meetings with the new Secretary of State, Karen Bradley MP as ‘productive’ but declare they need more than useful meetings – rather an outcome.

Stormont in the current mandatory coalition model has long since passed its sell-by date. The forced, stop-start coalition of chaos model was always a flawed concept and so it has proven to be in practice:  Delivering deadlock, delay and division.  If there is ever to be a devolved system of government here again, the system needs total reform and the people should have a say in that beforehand.

That leaves the lingering question; is the outcome sought by the DUP solely the pursuit of power at all costs? Are they content with the status quo of a flawed system: Jump-starting and pushing this antiquated project along the tracks to continue lining their own pockets?

Or have they a new transparent, voluntary system of government in mind; a reform agenda to provide effective Government for all the people of Northern Ireland? I suspect the answer lies in the former.

Top Architect suggests Scotland – Northern Ireland Bridge

UKIP North DownIn the wake of the proposed Boris Bridge across the English Channel a top architect has suggested that a bridge joining Scotland and Northern Ireland is feasible.  Moreover Prof Alan Dunlop thinks such a bridge would cost about £15bn, considerably less than the estimate of £120bn for the English Channel bridge.

The professor also suggested the economies of both Northern Ireland and Scotland would benefit from such an enterprise particularly Post Brexit. Additionally the project would further cement the connections between the two Nations which have historically been close sharing history and ideals.

The idea is not without challenges. Prof Dunlop suggests linking Bangor or Larne to Portpatrick which would have geological challenges, but the shorter route from the Antrim Coast to Campbletown would have infrastructure issues on the Scotland side.

In any case the proposal is to be welcomed and would not be unique. The Hangzhou Bay Bridge in the eastern coastal region of China is 22 miles long proving such a venture is possible.

Gerard Batten MEP – What is UKIP’s future?

UKIP North DownWhen UKIP was founded over twenty-four years ago, the people in the room did so with two main objectives: to make UKIP a force in national politics, and to bring about the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. The second was dependent on the first.  Following the General Election in 2015 we had certainly succeeded in the first objective, and by 23rd June 2016 it looked as though were close to succeeding in the second.

Nineteen months after the Referendum, UKIP has managed the political equivalent of repeatedly shooting itself in the foot with a pump action shotgun. Brexit is actually no closer than it was on 24thJune 2016, and indeed genuine exit from the EU is uncertain to say the least.

Regarding my first point, I have never underestimated the practical difficulties that we have faced. I never unduly criticised the Party or its officers concerning the genuine mistakes and shortcomings that have occurred. We all make mistakes, and over the years I have held my peace on many occasions for the good of the Party and our cause.

However, someone has to say it: some of the decisions made in the last few years and months can only be accounted for by either total incompetence or sabotage. Three recent examples being:

  1. Deliberately preventing candidates being selected in time to prepare for the 2017 General Election.
  2. Changing our long-established pound logo.
  3. Allowing us to be become liable in legal actions that could yet financially ruin the Party. Some of the officers responsible for those decisions are still in place or still exerting influence.

Despite all this (and more) UKIP did indeed become a force in national politics, so much so that we were able to force David Cameron to promise and hold the referendum. It was UKIP that brought about the referendum and UKIP activists’ boots on the ground that won it. It was not just the leadership of Nigel Farage that achieved and won the referendum, but also the incalculable time, effort and money of our activists and members. Those dedicated people have been let down – to say the least.

As I predicted in my book The Road to Freedom (2014) if a referendum were held, if the Leave side won, and if the government chose to leave using Article 50, then we would see a relentless campaign by the Remain side to delay and impede our exit in the hope of eventually overturning the result. This is precisely what has happened since 24th June 2016.

Many of our members, supporters and voters believed, quite wrongly, that we had achieved our reason for existing by the mere fact of winning the referendum, and they drifted away. However, it is now becoming clear to all that Brexit is in danger of not happening, and that a strong UKIP is needed more than ever.

Can UKIP salvage itself, and does it have a future? Our country certainly needs a political party that stands up for the ordinary working person and small business owner. It has been my conviction from UKIP’s beginning that our natural constituency is the patriotic working class. Those people (mostly, but not exclusively) were the people who voted leave in the referendum.

UKIP’s survival is about giving those people a voice. UKIP does not deserve to survive for its own sake but because those people are not represented by the old political parties.

I believe that to rejuvenate itself UKIP needs to continue doing certain things and to do some new things

  1. To say thank-you and goodbye to those senior officers who have caused so many of the difficulties we currently face.
  2. To reorganise our Party structure so that the National Executive Committee is not elected on the basis of two-hundred words and a flattering photograph. One idea is for regionally elected activists whose job is to recruit new members, raise funds, and organise elections, and who will be judged on results.
  3. To continue (as we have done since Paul Nuttall’s leadership) to promote a complete and unencumbered exit from the European Union. No Article 50, no more billions paid to EU, no transition periods and continued open borders. Brexit must mean Exit!
  4. To ditch the new ‘Lenny the Lion’ logo. Why would an organisation change its brand that has taken so many years to establish? Why confuse our voters at the ballot box? Incompetence or sabotage?
  5. To continue to argue the case for a strictly controlled and limited immigration system. We must have a commitment to end the age of mass uncontrolled immigration once and for all. We also need policies for housing, benefits, and the NHS that put our own citizens first.
  6. To promote economic policies that make ordinary working people feel that the economy works for them, not against them by reducing their livings standards in the interests of enriching a global elite. We need policies to address a reindustrialisation of Britain providing jobs for ordinary working people.
  7. To face up to the threat posed to our way of life by radical Islam. This means a policy of no more mass immigration from Islamic countries and policies to neutralise the influence of Islam; e.g. no more overseas funding of mosques and imams from overseas.
  8. To speak up against political correctness and cultural Marxism that are undermining all sense and sensibility in public life. We need a dedicated spokesperson on this subject.
  9. To increase our membership by adopting policies appealing to those who feel disenfranchised and unrepresented by our current political establishment; for example the police, the military, the prison service, the ordinary law-abiding tax-payer, small business owners, and the victims of crime.
  10. We need to use social media to recruit new members and spread our messages. I am the first to admit I know very little about how to do that but we need people who do.

Some of these things we are already doing but we need to do them all – and more. We cannot hope to beat the political establishment at its own game, or expect the politically correct left-wing media to promote us. If we bend to accommodate them, we will be irrelevant.

One thing we could do to appeal to a wider audience is to change the name of our magazine to ‘UKIPPlain Truth’.  If the British people need one thing, it is that. Our magazine needs more political and policy content to attract a wider audience.

The essential issue is not just the survival of UKIP, but also the survival of the UK itself.  Our country is in danger of not leaving the European Union at all; of selling its soul to the interests of global corporations; and of submitting our civilisation to what Winston Churchill called ‘the most regressive force in the world’, namely Islam.

UKIP came into being out of necessity: it filled a political vacuum. It was needed in 1993 and it is needed now. The question is can we reform ourselves to deserve to survive and serve our country?

No Second Referendum

Henry Bolton has reiterated his and his party’s opposition to a second referendum, “UKIP policy on a second referendum remains unchanged. The party opposes a second referendum.”

“I am convinced that the Leave side would win a second referendum, should one be held, with an even larger majority than before. Many remain voters can now see that the campaign led by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor as deliberately misleading. We have also seen greater investment and growth in a number of sectors since the summer of 2016. We are already seeing the benefits of leaving the European Union.

“None the less, to hold such a referendum would be to call into question the decisive importance of the largest democratic exercise ever held by this country and the unambiguous mandate the people gave the government on that day – the mandate take us out of the European Union. Such a second referendum would set a precedent for revisiting any democratic decision made in future; it would undermine the fabric of our democratic principles and would weaken the clarity and effectiveness of democratic decision.

“A second referendum would be damaging to the nation.”

Gerard Batten MEP, UKIP’s Brexit spokesman said, “We had a clear result in the referendum, everybody knew what they were voting for and the Government made it plain that it was a once and for all decision that would be implemented.

“The government needs to get on with the long overdue job of getting us out of the European Union without further delay”

UKIP Continue Campaign for Longer Jail Terrm

The release of a violent sex offender, known as London’s Black Cab Rapist, after serving just eight years in prison, has been condemned by UKIP’s new Shadow Cabinet Member for Home Affairs.

Richard Bingley, a security expert who has campaigned to scrap early release schemes for violent offenders, said:

“The release back into the community of this debased and dangerous individual is an indictment of our ineffective Crown Prosecution Service and this government’s continued cuts to police investigators.

“Moreover, the fact that his many victims were not informed prior to his release, is potentially itself a breach of law. There is a duty to warn and a duty to protect by public authorities and I’m sure victims’ and their lawyers will be looking at this.

“There can be no excuses within the CPS. It doesn’t matter how under-resourced staff and managers are. Those responsible for this appalling lack of judgement should be sacked.”

Mr Bingley added:

“This serial rapist was sentenced to an indefinite sentence only back in 2009. Yet he was convicted by a jury for several rapes and police detectives have linked him to several dozen more. The ‘indefinite’ sentencing tariff needs changing. Too often it’s used to get violent offenders out of secure units and back onto the streets.”

“Time and again, Labour and Conservative MPs and pretend to be surprised when awful crimes are committed by repeat offenders. But they are the MPs who do nothing over decades about these absurdly soft and hazardous laws.

“In the interests of public safety a basic jail sentence of 30 years should be the bare minimum for such a disgusting and dangerous individual. Instead, the human rights of a rapist are put before those of vulnerable women in Theresa May’s delusional ‘strong and stable’ Conservative Party.”