Softly-softly-is-no-way-to-combat-terrorism

The text of my letter published in the Belfast Telegraph on 30 May 2017

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sir Hugh Orde (Article: 25 May) is correct in outlining the difficulties the police and intelligence organisations have in preventing terrorist outrages such as happened in Manchester.

However, his objections to a show off force by the security services, while reasoned, are well off beam.  In his attempt to find a Northern Ireland example he had to go back nearly half a century to the botched clumsy Internment fiasco of the then Devolved Government.

Sir Hugh and many of his colleagues in the higher echelons of the police and security services have failed to grasp that the lack of such shows of force in Northern Ireland have led directly to the woeful situation of division and fear that prevails in Northern Ireland today.  Indeed, it seems at times that there is a common purpose among elements at the top of Government and Security Services to perpetuate the isolation of vulnerable communities from  the rule of law.

As terrorist groups such as the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, and many others sought to carve out territory for themselves and their evil actions Government and security forces adopted a “Hearts and Minds” strategy by holding off by going in hard after terrorists in the hopes they could gain co-operation from the communities in which they operated.  Instead the result was to effectively hand over sections of the Northern Ireland population to the brutality of terrorist control.

Most of the areas effected were social housing areas with high unemployment and low income working families.  While these people needed to see the security forces coming down hard on terrorists they were instead abandoned by our policing and justice system.

Today after 21 years of so called perpetual “Peace Process” these abandoned people still live under the yoke of paramilitary terrorism.   It is swept under the carpet these days with complaints from those affected being put down to bigotry and sectarianism.

We must not let this situation develop more than it has throughout the United Kingdom.  Let us show law abiding Muslim communities that the police will robustly protect them from rule by Islamist terrorists and not allow them to be used as a shield by evil killers who care no more for their fellow Muslims than they do for anybody else.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Advertisements

The voters were asked to return Arlene Foster as First Minister. They did. Now show you deserve their trust, Arlene.

14632963_883832005051958_4824356257944449324_nThe UK is lurching towards a constitutional crisis as more and more of the political elite join with their chums on the more disgraceful side of the legal profession to attempt to block the people’s verdict on Leaving the European Union .  The recent judgement on Parliament needing to approve the triggering of Article 50 has threatened to plunge the United Kingdom into anarchy. This is exacerbated by the apparent ignorance of how the law works by three senior judges.

But matters are made worse by a large section of the political establishment here in Northern Ireland, including, scandalously, many senior so-called “Unionists” who refuse to accept that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom people have voted to leave the EU.  Of course, we have had the usual expensive stage managed court performances, where a lot of lawyers pocketed a lot of tax payers money, to fail to overturn the democratic will.  Now anti-democrat politicians are seeking to jump on the band wagon of the recent judgement in London to yet again strut their blocking stuff before the media.

Northern Ireland has found itself in the absolute centre of the struggle to enact the will of the UK people.  Those who wish ill to the future of Northern Ireland and hate everything to do with the United Kingdom are throwing everything they can think of in front of the march to BREXIT.  Their chief weapon is to throw up uncertainty over the future of the UK/Ireland land frontier which will become a UK/EU border in a short time.  This, they say, is unprecedented and insurmountable.  They, of course, ignore the Common Travel Area which was established between Guernsey, Jersey,  Ireland (then the Irish Free State), The Isle of Man and the United Kingdom in 1923 and has survived to this day despite 42 years of EEC/EU rule. Most of you will quickly have noticed that of those five states listed above three are not and never have been members of the European Union. Yet citizens of all five may freely move and trade without passports throughout the Common Travel Area.

What makes things worse is that our First Minister, Arlene Foster, the DUP Leader, claims to be firmly in favour of BREXIT. Indeed quite a few DUP members campaigned vigorously for a LEAVE vote last June.
But the DUP Assembly Party are now chained firmly into a mandatory coalition with Sinn Fein, the chief protagonists of UK Baiting and BREXIT blocking.

Last May’s Stormont Assembly elections saw the DUP having a sweeping victory which owed much of its success to the twin campaigns of “Help Arlene stay as First Minister” and “Don’t let Martin McGuinness[Sinn Fein] become First Minister.” It worked brilliantly and we in UKIP were unable to put up a good counter to it at the time. However, there was a fatal flaw in the reasoning behind this campaign. Because of the highly flawed and continuously tinkered with “Good” Friday Agreement of 1998 the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the mandatory coalition are in reality Joint First Ministers.

Sinn Fein are much better at playing the Mandatory Coalition Game than the rather naive DUP Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. So, in effect, First Minister Arlene Foster, has to metaphorically carry the Deputy First Minister around on her shoulders at all times and, in the interests of the Executive and thus the Assembly not collapsing, must tow this great handicap with her in all BREXIT negotiations.

The time has come for our First Minister to decide which is the lesser of two evils. Does she jeopardise the whole future of the United Kingdom as a free country by allowing Martin McGuinness to drag anchor against the will of the British people or does she risk Sinn Fein collapsing the Assembly and Devolved Government in Northern Ireland.

I know which I’d chose. But is it a risk at all. I consider Sinn Fein to be too entrenched in the Assembly Gravy Train to want to jeopardise their cosy power base. But nevertheless they must be called out on it.

SO, COME ON ARLENE. CALL THEIR BLUFF. TELL SINN FEIN IT’S BREXIT OR EXIT.

I suggest that at the the earliest opportunity our First Minister summons her Deputy and says, “OK, Martin, you decide. Are you going to toe the line and recognise that ALL of the UK is on its way out of the EU? Because, if not, Martin, the DUP will walk away and this cosy little Executive arrangement will be over.

Prove you are a true Unionist, Arlene. Prove you are for the United Kingdom and not just for power in a glorified county council.

UKIP NEC: Reform: Renew; Re-Energise.

14632963_883832005051958_4824356257944449324_nWhy am I standing for election to the UKIP’s NEC (National Executive Committee)? It’s a question I sometimes ask myself.

I have been a member of UKIP for 10 years and over that time I have noticed gradual but steady changes in the way the party operates. The UKIP I joined was still, on the surface at least, a libertarian party fiercely defending the principles of free speech. What slowly became apparent to me was there was reluctance on the part of party professionals to encourage those principles within the party membership and structures.

This was at a time when social media was becoming a major weapon in the hands of any political or campaigning group which recognised its potential and UKIP members quickly seized on this means to put their message across to much wider groups than could ever have been contemplated before. The use of social media was never a substitute for the tried and tested methods of contesting elections, especially door to door canvassing, but it was an extremely powerful means by which UKIP could expand its reach to ever more potential members and voters.

Sometime later an official Party Forum was set up on line as a place where only members could discuss issues of the day and, especially, argue out UKIP policy in a relatively secure electronic environment. This Forum did not last long. A comment made on it by a party member got picked up by the press and media and became a brief anti-UKIP story. What was done about this? Instead of dealing with one or two individuals the whole of the Forum was taken down and a valuable channel for membership input was removed.

This was partly due the paranoia that some senior party officers seemed to hold about members getting off the leash and causing the establishment press and media to say unpleasant things about UKIP.  It also marked the beginning of a new culture within sections of the party to isolate the rank and file membership of UKIP from the daily activities of the party.

The party officers responsible seemed not to realise that most of the publicity they were trying to avoid, while it might not have gone down well in establishment political circles, was just the thing that UKIP needed to raise its profile among voters and show hard working people, who felt abandoned by our political system, that there was a party which shared their concerns. The closing down of the Forum was a precursor to an unprecedented attack on the use of social media by members. Homily after homily was issued by our wise elders on how much damage free ranging use of social media would do to the party.

I think the worst example I witnessed of this attitude was in a speech made by a high profile new member of the party (soon to be elected an MEP) at the 2014 Spring Conference in Torquay. Party members present were told (I am quoting these figures from memory) that the Party Leader was responsible for 90% of UKIP’s support, the Deputy Leader for 5% and the ordinary members only about 5% if they behaved themselves. I don’t intend to belittle the fantastic invaluable contribution that both those two people were and have been making to the party and the country. I firmly believe that were it not for Nigel and Paul working with the whole membership of UKIP the UK would by now have been consolidated in its colony status within the European Union. However, back in 2014, the speaker went on to castigate the members about the potential liability they could probably be and how they could destroy the party by their free speech I became seriously concerned.

Party officers’ attacks on the use of social media use by members have since continued unabated and increasingly draconian directives on how to behave has been issued to members in general. Indeed, at the September 2016 Bournemouth Conference, in spite of the election of a new Leader who was very much in favour of maximising the benefits of social media use by members, the perceived disadvantages were still trumpeted from the platform.

Thankfully, during the 2014, 2015 and 2016 elections and during the EU Referendum Campaign most members and candidates ignored the supposed party line on social media. But we need the whole party to be moving forward like this and not have permanent braking from the professional party, an increasingly opaque NEC (of which more below) and, I regret, some of our MEPs.
Getting back to the closing down of the Members’ Forum; one of the regular features was the publication of the minutes of the monthly NEC meetings. I can’t remember but they were probably published one month behind after the NEC representatives had approved them at the next meeting. This gave members an insight into the work being done by the people they had elected to NEC. Once the Forum was closed those minutes were no longer available to members.

Things have gone downhill since then. Party members elect representatives to the NEC on a rotating annual basis. These representatives are now apparently prevented, by what mechanism I don’t know, from revealing what goes on inside Fortress NEC. Further, UKIP members are not allowed to know who, on the NEC, voted for or against any motion or rule change. In fact ever decreasing amounts of information seem to leak through to members these days. Those bits and pieces of information that do get handed down are often in the form of prohibitions.

Recent high profile events have been accompanied by email leaks and counter email leaks from the NEC or, more recently, statements, counter statements and “there was nobody there” statements from MEPs.

This, of course, opens the whole operation of the party to rumour and counter rumour and gives free reign to damaging feuds provoked by those who want to see the party become a hierarchical centre party, keeping its members well “on-message” and fitting well into the Westminster Political Bubble. This is no way to run a radical libertarian party which so many hard working voters look to as defenders of their legitimate interests.

So it is time for major, radical REFORM of the internal structures of our party:

The NEC must return to being proper representation for members’ views and input.

The Party Chairman, answerable to the Party Leader, presently chairs the NEC. This promotes an immediate conflict of interests and, more importantly, puts a barrier between the NEC and the Leadership.

It is essential that the NEC elects, on an annual basis, its own chairman from those elected to it by the membership.
The party’s professional officers tend to act as a filter between the NEC and the Party Leader and it is natural that they feel the need to present the NEC’s findings to the Leader is a smoothed out form. This reduces the effectiveness of the NEC and its rôle as a bridge between Leader and members.

It is vital that the NEC should report directly to the Leader and Deputy Leader, if the latter post still exists, without having its deliberations filtered by a Party Chairman.

It is indefensible that NEC representatives are gagged from communicating with the members who elect them. The minutes of the monthly meetings of the NEC must be made available to members as soon as they have been agreed by the following meeting.

It must be made easier for members to replace an under-performing NEC. With only a third of elected posts on the Committee being contested each year change cannot be made at all rapidly. However, some continuity is desirable.

I propose that elections to the NEC are for 2 years rather than 3 as at present. This would require half of the members to step down every year and make the Committee less cut off from members’ concerns.

I do not wish the National Executive Committee to be reduced to a Regional squabble box.

Therefore, I wish to see the preservation of the present arrangement where NEC representatives are elected by the National rather than regional membership.

Regional interests should be represented on the Regional Organisers’ and Regional Chairmen’s meetings (RORC). These meetings should be the arena where regional squabbling (not necessarily an unhealthy activity) should take place. The remit of these latter meetings should be strengthened if necessary. There should be close (meaning direct) liaison between the NEC and RORC with their signed off minutes being mutually shared.
The rôles played by the NEC and the professional officers of the party in matters such as discipline, candidate selection, electoral rankings and vetting procedures need urgent review. I am not going to make suggestions now as I need to study the workings of the committee as an elected member (if members decide to elect me) before forming a final opinion.

Finally, as a party that presses for proportional representation in local and national elections it is unfortunate that our internal elections are still conducted by the old fashioned “first past the post system.” A member may want to vote for a promising new candidate but may be concerned that by doing so she could allow a candidate whose views she holds unsuitable to overtake a safer candidate. This can result in bland not very innovative candidates being elected at the expense of innovative risk takers.

I am therefore floating the idea that all internal elections which have the whole of the National membership as electors should be conducted by single transferable vote(STV).

Under STV it is easier to support new candidates with a fall back to other choices if your first preference fails to make it. STV is much closer to true proportional representation than the alternative vote system used in many devolved elections in Great Britain. STV maintains the constituency link. STV allows the voter to vote for the person rather than the party. I’ve fought elections under the STV system and, apart from very long counts (let the party officers earn their money), it’s a simple efficient way to vote.

So I, Alan Love, am asking for your vote in the 2016 UKIP NEC Elections. I and candidates such as Ryan Waters, Victoria Ayling, Anish Patel and Michael McGough will be seeking to bring radical reform to the internal structures of our party and help bring our membership back into the heart of decision making in our party.

Reform, Renew and Re-energise

Let’s take our UKIP back!

Bad Press Day

Roger Helmer MEP gives an interesting response to Amjad Bashir’s defection from UKIP to the Conservatives.

Roger Helmer MEP

image001

Looking at the Sunday papers on January 25th (Burns Night — and also Greek Election Day), I decided it wasn’t perhaps the best news day for UKIP.  The defection of Amjad Bashir to the Tories a few months ahead of a General Election was not what we wanted to read.  He has also been suspended by UKIP, in a move which the Tories are describing as “damage limitation” and “a smear”.  Some are suggesting that the questions around Amjad’s conduct were cobbled together at the last moment to mitigate the negative publicity around his defection.

I know for a fact that these questions have been looming for months.  In the early days, of course, we did our best to rally round and give Amjad the benefit of the doubt – as any party would.  But recently the questions have been getting more insistent, and the answers more elusive.  I…

View original post 707 more words

UKIP’s Annual Conference at Doncaster: Well worth the journey.

Helen and I have just returned from a week in Great Britain which took in the UKIP Conference in Doncaster on 25, 26 and 27 September. I’ve been to several party conferences, both in my earlier incarnation as a Conservative and latterly as a UKIP member. But I can safely say that Doncaster 2014 stands out as the conference with the most substance, enthusiasm and atmosphere.

Friday was the first day of the Conference proper and was devoted to presenting the outlines of UKIP’s policies for next May’s General Election. In all more than 20 speakers addressed the conference that day.

Highlights for me were Jane Collins MEP (Employment) and Amjad Bashir MEP (Communities) both of whom eloquently expressed the huge anger felt about the appalling misuse of children in Rotherham and elsewhere. As Amjad said, “Societies can be diverse but must be lucid.”

Other points which caught my interest on Friday were commitments to adopt the Australian Points System for Immigration (Steven Woolfe MEP), an armed forces Veterans’ Service Card which would fast track veterans to mental care at any stage of their lives (Mike Hookem MEP) and Louise Bours MEP making a commitment to reinstate the rôle of State Enrolled Nurse to the NHS (Something our devolved Northern Ireland NHS badly needs).
Paul Nuttall MEP (Deputy Leader) gave an excellent presentation on UKIP’s education policy on Friday afternoon and Douglas Carswell PPC Clacton (recently a Conservative MP) and John Bickley PPC Heywood and Middleton both updated us on the progress of their by-election campaigns. Both Conservatives and Labour are under severe threat from UKIP at these by-elections.
The highlight of the day was a roof raising speech by Party Leader Nigel Farage who emphasised Patrick O’Flynn’s earlier commitment to raise tax thresholds above the minimum wage helping to make working a better prospect than being on benefits.
Saturday’s proceedings started with speeches by David Coburn MEP (Scotland), Nathan Gill MEP (Wales) and David McNarry MEP (Northern Ireland). David gave a rousing speech in which he put UKIP in Northern Ireland firmly at the heart of United Kingdom politics. Emphasising that UKIP was the only party to have elected representatives in all four nations of the United Kingdom he pointed out that, in the recent election, there was no sign of Cameron, Miliband or Clegg in Northern Ireland but Nigel Farage made sure he included it in his itinerary. His speech was enthusiastically received by conference delegates.

Also on Saturday, I was pleased to hear Roger Helmer MEP (Energy) committing UKIP to fighting to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act and the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. I was equally pleased by how popular these commitments were with the delegates.

Few of us realised how the afternoon was going to develop. Nigel Farage was billed to speak again and ran through some polling data in various constituencies showing how UKIP had surged ahead since 2010. UKIP will be a force to be reckoned with in the next Parliament. Nigel then introduced us to a new speaker who turned out to be Mark Reckless MP (Conservative). Mark Reckless then addressed the conference and it literally took him several minutes to say, “…I’m leaving the Conservative Party and joining UKIP,” such was the volume of cheering and clapping as delighted delegates roared their approval. Mark followed with a rousing speech, interrupted frequently by standing ovations, in which he praised the values of UKIP and announced he was resigning his seat and standing for UKIP in the subsequent by-election.
All in all it was a memorable conference and Helen and I, along with other members from Northern Ireland were thoroughly enthused for the battles ahead to bring UKIP into or national and devolved governments. I thoroughly recommend attending UKIP conferences. They are exhausting but exhilarating.

Just a footnote.  The much vaunted “Stop UKIP” demonstration timed, to drown out Nigel Farage’s speech on Saturday, was pathetic.  I walked past them and the handful of people there couldn’t even raise a decent chant.   One young chap who had just purchased a carry out from the small business up the road told us to go back to our small businesses.

Durkan’s Anti-fracking Stance Threatens Northern Ireland’s Economy.

 

On 11 August, Northern Environment Minister, Mark H Durkan, MLA, of the SDLP faction within the Stormont Coalition, refused to grant planning permission for Tamboran Resources to drill an exploratory 750m borehole near Belcoo, Co Fermanagh. The proposed borehole was to use conventional technology,. The fact that the site has underlying fractured shale formation does suggest that future extraction of natural gas by fracking is being considered.

Mr Durkan justified his blocking of even this exploratory borehole by saying:

“In arriving at this decision I believe I must proceed on the basis oof a precautionary principle.

” This principle establishes that a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information …….”

The “precautionary principle” is, thankfully, a fairly modern approach to assessing risk and hopefully will be a passing fad.  If it had been applied since the eighteenth century man would still be limited to a maximum travelling speed of that of a galloping horse.  Surgeons would still be carrying out operations without anaesthetic.  We wouldn’t be producing remotely enough food to feed ourselves.  As for mankind being in the early stages of expanding human activities into space, forget it.

The proper way to assess risk is to identify the potential severity of hazards associated with an activity together with the likelyhoods of suffering consequences from these hazards.  The product of these two is the risk.  For example, if someone was plugging a new TV set, bought from a reputable outlet, into the household mains supply, the severe hazard of death by electrocution exists but the likelihood of this occurring is negligible. Therefore the risk is tiny but under “Precautionary Principle” TV sets and household electricity supply would be prohibited.

Mr Durkan’s precaution probably stems from “green” organisations whipping up uninformed hysteria about the he “risks” of fracking.  While the ordinary members of these organisations are, for the most part, sincere if misguided, it seems to be in the interests of their leadership to have a frightened cowed population.

So let’s look at the risks allegedly associated with fracking.  As most people are aware, fracking involves drilling down from the surface to the fractured shale band, deep below.  The drilling then proceeds roughly  horizontally into the shale, lining and sealing of the borehole completed and a mixture of sand, water and chemicals pumped down into the shale.  As this mixture is forced into fractures in the shale the sand particles effectively hold them open allowing natural gases trapped in the shale to rise to the surface of the borehole and be collected.

A much quoted hazard is contamination of groundwater.  Since the shale layer is usually very much deeper than the water table, contamination, if it occurred, would almost inevitably be from activities on the surface.  Boreholes of this type must be sealed from the surface above the water table.  The pipe work runs down inside the original bore and at the appropriate point a seal of cement, bentonite or other material is set round the pipe bridging to the sides of the bore.  This is not unique to fracking arrangements.  Water extraction boreholes, environmental ground water monitoring boreholes and many more use this method of sealing.  Contamination of water in the aquifer may occur if the seal is badly constructed or subsequently damaged.  This could permit spillages of contaminants on the surface to lead to ground water pollution  via the broken seal.  However, the risk is small on modern installations and is not specific to fracking operations.

There is disputed evidence that fracking operations may cause earthquakes.  This is possible but the tremors that may occur are usually 1.5 on the Richter Scale or less. Since the Richter Scale is logarithmic, even if an earthquake of 2.0 occurred it would be 1,000 less energetic than a 5.0 earthquake which occur almost daily somewhere in the world.   The earthquake that caused the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 was 10 million times more powerful than a Richter Scale 2.0 earthquake.  In reality, the risk from earthquakes associated with fracking is substantially less than mining subsidence earthquakes which still occur from time to time in Great Britain.  People who work in the Central Belfast, which is built on reclaimed land, often experience minor earth tremors as heavy lorries pass along the street setting up ripples in the underlying sleech.

The third risk often attributed to fracking operations is the indirect one of adverse climate change – “green” code for “global warming.”  The usual argument is that when gas extracted by fracking operations is burned it produces carbon dioxide (quite true) which then absorbs emitted long wave radiation from the earth’s surface and returns part of this radiation to cause global temperatures to rise (true to a negligible extent but mainly nonsense).  For this reason, inefficient wind turbines, requiring gas burning power stations as backup when the wind blows too slowly or too fast, are advocated over straight gas burning power generation which, if the gas is extracted by fracking, would have a much smaller environmental footprint.  Wake up, Mr Durkan.

Carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation in the 13-16 micron waveband.  This accounts for approximately 3% of long wave emissions from the surface of the planet and raises the mean temperature of the troposphere  by approximately 1°C above what it would have been if carbon dioxide was not present.  The oft-quoted increase of 33°C is the difference between the mean surface temperature of a similarly sized planet without atmosphere or oceans and the Earth as it is.  Most (32°C) of that difference is accounted for by evaporation, conduction and other processes. Since nearly all of the 13-16 micron waveband radiation is being absorbed at present by carbon dioxide even a doubling of the concentration would have a negligible effect.  There is no need to try to regulate carbon dioxide concentration.

Fracking operations require very little land and operate almost invisibly once commissioned.  Wind farms, whether on or off shore, blight the visual landscape and seascape and will not meet any energy needs.

Probably one of the best renewable energy sources to tap is that of biogas where readily available biological waste products, which otherwise have disposal problems, from agriculture and food products can be converted to fuel gas to generate electricity in small plants for transfer to the grid.  Such biogas plants usually involve nothing more than a couple of unobtrusive buildings usually in rural areas.

The continuous blocking of economic development by the Stormont Coalition Executive must stop.