General Election 2015

[buctootim]

Such cases will always happen on any public service because you are dealing with vulnerable people whose wider situation is often making them depressed. I used to work in substance misuse and mental heath. People killed themselves regularly, sometimes by big public displays of angst but most often quietly with pills or a needle.

 

Ive always looked after my kids half time and paid for half their needs plus an additional contribution because I earn more than their mother. A couple of years ago unknown to me she quietly asked the CSA to make an order based solely on my earnings - ie the amount she would be entitled to if I hadn't been paying anything. It took them 18 months to do it and they never contacted me except to ask for wages details, which I sent. Out of the blue they demanded £4,900 in 'arrears' which was payable 'immediately'. I disputed the payments but was told that since there was no error in their calculations and the amount I had already paid was 'voluntary' (and btw I was stupid for having an amicable deal with my ex), I owed the money. I appealed and was offered compensation for maladministration but still owed the 'arrears' . I offered to pay the amount off at £200pm (in addition to the new £350pm order). I heard nothing.

 

Two weeks later I was in Sainsburys with the kids whilst their mother was away for her fifth holiday that year and my card bounced. CSA had taken £4,900 in one go. It was a Friday night no money no food and two hungry kids. I had to borrow money from the neighbours. On Monday the CSA told me that it was 'tough' if I had no money to feed the children who interests they were supposedly working in. Only my bank Barclays showed any interest in helping - giving me an overdraft immediately and reversing the payment within two days.

 

If you give staff in benefits systems flexibility about making special cases, because they are human and mostly empathetic, they will - often. Everybody with a sad story, and most are sad, will end up getting 'more'. So instead you have a rules based system with almost no flexibility and you get instances where people are treated disgracefully.

Edited 11 February, 2015 by buctootim

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Such cases will always happen on any public service because you are dealing with vulnerable people whose wider situation is often making them depressed. I used to work in substance misuse and mental heath. People killed themselves regularly, sometimes by big public displays of angst but most often quietly with pills or a needle.

 

Ive always looked after my kids half time and paid for half their needs plus an additional contribution because I earn more than their mother. A couple of years ago unknown to me she quietly asked the CSA to make an order based solely on my earnings - ie the amount she would be entitled to if I hadn't been paying anything. It took them 18 months to do it and they never contacted me except to ask for wages details, which I sent. Out of the blue they demanded £4,900 in 'arrears' which was payable 'immediately'. I disputed the payments but was told that since there was no error in their calculations and the amount I had already paid was 'voluntary' (and btw I was stupid for having an amicable deal with my ex), I owed the money. I appealed and was offered compensation for maladministration but still owed the 'arrears' . I offered to pay the amount off at £200pm (in addition to the new £350pm order). I heard nothing.

 

Two weeks later I was in Sainsburys with the kids whilst their mother was away for her fifth holiday that year and my card bounced. CSA had taken £4,900 in one go. It was a Friday night no money no food and two hungry kids. I had to borrow money from the neighbours. On Monday the CSA told me that it was 'tough' if I had no money to feed the children who interests they were supposedly working in. Only my bank Barclays showed any interest in helping - giving me an overdraft immediately and reversing the payment within two days.

 

If you give staff in benefits systems flexibility about making special cases, because they are human and mostly empathetic, they will - often. Everybody with a sad story, and most are sad, will end up getting 'more'. So instead you have a rules based system with almost no flexibility and you get instances where people are treated disgracefully.

 

What a bunch of dicks.

[Verbal]

Such cases will always happen on any public service because you are dealing with vulnerable people whose wider situation is often making them depressed. I used to work in substance misuse and mental heath. People killed themselves regularly, sometimes by big public displays of angst but most often quietly with pills or a needle.

 

Ive always looked after my kids half time and paid for half their needs plus an additional contribution because I earn more than their mother. A couple of years ago unknown to me she quietly asked the CSA to make an order based solely on my earnings - ie the amount she would be entitled to if I hadn't been paying anything. It took them 18 months to do it and they never contacted me except to ask for wages details, which I sent. Out of the blue they demanded £4,900 in 'arrears' which was payable 'immediately'. I disputed the payments but was told that since there was no error in their calculations and the amount I had already paid was 'voluntary' (and btw I was stupid for having an amicable deal with my ex), I owed the money. I appealed and was offered compensation for maladministration but still owed the 'arrears' . I offered to pay the amount off at £200pm (in addition to the new £350pm order). I heard nothing.

 

Two weeks later I was in Sainsburys with the kids whilst their mother was away for her fifth holiday that year and my card bounced. CSA had taken £4,900 in one go. It was a Friday night no money no food and two hungry kids. I had to borrow money from the neighbours. On Monday the CSA told me that it was 'tough' if I had no money to feed the children who interests they were supposedly working in. Only my bank Barclays showed any interest in helping - giving me an overdraft immediately and reversing the payment within two days.

 

If you give staff in benefits systems flexibility about making special cases, because they are human and mostly empathetic, they will - often. Everybody with a sad story, and most are sad, will end up getting 'more'. So instead you have a rules based system with almost no flexibility and you get instances where people are treated disgracefully.

 

That is truly shocking. The CSA has long been regarded, even by government, as unfit for purpose. Perhaps the DWP thought that meant the CSA should be the working model for job centres.

[pap]

Such cases will always happen on any public service because you are dealing with vulnerable people whose wider situation is often making them depressed. I used to work in substance misuse and mental heath. People killed themselves regularly, sometimes by big public displays of angst but most often quietly with pills or a needle.

 

Ive always looked after my kids half time and paid for half their needs plus an additional contribution because I earn more than their mother. A couple of years ago unknown to me she quietly asked the CSA to make an order based solely on my earnings - ie the amount she would be entitled to if I hadn't been paying anything. It took them 18 months to do it and they never contacted me except to ask for wages details, which I sent. Out of the blue they demanded £4,900 in 'arrears' which was payable 'immediately'. I disputed the payments but was told that since there was no error in their calculations and the amount I had already paid was 'voluntary' (and btw I was stupid for having an amicable deal with my ex), I owed the money. I appealed and was offered compensation for maladministration but still owed the 'arrears' . I offered to pay the amount off at £200pm (in addition to the new £350pm order). I heard nothing.

 

Two weeks later I was in Sainsburys with the kids whilst their mother was away for her fifth holiday that year and my card bounced. CSA had taken £4,900 in one go. It was a Friday night no money no food and two hungry kids. I had to borrow money from the neighbours. On Monday the CSA told me that it was 'tough' if I had no money to feed the children who interests they were supposedly working in. Only my bank Barclays showed any interest in helping - giving me an overdraft immediately and reversing the payment within two days.

 

If you give staff in benefits systems flexibility about making special cases, because they are human and mostly empathetic, they will - often. Everybody with a sad story, and most are sad, will end up getting 'more'. So instead you have a rules based system with almost no flexibility and you get instances where people are treated disgracefully.

 

 

That's shockingly crap, Tim.

 

I am glad I never had to deal with those bastards for very long.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Send help, I think my sides just split

 

https://www.change.org/p/channel-4-apologise-for-the-programme-ukip-the-first-100-days-this-programme-is-an-absolute-digrace-it-is-sheer-slander-funded-by-the-european-union-completely-fabricated?recruiter=87025026&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg

[hypochondriac]

Send help, I think my sides just split

 

https://www.change.org/p/channel-4-apologise-for-the-programme-ukip-the-first-100-days-this-programme-is-an-absolute-digrace-it-is-sheer-slander-funded-by-the-european-union-completely-fabricated?recruiter=87025026&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg

 

It was a ridiculous programme tbf and the timing was interesting though it was well acted.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It was a ridiculous programme tbf and the timing was interesting though it was well acted.

 

Being totally honest, I didn't watch it.

 

I'm just laughing at all the saltiness in the comments. It clearly wasn't meant to be a remotely factual programme. I'd imagine the intention was to be fairly ridiculous.

[hypochondriac]

Being totally honest, I didn't watch it.

 

I'm just laughing at all the saltiness in the comments. It clearly wasn't meant to be a remotely factual programme. I'd imagine the intention was to be fairly ridiculous.

 

The intention was to whip up anger which seems to be channel four's raison d'etre nowadays. I do think it's pretty offensive to do this time of programme just before a general election, regardless of which mainstream political party.

[Stu Man Do]

Let's face it a lot of what UKIP stands for is a joke only fair that a show about them was so laughable as well. Seemed to forget the fact that IF they did get into power a heck of a lot of people would have voted for them, the show seemed to highlight how nearly everyone was against them.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

The intention was to whip up anger which seems to be channel four's raison d'etre nowadays. I do think it's pretty offensive to do this time of programme just before a general election, regardless of which mainstream political party.

 

I agree, though I'd probably go a bit further and say it's always been the goal of C4.

 

It's quite funny now, watching their MEPs call for Ofcom probes into the show. What, with them being against political correctness, faux outrage and being the bastions of free speech that they are.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I agree, though I'd probably go a bit further and say it's always been the goal of C4.

 

Perhaps that's a bit strong, but certainly to cause controversy.

[pap]

It was a ridiculous programme tbf and the timing was interesting though it was well acted.

 

Being totally honest, I didn't watch it.

 

I'm just laughing at all the saltiness in the comments. It clearly wasn't meant to be a remotely factual programme. I'd imagine the intention was to be fairly ridiculous.

 

The program has an agenda, but it's not really doing anything more than asking people to think about the reality of implementation. How exactly would UKIP enforce its immigration strategy, for example? There would be likely some very uncomfortable stuff being done in the name of policy, but then, that's nothing new. We've been hardline on asylum seekers since the days of Blair's government; I've been involved in an asylum appeal myself. The Home Office is not nice as it is.

 

One of the most interesting things about the programme is how much "real life" footage they use in its creation. A lot of existing real life UKIP soundbites are used and depicted as statements from the fictional UKIP government. Undoubtedly a sensationalist take on a potential UKIP government, but still worth a watch if only for a worst case scenario.

[Crazy Diamond]

I've just seen the 'UKIP: The First 100 Days' programme, and I watched it because the number of complaints made me curious. Something tells me that there in lies the problem. It was deliberately inflammatory so as to get complaints and get people talking about it, thereby increasing the number of viewers.

 

I did wonder to myself what would happen should we exit the EU and the part where Airbus pull out of the UK made my blood run a tad colder I must say. I'm Euro-sceptic but not to the extent where I think full withdrawal from the EU is a good idea.

 

Apart from that I thought it was a very badly disguised attack on UKIP and not a lot more, but what should have I expected from a programme that calls itself a 'fictional documentary' - an oxymoron if ever there was such a thing. I'm not a UKIP voter. I never have been and I never will be. I can however understand why people are so ****ed off with it. I don't think any broadcaster other than Channel Four would have even dreamt of it that's for sure.

[Verbal]

I don't think any broadcaster other than Channel Four would have even dreamt of it that's for sure.

 

Which, they would argue, is the point.

[shurlock]

Which, they would argue, is the point.

 

A case of being right for all the wrong reasons.

[Batman]

have a go at this...

 

https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_uk_4t

[bridge too far]

have a go at this...

 

https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_uk_4t

 

I think this link has been posted before but thanks for doing it again. I'm 98% Green according to that!

[whelk]

Interesting resignation from Telegraph journalist.

Always been Tory of course but seemed to have gone downhill lately.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

[buctootim]

Interesting resignation from Telegraph journalist.

Always been Tory of course but seemed to have gone downhill lately.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

 

 

Its been going downhill gently for ages, but seriously for the past three or four years. Sadly all the serious papers face the same problems. The loss of investigative journalism has serious implications for holding politicians and companies to account. It isn't going to be replaced by website portals who just rehash whatever the PR agencies give them.

[Wes Tender]

I've just seen the 'UKIP: The First 100 Days' programme, and I watched it because the number of complaints made me curious. Something tells me that there in lies the problem. It was deliberately inflammatory so as to get complaints and get people talking about it, thereby increasing the number of viewers.

 

I did wonder to myself what would happen should we exit the EU and the part where Airbus pull out of the UK made my blood run a tad colder I must say. I'm Euro-sceptic but not to the extent where I think full withdrawal from the EU is a good idea.

 

Apart from that I thought it was a very badly disguised attack on UKIP and not a lot more, but what should have I expected from a programme that calls itself a 'fictional documentary' - an oxymoron if ever there was such a thing. I'm not a UKIP voter. I never have been and I never will be. I can however understand why people are so ****ed off with it. I don't think any broadcaster other than Channel Four would have even dreamt of it that's for sure.

 

Why would the Airbus project necessarily fall apart if we pull out of the UK? Would that be so that we could instead build the whole aircraft in the UK and then only buy our own product for our airlines? Seems like a good idea to me. But then I suspect that us wanting to leave the EU is just that; to leave the European Union. Originally we joined the Common Market and have never had the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the monster that it has since become. It is in the interests of most of the Countries in the current EU to continue to trade with us and of course there will not evolve a situation whereby they refuse to take our goods, but expect us to continue to take theirs.

 

Should we vote to leave the EU and then express a desire to put in place reciprocal trading agreements with our former partners, I can see other member states' voters starting to agitate for a similar position.

 

Regarding that abomination of a programme by Channel 4, I'm not sure that it won't end up being good publicity for UKIP. OK, so they painted some lurid picture of the unrest that might be caused by the enforcement of their supposed policies, but if they were to achieve a Parliamentary majority in the first place, it is suggestive that either their manifesto met with the approval of a significant proportion of the voters, or that the electorate was considerably p*ssed of with the other parties. What it also illustrated is that somebody on that Channel with a political agenda for one of the other parties has shown that they are all running scared of UKIP if they have to indulge in such underhand tactics in a vain attempt to discredit them.

[bridge too far]

UKIP are even worse than the Liberals for saying one thing and then saying the complete opposite:

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/what-is-ukip-stance-on-tax-dodging.html

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Interesting resignation from Telegraph journalist.

Always been Tory of course but seemed to have gone downhill lately.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

 

Much respect

[CB Fry]

have a go at this...

 

https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=q_uk_4t

88% Labour. 54% Sinn Fein.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Why would the Airbus project necessarily fall apart if we pull out of the UK? Would that be so that we could instead build the whole aircraft in the UK and then only buy our own product for our airlines? Seems like a good idea to me. But then I suspect that us wanting to leave the EU is just that; to leave the European Union. Originally we joined the Common Market and have never had the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the monster that it has since become. It is in the interests of most of the Countries in the current EU to continue to trade with us and of course there will not evolve a situation whereby they refuse to take our goods, but expect us to continue to take theirs.

 

Should we vote to leave the EU and then express a desire to put in place reciprocal trading agreements with our former partners, I can see other member states' voters starting to agitate for a similar position.

 

Regarding that abomination of a programme by Channel 4, I'm not sure that it won't end up being good publicity for UKIP. OK, so they painted some lurid picture of the unrest that might be caused by the enforcement of their supposed policies, but if they were to achieve a Parliamentary majority in the first place, it is suggestive that either their manifesto met with the approval of a significant proportion of the voters, or that the electorate was considerably p*ssed of with the other parties. What it also illustrated is that somebody on that Channel with a political agenda for one of the other parties has shown that they are all running scared of UKIP if they have to indulge in such underhand tactics in a vain attempt to discredit them.

 

[Sour Mash]

Interesting to see that UKIP detractors feel the need to go to the lengths of making up a fantasy drama about the party, rather than just arguing and debating the points at hand or ignoring the party as a whole.

[solentstars]

i did not watch the program and have no intention of watching a satire about a party of unimportant fantasists who live in dreamland,ukip has a party make me laugh out loud more than any program in real life,but at least it gives hope to those who feel disfranchised .

[Wes Tender]

i did not watch the program and have no intention of watching a satire about a party of unimportant fantasists who live in dreamland,ukip has a party make me laugh out loud more than any program in real life,but at least it gives hope to those who feel disfranchised .

 

It wasn't about the Lib Dems.

[saint1977]

Nice to see some examples of people that can make tonnes of cash - fair play to them too - and STILL make their contribution to society (and yes Neocons it DOES and will ALWAYS exist. If you don't believe it, start writing your US Visa out and emigrate)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31517383

 

I'll always support capitalism over socialism but about time there was global action to close the tax havens. British public always has to pick up the tab.

 

Sad to see Telegraph struggling, once a very fine newspaper.

 

State funding for parties will help, Tories won't have to answer to their sponsors, Labour to their funders and the Unions, Lib Dems to their funders and UKIP to Richard Desmond.

[whelk]

How did the Daily Mail editor let this get through?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2959004/Private-health-firms-pocket-18-million-day-s-6billion-year-NHS-budget.html

[KelvinsRightGlove]

How did the Daily Mail editor let this get through?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2959004/Private-health-firms-pocket-18-million-day-s-6billion-year-NHS-budget.html

 

I reckon something awry is happening.

 

You see this one from last week? The comments are amazingly salty

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

[Batman]

Must watched last nights episode of QT. Sturgeon was pretty poor. She is no way as engaging as Salmond.

 

If she is the SNP future. Can see this election being their "peak"

Edited 20 February, 2015 by Batman

[pap]

Must watched last nights episode of QT. Sturgeon was pretty poor. She is no way as engaging as Salmond.

 

If she is the SNP future. Can see this election being their "peak"

 

"Free stuff" is and will continue to be the SNP's future. Free stuff is very popular with voters.

[Verbal]

Interesting to see that UKIP detractors feel the need to go to the lengths of making up a fantasy drama about the party, rather than just arguing and debating the points at hand or ignoring the party as a whole.

 

Who are these 'UKIP detractors' exactly. Name names.

 

It seems to me that Ukippers repeatedly do a number on themselves, which is picked up just as it would be when/if other parties behave stupidly.

 

Anyway, there's more on the racist beating heart of grassroots UKIP on BBC2 this week. 'Meet the Ukippers' features Thanet members' 'jaw-dropping views on race'. The more this is exposed the better - and the cretinous complaints from Ukippers that they're being done up like kippers by the meejah rings hollow when the members (in every sense of the word) themselves are the ones doing the doing up.

[pap]

Who are these 'UKIP detractors' exactly. Name names.

 

It seems to me that Ukippers repeatedly do a number on themselves, which is picked up just as it would be when/if other parties behave stupidly.

 

Anyway, there's more on the racist beating heart of grassroots UKIP on BBC2 this week. 'Meet the Ukippers' features Thanet members' 'jaw-dropping views on race'. The more this is exposed the better - and the cretinous complaints from Ukippers that they're being done up like kippers by the meejah rings hollow when the members (in every sense of the word) themselves are the ones doing the doing up.

Judging from the content of this post, it seems that you fit the profile of a UKIP detractor.

 

You still as keen on naming names?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Who are these 'UKIP detractors' exactly. Name names.

 

It seems to me that Ukippers repeatedly do a number on themselves, which is picked up just as it would be when/if other parties behave stupidly.

 

Anyway, there's more on the racist beating heart of grassroots UKIP on BBC2 this week. 'Meet the Ukippers' features Thanet members' 'jaw-dropping views on race'. The more this is exposed the better - and the cretinous complaints from Ukippers that they're being done up like kippers by the meejah rings hollow when the members (in every sense of the word) themselves are the ones doing the doing up.

 

The strategy of the media is to smear UKIP and their members and not address their arguments. But after all when Nick Clegg tried to take on Farage he was humiliated.

 

Name names he says and then describes another stitch up job on BBC 2

[Lord Duckhunter]

The strategy of the media is to smear UKIP and their members and not address their arguments. But after all when Nick Clegg tried to take on Farage he was humiliated.

 

Name names he says and then describes another stitch up job on BBC 2

 

There was a Ringwood Tory deputy mayor who used the N word during a council debate. Not even reported by the main stream media, can you imagine the fake outrage had it been a ukip councillor .

 

The arguments will never be addressed because they can't be addressed. The establishment can not admit they are powerless in many areas of our lives because to do so would admit they have given areas of our sovereignty away to a foreign body.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

There was a Ringwood Tory deputy mayor who used the N word during a council debate. Not even reported by the main stream media, can you imagine the fake outrage had it been a ukip councillor .

 

The arguments will never be addressed because they can't be addressed. The establishment can not admit they are powerless in many areas of our lives because to do so would admit they have given areas of our sovereignty away to a foreign body.

 

Do we need to go over how it is ridiculous to claim UKIP are not very much part of the establishment, again?

[CB Fry]

There was a Ringwood Tory deputy mayor who used the N word during a council debate. Not even reported by the main stream media, can you imagine the fake outrage had it been a ukip councillor .

 

The arguments will never be addressed because they can't be addressed. The establishment can not admit they are powerless in many areas of our lives because to do so would admit they have given areas of our sovereignty away to a foreign body.

It only got reported in that under the radar on-the-fringes little known small scale media outlet called the Daily Mail.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2892885/Deputy-mayor-racism-storm-comparing-flood-prevention-n-woodpile-council-meeting.html

[buctootim]

"Free stuff" is and will continue to be the SNP's future. Free stuff is very popular with voters.

 

Specially when they dont have to pay for it.

[trousers]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

[goneawol]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

 

Natalie Bennett showing how green she is

[ecuk268]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

 

Along with this, we have ex Tory and Labour Foreign Secretaries selling their services and the hilarious Ukippers programme last Sunday, one is tempted to dismiss the lot of them. Unfortunately, some of them will end up running the country.

[Hatch]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

 

 

painful to listen to

[Wes Tender]

Dubbed as the worst interview ever given by a leader of a political party in this country. If the Greens wish to stand any sort of chance in the General Election, they need to ditch this muppet and get in somebody better at stonewalling the questions they can't answer. So the revenue to pay for the 500,000 new social housing programme would be raised by taking away the tax relief on mortgages of private landlords. It doesn't seem to occur to her that if they were to do this, the knock-on effect would be to lessen the number of private properties for rent, thus increasing the very problem they seek to address.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Nope, no racists in UKIP. Absolutely not, it's just coincidence that a properly awful (verging on terrorist) organisation are brigading Ofcom on their behalf:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/23/far-right-group-orchestrated-email-campaign-over-ukip-drama

[hypochondriac]

Nope, no racists in UKIP. Absolutely not, it's just coincidence that a properly awful (verging on terrorist) organisation are brigading Ofcom on their behalf:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/23/far-right-group-orchestrated-email-campaign-over-ukip-drama

 

Of course there are racists in UKIP, did anyone say there wasn't? It doesn't though mean that the party itself holds racist views or even that the majority in it are racist.

[saint si]

A real conspiracy theorist would point out that Britain First is exactly who UKIP does NOT want to be associated with, and that this association is rather conveniently smearing them in the run up to the general election. Maybe someone with good underground contacts and an open mind should check the dark web or whatever to see who has been funding Britain First...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

88% Labour. 54% Sinn Fein.

 

91% Conservative

81% UKIP

77% Lib Dem

68% Labour

[Batman]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

 

wow

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Oh dear.....

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/natalie-bennetts-car-crash-interview_n_6741572.html

 

My god, she hasn't a clue. At least Russell Brand tries to back up his madcap ideas.