Labour announce new policy on EU for Stoke by-election

Snell begins Stoke campaign with Hope not Hate funding scandal

.

Snell begins campaign with funding scandal

Gareth Snell, Labour’s PPC for the Stoke-on-Trent Central seat vacated by Tristram Hunt, is set to begin his campaign facing questions about election expenses after it was revealed a leaflet attacking UKIP candidate Paul Nuttall was funded by an organisation run by a close colleague and fellow Labour councillor.

The leaflet – “6 reasons to vote against UKIP” – bears the imprint of Hope not Hate and local

The Hope not Hate/NORSCARF leaflet

delivered with Labour leaflets

campaign ‘Norscarf’ (North Staffordshire Campaign Against Racism and Fascism), proving there’s nothing like self-interest to bring together the Progress and Momentum funded wings of the Labour Party. The leaflet is helpfully printed in Labour’s red and yellow colours.

The registration of the Norscarf website lists a single contact phone number – 07563245515. A quick Google of that number reveals it is the personal mobile phone number of Councillor Chris Spence, a colleague of Snell’s on Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council, which neighbours the Stoke Central constituency. Spence originally put his own name forward to be the candidate, but failed to make Labour’s long list.

Our source reveals that he received the leaflet – alongside a Labour one – on Saturday evening (the 21^st January). Which is interesting, as Gareth Snell tweeted a photograph that evening of Spence delivering Labour leaflets in the same area of Stoke under the caption ‘What better way to spend your evening after a hard day at work than campaigning for @Stoke_Labour and our #NHS’. If you look at the picture, you can see the ‘6 reasons’ leaflet sticking out of the top of the Labour one, which may explain the ‘winky face’ Spence finished his Tweet with.

Snell's colleague Cllr Chris Spence delivering Labour

leaflets - the HnH/NORSCARF leaflet can be seen

sticking out of the top of the Labour one

The participation of Hope not Hate – funded by the anti-Corbyn ‘Progress’ wing of the Labour Party – with the decidedly Corbynite ‘Norscarf’ is perhaps less surprising that it appears. Stoke North MP Ruth Smeeth is a former General Secretary of Hope not Hate, while Tristram Hunt, Stoke’s outgoing MP, is a member of the Labour Friends of Israel, one of the few groups in the Labour Party which stood by Smeeth after she was subjected to anti-Semitic abuse by Labour members when it announced the outcome of its investigation into anti-Semitism. Snell – a former leader of Newcastle Borough Council who lost his seat to UKIP before regaining a different seat at a by-election - is on Hunt’s staff.

A senior UKIP source said that it was "rare for expenditure scandals to begin before the candidate had been selected but was a clear indication of just how worried Labour were about losing the formerly safe seat to the new UKIP insurgency."

UKIP insiders say that they expect Labour to include the cost of the Hope not Hate leaflets on their expenditure returns as they are clearly published with a view to aiding Labour's faltering chances of retaining the seat. A UKIP source close to the campaign said, "They are required to account for all expenditure. The active participation of two organisations with close links to the Labour Party using Labour councillors to deliver the leaflets alongside official Labour literature with the clear approval of the candidate makes it difficult to pretend these are anything other than Labour leaflets in disguise. Hope not Hate have considerable form for this sort of thing, which has gone unremarked and unpunished for too long. It simply allows Labour to effectively double its election spending without having to account for it."

A poll for Labour Leave published on Wednesday showed Nuttall 10% ahead of Labour, while on Thursday bookies shortened the odds on a UKIP victory to make the party the odds-on favourite, with Labour slipping to evens ahead of the also-ran Tories and Lib Dems on 33-1.

Lowles' mis-firing report - the 'some of my best friends are black' defence

Following Breitbart's expose of Hope not Hate's anti-Muslim bias in their latest report, it is good to see the heat has been turned up under their director Nick Lowles sufficiently to goad him into one of the self-justifying blog posts he is known for.

Breitbart pointed out that Lowles and his student co-author Joe Mulhall had singled out among others Muslim anti-Shariah campaigner Raquel Saraswati and lumped her in with assorted members of the hard-right. In a surprising volte-face, her name was hurriedly removed.

Also targeted were other reform-minded Muslims such as Auhdi Jasser and former extremist turned reformer Tewfik Hamed.

Lowles was quick to go on the attack when criticised by Quilliam Foundation director Maajid Nawaz, although that was more a continuation of the long running feud between the pair following Nawaz's success - and Hope not Hate's implied failure - over Tommy Robinson and the effective demise of the EDL. Lowles - after an amusing diversion attacking Nawaz for destroying the EDL - then resorts to playing the race card to try and save his own (apparently not quite white) skin:

Lowles - of mixed

parentage? Would he

know?

"There are several aspects of Mr Nawaz’s attack piece on our report that are demonstrably untrue, including his peculiar attempt to undermine it by explaining that it was written by ‘two white men’. One of us is of mixed parentage and the other is of Indian descent."

Readers may recognise this as the hard-left equivalent of the 'some of my best friends are black' defence which Hope not Hate regularly ridicules. Lowles leaves it open as to which of the two white men is of mixed parentage - if it's Lowles, we're surprised he can be so certain - and which is of Indian descent, although looking at the pair of them and assuming them to be a couple of white, comfortably middle-class champagne socialists would be an easy mistake to make.

Mulhall - clearly of

Indian descent

Lowles continues his self-justifying monologue by claiming credit for 'raising awareness of child grooming/exploitation' while failing to mention it was the attack-dog mentality of his organisation which prevented decent staff members of all religions from speaking out for fear of being labelled a racist in Rotherham, Bradford, Rochdale and myriad other cities (all Labour controlled, of course). After all, being a devout Muslim committed to reform of your religion has not saved many people from being called a 'counter-Jihadist' in this report. How many children suffered because his organisation acted as a persistent threat to the careers of any who dared speak out?

This defence of radical Islam from those who speak out against Islamic-extremism is not a new course for Hope not Hate, but rather a continuation of one plotted long ago. We blogged several years ago how Hope not Hate campaigned to bar Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the admittance to the UK of two extremist Muslim preachers (Mohammed al-Arefe and Yasser al-Habib) whose preached their usual blend of homophobia, sexism and violence to congregations across North London.

The rest of Lowles posting is little more than a continued attack on Nawaz, which really shows how much pressure Lowles has come under over his report. Citing a list of other groups, it would appear that Hope not Hate's 'The Counter-Jihad Movement' report is nothing more than a cobbling together of internet sourced second- and third-hand reports about people the authors have little if any knowledge of. As 'dodgy dossiers' go, it is second only to the Progress inspired Iraq War dossier.

The real interest here is the squeeze Lowles is coming under within the Labour movement. Having relied for several years on the financial support of the Mandelson lead, Blairite 'Progress' wing, he now finds the Corbynistas in the ascendant and Progress viewed as a pariah organisation by most of the Shadow Cabinet. As Breitbart reported earlier this week, Lowles' organisation gets significant funding from outside the UK (there is more to come on this story!), but it still relies on the Unions here to provide the bulk of his political funds. With the Unions moving to support Corbyn's 'old-Labour-lite' approach, Lowles is feeling the squeeze and his ready access to the movers and shakers has been diminished.

Even within Hope not Hate, there are finally rumours of discontent. With many long-term staffers little more than barely tolerant of Progress - come on down, Carl Morphett, David Braniff-Herbert and others - there are rumblings about the whole political positioning of Hope not Hate and its declining influence in the Labour Party. With the acrimony over the split from the more honestly left wing Searchlight organisation still ringing through the halls of Hope not Hate towers - an office let to them by another charity - there could yet be blood on the carpet if Lowles handles the negative publicity from his mis-firing report badly.

Doing Labour's work - the BBC & the list of dodgy councillors

It is always nice to know the BBC is keeping an eye on our figures. In their 'Reality Check' on our list, Anthony Reuben, Head of Statistics at BBC News says in an article titled 'Have 319 councillors really stood down in 2015?"

"The number comes from a blog called Nope, Not Hope but it does not make quite the same claims about it that Mr Nuttall makes."

And then continues

"And if you look at some of the miscreants cited in the list you may doubt the figure further."

OK, we accidentally included the Moroccan born mayor of Rotterdam saying that "Muslims who didn't like the Netherlands should f**k off back to where they came from". Clearly he is not a British councillor. That said, if you count the number of stories in the master document, there are 292, not 291, meaning the Dutch mayor is not counted: the inclusion was a typographical error, with two lines selected rather than one when the document was compiled.

Reuben then complains that 'There are examples of the wives and children of councillors getting into trouble, although they themselves were not investigated."

The two examples he links are interesting. The first involves the wife of a Tory councillor who was convicted of theft. Her husband subsequently resigned as a councillor as a result of her conviction. The second relates to the son of a Rochdale Labour councillor who was arrested on the Syrian border attempting to travel to join ISIS, and who was subsequently released without charge on his return to the UK. We'd consider that both of those - had they involved UKIP - would have warranted coverage on the BBC and elsewhere. It's not as if the BBC doesn't focus on the nationality of Nigel Farage's wife, as in this story - "Nigel Farage says German wife is not taking Briton's job"

He then states that a Plaid Cymru councillor arrested and charged over an assault on his wife who was cleared at court when his wife refused to give evidence against him "should not be on the list anyway" as "he does not count as being affiliated to Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats". Had he read the introduction to the PDF he would have read:

"This PDF file lists all the councillors we can find from other parties who have been accused of..."
Reuben does concede that

"This does not mean that UKIP has a monopoly on candidates getting into trouble though. The Liberal Democrats, for example, replaced Jason Zadrozny as their candidate for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire after he was accused of child sex offences.
The Conservative candidate for Dudley North Afzal Amin resigned over claims of a plot between him and the English Defence League. Both cases were widely reported."

Although he fails to mention the so far nationally unreported (by the BBC nationally) convictions of two Labour candidates in separate trails last week for fraud, with one being sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment.

So, out of a list of 291 councillors from Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservatives, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens, he finds 4 to complain about. Of those, only 1 shouldn't be on the list - the Dutchman - and he wasn't counted in the total anyway.

What we actually clearly claim for the list is as follows:

This PDF file lists all the councillors we can find from other parties who have been accused of racism, sexism or homophobia, those who have been arrested, sentenced or convicted of crimes, and those who are just plain useless, offensive or incompetent. We have tried to avoid duplication. Almost all of those featured have appeared only in the local press - very few have made the national media. Links to online sources are provided for all stories.

 

The original list can be downloaded as a pdf file here - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B39PL1hZ6W_ReC00Ni1iWFJ3OFU/view?usp=sharing

Militant rises - Hope not Hate & SutU incite wave of violence against UKIP

If there is one thing we will remember this election for when polling day is gone and the campaign is long forgotten by most, it will be the violence. Mostly unreported, mostly directed towards UKIP, we have seen reports flood in from around the country. Billboards destroyed. Shops and offices vandalised. Activists assaulted. Vehicles damaged. Candidates intimidated. The scale of it has been unprecedented in the UK. And the source of it has been the hard left, even on the handful of occasions when the Labour Party has been the victim, getting called 'Red Tories' in Scotland.

Mark Smith, the Bournemouth UKIP activist assaulted by
5 men attempting to remove a UKIP sign from his garden

In the last 24 hours, we've seen a UKIP poster van in Eastbourne severely damaged in the third attack on the vehicle in 2 weeks. In Plymouth, council officials acting at the behest of foul-mouthed Labour councillor Tudor Evans have harassed UKIP candidates, removing placards and threatening council action. In Bournemouth, a UKIP activist was assaulted by a group of 5 men attempting to remove a UKIP placard from his garden.

These things are not isolated incidents; in fact, they have been brewing for some time. In July 2013 we blogged of a UKIP candidate in Swansea who stood down after his wife's career was threatened by a UNISON rep if he dared to stand for the party. Throughout 2014 and the European elections, we saw a rising tide of vandalism directed against UKIPs poster campaign and against campaign shops and offices. Nigel Farage was assaulted on several occasions - always by people with

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten's London home after it was
attacked with bricks

links to Stand up to UKIP and Hope not Hate - and other candidates and activists also came under violent attack. This included UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, who had a brick thrown through his window at home.

This year, the violence and hate has been even greater. As of 2 weeks ago, over 30 UKIP shops and campaign offices had been attacked, some several times. Ramsgate, Blythe, Folkestone, Kidderminster, Southport, Herne Bay, Wrexham, Penarth - the list goes on, across the country from North to South and East to West.

It is not just UKIP premises which have been targeted. Householders in Lincoln who displayed 'Vote UKIP' banners found their windows put through. People unconnected with UKIP who signed UKIP nomination papers have been harassed and threatened. Potential candidates have been physically intimidated into not standing. A UKIP candidate was forced to withdraw from a local hustings after receiving death threats from Stand up to UKIP. Nigel Farage was harassed by Green Party and Labour activists while eating Sunday lunch in a pub with his family.

What has been the official response to this? Beyond local newspapers, it may as well not be happening. None of the national media has seen fit to report on this wave of political violence, while the police can barely stir themselves to take statements. There have been few if any arrests.

So what is the cause of this?

Hope not Hate and their allies in the equally union-funded, SWP-run 'Stand up to UKIP' campaign must take a significant share of the blame. Neither are 'grass-roots' organisations in the sense that UKIP is - the vast majority of Hope not Hate's funding comes from the big unions: Unison and Unite. They also were in receipt of a significant slice of public funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Hope not Hate claim they do not take part in violence. This may be technically true. But what we have seen on repeated occasions is Hope not Hate activists attending rallies by the far-right, and using their Twitter account to direct the hard-left thugs of UAF towards a confrontation by giving precise

Weyman Bennett of Stand up to UKIP, having his collar
felt once again, but not at an anti-UKIP event

locations of far-right activists in a running commentary. When the inevitable violent clashes occur, HnH stand back and hold their hands up in mock horror. Add to that their hate-filled rhetoric, their demonisation of insignificant UKIP members who have said something they regard as politically incorrect. Labour and Tory candidates invariably have many years of sucking at the public tit before being selected as a candidate for a Parliamentary election during which time they learn the language of empty words and politician-speak. UKIP candidates are builders, housewives, truck drivers and nurses, unused to talking the foreign language used to disguise the true meaning of words so beloved of our professional political class. They say what they think - sometimes in colourful language, sometimes in intemperate language, and rarely in the sort of doublespeak used by those with an elected position to protect. This relentless focus on pensioners who say 'coloured' or 'black' instead of the currently preferred 'BME' (Black & Minority Ethnic, in case you wondered) is not because they have said anything particularly terrible, nor even that they have expressed racist sentiments. It is because the media outcry will deter others from sticking their head above the parapet. It is part of a long-running campaign of intimidation.

We then move on to UAF and their Stand up to UKIP front campaign. Relying on the same funding sources as HnH - the large unions - much of the overt violence has been caused by them. The intolerance of activists such as Bunny La Roche in Thanet South (who now also works for Hope not Hate) has positively incited a core of hard-left activists drawn from an assortment of hard left groups ranging from the Greens to the SWP via International Socialists to take violent action against UKIP. Is there any condemnation from their organisation? From the Labour Party? None. That La Roche is a defender of a racist sexual practise is of no interest to the anti-UKIP brigade.

Thanet South is particularly interesting. After a spate of violent attacks against UKIP activists and properties, there were claims of UKIP activists attacking Labour campaigners while simultaneously claiming they were National Front. A more convenient state of affairs is difficult to imagine, ticking all the right boxes for them to claim victim status. A few blurry photographs and a couple of quotes from professional politician and Labour candidate, the 12 year old Will Scobie, was enough to send the Daily Mirror close to orgasm over 'UKIP violence' with no actual proof whatsoever.

This victimhood was continued in Grimsby, where a Hope not Hate day of action which had already been called into question over claims of 'treating' ended as a damp squib after a mere handful of HnH activists arrived. To cover their embarrassment, claims were made of assaults and intimidation by UKIP supporters to the local newspaper, who ran a story pointing out that despite these claims, Hope

Thanet Green councillor & candidate Ian Driver being
'non-violent' at an anti-UKIP demonstration

not Hate had failed to provide any evidence, and were unable to provide the paper with a crime number despite them claiming the police were investigating.

We should also mention the active participation of the Green Party in this. Those peace-loving bunny huggers have not found themselves averse to a bit of violence against UKIP, as we reported on a few months ago in Penarth where the Green-run 'Stand up to UKIP' campaign refused to take action against a member who threatened to burn down a UKIP shop.

But what responsibility do Labour bear for this? It is ironic that the only violence suffered by Labour has been at the hands of hard-left activists links to the SNP in Scotland, where they label Labour as 'Red Tories'. Across England and Wales, we have not found a single story of a vandalised Labour shop or vehicle. The same applies to the Green Party. The truth is that both parties are quite happy to tacitly condone this: after all, it is their activists who play a large part in it. It is not by accident that

Labour MP Liam Byrne delivering Hope not Hate literature

Hope not Hate's leaflets are in the same colours and style as the Labour Party's, nor that Labour activists frequently double as Hope not Hate ones: their aims and objectives are similar, if not identical. They seek to prevent discussion of the topics which ordinary people outside of the Westminster bubble care about: immigration, Europe, crime, benefits. A visitor from another planet who listened to any Labour Party speech would be forgiven for thinking there was nothing else in the UK apart from a 'weaponised' National Health Service.

Labour and the hard-left are desperate to avoid some difficult questions, and not just for obvious reasons. Unlimited immigration has driven down wages - anyone who gets paid on an hourly basis can tell you that. The problem for Labour is that this has proved of limited benefit even for the migrants, who eventually end up relying on state assistance in some form just to get by. The only people it has proved good for are the large corporates who ultimately fund the Labour Party, and for the Unions, who see a pool of labour from which to draw more members (and who also fund Labour). The hypocrisy of their position on this is quite breath-taking: can anyone recall when the Labour Party and the Unions were supposed to support the British worker rather than consistently undermine him or her?

What is the answer? Some fair, balanced media coverage would be a start, exposing those who would subvert our democratic process in order to silence views they don't like. There appears little chance of that, with the BBC preferring to focus on UKIP trivia and the stupid comments of a handful of individuals rather than report on the 2 Labour candidates convicted of fraud last week.

It is difficult to know where it will end. Chaiman Mao said that 'political power grows from the barrel of a gun', and the hard left, lead by Hope not Hate, the SWP, Labour and the Greens, seem to have taken this to heart. Until they take responsibility for their actions and cease trying to howl down valid political arguments, there seems little chance of a retreat from the violence. None of them seem in any danger of choking on their own hypocrisy, from Bunny La Roche's race play sex to Labour's acceptance of former BNP councillors.

For the Tories, who seem eager to jump into bed with Hope not Hate in their desperation to retain
Thanet South, they should remember one thing: if the hard left succeed, you're next. Be careful what you wish for. MacKinlay's desperation to come first in anything other than a safe ward handed to him as a prize for defecting from UKIP should not blind the Tories to the dangers welling on the hard-left.

HnH's silence over segregated Labour meeting explains how Rotherham happened

Labour have finally broken their silence over the segregated meeting attended by MPs Tom Watson, Liam Byrne, and Jack Dromey and MEP Sion Simon in Birmingham over the weekend. According to a story just published by the Daily Mirror a Labour spokesman is quoted as saying:

"Labour fully supports gender equality in all areas of society and all cultures... the seating arrangements ensured women from Muslim communities could take part."

As Orwellian newspeak and doublethink go, it is pretty standard Labour fayre which translates to "we accepted illegal segregation by sexes rather than illegally denying women entry". Presumably just refusing to attend the meeting unless it was in accord with the law didn't cross anybody's mind as there were votes at stake. By attempting to gloss over such blatant inequality while taking part in it and then trying to excuse it on the basis of 'culture' is such a sickening evasion that we can scarcely believe they had the gall to put out such a statement, not least as the meeting was arranged by Labour councillor Ansar Ali Khan. Surely it would make more sense just to expel Khan for sexism if he is unable to arrange a Labour Party meeting where men and women are treated equally.

Meanwhile, Hope not Hate - the great self-appointed moral arbiter of equality - has so far had nothing at all to say on the subject, and we can't see that changing.

We have blogged before on this subject: The responsibility for the grooming crisis lies within the culture Hope not Hate has infected the Labour Party with , and nothing we said then has changed: if anything, the current sexism scandal simply underlines the double standards at play. In Birmingham, Labour MPs went along with the meeting because they saw not the injustice and inequality of women being segregated, but only the votes that could be delivered by attending. And, of course, there were the concerns that by speaking out, they would be accused of 'cultural insensitivity' and 'racism'. Exactly the same reason that police officers, council officials, Labour councillors and Labour MPs did nothing in Rotherham over child abuse.

Are there any women here? - meeting
addressed by Liam Byrne

Sadly, the meeting at Hodge Hill has proved that nothing has changed either within the Labour Party, or within its associated hard-left, anti-UKIP organisations who pretend to believe in equality, who are the first to shout 'sexism' at UKIP, and yet are right at the back of the crowd mutely acquiescing when it is there in front of them in the own party. The hypocrisy is staggering - if it is against the law for the Christian owners of a B&B to turn away homosexual guests because of their beliefs, then how can it be right for a Labour Party meeting in a community centre to require segregation of men and women?

If nothing will convince you of the cynicism of both Labour and Hope not Hate, then consider these facts: Tom Watson is an active campaigner for Hope not Hate, writing recently how "We did a Hope Not Hate thing in Sandwell". Liam Byrne on his Flickr photostream - and without apparent irony - is pictured addressing several all-male Muslim gatherings in addition to being pictured delivering Hope not Hate leaflets. Sion Simon on his website boasts of meeting local Hope not Hate activists to 'celebrate the cultural harmony we enjoy' - the women were left outside in the rain, we assume.

Liam Byrne delivering (with no sense
of irony) Hope not Hate leaflets

Hope not Hate themselves frequently revisit what they claim is UKIP's sexism; a couple of minutes searching their website will return hundreds of results, with most articles based on a wilful misunderstanding of what was actually said by the UKIP person they are attacking at the time. Despite this, we don't recall UKIP ever having arranged a meeting where women were made to sit separately from men or - as in the case of one meeting addressed by Byrne - where women were excluded altogether.

It is these very double standards which bring us to the heart of the argument. In Rotherham, former MP, convicted thief and Hope not Hate activist Denis MacShane said of the child grooming scandal that:

""I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat if I may put it like that. We were aware of the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain but....Perhaps yes, as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”

UKIPs sexism? When did they hold a segregated meeting?

This attendance at segregated meetings is simply putting an official, Labour Party rubber stamp on behaviour which would be unacceptable elsewhere; an acknowledgement that 100 years of women's suffrage, 50 years of Women's Lib and 40 years of equality legislation don't apply if you believe in certain religions. As others have said elsewhere, if the meeting had been segregated by race or by sexual orientation there would have been hell to pay.

It is sadly this same approach which has seen Labour councils across the UK face similar problems with paedophilia, or as it is now politely called, 'Child Sexual Exploitation'. We saw in Rotherham - and heard from then MP MacShane - that Labour didn't want to rock the boat for fear of being called 'racist'. Council employees, police officers and politicians alike were infected by this top-down fear of being branded with the one label which is guaranteed to halt any career in its tracks where Labour are involved. And so - just like Watson, Byrne, Dromey and Simon - they held their tongues, and let thousands of school age young girls pay the price of their right-on political correctness.

What we should be worried about is the law against Islamophobia promised by Laobur leader Ed Miliband should he become Prime Minister. We wonder which crimes could then be reported by the media: would reports of the Rotherham scandal and the Birmingham meeting be considered Islamophobic?

 Here in the UK, most of us were brought up to believe that justice is blind, and took that to mean that we were all equal before the law, without excuse. When will Labour, Hope not Hate and their bully boys in Stand up to UKIP and Unite Against Facism learn that a crime is still a crime even if the person committing it is a Muslim?

UKIPs website, and the disappearing story of it being targeted by the European Commission in 2002

Readers with a long association with UKIP and an even longer memory may recall a story which appeared in May 2002 regarding UKIPs website.

UKIP had been attracting bad publicity on the basis of postings made on the party website, which in those days also had a discussion board attached to it for members to exchange ideas. The board was moderated, but allowed real-time posting, with the admins later deleting unacceptable postings.

A number of stories had appeared in the national press regarding some of the posts. Even where they had been deleted rapidly by the admins, screengrabs from UKIPs website kept turning up on newsdesks showing comments which were blatantly, even outrageously, racist.

Eventually, UKIP had had enough, but before the discussion boards were removed, the admins and other staff went through the IP addresses of the posters, and then traced the IP addresses.

The European Commission - the source of racist postings on
UKIPs website back in 2002

It will be no surprise to learn that almost all of the postings came from IP addresses within the European Commission - and other EU institutions - in Brussels.

The reason we mention this is twofold.

Firstly, we have over the past few days spent more time than usual removing racist postings from the Nope not Hope Facebook page and various comment threads here on the blog. On Facebook, almost all of the accounts used were created within the past 2 or 3 weeks, and their entire content has been designed to link UKIP with the far-right and/or with outrageously racist comments, memes, images or statements.

Secondly, we thought we would highlight to readers the depths to which our enemies will stoop in order to maintain the fiction that UKIP is racist - after all, they have precious few other arguments.

We spent several hours attempting to locate a single story relating to UKIPs website online. This is despite it appearing on the BBC and Sky, and in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Guardian and several other print outlets. We spoke to current and former press office staff, and they also searched without success.

In the end, the only reference we could find to this story anywhere was in a question put before the Commission by Thierry de la Perriere, an MEP from the non-aligned group in the European Parliament on the 2nd May 2002. In it, he asked:

"The British Daily Telegraph has published a report directly calling into question the behaviour of the European Commission or some of its staff.
The newspaper investigated a number of e-mails sent to the discussion forum on the anti-EU UK Independence Party's web site and containing violent attacks on that party's ideas. The source of these messages has been identified. It is the European Commission's offices in the Jean Monnet Building, in Luxembourg.
Can the Commission confirm or deny this report?
Should these allegations be confirmed, does it intend to take disciplinary action against those of its staff involved in this misuse of the European administration's time and equipment?"

The question asked in the European Parliament - the only
online reference we could find.

The question was answered over 6 weeks later by Neil Kinnock, then Vice-President of the Commission, who insisted that:

"Examination of the discussion forum has revealed no trace of a "bevy of colourful postings abusing the UKIP" by "pen pushers", as the Daily Telegraph describes it. Instead of that, an open and informed debate seems to be going on between pro and anti Union views. Neither the webmaster of the site, who moderates the discussion(2), nor other contributors to the forum appear to have been offended by the postings referred to by the newspaper."

Neil Kinnock, whose investigation into the source of the
storiesdid not involve looking at any of the evidence

Before stating that the Commission intended to take no action.

At no time during Mr Kinnock's 'investigation' did he actually contact UKIP, who of course had long since deleted the offending content, but had helpfully kept electronic records in case the Commission wished to do anything.

The internet has changed considerably since it was a minority interest back in 2002, and few could have guessed the direction in which it would head. It was also over a dozen years ago, and papers and broadcasters have updated software and websites since. We do find it interesting though that while we can find accusations of UKIP racism dating back to last century online, of this story we can find almost no trace beyond a single written question, and even that took a little finding.

Weasel - Nick Lowles, HnH owner, offered
to supply the European Movement with
'information' in 1996

So, when you read about the dreadful, racist, fascist things which UKIP 'supporters' are supposed to have said, remember this tale. UKIP have been the victim of a sustained attack along similar lines before, and subsequently it was proved that in fact, the perpetrators had been the European Commission.

Finally, remember also that back in 1996, one Nick Lowles had approached the European Movement offering to 'provide information which may be invaluable to your cause': the letter offering such support was subsequently leaked and appeared on the 'Notes from the Borderland' website in 2001. As Hope not Hate are so active in 'exposing' UKIP supporters and candidates who they allege have said racist things on social media, we wonder whether the two stories are, after all, linked?