They do say that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Whilst it is a given that all parties will have their share of looney tunes supporters, UKIP does seem to have become the party for racists.

Find a racist and there's an above average chance they'll be supporting UKIP in May.

You have to wonder what attracts them.

Personally, I don't think the NHS should be opened up to 'the marketplace', I think legalising handguns is a dumb idea, I don't admire Putin and have no wish to join forces with him, I also don't support fox hunting, fracking, and I think restaurants and pubs smell better without exhaled smoke in them, thus UKIP will have to forego my company.

Yes it would, so I don't think his right-wing credentials are in any doubt. If he started the party and he say's it's become racist, then who are we to argue?

Well, perhaps a better way would be for the party to describe itself.
Alan Sked, the founder of the party ( ran it for nearly four years ) said that "they are racist and have been infected by the far-right." He also went on record as saying, "UKIP is even less liberal than the British National Party".
Having been on the inside, created the party, watched it grow, seen the new members, officials and candidates arrive, he'd be in the best position to know.

Tell 'em

Nah, let's be honest, what UKIP do is pander to the racists, xenophobes, and just plain ignorant. People who either can't be bothered to look up the full facts or are too daft to understand what's really going on. Forget the Daily Mail reader profile, UKIP now has the lead in 'dog-whistle' racism (as it's known in the States). Few people will vote for them because of their policy on bankers bonuses, civil partnerships, deficit and debt plans, fox hunting or fishing quotas.
Farage has been cultivating the Barclay brothers as backers, and with their help, he will doubtless move onwards and upwards.

That could well be because they're most likely to be either Hindus or Sikhs. Dimwit.

What on earth put that idea into your head? Please do tell.

Don't get me wrong, I have sod-all time for WBC and it's fvck-witted minions, BUT, in this case, one I know a little bit about, I'm trying to be fair. This is far more about Ian Howgate than anything or anyone else. If I can do anything to help nail that self-publicising shroud-waver to the floor, then I will. (within the bounds of legal decent and honest).

He has been replaced by someone who failed in a previous attempt to be elected as a UKIP candidate. So, a man of principle then.

Couple of things here. (Just add to the mix)

The Council and landlords were dealing with the next of kin, that's all they can deal with. They didn't so much refuse Howgate as ignore him.

Everyone from here always gets taken to Swindon hospital.

So, work through this shall we? Does anyone really think that WBC have a hospital admissions monitoring section, a team sat around ringing hospitals on the off-chance that one of their community charge payers gets admitted? Does anyone think that hospitals have departments that ring round all local authorities to give them the names of the recently admitted? West Berks deny making a money chasing phone call.
Mr Howgate is adamant that one was made.
Columbo coats on lads.
Mike, wasn't taken to Swindon he was taken to North Hants. This is incredibly unusual.
Mr Howgate is adamant he knows a call was made to this hospital. Can anyone begin to sleuth why this should be?
What scenario covers both stories? What scenario would allow WBC to deny a call and Howgate to confirm one? Certainly Howgate has a axe to grind, certainly he has run-ins with WBC, certainly he would want them to appear bad, and certainly he went to the press, (as a charity worker).
So, how about this? Howgate is adamant North Hants got a call because he made it. He pretended or implied that he was or was connected with the Revenues and Incomes department of WBC. That would account for the call, account for it going to the right hospital, and account for his insistence that the hospital received one. It would also account for WBC's denial. Wouldn't it?

Covers all the bases. Makes perfect sense.

Well pardon me for not being at your beck and call.

I'll post when I can (thank you).

You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't.

Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited.

Well, one has tried to offer an alternative view, but it seems that more is needed.

My advice is for people to screen capture this as it may not last too long on the thread, but it is written after checking with Mike's mum and brother.

Mike had lived on the streets since the age of 14, he suffered from T.B and pneumonia and smoked like a trooper. He was taken to hospital suffering from pneumonia and it is that he succumbed to.

He had been taken to court for arrears on many occasions and still owes the water board nigh on £2000. He was, as they say, 'known to the police' as a result of his liking for others people's property, (especially bicycles). None of us felt safe when he was around.

Some years ago we were all told that the flats were coming down and we'd be entitled to some sort of relocation grant. Mike died before he got his. He wasn't relocated. Our landlords don't owe him any money therefore.

He was living in our 'guest room' when he as taken to hospital and been there for months.

When his mother and the court probate officer turned up she expressly forbade Howgate to attend.

As Mike was dying in hospital Howgate turned up and tried to get him to sign a form declaring that Howgate was acting for Mike. Until this time Mike had never seen or heard of Howgate. I cannot speak for the landlords or council but since there were still next of kin about there would be no way they could do that. Indeed, I understand Mikes mum actually said to ignore it. No public body would dare to suddenly start talking to Howgate about private matters under those circumstances. Howgate has since been back to try and rally support from us and was sent away sharpish with a flea in his ear.

Howgate is happy to be called a 'charity worker' yet when pushed he admits to not actually working for any charity, only that he works for free. Big difference.

He has been asked to leave at least one church group. In fairness to him it would be unfair to publicly say why. But he knows the truth.

Our MP has mugged him off, our landlords won't discuss anything with him and WBC ignore him. The NWN in an article called him a 'charity worker' and photographed him standing outside the Loose Ends building. The implication was clear. Loose Ends immediately set about telling everyone he was not on their payroll and just 'helps out from time to time'.

If you read one of Howgates first posts it's actually all about him. He tells us he's as about as highly qualified in personal finance as it's possible to get. Of course he fails to tell us what professional qualifications he's got (so we can check) and what the top qualifications are. He also seem to think that it not a small world. It is. And I remember him and his antics from our student union days. (I'll draw a veil over that as it not relevant here) suffice to say he's got previous.

The guy is just another incompetent do-gooder who is only interested in the cult of his own personality. He's using the death of another to advance his cause.

A period of quiet dignity would surely be in order?

So. Mr Howgate, have you ever been asked to leave a Church group because of your antics? Truthful answer please.

Oh for heavens sake give it a bloody rest. I was Mike's neighbour for a while, I knew Mike, and I recently met his mum. You claim, in the Mail article, to have been his 'friend'. You never heard of him till he got ill. You'd never seen hide nor hair of Mike until you turned up with your 'lets get some compo' scheme.

Stop pretending you're anything other than a charity 'hanger-on'. You let people believe that you're a full blown 'charity worker' and then, as we've see, when challenged, back away from it.

You're worse than some parasitic vulture latching onto the ill, weak, and emotionally vulnerable. Just to make a name for yourself. So far, going public about the M.P mugging you off and poor bloody Mike has done what exactly? Nothing. That's what. Unless you call making yourself look like a sticky-beak a result.

Too many 'in's.

That's before we get onto sat / sitting / were etc....

Nope, comes from an Ian Dury and The Blockheads song.

Thin end of the wedge time.

"As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course."

Now, we already have the situation where children can be removed if the foster parents belong to the 'wrong' political party. How long before they get removed if the foster parents don't subscribe to the Governmental diktats on what you can watch.

Choosing porn as a target will get the Daily Mail vote. You just get a line of men in shabby raincoats up on stage (copy of Razzle in one pocket), with arms like Schwarzenegger on one side and arms like noodles the other. And say, "look - we're going to stop this" loud cheers from everyone. It's an easy target and one behind which you can hide your real intentions.

In fact you should actually get Rushdie up on stage or Aung San Suu Kyi and get them to explain about Government censorship and what it REALLY means.

Makes it very difficult for us to have a pop at another county's human rights record if we don't subscribe to it ourselves.

Ah yes, the old 'compo culture'. Hello.

Prius

I'd be happy with them just doing whatever the fvck they're supposed to do correctly.

Instead, we've been lumbered with one of the most incompetent, self-serving, lazy, sanctimonious, half-witted, short-sighted, victimising, bunch of doo-lally looney-tunes and onanists it's ever been my misfortune to meet or deal with.
(and I dealt with Westminster under Shirley Porter - that'll give you some idea).

Give 'em more things to do? Jeeez, I wouldn't let 'em clean out the toilets.

You mean the Botha who had been a member of the Ossewabrandwag and refused to testify at the Government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission for exposing apartheid-era crimes. They, the TRC, found that he had ordered the bombing of the South African Council of Churches headquarters in Johannesburg. In August 1998 he was fined and given a suspended jail sentence for his refusal to testify in relation to human rights violations and the violence sanctioned by the State Security Council (SSC) which he, as president until 1989, had directed. That one?

You're entitled to hold an opinion. That doesn't automatically mean it's one that's entitled to respect though.

What's going to be really nauseating is watching Cameron stand up and hail Mandela as some kind of Statesman.

In 1985 Cameron was a leading light in the Federation of Conservative Students who produced the infamous "Hang Nelson Mandela" posters. Then, in 1989 when he worked in the Tory Policy Unit at Conservative Central Office he went on an anti-sanctions 'fact finding' mission to South Africa with a pro apartheid Lobby firm which was then found to be sponsored by Botha himself.

Lets see how two-faced Cameron can be when Mandela finally shuffles off.

They told 'all and sundry' that they aimed to be in by the middle of July. A recent email from them went out again to 'all and sundry' saying that that plan had now been 'put on hold'.

That could just mean they've put the plans back a bit for operational / financial reasons, or it could mean they've decided the site really isn't big enough and are looking to move elsewhere.