sharn

Really enjoyed that guys, appreciate the effort and what this vid was about - hoping to get back into some natty myself next year so quite a motivating vid for me. Well riden, some great successes for both riders in those sections I thought. Small things can be so difficult on natural terrain but the satisfaction so great. Cheers

That was just amazing.. Looks like a good vibe on your rides and a high level riding all round! Flipp i just cant comprehend your level of bike control but it sure is a pleasure to see! That guitar at 8:56 sweet notes and that Level hop to flat 9.07 - that song and generally that part of the vid had a built up to a great vibe. And the next section. And the one before it Infact the overall video was just a great experience.. Top marks to the editor (Y) Cheers guys

... ...

*Mark, you seem to have a finger on the pulse with this.. what do you expect us to see in the next few years here in the u.k?* *And what do you think this will mean for your average working family?* *Do you agree with the ideas of some who suggest learning how to make big fireworks go off under the houses of Parliment is a reasonable way to solve these problems?* (Thats my Day time politics interview voice)

I may have missed something but isn't the whole point of a public forum is to discuss/share information that you have found? And you also benefit from information that others have found? I myself wouldnt really call appreciating there being some useful information - on a website you already visit frequently - scrounging? But it's interesting to try and understand others points of view. As for Mark highlighting and sharing relevant information about current affairs - I think this is great and i have respect for him doing that - I for one appreciate it and feel it's important. Personally iv'e adopted the 'N.W.O - Everything these people do is in opposition to your best interests ( if indeed you wish to be a Free Human being)' approach - so it's nice and easy for me - i just presume theyre doing everything they can to systematically destabilize and impose their rule upon mankind Sooner or later we're gona have to stop serving these people.

Maybe shes got shares in a Wedding dress company? I'd be curious to know whether on average same-sex marriages are more long term or less than opposite-sex marriages.

As much as i love a dominant woman :wink2: - I agree that last video is a little bit personal and too specific and doesnt clearly outline the fundamental principles easily. So instead heres a lovely chap with a much better, clearer and consice presentation of (what he claims are) some fundamental facts, arguments and principles regarding the 'Free Man' position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHNBKM3B-w&index=5&list=PL-KtbtFy7OCd2Ggi0vhMztBdizYdRykr1 Andrew, Or indeed anyone else.. If you have the time to watch this video could you highlight to me any information you believe to be false and if you can.. direct me to evidence supporting it. Again.. I'm just trying to understand this stuff correctly. Cheerrs

Okay thanks. Yes all this nonsense (aswell as all the other crap going on across the world) has had me up late alot over the years. Ive read through some of those things before - including parts of the mead Vs mead case. It seems that is now the predominant case law document addressing many issues regarding people using such techniques as he did ( Like all the strange wordings and markings he made on legal documents and claimed they had legal relevance - confusing the court etc) Even i think that guy was potentially just abit of a nutter! Some of the more straight forward arguments and techniques and the fundamental principle seem to be worthy of attention however. It seems to me it's a matter of avoiding (wrongfully) identifying yourself as the Legal fiction and thus wrongfully being treated as such. But rather asserting that you are the Human Being - with Human Rights under Common Law. Straight away - It's interesting to me that Wikipedia is not inciting that the position is actually legally wrong. It does not state that : "Freemen" 'Wrongfully' believe that statute law is a contract'' Or after describing the argument state that it is infact Legally invalid. Surely if it was undoubtedly recognized as being Legally wrong it would be stated as such? It says that: '' None of the beliefs held by Freemen have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases'' - I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that no case has ever been abandoned or put-off indefinitely? Which is often what is claimed to happen.. The judge after realizing the futility of a Legal case basically abandons the case. Just to re-itterate, I am not claiming this Is all infact the unquestionable truth - because i personally do not know. I'm researching and discussing it openly. I'm not interested in this because i have some desire or intention to take from others without contributing or something like that. Infact quite the opposite. I yearn to contribute positively to sociiety. I'm just interested to know if, when, where and to what extent people are being wrongfully manipulated - in order that if so, it be exposed.

Totally understand your preference for reading a transcript over watching a video To be honest it is long winded and although there are some interesting and key points that i thought were articulated and dealt with well and could be of use for anyone interested in the argument - There are propbably better videos/writings that explain the position more clearly and objectively. I've tried to outline my fundamental understanding of the claim in a few posts and have understood it is an 'open argument' which can be applied and reasoned by an individual in his/her own way.. But fundamentally it's a claim that; most often what we have come to think is 'our(true)selves' being addressed in Legal/Contractual instances.. Is infact a completely distinct and seperate entity documented and created solely to participate in the fictional corporate world of Legal commerce ( sort of like a buisness) but is not classified as Living and not due the same treatment as a Human being therefore and it is actually that 'person' who is bound by the statutes & regulations of goverment not You the 'Human Being' (Who Cannot be involuntarily bound by such things) The claim is that we are constantly mistakenly identifying our actual selves as this 'Legal Person' and voluntarily accepting Regulations to be placed upon us that are in breach of our actual human Rights ( Like the Obligation to have licenses, to pay taxes, to not cross the road at certain places etc etc) - It is claimed that Our Human rights not to be held in servitude to such rules & regulations ( which is basically slavery) is actually enlisted and Legally protected in the constitutions - if any Free Human Beings wants to actually claim them ( Which it is simply being argued that we don't!)) Like the right not to have someone demand money from you and threaten your life etc.. they can do it but it's up to the individual to claim thesse rights. It is being argued that many acts such as showing I.D cards, Giving your 'name', obeying orders are all acts which Legally imply consent and therefore a 'standing under' the Regulations. The claim is that no harm or breach of Rights (Obstruction to your right to enjoy Life, Liberty and Freedom) should come to You as a result of the Legalities imposed upon the 'Legal Person'. Unless you unwittingly identify yourself as being so and therefore become subject to treatment which conflicts with such rights. Basically theyre saying we do not realise that infact YOU are NOT Mr..........XXX! Which is the'Title' of the corporate entity. Basically the argument is that Human beings are wrongfully identifying themselves as 'Legal Persons' and therefore suffering treatment as property rather than actual living flesh and blood beings with Fundamental & Inallianable rights (Which are not given to you by Government but are infact everybodies to claim and stand upon and demand they be upheld - and that the Justice system will indeed recognize and defend us on this only if it is actually asserted and claimed. ) The stuff about the Birth certificates being floated on on the stock markets as reserve for the money system since its no longer backed by gold - leads to the idea that your birth certificate is actual a bond that has Legally recognized value which can be discharged by you, and Legitimate payment can be issued off the back of it. ( Like the Promissory notes we use everyday) I dont quite understand all that stuff but alot of people are recording success with the claim. Santos Bonacci is one the predominant cases claiming to do this. There seems to be many arguments stemming from these basic notions by various people in different scenarios and it really seems to be an individual thing. Obviously it is claimed that the PTB are resisting and de-faming such information, but it's clearly still a position many people feel is truth and are compelled to stand by. I myself am simply researching this and as yet have never tried to stand by such claims legally but i feel there is a fundamental truth to the claim that we are (Or should be able to be) 'Free' men.

Well no, i don't know that... that's why iv'e asked people here what they know/think regarding this position. It seems fundamentally obvious to me that naturally you are born Free ( with no contracts or interactions with the fictional world of 'legalities').. As a natural process and creation of life, so it must occur at some point that you are contractually entered into such a thing. How can it be that upon birth you are obliged to act according to 'regulations' made up (and arbitrarily changed) by another creature that is not for your own benefit? And to live in fear of harm if you decline. I'm not saying this sort of treatment cannot be imposed upon you ( Or that a group of people cannot even come to want to ruled in such a manner) but surely a person has the Right not to be subject to another's Rules? (Infact this is even stated In the Human Rights acts - No Person can be held in Servitude) But what is being argued is that obviously it's not a natural 'Law' (Like the Natural laws of Life) and so you are not bound by it Unless you knowingly (or unwittingly) make an oath to be subject to that treatment.. Therefore to request to continue living naturally without these limitations is fair and understandable and infact your Right? Could you please explain why you would think otherwise? Im genuinely interested in this and would love to hear your argument/evidence as to why it is 'mince' ( I'm assuming by that you mean it's nonsense?) Is a Birth certificate offered and processed by a private organisation a natural Obligation of Life? And if it is not - what is it's purpose and for what benefit? Because there are many people claiming it has status and implications in the 'Legal world' (which is undoubtedly a fictional creation).. And is infact a document that has been unwittingly submitted in order to document (you as) some sort of 'goods' or 'property' that can be Lawfully subject to any regulations that might breach Human Rights because it's not a living being - with Inallianable Rights to be free from such. And from that point on in the Legal (corperate) world it is presumed that whats being dealt with is not a (Free) Human Being but instead.. State owned Property. It's seems reasonable and logical enough to me.. but i am very interested to hear what you have to say in contrary. Thanks..

I dont really listen to music anymore, except for folk mostly. In keeping with the recent elections and protests.. A great set from 1968.. ''Which side are you on boys?!'' Legend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a0XJ019Oac Enjoy!

Anybody who is interested in their Rights and Freedoms might be interested to watch this video (And the other two parts) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9gRNPWf6s & Heres a more in depth conversation about some particular things regarding her struggle against the system. Its more of an informal chat and may be a little long winded for some. Theres loads of stuff out there for anyone interested. She's just one of many but has articulated some concepts well. All the best guys. Peace.

I rekon if someone ( or a group of people) organized an official protest and claim for Political reform on the election process - campaigned and made it easy enough for people to support and that support be officially recognized in a petition then i think the clear majority of the public would sign and support it. As we know many people didnt vote and i bet the majority was thinking ' whats the point'. They may not have voted but i'd bet theyd sign such a petition. I bet even many who voted conservatives would still sign it. Ive got a feeling we simply just dont know the 'Magic words' and specific processes needed for things to be recognized and lawfully have to be acted upon. A public act of dissaproval is one thing. A razor sharp case of law, backed by a public majority is another. I myself have no idea how to conduct such a thing. But i'm sure someone does. Given that they are OUR elected representitives.. There HAS to be a proper formal way in which we can demand to be represented - at any time, regarding any issue. Surely? Anyways.. thought i'd share a couple of videos for anyone interested in Law and Human Rights.. *Be one of the first 30 people in the world to watch this video* Even though it was made in 2009 (Theres many other videos that explain this and i urge everyone to find them and understand what has transpired) Could the real ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, please stand up.. Oh wait, Its a peice of Paper, Errrrr (I've seen another video where this guy leads a party of around 20 people to perform a citizens arrest on a Judge in the U.K who is allegedly commiting many breaches of Law) Anybody else heard of this stuff before? What do people know/think?

I know, just exaggerating the stereotype Protests are good if theres also thought out way of actually achieving whatever is being requested/demanded that it can bring attention to. Or its an actual picket - stoping something taking place?

Didnt they promise that at the last election and then literllay never did? As i said and as you can tell, i know very little about all this.. so what exactly should we be looking forward to now we are remaining in the EU for another 'term'? Really are they all Racists? Man i've been taken for a ride. I mean, I'm under no impression that there arent any racists or just as bad 'eliteists' in any of the other leading parties but iv'e been duped into thinking UKIP was actually a 'peoples party' rather than just a 'racist peoples party' Good campaign Nige.. You Got me.

This is why i dont do Politics - You have to actually think about what youre saying (A) Yes youre right, on a policy by policy level, the Greens are more A-E. Maybe i'm just overwhelmed by the argument of Independance over Globalism, fundamentally. I'm quite ashamed of myself for labelling any Politiclal group as 'Anti-Establishment' regardless. I'm totally with Greens.. But at the minute doesnt seem like theyre strong enough to lead either. They obviously have their heart in the right place and I'd be happy for them to be in 'power'. I hope they can gain a good influence on whichever party may lead until they do. But Whilst part of the EU surely that influence is only ever even further diminished? As i said, My ideal scenario would have been.. ''Get out of EU and Save the Planet!'' Independant-Green.

Again, i agree with you.. and these concerns were enough to convince me NOT to vote for them myself. What i am saying is that if some of these inner-party problems could be addressed and Local People ('Normal' people') Started to take an interest and become active in this group, i think the overall direction of the Party could result in something with which the 'voice of the common people' could be heard. Of course Farage is not himself a 'common person'..Are any of them? Just so you know.. I have No allegience to UKIP at all, i dudnt vote for them and am just expressing my impressions. So I'm fully happy to scrutinize this party with you.. Infact i want to. I'm just not willing to overlook the same issues with the others aswell. I can totally understand what you said and i agree that right now it seems this party might not be capable of leading. Just to confirm.. i was talking about in the future, if certain issues were be adressed. ( It seems the presence of some potentially racist members is one of the main problems?!) Regarding, expenses, funding, backing etc.. It seems to me this is abit unfair to scrutinize just them considering the obvious corruption in all the parties? I'm not saying it's right.. It just seems like a bit of a given? But even so, overlooking that.. To me, the proposition to exit the EU Is in itself a massive middle finger to the Internationlist/Globalist agenda.. Which fundamentally i am against. Maybe it's not correct to say 'ANti-Establishment' because of course theyre innevitably going to have wealthy funders (That's obvious - they (Or any other party) are not going to be funding by the local darts team ) I'm really not an expert and i'm happy to say i just dont know about these things you highlighting. Ive never heard him claim he's poor. But iv'e not followed every single thing. Ive heard him claim he hasnt had a proper holiday in over a decade and stuff like that. Although i can imagine that there would be a campaign to spoil the reputation of such a party.. Who is clearly (and is the only one) proposing something different to the current system. The main crux of my leaning towards UKIP (had i voted) was indeed the proposal to get out of the EU ( which would still take some time) and it seems that wasnt enough for me either this time. Because i was worried about all the things you also express! Their existance does indeed smack of opportunism.. Because thats exactly what it is.. The need is their! There was an unrepresented voice in th U.K. Thats what this is all about isn't it? Surely the OPTION to leave the E.U has got to be a represented Always?!?! Nobody is representing anything else other than being (politically) Melted into a Europe Union and many people dont like being part of the EU for whatever reason or are fundamentally/politically against Internationalism/Globalism. My limited understanding is that whilst being part of the EU.. The goverment who you have democratically elected is not actually completely in charge of your country and has only Limited power. So effectively YOU only have Limited power over the destiny of your country. (All arguments of whether we actually ever bother to try and make our goverments represent us aside. Even if we did.. As part of the EU - They couldnt!) Anyway, i still like Farage. He has a commical eyebrow

To be honest, i agree with you. And i take back that statement that i think theyre 'Genuinely' Anti-establishment and replace it with.. Their Policy of getting out of the EU seems to be 'the most' Anti-Establishment Policy from Any party. It does seem to me that it's a 'voice crying in the wilderness' of a overwhelming shift to Globalism. I'm not bothered about looking into what money his got/claimed.. unless i was to do that for all of them. But my gut feeling is that he, out of all of them is the Lesser of alot of bloody Evil. Although i did read something where that point was being raised and Farage pointed out that Yes - he had claimed "million for his campaign( And it was totally within his Legal Rights) but that infact his proposition would actually diminish that right which he claimed to be a ' waste of money ' (That Campaigners, MPs can claim so much etc etc) But in order to 'fight fair' he optimized what was available in order to increase his scope. This i can understand. Youre Never going to have a 'Man from down the pub' In Politics.. The LibLabCon certainly aint. My impression is that Farage IS the most 'Normal' bloke ( Albeit he's made alot of Money (Doing His Own buisness prior to politics)) I'm not surprised at all that theres some members of the Party who have backgrounds coming from other parties Thats irrelevant. My discussion is on the Manifesto of the Party and the character of the Elected Leader. I still believe that UKIP is the only Party with which - if the General people got involved and behind, could actually be a voice for U.K Citizens. At least, thats my Impression. ( But i know very little about Politics!)

Yes, If they do something Illegal.. they might be able to retro-actively change the 'Legal Laws' Or 'Statuary Laws' Because indeed they themselves make the Statutary and define the 'Legal' But i was referring to human rights. ( This is what i have come to understand..) Legal and Lawfull are different things. The Goverment cannot change the Common Law or 'Natural Law' ( which includes and is basically focused on) Human rights.. Nobody can.. because these are Commonly understood and are 'Self evident'. And these are to do with Human Rights. Not Legal and Illegal which can be defined and changed by the state Goverment willy nilly. These 'Legalities' are really just 'Company policies' ( And we've just had a nationwide 'General meeting' to elect a new CEO and company policy). The U.k is a registered company. As citizens we are ( arguably mis-treated..) Employees. The oath of allegience (which was done on your behalf at birth) is your contract of employment. And is merely a contract which at the same time formed an application to create a 'Legal' identity witthin the realm ( like a buisness or Corporation) which has the same identical name as you ( But is often written in capitals) and is linked to you at birth and it is that 'legal identity' that is held in servitude because infact no Human can be held in such because it's against their fundamental, Inallianable, Common Law Rights. We , The Living Being, act on Behalf of our Legal identity (Which is not living and so has no Human rights and cannot act itself) which is bound by 'Legal' and 'Illegal' Statutes ( Goverment made laws) This is what i have come to understand with regards to our situations. I may be wrong.. i'm still in research. And it makes some sense to me. Does not part of you question why should anybody be able to demand money from you? Or Tell you- you cant Do or Say something? They can' Demand or enforce that. Unless you make an oath/contract promising that they can. ( Which you yourself cant even do! Because your Fundamental Human rights are self evident & inallianable - and cannot be taken or Given away. Not even by you - You can just stop claiming them) SO instead what we ( they get us to) do is Identify ourselves as the legal Person and then therefore confirm we are to be treated as Property - with no Human rights. Even so, No-one is outside of 'Natural Law' ( Even if youre outside of or not bound by 'Statuary' Law - ( No Living human actually can be)) - which protects fundamental Freedom, Life and Liberty ( To have for oneself and not to deny for another) This is Commonly understood and Inalienable. Basically, it is claimed that Statuary laws (Legal/Illegal - Like tax - growing herbs - etc) are company policies applicable only to corporate entities ( The term Persons does not just apply to human beings and is infact often referring to your 'Legal Person') NO harm or breach of your Human Rights should ever come to your Natural body because of 'Statutes' that are applicable to your Legal Person. ( I.e YOU should not be imprisoned for you a debt on your Legal Person). Unless you ( un-wittingly) volunteer to be accountable for it and affirm that YOU are infact 'IT' ( The Legal). It's being widely claimed that when you are asked to give or confirm your name.. It is the name of your Legal person (The same name but in Capitals) which is being identified and from then you are not being treated as Human being. But instead are presumed to be something Not- Living (with no human rights to Life/Liberty/Freedom) Sounds whacky, and theres alot more to it. And i'm very new to all this.And i may have completely mis-understood all this. I myself have never publically claimed this position or ever tried to excersize this claimed right. I am just studying the subject. But there seems to be some sense in it. Anyway, Just trying to say that if you know who YOU are and do not (Unwittingly) identify yourself as a non living entity - (Apparently) NOBODY can breach your Human rights - Not even Goverments. But obviously they dont want people to understand this. So they give us lots of things to entertain our(real)selves ( The living being inside you) - whilst our bodies are considered 'Hollow, Dead, Property of the state'. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not. If it is.. We have a majority who are unaware (if it is) and a completely militarized 'civil army' of Policy-officers ready to enforce the Rule of state upon Living Humans without themselves knowing its potentially Unlawfull ( not illegal) Dark. ''But you are a Light if you so wish to shine''

I know! How mad is that. But basically - as i understand it.. It's absolutely impossible for a govermemnt to ever breach Human rights. Regardless of where they claim they have protected them ( because thats supposed to be there primary function! not all this international fiddle diddle crap) Human rights are inalienable - they are not legal rights given by goverments - they are fundamental rights - Of the Natural Law - commonly understood and cannot be given or taken away from an individual - ever. The Goverment are not above the LAW! Thats a fact. But as mentioned.. like anyone else they Can (and very often do) act outside it and then be subject answerable to the Law.. If an Individual ( Or every individual in a nation!!) bothers to appeal to the court to gain their Rights & Justice if theyve been breached. But most are not aware they even can ( And neither was i until recently) and are under an impression that the goverment is infallable. Apparently.. It is not. They are elected by you, to represent, serve and protect you. They are not your masters or your owners and are accountable to you as Your elected representatives. Thats my understanding. Or am i missing something?

*Conspiracy* LibLabCon Got to say.. My impression is that UKIP is a genuinly Anti-establishment party and is indeed the only (Political) threat to the Global Agenda from this country. Or at least, It could be.. if the People get behind it. Although maybe the U.K would then suddenly become an enemy itself .. Suddenly harbouring weapons of mass destruction or something? Or housing (un-approved) TERRORISTS?! Or maybe we'd just be left alone to drift along at our own leisure because we've got nothing to offer or steal? Obviously I like Greens and i think we'd definatly need members of Parliment coming from that angle.. but above that we need an Independant Goverment otherwise it's a small voice at a big table. Next election.. Coalition Independant-Green! Or just more of the same?

Unfortunately i'm guilty of not voting this time.. but i really tried to! I even went down the polling station. But i refused myself voting unless i felt i fully understood what i was doing, which at the moment - i don't. Maybe I should have just voted Green MP/Lib Dem councilors or something ( We didnt have nay Green Locals apparently!?) Voting Green clearly wouldnt have won them a seat from our neck of the woods but as you say Rowan - it's a voice heard. But ive made a promise that i'm going to start trying to understand this stuff because it seems.. I know it does matter. We are part of a very long line of people in this world and to struggle against oppression - it is our duty and it comes hand in hand with our Liberty. I agree - it's going to take more than just crossing a few boxes until the common people are properly heard nationally ( In any country). Picket lines and Protests to the Goverment is and has always been the only way. And theyre conspiring against our Rights to do that by making it 'illegal' by statute.. But that means nothing.. because it's our Right! By Common Law. And if a goverment tries to take away our rights.. The tradition of this country is in place to protect us. But A court of Law does not act until it is 'asked to'. So basicslly we've got to take breaches of our rights ( By goverments or anyone else) before the Law - which (although is also becoming corrupt) is Primarily there to Defend Human Rights. But knowone can claim somebody elses rights for them. But it's just a mechanism - and doesn't act of itself. It's like a tool. It might be the perfect tool, but if we dont use it it's useless. Basically.. We need to Know our Rights and Fight for them when they are breached and use the system that's been put in place to Defend our Rights if we feel theyre not being afforded to us. But because often we don't bother.. We're basically not objecting. Basically, if we don't object.. we consent. (And this is something i need to really think about myself. Because i'm guilty of sitting back and watching too many things happen that i dont agree with) It goes beyond the Elections. It's every single day. ( Just a little motivational speech for Pashley26.. So you know that theres more you can do than just vote - if you ( As you have - and i quite understand) feel it's becoming meaningless. ) I'm not sure this FPTP buisness is quite right though?! What is that all about? What good is it supposed to acheive?

Okay, take the fork out.. iv'e got a bit more in me I really dont know much about what youre on about there? Could you give me an example? ( because i am genuienly interested to understand these things) Surely companies could only successfully sue the goverment if the goverment has actually directly discriminated against them? Surely not just for creating 'any kind of legislation that could potentially harm their ability to make money' I'm no expert but surely it'd have be deemed to directly discriminate against them? And surely goverments should not be infallible? The Goverment is not Sovereign are they?. Isnt the Queen sovereign and the Goverments are elected powers entrusted to act in accordance and in the interests of protecting and upholding peoples rights on her behalf? I found this article which is interesting halfway down someone explains things very well and in their 'conclusion' stress the importance that a goverment be accountable in order than it not become tyrannical. Thats the tradition of this country in which measures were put in place to Protect people from a tyranical govermemnt! But as i understand from other readings it is also always 'presumed' an elected goverment is acting accordingly with Law unless and untill an individual actually makes a claim otherwise in a court of law. Which i thought was an interesting bit of information. I personally am against 'Globalism' in a political sense. I'm obviously all for a World wide family of Peace Love and Freedom but i believe it would be best made of self-governing Independant communities who have personlally made treaties and agreements to do things. In a way i suppose that idea of Heritage did appeal to me because in a world thats increasingly becoming carbon copies of itself it's a romantic notion.

A quick search as to what TTIP is and these people dont think its much to be proud of? But i will try to understand it more because i just skim read that as i'm about to go to bed I can understand your second comment and in all honesty i got that impression myself. Although i think Mr.Farage is one of the better politicions i dont think the party behind him is quite in line. Although i can believe that the party has undergone heavy critisism and slander due to their 'Anti- establishment' views. And we all know the 'PTB' can easily smear your name relentlessly. However I did see that video of one of the representitives saying he'd shoot an asian guy in the head if he got into parliment - and that does go to show that theres unfortunatly some 'extremists' ( Actually i think its more immaturity) behind the scenes in the party and these concerns were the reasons i didnt vote for them. But i personally do see potentially a good party in UKIP if they uproot those type of fools and get the general (good) people of the U.K behind them and some good MPs & local representitives. To me the whole LibLabCon is now totally an International/Global elites puppet show. Although they obviously have a better line up of lovely Local councilors. But that doesnt really help the country on a national level. I'm new to Politics really - havnt paid so much attention before but something about Farages speeches made me think something could actually change there. Have you heard him go?! Somethings driving him, and it aint a hand-shandy from the Boys in blue (with yellow stars) But to be honest. I'm not so much interested in preserving society as i am interested in preserving Humanity. Anyway, stick a fork in me..

Okay, he *seems to* talk more straight than any of the others Sorry for the lecture - i seem to find it impossible to only right one liners. But genuinely i'm interested for somebody to show me what they consider to be the reasons to not like UKIP.. because honestly i nearly voted for them!! Besides the county referendum on Fox hunting * - because i'm already not particularly diggin that. (* And the ghastly colour scheme)