Sunday, December 08, 2013

Immigration and the vilification of UKIP's Victoria Ayling


This really is quite astonishing. A former Tory (she only defected in March) and prominent UKIP councillor has been recorded on video in a "rant" against immigrants. According to the spread in the Mail on Sunday 'exclusive', she "just want(s) to send the lot back".

And we are told that Mrs Ayling is a trusted "key Farage ally", so the newspaper tarnishes the UKIP leader as well as the whole party with these vile, racist comments. Following hard upon "Bongo-Bongo" Bloom, they really do give the impression that UKIP has undeniable BNP-leaning tendencies, notwithstanding that Mrs Ayling was a Tory up until nine months ago.

Conservative Stephen Phillips MP said he was "disgusted" by the comments, which he says have "no place in front line politics". Fellow Tory Nadhim Zahawi MP called on her to "retract her deeply damaging comments’, and Labour’s Diane Abbot said she was "shocked".

Except.. except..

Mrs Ayling is plainly referring to illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers. Play the video. The words are clearly articulated in the opening take:



The hysteria surrounding Mrs Ayling's comments is precisely that which inhibits any rational discussion of immigration: merely to raise the topic risks allegations of racism or bigotry. And, as we know (because David Cameron told us), UKIP is a party of "closet racists (mostly)".

All parties are pledged to end mass, uncontrolled immigration; indeed, Jack Straw recently apologised that Labour got it so badly wrong for a decade (though there was no apology to those who dared to voice concerns at the time and were duly demonised by the enlightened ones). It is not UKIP policy to repatriate legal immigrants or genuine asylum seekers, for that would lead to injustice and suffering. But, for God's sake, Mrs Ayling clearly says: "We must basically repatriate those that shouldn’t be here."

If we cannot call for the expulsion of illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers without the Mail (the Mail!) stoking the fires of political disinformation and personal demonisation, we have come to a very sorry pass indeed.

And let us not forget that this video was recorded in 2008 – when Mrs Ayling was a fully paid-up member of the Conservative Party; when any talk of 'Britishness' or waving of the Union Flag was made just that little bit harder by their BNP appropriation. Two years later, Gordon Brown would have his little spat with a 'bigoted' pensioner by the name of Gillian Duffy, who simply expressed concern at the scale of immigration and the consequences for her local community.

So, two things:

1) This video was recorded to further Victoria Ayling's career with the Conservatives.

2) It was shot by her ex-husband, Rob Ayling, who says: "Victoria said during the divorce she would never be entering national politics again. Now, with her being a rising star of UKIP, I think it is a public interest story in terms of the electorate knowing what kind of a woman she is."

Actually, Mr Ayling, we have a much better idea of the kind of petty, embittered, vengeful man you are.

For what it's worth, His Grace agrees with Victoria Ayling: "We must control immigration. We cannot sustain the numbers coming in; the strains on our infrastructure are enormous. Control should be done fairly and the points system like they have in Australia and all those coming here should be encouraged to speak English so they can integrate."

Multiculturalism is dead. Politicians who once espoused this once-immutable orthodoxy now deride it as "a wrong-headed doctrine that has had disastrous results". Church of England bishops blame it for failing the very immigrants it was supposed to assist, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said it is causing us to "sleepwalk towards segregation". Even senior employees of the BBC declare that it is responsible for causing the indigenous white population to feel "alienated, threatened and voiceless".

One expects the Guardian to froth at the mouth in fits of fulmination at this. But the Mail?

35 Comments:

Blogger bluedog said...

Intriguing, Your Grace, what on earth would Mandiba think? Any minute now some provocateur will declare that segregation is an individual act of apartheid. And it isn't, is it?

8 December 2013 at 10:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

It is interesting that most people agree with her in the DM comments section

Phil

8 December 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger Roger said...

Ex Tory calls for repatriation of illegal immigrants... also points out mass uncontrolled immigration is swamping services.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

8 December 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger TigerO said...

Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing,
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Jeremiah 5:21
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

Isaiah 6:9-10
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.

8 December 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

She makes perfect sense and her and our right to say so needs defending. The Mail is a pretty shoddy rag anyway with no direction other than trying to become the Sun.

8 December 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Ivan said...


Daily Mail? Perhaps they have to code the message as in this Stalin era joke:

Citizen : Comrade Checkist, I must report that my pet parrot has flown.

NKVD: Why? Why are you telling us this?

Citizen: You have to know that his opinions are not my own.

(From Spengler writing in Asia Times on the Pope's Regensburg address.)

8 December 2013 at 11:21  
Blogger John M Ward said...

This point is well made and is helpful.

Nevertheless, it is notable that former Conservatives who move to UKIP seem universally to suddenly change their entire outlook toward their former party, giving a strong impression of two-faced-ness (to coin a word).

The first time I noticed it, I just assumed it was an oddity, a one-off – but then it happened again, and again, and people I had already got to know or understand (or so I had thought) had overnight changed dramatically.

This includes ordinary party members, including locally so I know them personally and have for years.

There is something *very* strange about UKIP when it comes to former Conservatives in particular, and that I suspect will in time prove to be a much more interesting angle than these attempts to discredit individuals.

8 December 2013 at 11:24  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

If you look at the readers' comments in the Mail, the majority appear to support her viewpoint.

8 December 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

According to SKY, the newsworthy element of all this is that she said, between takes, an off-the-cuff remark saying "send the lot back".

She then said "I shouldn't say that should I".

Whilst this is clearly a Reagan-esque ad-hoc quip and meant as a joke, this was this was the comment that caused attention, as far as I am aware. people were saying that if she was meaning send the lot of ILLEGALS back why should she feel she shouldn't have said it...so she must have meant all immigrants.

8 December 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger TigerO said...

@ John Ward; Perhaps the lack of a Party Whip makes all the difference. Is it not the case that UKIP values free speech and allows people a view that just might allow people to engage in healthy debate instead of a monolog determined by the few?

8 December 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

To paraphrase Paul Simon

Mail hears what it wants to hear and disregards the rest”


8 December 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Nick said...

I'm not sure how seriously we take the MOS, it's not renowned for incisive journalism.

However, it does highlight the absence of proper debate on the subject of immigration. Reactions like those of Diane Abbott are typical of the political classes who give knee-jerk responses to the subjects of immigration and multi-culturalusm, the subject completely bypassing the cerebral cortext altogether. To them immigration is non-negotiable. To even say the word is a "hate crime". And this in the nation that proclaims free speech. Hah!


Despite the ranting of the likes of Mr Cahalan, I know that many previous LibLabCon voters are switching to UKIP in despair at the mainstream parties' policies on immigration.

There will be a day when the political classes will grow up and understand the difference between racism and sensible immigration coupled with some sense of being a British nation.

8 December 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

and all this just days away from 50000 Roma due in...

One knows that every individual gypsy will generate a new UKIP vote, but what if it were 2,3,4 or more ?


8 December 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Help send a gypsy back”

“Vote UKIP !”

Perhaps a picture of a Roma settlement encamped in a hospital car park as a background...

8 December 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

The Roma have been told that they will receive a particularly warm welcome from a man in Gloucester.

They will be heading there in force: the ambiguities of the English language having been lost in translation.

8 December 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Already here Explorer. A couple of accordion players in the town centre one observed yesterday. By the way, you haven’t seen my wallet have you ?


8 December 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Twig said...

"One expects the Guardian to froth at the mouth in fits of fulmination at this. But the Mail?"

The Mail is working for the LibLabCon Party.

8 December 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

John Ward re, two-faced-ness. It is well know that any member of the conservative party that contradicts party policy is severely dealt with, ask Cranmer.
Consequently they keep their peace but gradually move in their thinking towards a different point of view until they decide they can no longer go along with their parties policies.
Such is the reason as to why they appear to make a sudden jump.
I am sure there are many more ready to speak out if it were not for the fear of the tramping they would get.

8 December 2013 at 14:01  
Blogger David Hussell said...

What someone who suggests that we uphold the law, and actually enforce it ? Truly shocking, downright vicious I'd say.

A nation that fails to achieve a reasonably rational and fair minded debate will also fail to achieve reasonably rational and fair minded policies.

8 December 2013 at 15:20  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Expect more of this sort of thing from Tory moles in UKIP as the 2015 general election approaches.

8 December 2013 at 18:36  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

UKIP wanted the big time, and this is it.

We are now in the countdown to a General Election, and the fun is over, the gloves are off, the likes of the Mail on Sunday are returning to the unambiguous fold, no more pro-UKIP articles are going to be appearing in the Tory papers, but an awful lot of very anti-UKIP ones indeed will be doing so.

That has now begun.

8 December 2013 at 21:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


General election ? Bring it on...

The Inspector, a bachelor, is down to one holiday a year. God knows how those with responsibilities are coping. Queuing up to vote for the big three ? Don’t hold your breath...

8 December 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack notes the great public service performed by Mr Ayling as he makes a new life with his second wife - a younger woman and a former beauty queen who he betrayed his wife for. It must have given him great distress as he wrestled with his conscience over this disclosure.

Jack says: ninety-nine point nine percent of adulterers give the rest a bad name.

8 December 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

UKIP need to be well prepared for all possible challenges and dirt being dug up and aired by those in the media seeking to discredit them. Any more nasty ex-husbands lurking in the cupboards?

Surely the people who say they are shocked and offended by what Ms Ayling said in that video should be asking themselves how is even more immigration going to be effecting them and their families who are already here and established? They too will be negatively effected through stretched services and resources, yet another wave of crimes that our police have to get to grips with, and yet another strange culture, but they haven't the brains to think this far.

I just hope Nadhim Zahawi, Diane Abbot, and Stephen Phillips will experience the joys of a couple of Romanian and Bulgarian families moving into their front gardens and a few extra Pakistanis and Indians living in their sheds, I mean thet have enough space for them all and what with the pending pay rise they could easily afford to give them free tea and cakes too.

9 December 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

I think the Mail may be playing a different game. It cannot run an article endorsing this without the usual chorus of reprehensible etc from the Guardian etc and digging up WWII. So instead, it runs the article the Guardian would like to have run, then watches what happens below the line.

Below the line it has about 3,000 responses and we do not know what it held in moderation. Those 3,000 responses are telling the Mail overwhelmingly that they reject the Mail's interpretation, the one they could be predicted to be sympathetic to since it comes from their own free choice of paper.

Take that 3,000 responses and put it on David Cameron's desk and tell him "It is your guess as to how representative this view is, but do not underestimate the strength of that opinion when it is held."

9 December 2013 at 08:37  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

People forget that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are EUROPHILE newspapers. They run EU-critical stories to please their readers but say quite plainly that they believe it is our country's interest to be in the EU.

In this, they are not unlike the average Conservative MP - apart from the honourable few who have joined Better Off Out.

They will be Euroscptic to their readers/constituents but Europhile to their leaders and when it comes to a vote. They want to be re-elected but still hope for that phone call from Mr Cameron.

I think such people (and papers) have been more useful to the EU project than the few out and out federalises, like Ken Clarke.

9 December 2013 at 10:07  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

There are some strange things happening. I read yesterday that the pilot who was flying Mr Farage when his plane crashed has been found dead at his home. I would not go as far as those who say the crash was an assassination attempt, but if I were Mr Farage I would be bloody careful over the next 15 months.

UKIP has had some extraordinary bad luck. Or is it luck? It is my settled opinion that just as communists infiltrated Labour (anyone who doubts this should read 'I Believed' by former communist Douglas Hyde), UKIP has been infiltrated by loyal Tories. They sit there like little time bombs waiting for the order to explode.

We can expect more of this sort of thing. As for those who say 'vote UKIP get Labour' I say 'vote LibLabCon, get shafted'. Again.

9 December 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...

It is the Tory Gestapo of course. The Tory ruling cabal who are sold out to the corruption that is Europe and it's ruling 20 or so members of the European Commission, David Cameron and his super rich friends.

9 December 2013 at 10:41  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

She is accused of being racist.
As far as I see from the extracts, she didn't refer to the race, religion, or nationality of the immigrants.
Or has the word "immigrant" now joined the list of proscribed racist words?

9 December 2013 at 10:41  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"One expects the Guardian to froth at the mouth in fits of fulmination at this. But the Mail?" - when I saw the MoS headline, I wondered about this. Is it, perhaps, because the Mail has been getting so much media stick, recently, for being supposedly far-right, that it has set out to try to "balance" up its reputation? Of course, everyone (now including The Mail) slurs UKIP. I don't believe any of it (the slurs, that is).

9 December 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack is wondering if this was a bit of a 'shoe-shuffle' on the part of the Mail. Most of their readers support Mrs Ayling's comments.

9 December 2013 at 14:02  
Blogger ukFred said...

Once upon a time, in tyhe mid to late 1970s and the 1980s, the Conservative Party was an amalgam of the old Tories and libertarians. The libertarians have become more and more disgusted by the leftward, Europhilic drift of the party and have become more and more enamoured with a truly libertarian party like UKIP. There are some decent people who would rather vote Conservative than either of the flibflab reprobates who also claim to inhabit the central ground of politics, but, who, toghetehr with the Tories are moving the centre further and further to the left. What the MOS is trying to do is to make those decent people consider UKIP indecent, beyond the pale and therefore not a suitable recipient of their votes. Another Damian McBride, with a blue tie this time, is in the saddle.

9 December 2013 at 22:21  
Blogger Manfarang said...

ukFred
Back in the 1980s when I worked in the Middle East I read the Sunday Telegraph.There was nothing libertarian about it. In fact there was a clear belief of coercion i.e. forcing people to do things.
In the 1970s that publication was calling for an invasion of the Middle East to counter rising oil prices.

10 December 2013 at 04:02  
Blogger plishman said...

One man's immigrant is another man's colonist...

10 December 2013 at 07:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

Manfarang @ 04.02 says, 'In the 1970s that publication was calling for an invasion of the Middle East to counter rising oil prices.'

In the context of the time, not such a stupid idea. Remember the first; OPEC only quadrupled the oil-price (1973) after Britain un-invaded the Middle East by withdrawing from all bases East of Suez in 1971. Cause and effect? Remember the second; the Arab-Israeli war (1973) that saw Israel come within hours of being over-run, would possibly not have happened if Britain had retained its defence posture in the Gulf. That apart, one can say that the cost savings gained by retreating from the Gulf were completely swamped by the economic damage that resulted from the subsequent oil crisis.

11 December 2013 at 11:26  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older