I have some rather disturbing news concerning the BNP mayoral candidate Carlos Cortiglia.
It seems he was unhappy about certain comments I have made about him at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-carlos-cortiglia-being-announced-as.html viz
But Carlos did publicly supported the Argies, as he admits in his statement:
However, it seems that my constructive comments were not taken in the spirit that they were intended and Carlos still thinks I am out to destroy him, in perhaps the way he said he would destroy me. (Why would I bother if he is doing the job so well himself? I am busy woman, after all.)
I actually took the trouble of checking if the Organisers who invited me to give a talk at the BNP meeting on 4 September were in fact breaching the rules, because I did not want them to get into trouble on my account, and believed they were covered by rule 19 and 23.
It seems that Carlos threatened to complain to Head Office about the fact that I was invited to give a talk despite being expelled, with the intention of getting the Organiser concerned into trouble, if he did not stop me from making comments which Carlos found objectionable in Voice of Reason.
In fact, the Organiser concerned promised he would look into it when Carlos rang him on the morning of 11 September. However, instead of having the sense to leave the conversation there, he tried to reinforce his request with a form of blackmail, implying he could make trouble for the Organiser, even though the Organiser concerned had already agreed to what he asked. (This unpleasant habit is so ingrained that Carlos does not even realise he is doing it, suggested the Organiser, trying to excuse Carlos.)
Should they forgive such a heinous act of treachery? Would they be fools to forgive such uncomradely behaviour from someone who is clearly a grass, and will probably issue similar if not worse threats again when the opportunity presents itself?
Should they give him another chance? I know no one listens to me, but I would not do so, in their shoes.
The transcript of my talk, which concerned why British nationalism should also be about family values can be found at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&¬e_id=10150290579549144
Carlos did rather aggressively shout at me at the meeting, and said something along the lines of: "Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes are disadvantaged. Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes are oppressed. Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes have everything against them."
I even refrained from asking him if I am to infer from his rant that he did not support Family Values supported by marriage.
Now it seems he is angry with the Organisers for not coming round and shooting me for making comments about him.
I would have been quite happy to display any comment he made in response to anything I have made here on this blog, but it seems he has not seen fit to contact me in person to clarify or correct me on anything I have said concerning any material fact. I have said nothing about him that I know to be untrue, in any case, since he himself admits in his statement that he did indeed make a public statement in support of the Argentinians' claim to the Falklands.
unexecuted, undisappeared and unshot, presumably) he would withdraw himself as candidate and even said he would go to The Guardian to sell his story that the BNP are lunatics for inviting me to their East London meeting on 4 September 2011.
I am not quite clear what Carlos expects the BNP to do about me, since they have already expelled me. Perhaps he would like me proscribed by the party for making comments about him?
Whether or not he means to carry out this threat, whether or not it was said in anger and that he now regrets it, it is too late for Carlos. The news is out that Carlos attempted to blackmail the Party.
Whether or not the Organisers wish to dismiss this is a childish tantrum that they wish to overlook and forgive, my view remains that such a man is unfit to represent the BNP or indeed any party at all, no matter how small and insignificant. If Carlos had the courage of his convictions he would have gone straight to The Guardian and have done with it, rather than make childish threats about doing so.
If I make a threat, at least people will know that there is a pretty good chance it will be carried out.
Even the supporters of the BNP - social pariahs though they are - do not deserve to be represented by someone whose political judgement is so demonstrably unsound.
If the BNP proscribe me because they want to please and mollify Carlos, then it is their prerogative. It is really the marginalised that I wish to stand up for, not a party that claims to represent their interests.
There are times when one has a duty to speak out, even if one will be shot as the bearer of bad news. There are those who think Carlos should remain candidate despite what he has threatened. I do not agree with them and feel it is my duty to to say so in public. I shall be sad to sacrifice my friendship with them, if they cannot forgive me, but Carlos has by his actions show his manifest unfitness to represent any party at all, and still less the BNP, who have all the bad publicity they need and who should just give up with dud candidates. If they cannot find any decent candidates to represent them, then they should not put forward any at all.
JEFFREY MARSHALL TO REPLACE CARLOS AS LONDON MAYORAL CANDIDATE?
I think Jeffrey Marshall should be the 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate. He was born in London, and is a grammar school boy whose father was a publican who had dealings with the Krays. He graduated with a degree in History and Philosophy from the University of Kent, has lived abroad and can even speak Spanish. He is musical and can sing very well. Indeed, he was leader singer in a band during his student years. He is also taller than all the other white male candidates and has participated in a ground-breaking debate between Muslims and the BNP, which, because it was civil and enlightening, and showed the BNP in a good light, was deliberately ignored by the liberal media. Jeffrey could even be a potential leadership candidate, IMHO, despite his "Dr Death" comments about Ivan Cameron. Indeed, Jeffrey even has a brother who is learning disabled, so all the dreadful things that the Left have been pretending that he wants to do to the disabled, eg exterminate them, is hysterical nonsense and can shown to be so.
There are perfectly good white male candidates available to represent the party and Jeffrey Marshall should the BNP London Mayoral Candidate. There is no need whatsoever for the Party to put up with unreliable and clearly treacherous foreigners just to show that the BNP are no longer racist or xenophobic.
http://www.londonpatriot.org/2009/12/18/mr-jeffrey-marshalls-speech-to-muslim-debate-intiative/
http://www.londonpatriot.org/2011/02/23/muslims-debate-initiative-bnp-jeffrey-marshall-debates-muslims-on-islamification-uk/
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/12/historic-evening-of-debate-between.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-context-jeffrey-marshalls-comments.html
IN CONTEXT: Jeffrey Marshall's Comments about the unproductive
Let it not be said that Jeffrey Marshall put me up to this, for he actually told me to "make a brief clarification" to the effect that "Carlos didn't actually fight for the Argies on your blog". This I am very happy to do so.
It seems he was unhappy about certain comments I have made about him at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-carlos-cortiglia-being-announced-as.html viz
5. I [Claire Khaw] supported the right side in the Falklands War when Carlos was probably then an Argentinian nationalist (although he is in fact an Uraguayan).
But Carlos did publicly supported the Argies, as he admits in his statement:
"In 1982, the Oriental Republic of Uruguay expressed its political support for Argentina, but was very careful to ensure that its neutrality as a country would not be violated by Argentina. As a State employee and as a Uruguayan (not as a British citizen), I made a public pronouncement expressing the position of the Uruguayan government."
While I am aware that he has made a number of threats to "destroy" me while he was on the selection panel for the London mayoral candidate, I have been willing to let bygones be bygones, and have offered helpful advice to him such as suggesting to him on Friday 5 September 2001:
"Carlos was not a British citizen till 2001 so all that happened before and during the Falklands War of 1982 should be discounted, as he was then an Uruguayan citizen as well as an Uruguayan state employee obliged to toe the Uruguayan government's line of support for the Argentines."
and
"Those who support BNP policies have to support him now. He would get better support if I were Press Officer though."
and
"The best way to deal with questions about his support for the Argies is to admit it and then move on. Say he got one war wrong, but he was against the last 3 wars in Afraqbya (in line with party policy). This means he got 3 out 4 wars right. What is the score of sitting MPs? Most of them voted for the wars in Afraqbya, and this would make their score 1 out of 4."
However, it seems that my constructive comments were not taken in the spirit that they were intended and Carlos still thinks I am out to destroy him, in perhaps the way he said he would destroy me. (Why would I bother if he is doing the job so well himself? I am busy woman, after all.)
I actually took the trouble of checking if the Organisers who invited me to give a talk at the BNP meeting on 4 September were in fact breaching the rules, because I did not want them to get into trouble on my account, and believed they were covered by rule 19 and 23.
Rules Governing Official Meetings of a Branch or Group (page 90 of the BNP constitution)
19 No rigid rules shall govern the holding or conduct of Official Meetings or
Executive Meetings of a British Homeland Branch or Group save as are set out
in this Annex 4 or otherwise provided for in the constitution of such Branch or
23 Any Official Meeting of a Branch or Group may be open or closed to
guests as the Branch Organiser or Group Organiser shall determine on the
occasion each such Official Meeting shall be called.
It seems that Carlos threatened to complain to Head Office about the fact that I was invited to give a talk despite being expelled, with the intention of getting the Organiser concerned into trouble, if he did not stop me from making comments which Carlos found objectionable in Voice of Reason.
In fact, the Organiser concerned promised he would look into it when Carlos rang him on the morning of 11 September. However, instead of having the sense to leave the conversation there, he tried to reinforce his request with a form of blackmail, implying he could make trouble for the Organiser, even though the Organiser concerned had already agreed to what he asked. (This unpleasant habit is so ingrained that Carlos does not even realise he is doing it, suggested the Organiser, trying to excuse Carlos.)
Should they forgive such a heinous act of treachery? Would they be fools to forgive such uncomradely behaviour from someone who is clearly a grass, and will probably issue similar if not worse threats again when the opportunity presents itself?
Should they give him another chance? I know no one listens to me, but I would not do so, in their shoes.
The transcript of my talk, which concerned why British nationalism should also be about family values can be found at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&¬e_id=10150290579549144
Carlos did rather aggressively shout at me at the meeting, and said something along the lines of: "Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes are disadvantaged. Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes are oppressed. Don't talk to me about Family Values when the white working classes have everything against them."
I even refrained from asking him if I am to infer from his rant that he did not support Family Values supported by marriage.
Now it seems he is angry with the Organisers for not coming round and shooting me for making comments about him.
I would have been quite happy to display any comment he made in response to anything I have made here on this blog, but it seems he has not seen fit to contact me in person to clarify or correct me on anything I have said concerning any material fact. I have said nothing about him that I know to be untrue, in any case, since he himself admits in his statement that he did indeed make a public statement in support of the Argentinians' claim to the Falklands.
unexecuted, undisappeared and unshot, presumably) he would withdraw himself as candidate and even said he would go to The Guardian to sell his story that the BNP are lunatics for inviting me to their East London meeting on 4 September 2011.
I am not quite clear what Carlos expects the BNP to do about me, since they have already expelled me. Perhaps he would like me proscribed by the party for making comments about him?
Whether or not he means to carry out this threat, whether or not it was said in anger and that he now regrets it, it is too late for Carlos. The news is out that Carlos attempted to blackmail the Party.
Whether or not the Organisers wish to dismiss this is a childish tantrum that they wish to overlook and forgive, my view remains that such a man is unfit to represent the BNP or indeed any party at all, no matter how small and insignificant. If Carlos had the courage of his convictions he would have gone straight to The Guardian and have done with it, rather than make childish threats about doing so.
If I make a threat, at least people will know that there is a pretty good chance it will be carried out.
Even the supporters of the BNP - social pariahs though they are - do not deserve to be represented by someone whose political judgement is so demonstrably unsound.
If the BNP proscribe me because they want to please and mollify Carlos, then it is their prerogative. It is really the marginalised that I wish to stand up for, not a party that claims to represent their interests.
There are times when one has a duty to speak out, even if one will be shot as the bearer of bad news. There are those who think Carlos should remain candidate despite what he has threatened. I do not agree with them and feel it is my duty to to say so in public. I shall be sad to sacrifice my friendship with them, if they cannot forgive me, but Carlos has by his actions show his manifest unfitness to represent any party at all, and still less the BNP, who have all the bad publicity they need and who should just give up with dud candidates. If they cannot find any decent candidates to represent them, then they should not put forward any at all.
JEFFREY MARSHALL TO REPLACE CARLOS AS LONDON MAYORAL CANDIDATE?
I think Jeffrey Marshall should be the 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate. He was born in London, and is a grammar school boy whose father was a publican who had dealings with the Krays. He graduated with a degree in History and Philosophy from the University of Kent, has lived abroad and can even speak Spanish. He is musical and can sing very well. Indeed, he was leader singer in a band during his student years. He is also taller than all the other white male candidates and has participated in a ground-breaking debate between Muslims and the BNP, which, because it was civil and enlightening, and showed the BNP in a good light, was deliberately ignored by the liberal media. Jeffrey could even be a potential leadership candidate, IMHO, despite his "Dr Death" comments about Ivan Cameron. Indeed, Jeffrey even has a brother who is learning disabled, so all the dreadful things that the Left have been pretending that he wants to do to the disabled, eg exterminate them, is hysterical nonsense and can shown to be so.
There are perfectly good white male candidates available to represent the party and Jeffrey Marshall should the BNP London Mayoral Candidate. There is no need whatsoever for the Party to put up with unreliable and clearly treacherous foreigners just to show that the BNP are no longer racist or xenophobic.
http://www.londonpatriot.org/2009/12/18/mr-jeffrey-marshalls-speech-to-muslim-debate-intiative/
http://www.londonpatriot.org/2011/02/23/muslims-debate-initiative-bnp-jeffrey-marshall-debates-muslims-on-islamification-uk/
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/12/historic-evening-of-debate-between.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-context-jeffrey-marshalls-comments.html
IN CONTEXT: Jeffrey Marshall's Comments about the unproductive
Let it not be said that Jeffrey Marshall put me up to this, for he actually told me to "make a brief clarification" to the effect that "Carlos didn't actually fight for the Argies on your blog". This I am very happy to do so.
2 comments:
Carlos should have handled it differently in my opinion. This has been to his own detriment. In Politics one must stay calm; be succint in your retort and have a point. I saw none of these attributes at the said meeting. It saddens me as I had believed Carlos would improve BNP image.
I really don't know what Carlos thought Jeffrey Marshall could do about what I choose to write on my blog.
Carlos has not handled his relationships within the party well at all.
Firstly, he should not have made reckless threats about "destroying" me when I had been suspended. He should have known that it would get back to me. Perhaps he thought he could take the credit for getting me expelled, when in fact everyone knows that the leader can veto and push anything through if that is what he wants.
In politics one does not need to go out of one's way to make more enemies than the ones naturally ranged against us.
Carlos has not quite worked out his position in the hierarchy of things. Any candidate that does not have the enthusiastic support of the Organisers will find it difficult to be successful as they are the ones who hold the meetings and organise the activists.
Carlos should have known that he was in the position of a supplicant, rather than a superior making demands and threats that he thought he was by dint of being mayoral candidate.
Perhaps too many allowances were made for him. I do of course understand that foreigners and women get a lot of leeway and much is excused on grounds of gender or cultural differences.
The way Carlos has handled his relationships within the party gives a poor prognosis of his ability to handle a hostile liberal media who will not be quite so forgiving of his little ways.
While I still feel that the best candidate would have been me, Jeffrey Marshall would be an excellent replacement for Carlos in view of his impeccable nationalist antecedents. He is also male, white, a graduate, has the disarming demeanour of a bookish LibDem, and stands head and shoulders taller than the remaining candidates.
Post a Comment