Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Cont...UKIP got em on the run.

On 26 Feb 2014 at 1:24pm Another Voter wrote:
AJ, Thanks for those links. How on earth can we as a society agree that convicted thief Peter Lagoda is allowed to stand as a councillor? UKIP did because as aforementioned their behaviour implies they are just a bunch of undesirables who embrace greedy lying criminals like Peter Lagoda but, but seriously, he is now still allowed to stand for election to a UK council as an independent. Does the panel think this is acceptable? I certainly don't. I don't think anyone (MP's included) convicted of anything should be allowed to stand to represent the public again. Ever.
On 26 Feb 2014 at 4:22pm voter wrote:
UKIP obviously think this is an ideal candidate.
On 26 Feb 2014 at 5:39pm Tax payer wrote:
Hypocrite of the year award must surely currently go To Cllr Edmunds who, on her UKIP FB page is currently demanding that Harriet Harman apologises for being (unwillingly) vaguely associated with a pedophile group (that she has confirmed she did not support, endorse or engage with). meanwhile Cll Edmunds is refusing to confirm that she does not support David Silvester's homophobic views about gay marriage and floods, and will not clarify her written claims tenderising the right of Christians to withhold their services from gay people. Why is that so difficult? Harriet Harman has commented and clarified her views, but Cllr Edmunds seems to prefer keeping quiet, and attacking anything that she hopes might distract from her own silence and nasty publications. It would be sad and funny if it wasn't so unpleasant.
On 26 Feb 2014 at 10:30pm Cllr Donna Edmunds wrote:
"meanwhile Cll Edmunds is refusing to confirm that she does not support David Silvester's homophobic views about gay marriage and floods, and will not clarify her written claims tenderising the right of Christians to withhold their services from gay people."
I haven't refused to comment on either of these. To refuse, I would have to have been asked, which I wasn't.
For the record though, I don't support David Sylvesters claims that the floods were caused by Cameron's support for gay marriage, and, being a libertarian, I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever they chose whenever they chose. It's their business. Why should they be FORCED to serve or sell to anyone?
On 27 Feb 2014 at 12:09am Andrew James wrote:
Yes you were. I went on your Facebook page and left a very clear request you visit this site and comment.
You deleted my post.
Not the first time you've done that is it?
Are you proud of yourself?

On 27 Feb 2014 at 12:46am Andrew James wrote:
Thank you for your thanks AV.
The odd thing about the Peter Lagoda story is it was printed by the DM. What is less surprising is the comments section, where pretty much all the DM readers confirm that they'll still be voting UKIP.
You know what 'UKIP' stands for don't you?
Criminals Liars And Illiterates.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 5:00am Tax payer wrote:
Cllr Edmunds, thank you for finally responding. You have been asked this question repeatedly in number of places, including two entire threads, and I understand you have been deleting requests
Andrew James can clear up your incorrect claim that you did not delete his comments.
I am pleased to read that you do not support David Silvester.
What does concern me is your endorsement of discrimination against gay people by anyone. You claim that you do not think anyone should have to offer goods or services to gay people, if they do not want to. You endorse illegal discrimination against gay people That is the very definition of homophobic. Gay people are entitled to buy goods and services from anyone offering them, the same as anyone else. Why do you think they are not, and should not be? Do you think gay people should also have other rights withheld?
However, you go further. Using your own words. You believe you should be able to refuse to serve anyone, at any time and should be able to refuse anyone you chose from receiving your services. You should not be "FORCED" to be unprejudiced. You are endorsing racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, sexism, and any other discrimination, however abhorrent, because you have stated that as a 'libertarian' you believe that you , or anyone else should be free to hate blacks, hate muslims, hate jews, hate gay people, disabled people, hate men or women, and be able to use that hatred as a reason to refuse goods and services.
You have confirmed that you think all equal rights legislation is wrong, and you want the right to discriminate.

On 27 Feb 2014 at 9:49am Just a thought wrote:
Does Cllr Edmunds endorse McDonalds refusing service to a disabled customer on some spurious ground. In the past, service was often refused and legislation was necessary.
But I strongly doubt this is her position and think she was probably clumsily referring to moral or religious conscience.
We do not expect doctors to perform or sanction abortion if their religion prohibits it. Instead a referral is made to another doctor.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 9:54am Just a thought wrote:
Might be worth me and my lawyer stating that I am not suggesting that McDonalds ever refused service to the disabled. They are a prickly bunch and I'm too fond of chicken mcnuggets to tick them off.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 10:00am Taxpayer wrote:
No Cllr Edmunds views are clear both here, and in her writing elsewhere. We shouldn't put words in her mouth, even if they are better ones. Cllr Edmunds above believes that no one should be prevented from refusing to provide goods or services for any reason. Remember, she is a libertarian, and that means that if she doesn't want disabled people cluttering up her smart shop or restaurant, and doesn't want to provide disabled access then she doesn't think she should have to. Nice.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 12:10pm Southover Queen wrote:
Dear Cllr Edmunds: please, now that you've told us your opinion on whether same sex couples can be discriminated against, could you expand on whether other minorities should be subject to the same treatment? What about a black person? Or a Polish person? An old person, perhaps?

There's another problem with this stuff. How do you KNOW whether a couple is gay? Is it okay for two men to share a room if they're in single beds? Suppose they push them together? Are you going to issue a questionnaire? Or is it just if they're legally married? (You can see the wonderful possibilities of this: you will offer services to those living without the benefit of legal sanction, but not those who have sealed their union according to the law of our nation)

If you're in a public facing job - and that's whether you serve in a coffee shop or offer a room to paying guests - you need to treat people equally. It's just a basic requirement of a civilised society, surely?
On 27 Feb 2014 at 12:40pm Taxpayer wrote:
SQ. I'm afraid Cllr Edmunds has already told us her frightening political views. She thinks that anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone else. ThatI think apparently is being a "Libertarian"
She writes " I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever they chose whenever they chose. It's their business. Why should they be FORCED to serve or sell to anyone?"
So she think that we can ban women from male business environments, such as the corporate world, disabled people including children can be barred access to business, whatever business that might be, and she thinks gay people can be refused goods and services. All three are unlawful, but she supports a world in which Pubs can once again put up signs saying " No Blacks, Irish Travellers or Dogs"
I think UKIP should deselect someone who promotes such views and our local press should look at this.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 1:28pm Mr Sensible wrote:
UKIP is not much in the way of a cohesive political party and can be thought of more as a repository of those with views too far out, too right wing, or just too whacked out to fit into other parties.

Donna Edmunds is a case in point. She derives her libertarian views from the US serial-killer-besotted fundamentalist Ayn Rand. She no more conforms with a unifying UKIP philosophy than do the more notorious UKIP nutters like ex-National Front members Victoria Ayling & Robert Ray, the corrupt David Kendrick, misogynist Geoffrey Bloom and gay flood twerp David Silvester.

Ms Edmunds politics are reactionary. She has reacted emotionally against what she perceives as the current dominant philosophy driven by a so-called liberal intelligensia, a group she resents. To feed this emotional state she has latched onto a juvenile form of American libertarianism... a simplistic philosophy shouting freedom for all. In reality this translates as freedom to screw and to be screwed. As we know this means that the poor and helpless get screwed and the status quo of the power balance is maintained in favour of the already rich and powerful. Her dangerously immature philosophy is derived in reaction and aims to jettison all the gains made in the last few decades in terms of fairness, equality and giving everyone a decent chance. She wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The politics of reaction will never get us anywhere. One step forward, two steps back.

I'd like to hear her on LBC. Anyone know what show it was and on which day?
On 27 Feb 2014 at 3:57pm Town Resident wrote:
If you want to experience the depth of this nasty but bizarre outburst, read Cllr Edmund's views above, endorsing the right to discriminate against women, gay people, racial groups, , even go Nazi and refuse to serve jews you don't like, and then read her UKIP face book page. No one needs this, including UKIP
On 27 Feb 2014 at 4:55pm Wow. wrote:
It's true that Cllr Edmunds writes like sh*t and isn't nearly as clever in print as she thinks she is, but her mother's Jewish and she has a disabled kid. Reign it in. In no way has she advocated racial discrimination or the other stuff above.
Her failure to articulate herself may make her unelectable, but I scarcely think it makes her a Nazi apologist.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 5:25pm belladonna wrote:
Well if she ever comes in my shop I'll be asking her to leave on her own grounds quoted above. Only her, mind, everyone else is welcome.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 5:55pm Local resident wrote:
My understanding is that Cllr Edmund's mother is also an immigrant , but you see, that doesn't stop Cllr Edmunds spouting unpleasant views about immigrants either. These are her views, she has expressed them elsewhere, that is why she was asked to confirm them, and confirm them she has. I appreciate the you have difficulty accommodating the nonsense of them, but the fact is that Cllr Edmunds is a proponent of a disturbing far right philosophy, she is proud of it, writes about it, and promotes it.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 6:37pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I very much hope Cllr Edmunds gets discriminated against for being a right-wing nutjob. Given her pro-discrimination views, she'll hardly be in a position to whinge about it.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 6:43pm Southover Queen wrote:
"Wow": you say rein it in because she has a Jewish mother and a disabled kid. That's precisely why Cllr Edmund's views need to be challenged, I think. It really isn't a big step from allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation to allowing anyone to discriminate against any minority, whether it's Jews, disabled people, people with learning disabilities, gypsies - any despised group, in fact. Allowing that kind of thinking sets you on a path which does, uncomfortably, end in the concentration camps, because the Nazis decided that those people were defective and must not infect the Aryan race. I'm not saying that Cllr Edmunds is a Nazi, but I am challenging her ill-thought out opinions because unless we do challenge illogical and dangerous thinking when we encounter it then we cannot complain when they triumph.

Check it out here »
On 27 Feb 2014 at 8:56pm Mr Sensible wrote:
You've no idea how much I hate to defend the views of Ms Edmunds, views that are immature and frankly, dangerous. But she thinks she's a libertarian.

Libertarians believe that individuals should be free of restriction, free to be bigots, free to be racists, free to serve who they want to do in their shops, free to exploit others. Libertarians believed in free trade, free untramelled capitalism, no safeguards, no checks and balances. Freedom to exploit and be exploited. Libertarianism does not condone bigotry, racism or exploitation, nor does it put any thing in place anything to discourage it. Under Donnas regime it is up to you if you discriminate against her because she is the child of an immigrant, or her daughter because she is disabled. The responsibility for your actions lies with you.

The problem with this is that it assumes that people are reasonable, responsible and decent, or that they will become so if controls are removed from them.

This is obvious idiocy. Go into any town centre of an evening and you'll see whole bunches of people whose responsibility is lobotomised by alcohol. That's not going to change. Actually you only have to look at her UKIP bedfellows to see that they'll never be anything but irresponsible, narrow-minded bigots (Geoffrey Bloom anyone?).

The upshot is that Donna is wrong, her politics are of the school playground. But she is not a racist. She just wants to allow anyone who wants to be a bigot the freedom to be a bigot, or a company that wants to drill for oil next to your home the freedom to do it, irrespective of whether it poisons your family.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 12:49am egalitarian wrote:
She may or may not be racist, but she is advocating racism by saying she wants people to be able to refuse their goods and services to anyone, without being forced to. She cannot pick and chose what she is applying her pro-discrimination stance towards. That is why her beliefs are so inept, and so nasty. The whole point about discrimination is that it is ultimately irrational, and is simply applied to race,colour gender or sexuality etc or whatever not because any of those groups deserve discrimination, but because people like Donna want to discriminate against others. She is advocating the politics of division, disharmony, prejudice and the ugly past.. It is abhorrent, and the point that some are missing, is that it is also illegal. She is endorsing unlawful discrimination.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 12:51am typo wrote:
typo from post above. should be
"....forced to provide theme equally to everyone"
On 28 Feb 2014 at 8:56pm Pat Condell Fan Club wrote:
My God , what a detestable bunch you are. Nazi,bigot,racist you really haven't got a clue.
It's because of you and your middle class Guardian reading chums that UKIP will clean up in May.
It because of people like you lot that this country has gone to the dogs. With your political correctness , health and safety and laughable so called progressive views. You are the dreggs right at the bottom of the barrel left over from the Tony Blair years.
Everything you believed in has crashed and burnt and your up against the wall so you retaliate by naming calling in the most disgraceful and ignorant fashion. What people like you have done is dilute the words Nazi, Bigot, Racist and homophobic in the name of trying really hard to make your selves come across as lovely forward thinking people.
Please , take a long look at your selves.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 9:45pm Zzz... wrote:
'Dregs' has one 'g'.
On 1 Mar 2014 at 2:02am genius wrote:
Donna using a pseudonym again...?
On 1 Mar 2014 at 6:49pm Sad Englishman wrote:
I don't read the Guardian. Hate it, actually. Hated Blair too. But you don't need to be left-wing or PC to know that UKIP are chancers. I know little and care less about Donna Edmunds, but the party she represents, UKIP, I do know about.
They harness unhappiness and resentment and point it at scapegoats. And, yes, that is precisely how the National Socialists came to power in Germany. The irony is that they seem to lack the self-awareness to realise how similar they are and would be deeply indignant to be labelled Nazis. Irony won't be much use to everyone if they actually get their hands on any sort of power though.
The xenophobia agenda has been pushed for decades now, and it didn't really start as a right-wing agenda, it's a self-serving agenda pushed by the Europhobe Murdoch papers and battened onto by those that find it expedient. And now it's taken human form in the shape of a stockbroker with a French-sounding name and a German wife. You couldn't make it up!
If you're considering a vote for UKIP, please remember this isn't a dream, and there are better ways to protest about the things that upset you - and better solutions to the things that bother you. They're probably harder and messier and slower than the panacea promised by M Farage, but that's real life for you. Sorry!
On 1 Mar 2014 at 7:00pm belladonna wrote:
Thus is begins. His conference speech was very distrubing.

Check it out here »
On 2 Mar 2014 at 1:03am Voter wrote:
The Sussex Express should be report Cllr Edmonds abhorrent views, now that they have finally been obtained. She is an election candidate. They are a disgrace, and voters need to know that this is what one of the candidate has written. Even UKIP should disown them.
On 3 Mar 2014 at 6:49pm local bod wrote:
so, in 2014, even though we have fought for and won proper anti-discrimination laws, this woman wants homophobic Christians and in fact anyone at all, to be able to refuse to serve gay people in pubs, shops, restrict employment to gay people etc etc. this is just vile, and it is exactly what terrifying homophobic right wing regimes like Russia, and Uganda are doing. this is no better than gay flood man David Silvester!
On 5 Mar 2014 at 5:26pm sprucer wrote:
I think Donna Edmunds is a hoot! I can't take anything she says seriously, because there is so little logic to it. Did you know she is campaigning to deregulate childcare? I don't think she can ever have seen what happened before it was regulated. It will be a very sad day if people actually vote for her in the EU elections. Her views must reach the public so she is judged properly by the electorate.
On 8 Mar 2014 at 8:16am Zzz... wrote:
She is a juvenile with an exceptionally narrow outlook. Before she gets a chance to foist her views on others she should get out and learn some more about life. Come back in 20 years Donna. It is guaranteed your views will be very different then.

6 posts left

Your response

Reserve your name
You must log in to use that name
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Downward dog 31:137
Downward dog

Halal and Kosha has been eaten in takeaways always, why the sudden concerns? Or are you easily offended by it suddenly? more
I like the way streets have street parties!!!!!!!

Job search

Advertise a Job
for £10

Upload your CV