On 27 Sep 2013 at 1:33am Voter wrote:
Donna Edmunds (UKIP) claimed that two Town Councillors , who had resigned, had done so out of 'disgust' for its 'undemocratic' manner. (see previous thread) Both Councillors have denied this is true. Donna was then challenged to provide evidence on her UKIP Facebook publicity page, and would not. She then blocked the person who had questioned her. The posts have since disappeared, including Donna's acknowledgement that she made up her claim about one Councillor, based on presumption, and the other which was based on unsubstantiated hearsay.
On 27 Sep 2013 at 5:53am voice of reason wrote:
That's how UKIP are going to be.
Smear campaigns, lies, denials, surpression of opposition or dissent.
The future's suddenly looking an incredibly dangerous place for non-whites and democracy.
I can't adequately express my utter contempt for that appalling woman.
On 27 Sep 2013 at 8:38am Rationalist wrote:
Donna Edmunds professes to be a libertarian. Libertarians don't believe in censorship, yet as soon as she is criticised she censors, as she has done here and as she did with her infamous episode on Twitter where she called Jim Cornelius the village idiot and said she hoped he got cancer.
Donna does not have the courage of her convictions. Until she has the spine to live by what she professes to believe in then how can she or what she says be taken with anything but a pinch of salt?
Quite honestly UKIP deserves her, but it will be a sad day when our taxes support her as a UKIP MEP. This pill is made more bitter when you remember that UKIP don't even believe in Europe.
Here's a direct link to a screenshot of the deleted Facebook discussion:
View the picture »
On 27 Sep 2013 at 10:58am Voter wrote:
I notice that Donna 's publicity about Matt and Petrina was shared, and that UKIP Lewes are also promoting a claim that our Town Council is undemocratic, and that Matt and Petrina resigned in 'disgust' Perhaps, Lewes UKIP would like to explain why the post is still there, given that both Councillors have denied that this is true, and Donna Edmunds admitted herself that she had based her comments about Matt on hearsay and her belief that anyone citing 'family reasons' means something else. She also admitted that she had just 'presumed' Petrina had resigned in 'disgust', although has since deleted that admission along with other embarrassing comments in a way which reminds me of the kind of Stalinist activities she is keen to accuse others of doing.
I am surprised that Lewes UKIP think that Donna is a suitable candidate to represent their party. Or perhaps she is representing them very accurately?
On 27 Sep 2013 at 9:53pm Trotsky wrote:
All dissent has been removed from Donna`s facebook it`s as if it never happened.Airbrushed soviet style.Who will weild the ice pick in Donna`s Dystopia?Or maybe it will be a night of the long knives as Ukip tears itself to pieces.
On 28 Sep 2013 at 1:05am I Spick wrote:
There is a certain irony that Ms Edmunds constantly goes on about her family coming from Russia, and hating Loony Left Communist style behaviour, which is fair enough, yet is censoring her critics just like...Communist Russia. I am also concerned that a self proclaimed Christian would maintain her publicity about two Councillors, but hide her admission that it is not based on any evidence.
On 28 Sep 2013 at 2:37am The ninth commandment wrote:
The Ninth Commandment
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
We must be sure what a lie is before speaking about the Eighth Commandment, in which the Lord forbids us to slander our neighbours. A lie is a distortion or concealment of the truth. A lie is contrary to Truth, which proceeds from God. A lie proceeds from the devil. Christ calls the devil, the father of lies: When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it, says Christ (John 8:44). The Apostle Paul teaches that a liar works on behalf of the devil. In his Epistle to the Colossians we read: Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9).
The word of God often speaks of the pernicious habit of lying. A lie is a foul blot in a man, yet it is continually in the mouth of the untaught, we read in the Old Testament book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 20:24). King Solomon also bears witness to such a truth: Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight (Proverbs 12:22). In another place the Solomon writes: Therefore beware of murmuring, which is unprofitable; and refrain your tongue from backbiting: for there is no word so secret, that shall go for nought: and the mouth that belieth slayeth the soul (Wisdom of Solomon 1:11). Indeed, lies and slander are tantamount to murder, for it is possible to kill not only the physical body, but also the spiritual body. The disposition of a liar, writes the wise Sirach, is dishonorable, and his shame is ever with him (Ecclesiasticus 20:26). The Apostle Paul writes that God punishes the liar: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25).
Life provides a wide field for lying by reason of faint-heartedness, vainglory, or gain, which last converges with stealing. The vainglorious pharisaical lie proceeds from self-love and is uttered for self-exaltation and condemnation of one's neighbor. Slander is a lie aimed to defame another. In this instance, malice may work together with lying.
The Fathers of the Church understood the Ninth Commandment as a warning against every sin committed by word and against idle talking, as well as the sin of bearing false witness in court. This form of lying turns against the one speaking. Remember the words of Christ: Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant (Luke 19:22). Whatever we speak does not disappear without a trace. If we speak about love, but in life take vengeance on those who offend us; if we speak about morality, but do not follow God=s moral laws; if we speak about the dignity of the human person, but treat our neighbors badly, and so forth; then God's Last Judgment will deal with us by our own words. If we speak about good, we know about it; and if we know about good, and if we do not do it, all our talk was idle. And Christ said: But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment (Matthew 12:36). Idle talk is not merely vacuous; it is every word not justified by life-time deeds.
Saint John of the Ladder says: Silence is always beneficial. One may speak, of course, but not idly. It is necessary to speak only that which we sincerely feel. But the tongue can no man tame, teaches the Apostle James; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. And a little earlier the Apostle proclaims: If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body (James 3:8, 2).
The ascetical Fathers teach us to wrestle with condemnation. Here is one instruction of Saint Isaac the Syrian: When someone begins to criticize his brother in thy presence, do not listen to him; but lower thy countenance. As soon as thou shalt do this, then before God and before him that shalt prove to be careful.
The beginning of salvation is the condemnation of one's self, teaches Saint Nilus of Sinai; and he says further: Let us attend to ourselves that we do not begin to condemn others, for much of what we condemn in others is in us ourselves. Instruct the sinner, but do not condemn the fa
On 28 Sep 2013 at 7:11am On the other hand. wrote:
or in other words. If you invent stuff about people, that's not so good.
On 28 Sep 2013 at 11:30am Serendipity wrote:
Donna must be torn between her political ambition, libertarian beliefs and Christian faith. How does she feel about gay marriage for instance?. Will she fall on the Christian side (it's bad, god wouldn't like it) or the libertarian side (personal freedom is *the* priority).... or will she go for political expediency and keep her mouth shut (something she doesn't have a great track record for admittedly)?