UKIP Threaten Young Activist For Criticising Godfrey Bloom

Godfrey Bloom no longer sits as a UKIP MEP after a high profile row earlier this year and coupled with the fact that UKIP prides itself on being a party of free speech you would be forgiven for thinking that UKIP activists might be allowed to be critical of Godfrey. Apparently not, as one young activist from Yorkshire found out to his own cost. Samuel Fletcher, a UKIP parish and district council candidate hit out at Mr Bloom about his comments on removing the vote from those out of work, arguing ‘How glad am I that this man is no longer an official UKIP MEP, or UKIP spokesperson or official representative of the party in any way. Does he not actually live in Britain in 2013? We are ALREADY a very undemocratic country (both politically and economically speaking) with power disproportionately not being in the hands of ordinary people. He would make that situation even worse!’

He was quickly shot down by Mike Hookem, UKIP Yorkshire regional chair, who told him, along with another young commenter to report to the next regional meeting where ‘Jane Collins [Yorkshire Regional Organiser and lead Yorkshire MEP candidate] and I will consider your future in the party.’


Mr Fletcher told the Backbencher ‘It is wrong to crack down on free speech. It is just my opinion. I don’t know why they might be wanting to “crack down” on free speech or people speaking out against Godfrey Bloom.’ Mr Fletcher also pointed out that Godfrey is no longer a UKIP MEP and now sits as an independent.

Nigel Farage himself slammed Bloom in a speech at UKIP party conference, and has been critical of his gaffe prone former MEP and friend, but there is no suggestions that the Yorkshire branch will be taking any action against him.


  1. Stop making it out that what a handful of UKIP members say reflects the whole party you idiot. You did the same with Lee Rigby when Marty Caine said what he did.


  2. “He should be given an empty room, a bottle of scotch and a revolver” – how Godfrey Bloom was referred to by my local UKIP Branch Secretary.

    There will not be many members left if those criticising this silly old goat are purged.

  3. Vindictive and nasty Tory attempts to slam UKIP and UKIP members, because you know we are winning all the major political arguments and you Tories don’t like it. That’s all it boils down to now.

    • Simple way to solve this Sam did you or have you ever made sexually suggestive and inappropriate comments about females on Facebook and Twitter, because you’ve never responded to that, which suggests you may have something to hide. I hardly think UKIP is winning the public arguments, what with their recent joke of a conference and totally conflicting views on stuff like the NHS.

      • I may have made a few cheeky, saucy remarks on social media in my time, some of which may not have been well received, in which case I will have made my apologies at the time.
        The issue now is certain people trying to turn it into a political issue in an attempt to undermine my integrity as a political activist, which is a completely separate matter. It’s nasty and vindictive to deliberately confuse the personal with the political, and coming from any Tory I’m afraid it is just a very personal anti-UKIP smear campaign.

        • Ridiculous. You’ve undermined your own integrity, no one else.

          If you can’t recognise when your personal conduct is out of line, I question your fitness for ‘office’.

          I’m appalled you don’t seem to know what sexual harassment is, and worse, don’t even seem to care what a serious matter it is by making out that you were ‘joking’. It’s not funny to constantly direct sexual comments to young women when they’ve persistently told you that such comments make them uncomfortable.

          Sexual harassment is serious. You, and only you, are responsible for those comments and ignoring the requests of those women for you to stop.

          Telling you to stop is not unreasonable. You are shifting blame onto victims. Their integrity in calling you out, should be praised. As to your own integrity: you’ve damaged that yourself. No one else, Sam. Just you.

          Your logic and lack of care about those you upset to an almost criminal extent proves that you should not be accepted as a candidate.

          • Okay. I respect your opinion and you’re entitled to say what you want, but really, is there any real material point to any of this, beyond the pleasure of a slanging-match on this comment thread and trying to embarrass me?

            I have taken your comments on-board, both as a private individual and as a political activist. As far as my personal conduct is concerned, the most you can do about that is make your feelings known to myself, and you have done. Fair enough.

            However, if you really sincerely believe that I am unfit to be a political activist, what do you propose to do about it? Either do something about it, if you feel you really should, or just shut up. Either way, please bring to a close the tittle-tattle and gossip on this comment thread.

  4. I don’t know that I am a “nationalist” and “part of the authoritarian wing” of UKIP (for there is no such thing). I am a conservative with a small ‘c’ and I believe in democracy, liberty and freedom of speech. Hence my being disturbed at (UKIP Yorkshire regional chairman) Mike Hookem’s comment on my status.

    Gladly, the fact is that Hookem doesn’t have the power to “consider my future in the party” as suggested. He is the greatest threat to UKIP, and what we are as a party, that i’ve ever seen in 2 years of membership, with his liking for shouting other members down at party meetings and his growing tendency to suppress freedom of speech. If anyone needs to go from UKIP, it’s him!

    Miss Wade’s comments are disgraceful, frankly, and born out of pure personal resentment of me since I blocked her on Facebook for making vindictive and unjustified comments about me on social networking portals. The woman seems to have a weird and, at times, disturbing personal obsession/vendetta against me.

    • No Samuel, we’ve all see the highly inappropriate remarks you’ve made to her and other women on Facebook and Twitter. Lisa only ever intervened in the defence of female friends, or herself, when you thought it wise to make sexually debasing comments. Lisa never had you on her Facebook friends list, and this I fully support her in. Some of the comments you directed towards her were, frankly, disgraceful and sexually predatory. If I’d ever seen you make comments like that to a woman who clearly didn’t want your ‘attentions’ in public, I’d have felt no shame in applying blunt trauma to the face.

      You are the disgrace, Samuel Fletcher. You view women as ‘objects’. Lisa is one of those who sees you for what you are and has guts enough to call you out on your behaviour. I like how you attempt to defend yourself, you resort to defaming an young woman with concrete political views, intelligence and propriety

      Intelligence, unwavering political convictions and a presence that isn’t akin to Jimmy Savile. These are all things you could only dream of, Samuel Fletcher.

    • Well, that’s an outright. You were NEVER on my Facebook list. This was because of the sexually aggressive remarks you made towards both myself and female friends. The extent of my interaction with you, has been to defend myself and other girls from unwelcome comments.

      By the way, I’ll be contacting your ‘party’ to make a complaint about your conduct with women and your usage of a UKIP account to try and access my personal accounts.

      Good Day.

      • Fletcher is a sad, pathetic pervert who abhors libertarianism and everything the liberty movement stands for. He is an authoritarian leftist who wouldn’t look out of place in the EDL.

  5. This’ll be the THIRD political party that Fletcher has decided doesn’t ‘represent his views’ then? Criticise Bloom all you like, Samuel. At least he has clear political views – even if they are completely wrong! You change your ‘views’ to suit your mood and the political climate. The stupidity of this man never fails to amuse me. And no, I don’t agree with Hookem’s actions, but Fletcher’s own stupidity is partly to blame here. I’m at a loss how anyone who has fully supported UKIP’s attack on libertarians and the suppression of free speech etc in the whole Ollyshambles thing could suddenly think making comments like that, would be acceptable!

    • Agreed. Fletcher is a fraud who will do anything for political advancement. He knows Bloom is dead in the water politically, so he turns on him. He wants power and has no limits on what he’ll do to get it.

  6. This isn’t the first time this has happened. UKIP displayed their perverse attitude towards freedom of speech when they stood by a man who compared homosexuality to child abuse (on the grounds that party members were free to express personal opinions), while ousting a young member who said that he supported marriage equality for gay people.

    Their support for free speech seems to extend solely to shrugging off the bigotry of their members.

    • Fletcher’s a nationalist, not a libertarian.

      Neville was much closer ideologically to Bloom, who supports sound money, legalising drugs and flat taxation than to Fletcher. Most of the time, Fletcher IS a bigot.

  7. Bloom was one of the few libertarian leaning people in UKIP. He was for the legalization of drugs and prostitution, sound money and flat taxes. Democracy isn’t libertarian anyway.

    Fletcher is a bit of a national-conservative and part of the authoritarian wing of the party.

  8. I don’t get UKIP, they harp on about ‘free speech’ but as soon as a young member expresses a slightly different opinion, they get the party whip, just like the main three parties. Yet when members actually make crude remarks that put the entire party at risk it’s brushed aside. Irresponsible.

    I don’t know who that Mike Hookem is, but I won’t be renewing membership and he and Jane Collins need to sort their priorities out. What a jobsworth.

  9. UKIP are speaking for a rich and privileged elite abd propose a tax system that disproportionately favours them. The party as a whole has very little of substance to say on anything and exists mainly ad the Farage show. They can’t even adequately explain what they would do if the country did leave the EU in regards to trade agreements and how the economy would survive. In short it is a joke party followed by fools.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here