Talk:Conservative Democratic Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earlier comments[edit]

I've taken out most of the nonsense about the CDA supporting the Lib Dems and being left-wing. Wikipedia is not the place for making your own political points (however much it might sometimes look that way...) --ALargeElk 14:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When you mention someone like David Irving, is it not rather improper to prefix his name with "holocaust-denier"? Would you prefix someone else by saying "the shoplifter Mr John Brown" or "the thief Mr John Brown"? Is that not a bit odd and rather POV? It just doesn't seem correct to me. If I were prosecuting someone in court I would not prefix his name in this way. Britannica too never does this. The BBC describe him as "the controversial British historian" and that seems to me to be much more balanced. Sussexman 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done that. 86.141.58.94 12:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Here is the Talk Page - where are the details mentioned in the template? Sussexman 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauder-Frost BNP membership[edit]

I deleted an allegation that the above was a BNP member. The original article says that he told the undercover journalist that he couldn't be an active member. It is unclear whether the journalist was saying that he was a member but couldn't be active or that he didn't want to join. I understand from web forums that Frost is making a complaint to the PCC. In the circumstances I think it is right to wait for clarification before casting aspersions.

May I also state that I found the article itself ' t' and an example of the New McCarthyism becoming all too common in the UK. - Art of War

On the same basis I have deleted the corresponding section from the Monday Club article. --SandyDancer 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the Monday Club deletion bit in the article here is completely relevant. If Mr Lauder Frost's complaint to the PCC is successful then that too should be noted.--Edchilvers 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps it should be noted that he is making the complaint. --SandyDancer 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps but it will be difficult to source as the claim that he was making a complaint was made on a Quicktopic discussion forum so clicking on a link will take you to the most recent thread as opposed to the relevant post. I would say that most poeple mentioned in the Guardian would have complained and generally I would say that it is only relevant if the case is successful and the Guardian have to publish a retraction/apology--Edchilvers 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/XCG9j5kNnxPaa/p3292.2392 JASpencer 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines make my head spin, but I seem to remember reading that posts on websites etc. can be used as sources in that they evidence something someone has said. So can we add the source and say something along the lines of "Lauder-Frost has denied this allegation and has stated that he has made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission"? Would seem fairer to me. Thoughts? If that doesn't fly, I think removing the reference to the Guardian article altogether is in order. --SandyDancer 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion boards are almost the lowest form of life on WP:RS, only just above comments sections on blogs. However if you can demonstrate that GLF has written this (and the fact that it has appeared under his name on a forum that he has moderating rights on may indicate this - although he does not use a "stared" account which means it could be an imposter). The Daily Mirror account seems to be totally derivative of the Guardian, and the Guardian does not say that GLF was a member of the BNP - just that their journalist contacted him and he said that he could not be active. The Daily Mirror could well have lost the subtelty of what the Guardian said - I wouldn't like to be their libel lawyer on that!
With all of this, and knowing GLF's propensity to sue I am going to cut this out. The fact that the CDA is to the right of the Conservative Party is pretty well established in the article. JASpencer 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Go for it. --SandyDancer 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea that users can be intimidated from editing articles on the basis that the subject may take legal action. People new to Wikipedia who edit the article may rightly wonder why we don't have an article on Lauder-Frost, the man who apparently led the Monday Club through the most successful period of its history, but the reasons for this are internaly political and lead all the way to the top of the Foundation--Edchilvers 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are real problems with the Guardian article. All that is clear from the article is that Gregory Frost was contacted by Ian Cobain in Cobain's role as the BNP officer in charge of Central London, and that Frost actually said he wouldn't do anything. Membership is implied but not stated. The Mirror does state this, but shows no signs of independent checking. If GLF has joined the BNP we'll hear about it soon enough. JASpencer 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost was a BNP member at least in 2007 according to the official BNP membership list. I would like to know why he and his lawyer friends are threatening people for reporting the facts. We now can fairly conclude that Sussexman is a professional liar, I think it should be taken into account next time he whines about accuracy on Wikipedia.

  • It is not the "official List". The BNP state that their membership for 2007 was just under 10,000. Yet this list contains just over 12000 people. It has long been a tactic of the Far Left (who first published this list) to add their hate figures to it and his name is no exception. He has publicly stated on the British Democracy Forums that he is not a member. Why is that not sufficient, given that this rogue list cannot be authenticated?

Affiliation[edit]

My main problem with this article is that it seems to be all over the place - the CDA are linked to three political organisations - the Conservative Party, UKIP and the BNP, so where exactly do they stand?--Edchilvers 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The CDA are NOT linked in any way to the BNP. Lauder-Frost was on some list of people to contact. That is all. If you read the article he said he could not become an active member. Nothing in the article attributes membership to him. In addition I understand he has made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. You (and The Guardian) ought to take your smears elsewhere. 81.153.222.241 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wonder how he ended up on the list of people to contact? As I recall it the Guardian journalist contacted people who were active members, those who had let their membership lapse and those who had expressed a clear interest in joining. Wonder which catagory Frostie belongs to? Also I suggest you take a look at some of the CDA sponsered discussion froums where you will find that a large number of their membership are indeed drawn from the ranks of the BNP--Edchilvers 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's explanation[edit]

Hello this is User: Political Dweeb here to explain about the new Paragrapghs added to this page on the Conservative Democratic Alliance. I am responsible for the paragraphs on the page on the CDA's political position on anti-Semitism because nobody or the CDA members replied to my query about this political position of the CDA on this talk page.However I wanted to make these paragraphs questioning the CDA's position on anti-Semitism to see if the CDA or anyone else could tell me if the CDA's political position would be supportative or against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial while maintaing their national conservative or social conservative beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Dweeb (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Chairman of CDA[edit]

I am the Chairman of the CDA. I deplore anti-semitism and 'Holocaust Denial' and CDA is opposed to both.

We also permit a fair degree of free expression on our forums and the private views of contributors are theirs alone. Posts deemed to be offensive are frequently removed. An individual post expressing personal support for le Pen and his party would not be removed, but it does not imply that CDA supports le Pen.

The Wikipedia entry is not endorsed by CDA nor is it 'policed' by us. It is written by outsiders and cannot be accepted as 100% accurate. However until your recent revisions it was relatively objective.

I will now be reverting the article to an earlier version, excluding your speculations. If you wish to discuss these further you can do so with me, here. Mike Keith Smith (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply #2 by Chairman of CDA[edit]

Thank you for this.

If David Irving applied to come to a CDA dinner he would have his cheque returned because we don't want him. We can't be held responsible for the actions of other unconnected groups. We are also not responsible for Indopedia, whatever that may be. Are you saying that Irving was guest speaker at this dinner?

>>By the way are you also the chairman in charge on the Conservative Monday Club? <<

If you mean am I the Chairman of the Monday Club, no I am not. I am simply a paid-up member of the Monday Club.Mike Keith Smith (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baldwin Society- statement by Mike Keith Smith[edit]

The Baldwin Society, set up in honour of the late Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, is a non party-political dining club of which my wife and I are sole proprietors. My wife has never been a member of CDA and there is no formal connection between the two bodies.

Following my return to the Conservative Party from UKIP I am winding down CDA, which is ultimately to be merged with the Traditional Britain Group under the control of UKIP member Gregory Lauder-Frost. My wife and I will continue to organise Baldwin Society dinners but with less emphasis on party political speakers than hitherto. Mike Keith Smith (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conservative Democratic Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative Democratic Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 19 October 2018[edit]

I think Gregory Lauder-Frost, as well as Gregory Lauder Frost (which both redirect here) should redirect to Western Goals Institute#Traditional Britain Club, as the TBC seems to be the most recent incarnation which Lauder-Frost has been involved with, not the CDA. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Bangalamania (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No comments or opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Democratic_Alliance&oldid=1206777416"