Lending a hand to Nigel...

Nigel Farage is not impressed with John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker.

Bercow has come up with some bizarre idea that MP profiles should fulfill quotas based on race, gender, and physical well-being.

So, actual personal abilities and merits and being in tune with the members of the public who elect an MP are not as important as matching a quota profile, then?

Sounds like something Harriet Harman would come up with.

UKIP's Nigel Farage - who is standing against John Bercow at the General Election - has called the idea "a load of old cobblers".

Farage says: "[Bercow's] report even recommends that political candidates for MP come from a political research background. These recommendations amount to an attempt to nationalise politics in Britain. Rather than broadening the reach of Parliamentary life in the UK it would narrow it to a strict 'Islingtonian' political elite. What we need are MPs with real-world experience of life not the continued self-promotion of the self-perpetuating political class. Bercow's report is supposed to make Parliament more relevant but fails to recognise that 75% of our laws are made in Brussels. If he really wanted to make politics more relevant then he should address that fundamental deficit first."

On that last point, Nigel, we might be able to help.

Let's say we knew of someone (we do) who had written to John Bercow in his role as Speaker and pointed out the treason laws in light of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty.

Let's say we knew of someone (we do) who had written to John Bercow and pointed out the incompatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the British constitution - namely the Declaration/Bill of Rights 1688/89.

Let's say we knew of someone (we do) who received a reply to their correspondence in this regard.

Now, assuming that John Bercow did nothing after being told of a possible case of treason - doing nothing when learning about the possible act of treason is a common law offence of misprision...

And assuming that he took no action against any Member of Parliament who may have breached the treason laws or the constitutional document noted above...

Lets say we knew of someone (we do) with a reply letter sent from John Bercow's secretary on his behalf, advising that member of the public who had contacted the Speaker on what they might do about such a state of affairs.

And let's say we'd seen that letter (we have). And this is what it says:

"The Office of Speaker requires the incumbent to be strictly impartial and this means that he cannot comment on what you have written or do as you wish. I recognise that you have research [sic] the issues you have written about deeply. I can only suggest that you seek to express those views, as is your right and then decide, when the General Election is called, to vote for the candidate who most closely shares your position."

We may or may not have a copy of that letter. (We do.)

So, we've expressed those views - as suggested we should.

And when the General Election is called, if you care about your country, about sovereignty, about freedom from tyranny, then there can be only one party to vote for.

So make sure you return a decent 'quota' of UKIP MPs by voting for UKIP.

After all, if you support your country, wish to restore your country's sovereignty and oppose tyranny against the public by Government, then vote for the candidiate who most closely shares your position.

And you can be almost certain that they have joined UKIP's freedom revolution.