[update: this has been cleared up - cross-over of communications from several people involved in the organising of the hustings. i'm leaving this here for historical purposes. thank you to churches together for the opportunity to speak to the people of farnham.]
I was initially invited to the above hustings, to be given an opportunity to speak with people. However, it turns out that the person with "authority" to make that decision was away, and it appears that it was "merely assumed" that of course people wishing to represent the South West Surrey Constituency would be given a chance to speak.
I received a messasge today denying that opportunity. Here is my response:
dear churches together,
thank you for responding.
if churches together wishes to rig the next general election by not allowing representatives of parties to speak then i am not interested in being a part of any such proceedings.
"but not to take part in the debate on wider issues" indicates that you have already decided whom people should vote for.
you should be asking yourself why you are doing that.
should this be an oversight on the part of churches together, i apologise for misunderstanding and would welcome an opportunity to "take part in the debate to discuss wider issues".
i look forward to your response.
this conversation will be made a matter of public record.
dear churches together,
you can find a copy of my response, here :
i trust that by repeating one sentence of eleven words you would not wish to claim that copyright disbars me from making that sentence public.
i have removed your name but not that a representative of "churches together" has prevented and prohibited me from a reasonable and fair opportunity to discuss "wider views".
i believe that you may be mistaken in thinking that the pirate party is solely and exclusively interested in "narrow views".
please actually _read_ our manifesto which specifically states that the candidates are "free of party whips". http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Manifesto
thus, outside of the very short and simple manifesto, which is in effect "Human Rights" upgraded to a Digital Age, i am free to represent peoples' views in ways that the major parties are NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
thus, you are denying people the opportunity to have someone represent them whose level of intelligence, integrity, honesty, and spiritual outlook is, even if i say it myself, far and above that of the majority of politicians. not that i like having to point that out to you, but you push me to having to "sell" myself to you, to make it clear, and i'm not particularly happy about having to overcome what is clearly prejudice on your part.
i trust that this is an oversight on your part that you would wish to correct promptly. [update: which they kindly did, pointing out the cross-over in internal communications, and i'm grateful for the clarification and the opportunity]