Turning ignorance into an art form wasn’t in their manifesto but it does seem to be something they can honestly claim to be delivering. Thanks to all who brought this to light.

Attached is an extract from a recent UKIP policy statement. The position which UKIP has taken is one with which most of our Daily Mail reading supporters of complementary medicine would agree. At a time when 70% of the adult population have employed complementary medicine – often when they have not found relief through conventional medicine – it is tiresome to see UKIP, again out-positioning our Party – at a time when we can ill afford to lose votes.

If there is a better reason for rejecting a suggestion than its being supported by UKIP-voting Daily Mail reading supporters of alternative medicine, I really can’t imagine what it might be.

Thanks for noting the ASA judgment.  It’s good to have their backing.

Because we considered that the ads (a), (b) and (c) did not make sufficiently clear that the advertisers ran and recruited participants for clinical trials and that the free screening offered was therefore related to potential recruitment for a trial, we concluded that they were misleading.

The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.23 (Free).

No there is no quorum for the elections (as in parliamentary elections).

I expect it would be possible to vote several times, but I very much doubt whether people would bother. I suspect that the 147 yes votes were from people who thought is was a fait accompli and returned the form with very little thought.  There is no means of knowing whether the 1128 people who didn’t return a ballot form did do as an active act of abstention, or because they didn’t read the mail, or because they had more interesting things to do.  I think it would be very interesting to know, but there is no easy way to find out.

2.     
Such a low turnout – and especially for a postal ballot. Why is there apparently not a requirement for a minimum number of voters (cf. quorate meetings)?

3.     
The ballot paper instructs the voter to print a copy and post it back to a non-independent individual. Sorry if I’ve missed something, but how do we even know that the 147 ‘yes’ votes came from 147 individuals? What’s to stop someone casting multiple postal votes?

4.    According to the ballot paper, it’s also possible to vote via email – but to the same, non-independent individual. Although such an arrangement should preclude someone casting multiple electronic votes, doesn’t it necessitate voters disclosing their identity?

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.  Ordinary candidates are voted for my the members of the sectional committees, not by the whole fellowship, so there are no comparable numbers for the fraction of people who vote. Normally everyone on a sectional committee casts a vote.  In contrast, Royal fellows are selected directly by Council.  The process is entirely different.