#685* – UPDATE OF: #681* – EUkip STORY ILL JUDGED &; SHODDY JOURNALISM
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
UPDATE – EUkip STORY ILL JUDGED & SHODDY JOURNALISM by Michael CRICK & THE GULLIBLE COPYIST Christopher BOOKER!
AN EDITORIAL ADDITION WAS MADE AT 18:20hrs. see my second letter below.
AN EDITORIAL ADDITION WAS MADE AT 23:20hrs. see additions below.
Ukip faces bankruptcy after Electoral Commission appeal
There is a startling contrast between the treatment of Ukip and the Lib Dems in cases involving party donations, says Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Published: 8:16PM BST 24 Oct 2009
Thomas Hardy fans will be familiar with the “Skimmington ride”. This was the old practice whereby, when someone had affronted communal morality, a mob would gather outside the culprit’s house to make a loud noise by banging pots and pans together while shouting abuse. Such an unlovely spectacle was the Skimmington conducted by Thursday evening’s Question Time, happily diverting attention from several rather more important issues of the day, such as the suicide of the Royal Mail. These might even have included the fact that, for the first time in history, a British political party, rather more popular and respectable than the BNP, may have to close down, following a court ruling which threatens it with bankruptcy.
A neat summary of some of the illogicalities behind the Appeal Court’s ruling that the UK Independence Party, with 13 MEPs, must hand over £750,000 for a trivial breach of electoral law, was provided on his blog by the BBC’s diligent political reporter Michael Crick.
As “Case A”, he described how, in 2005, Ukip received donations amounting to £363,607 from a bookmaker, Alan Bown. Mr Bown had a legitimate business and had for years been on the electoral register where he lives in Kent. But, due to an oversight, his name had not been included on the register for the year when he gave the money. In 2007, when the Electoral Commission tracked this down, a district judge ruled that Ukip should pay £18,000 as a penalty for failing to check whether Mr Bown’s name was on the register. This was not good enough for the Commission, which appealed, demanding that all Mr Bown’s donations must be confiscated. When the Appeal Court last week supported the Commission, this left Ukip with a legal bill amounting to £750,000 which it hasn’t got, thus facing it with bankruptcy.
Mr Crick then presented “Case B”, concerning Michael Brown, whose donation of £2.4 million was the largest ever enjoyed by the Liberal Democrats. Mr Brown made his gift through a highly dodgy company called 5th Avenue Partners. In 2008, before being found guilty on £10 million fraud charges, he changed his name, grew a beard, he skipped bail and moved to Spain. The Electoral Commission, having investigated this murky story, found that the Lib Dems had accepted the donation in “good faith” (even though it came from a company built on fraud), and seems unwilling to take further action.
The Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000, which the Electoral Commission was enforcing, was based on a report by the eminent lawyer Lord Neill of Bladen, whose concern, over donations, was that they should come from legitimate sources, not be anonymous, and should not be from people living abroad. In the cases of Bown and Brown, one was an honest Englishman, running a legitimate business whose only mistake was a minor error of paperwork; the other is a very shady character who, having been caught out running a business built on fraud, now lives anonymously abroad.
On which party, asked Mr Crick, do we think the Electoral Commission came down like a ton of bricks? Apart from the Lib Dems, of course, no one will have rejoiced more at last week’s verdict than the Conservative Party. One of the Tories’ biggest fears, since Ukip came second in this year’s Euro-elections with 2.5 million votes, has been that many otherwise natural Tories might be tempted to vote for Ukip again in next year’s general election – not just as Euro-sceptics frustrated by Mr Cameron’s weaselly line on the EU, but in protest against the degradation of all our main parties by the allowances scandals.
If Ukip is forced out of play, many such voters will stay at home. The only electoral beneficiaries of the court’s ruling could thus be the BNP, who, however disreputable themselves, might well win rather more protest votes against the squalid antics of our “political class” than they would have received otherwise.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
FIRST: May I draw attention to the fact that EUkip does NOT face bankruptcy over this matter – the first foolish mistake in the article – as written in to the 2008 accounts as lodged is the statement from the auditors that:
There is a pending risk of liability under legal liability before the Courts in the matter of impremissable donations and that Mr. Alan Bown has undertaken to pay the sum and the costs should the Courts find against EUkip.
May I also point out that under the Constitution The NEC accepts the liability for the debts of the party both jointly and severally a condition, duty and liability that pre dates their obscenely costly incorporation as a Limited Company.
My Comment to The Sunday Telegraph was quite long enough without adding those passing details!
Here is a copy of my comment:
I have been something of a fan of Christopher Booker from his early days as a script writer for the seminal TW3, through Private Eye and now a regular in The Sunday Telegraph neither here nor in his books, many with Dr. Richard North, have let down the reader so badly as this article.
This is almost as sloppy a piece of journalism as was that of Michael Crick – Booker you are not the office junior doing re-writes from the worthy you are an investigative journalist – why did you check none of your facts?
I am aware of every step of the way in this case from my first warning the past Treasurer John de Roeke as he has publicly confirmed, the then chairman David Lott and the effective leader of the day Nigel Farage that Alan Bown had permitted himself to be struck off the electoral roll for ‘marital’ reasons.
I advised them that they should repay the money, as they had done with the earlier donation by Sir Jack Haywood of Wolves. & have it repaid either through one of Alan Bown’s legitimate companies (I was unaware of the donations through one of his unregistered companies, at the time!).
Sir Jack Hayward’s Lady wife repaid EUkip the shortfall – thus de Roeke engineered 3 excellent and very beneficial press coverages based upon the single donation and EUkip’s THEN probity.
The Electoral Commission made some 13 telephone & written communications seeking to assist in regularisation.
They even had face to face meetings and EUkip saw fit to make deliberate decisions to insult and antagonise the Official Regulator.
Would EUkip advocate that all laws should be broken by those who can get away with it, if we were unfortunate enough to see them elected?
Eventually after exploring every avenue The Electoral Commission were forced to bring the matter to Court where even on the steps EUkip & Bown would have been permitted to take all parties to lunch and obtain the good publicity of rotating cheques to regularise the matter but no – like a small spoilt child Farage led his hapless band OVER the precipice and even then Judge Tim Workshop showed both wisdom and leniency to the satisfaction of all concerned.
It was only in the aftermath of the court case and rapped knuckles with a ‘contrived’ forfeiture of a mere £18,000 that EUkip were led to destruction by the insults and braggadocio of their leadership cocking a snoot at the Courts and Electoral Commission to such an extent that it could not be reasonably tollerated.
Oh why did you not carry out the very simplest of checks with due dilligence Christopher as to build a reputation for veracity takes years and this second foolish foray makes you look like a man cuckolded by his lover!
Your earlier betrayal of your own standards was over the discreditted Marta Andreasen where you were too blinded by the beauty of the story to let facts get in the way.
Please assure us you have not ignored the facts to bring us the stories of Snatch Vehicles in Iraq, poor policies in Afghanistan, idiocy and betrayal in The EU, duplicity in Governance and more recently that you have not overlooked the facts to write a good yarn on climate and temperature changes and the mendacity of Social Services and The Family Courts.
It is a simple matter to find the full written judgement AGAINST Marta Andreasen on my blog at:
It was also a simple matter for me to confirm, knowing the details and dishonesty of Andrew Smith, whose ‘e’Mail was published in this paper some years ago I believe or in the rival paper which seems to acquire many of this paper’s better journalists! (Who check their facts!)
I found my conversations with the Electoral Commission informative over the years as was my long conversation when confirming the story you copied from Michael Crick was bunkum – a simple matter of a phone call to an executive in The Lib.Dems. and access to their silk for comment.
Perhaps to help your readers we can enlighted:
The £2.4M. donation was NOT from Michael Brown as you carelessly copied but from his Company 5th. Avenue Partners – unlike the company that made donations to EUkip for Alan Bown 5th. Avenue Partners was a legitimately registered Company in Britain.
Unlike EUkip the Lib.Dems. (
Electoral Commission correction) did ‘due dilligence’ checks above and beyond those called for under law. The company showed as squeeky clean to these checks even to the checks with their bankers of sufficient solvency and legitimacy before presenting the cheque for payment.
The matter was passed, at the end of the allowed 30 days to the Electoral Commission who made absolutely no querie until some time later AFTER a serious fraud office enquiry commenced when The Lib.Dems. were asked to co-operate with the police, which they did.
I understand it would not be too great a stretch to claim that without The Lib.Dims. meticulous files and internal transparency of accounts aided by The Electoral Commission the case against 5th. Avenue Partners and Mr. Michael Brown might not have been so strong as despite the puff & blow of the Government money laundering laws are like so many others that this Government and their EU cronies have devised are just down right shoddy and fail to address the problems for which they are designed particularly with Ponzi type scams as was seemingly the Brown 5th.Ave.Ptnrs. case.
Sadly Christopher Booker you have been shoddy and unprofessional and without even the charm and skirl of a Spanish skirt!
I can obviously provide a great deal more factual information Christopher and am as happy to do so now as when I cautioned on this story from the very start.
I’m so glad I hold the evidence that confirms the story of ‘Janet’ which you have written up brilliantly and can be followed in full at:
http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.com/ which will shortly include the re-submission to the lower Courts and an outline of The Bundle for The Human Rights Courts together with a privately obtained 6 page escorriation of the handling of the case by a leading custody consultant of world reknown.
Perhaps recovery from the culture shock of a fortnight in India has damaged judgement 😉
A UKIP supporter
Booker Fan of VERY MANY YEARS standing!
Here is another comment!
Mr Booker has completely destroyed his credibility after writing this. I really thought he had more sense than to fall for the Farage spin machine.
UKIP had every chance to rectify their ‘mistake’ but they ignored all of Elcom’s warnings.
Andrew Smith, UKIP�s treasurer at the time, even advised in an email that UKIP mislead Elcom.
Farage then publicly attacked Elcom at a UKIP conference.
Why should we feel any sympathy for Farage? If you break the law you pay the price.
on October 24, 2009 at 11:14 PM
AN EDITORIAL ADDITION WAS MADE AT 18:20hrs. see my second letter below.
I made a further comment on the original article web site in response to other comments made – all of which can be seen at: CLICK HERE
Tom Collins is confused when he asks:
How Greg Lance Watkins can call himself a UKIP Supporter, after his vicious diatribe, is beyond me.
But he is VERY Confused when he claims:
The admin.staff at UKIP made an error over a post code address !
If only it was a simple error but clearly it was not as I showed in brief, it was a series of very clear and deliberate decisions by several EUkip executives acting in concert AGAINST the best interests of UKIP members, supporters and these United Kingdoms.
EUkip is of course the party where Derek Clark MEP on Farage’s instruction signed an agreement that Britain would be subject to GREATER Subsidiarity to The EU and that EUkip would work WITH The EU to STRENGTHEN its control over Britain and other vassal states!
I am a dedicated supporter of UKIP wishing Britain to excercise our basic human right of ‘Self Determination’ in freedom through our own accountable Westminster GOVERNMENT not a rubber stamping office of parasites fiddling their expenses.
I as do UKIP members wish Britain to leave The EU and be a self governing global trading Nation.
I totally repudiate the actions of what is EUkip with its alliances with racists, xenophobes, anti Jewish, sexually intollerant, violent bigots as ‘chums’ to form a Pan EU Political Party (masked as the EFD group).
I also repudiate EUkip’s endemic bullying, dishonesty and blatant corruption.
JeremyT has got it right when he claims:
This is a curious judgement
Indeed it is at a glance but when one realises due to deliberate chosen decisions EUkip forced The Electoral Commission and The Courts to this decision it becomes less ‘curious’.
Indeed Alan Bown is the party penalised as EUkip’s accounts clearly show the party as potentially facing the financial liability which the auditors attest is covered by an undertaking by Alan Bown to pay the forfeiture and such costs as are incurred!
Little wonder that Farage and his placemen have seen fit to make a series of utterly idiotic choices to seemingly deliberately exacerbate a situation which the authorities made effort after effort to resolve amicably to UKIP’s advantage.
It is not so much a ‘curious’ judgement as perverse behaviour from EUkip and to whose advantage one is forced to ask oneself as it sure to hell is not of benefit to Britain, the people at large nor members and supporters of UKIP – so very deliberately distanced from EUkip by abuse and obfuscation.
AN EDITORIAL ADDITION WAS MADE AT 23:20hrs 25-Oct-2009. see additions below.
I note the following comment made which sadly I am unable to refute – though I do not know ‘Bert’ he seems very well informed and depressingly accurate from EUkip’s viewpoint as they seek to obfuscate by ‘ad hominem attack’ being unable to bring facts to bear – one need only note the unsound and inaccurate comment of Robert Feel Martinis who recently, due to ill health and dishonesty lost his platform and his route to The Gravy Train he craved!
Bert’s comments follow:
1. Why does UKIP refuse to publish its MEPs� EU expense claims? It is hypocritical that UKIP should condemn the EU for failing to sign off its accounts while refusing to detail its MEPs� use of taxpayers� funds.
2. When will Farage publish his expense claims so that voters may learn how he has claimed �2,000,000 in 10 years? What is he hiding? Even Tory MEP5 now publish their EU expense accounts.
3. What happened to UKIP supporters� donations? Between 2003-5, nearly 90% of donations into UKIP�s Ashford Call Centre disappeared in administration costs. Another �200,000+ disappeared in Farage�s SE Region in �other costs� (see Electoral Commission website). Demands for audits have been rejected by Farage. Why? What is being hidden?
4. On 27.1.05, why did UKIP MEP5 vote to support a motion whose subtext called for �closer political, economic and social integration� with the EU, for brainwashing in schools and for the outlawing of �xenophobia�, a thought-crime defined by the EU as merely an aversion to the Euro? UKIP MEPs, who breached their own party constitution, neither apologised nor renounced this treachery.
5. Why, in early 2007, did UKIP MEP Derek Clark sign an agreement in Bucharest endorsing subsidiarity and the Common Agricultural Policy? Roger Knapman, ex UKIP leader, refused to accept such a �. . .major departure from what we believed to be UKIP�s policy � withdrawal from the EU, a complete rejection of its authority and of the CAP. Subsidiarity is an EU doctrine which assumes EU sovereignty. . . Accepting subsidiarity accepts ultimate EU sovereignty.�
6. On 29.2.08 a press statement from Farage condemned the Labour Government for discriminating in favour of Eastern Europeans immigration at the expense of non white immigration from Africa and Asia! What is the point in wishing to preserve the nation state from the EU when, as a result of multiculturalism and Afro-Asian immigration, there will be no nation within the state left to preserve in 40years?
7. Why does Farage receive more appearances on BBC Question Time than any Cabinet Minster? Could part of the answer lie in a press conference when Farage stated that the only means to defeat the BNP was to vote UKIP? In 10 years, UKIP has wasted �millions in taxpayers� funding and private donations; money that has been sidelined into a politically-correct dead end, just like all the efforts of UKIPs� well-meaning members.
8. Why does the foreign Marta Andreasen (Farage�s number two in the SE) merely desire reform of the EU and not withdrawal?
on October 25, 2009
at 06:46 PM
Now we have the absurd and ill informed comments of one John MacKei who is clearly no associate of the truth or even facts!
Greg Lance-Watkins 07:07 AM
I can see why Nigel Farage was so keen to get rid of you. You’re utterly barmy !
Paolo Caldato 07:12 AM
You’re not mad, just very spiteful – and you don’t understand about the principle of the judiciary interpreting legislation.
The judiciary are required to take great account of what Parliament meant when it passes particular laws; in this case the intention was set out very clearly in Booker’s article.
As the UKIP / Bown case does not fit principle – as clearly laid out in this article – there should have never been a question of them being found in breach of the law, it being a trivial and inconsequential ‘hiccup’ in an administrative process.
Thus, for the Judge to find against UKIP is, to put it mildly, extraordinary.
Clearly there is more influencing the judge than logical application of the law. The fact that UKIP are ‘anti-establishment’ makes the ruling seem like far too much of a coincidence – especially in light of the Liberal Democrats being able to hold on to the proceeds of a serious crime(s).
on October 25, 2009
at 09:26 PM
It does seem John MacKie at 09:26PM is no confidant of Farage’s as even Farage would not promote such a claim.
I NEVER joined UKIP – I had no interest in office merely in Britain leaving The EU.
Farage did NOT get rid of me as you so misguidedly claim – I gave Farage the undertaking to support him in any reasonable way as an MEP, officer or any secondary post as the informed will know. (You can easily verrify this if you know any of his dwindling honest staff of the period.[Addition])
I also informed him and others that he could count on my implacable opposition if he ever tried to become leader as I believed he would as leader destroy UKIP as he lacked Officer Qualities or leadership ability and was without gravitas or the required integrity.
How right I was.
As for your understanding of the law in the matter of The Electoral Commission I guess the Telegraph is a little better than a corn flake packet or the advice EUkip has received.
With respect sir you are utterly wrong in how the £3/4Million debt was incurred but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.
IF you can manage to be more rational and consider FACTS do call me and chat through what you have been led to believe because clearly it is untrue.
By all means record the conversation and take it to Silk to have it checked for accuracy.
Have you actually read the law in this matter?
In the light of the letter and spirit of the law as drafted and enacted you will find Judge Tim Workshop’s attempt to ameliorate the original forfeiture was most brave of him and was acceptable to the plaintiff.
It was only the foolish insults by the defendants that forced The Judge into the embarrassment of Judicial Review where it was made most clear he had permitted of a leniency not within his remit.
Rather than hurl unfounded insults based on a lack of facts why not establish the facts with some responsibility.
Mr. MacKenzie since you have seen fit to impugne my sanity yet can not provide one shred of evidence to support your dishonesty perhaps you could act honourably and withdraw your claim and appologise.
Then perhaps you would care to call me and bring some balance to your ill informed accusations even as made against The Judiciary and Her Majesty’s Courts.
TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
01291 – 62 65 62
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
LEAVE THE EU
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK