Ukip-vs-EUkip

We aim to inform YOU & provide an archive re: Ukip to TRY to make it fit for purpose

Nattrass, Andreasen & Batten show what trash UKIP really are!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 21/12/2012

Nattrass, Andreasen & Batten show what trash UKIP really are!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

Mike Nattrass, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Linda Robson and many others show what trash UKIP really are!!!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
the details of the overt corruption in the fundamental structures of UKIP as exposed by its own senior members below should prove of interest to anyone who believes in British values, ethics, integrity and our future ,as a Country.Astonishingly UKIP have permitted Nigel Farage to seize control of every office and appointment and every selection list in the party it seems.Presumably this has been done so that he can put in place the weak and the useless who will kiss his hand in return for their preferrment and be certain not to try to outshine him. Very much the reason why there isn’t a single honest individual of integrity amongst UKIP’s leadership, its toadies and its staff NOT ONE.
What exactly is the point of the pretence of an NEC if Farage cruises in at the end and announcing how the decision WILL be made as shown by Gerard Batten & Marta Andreasen out of self interest!
You will be unsurprised that we have very little sympathy for these two individuals the odious and outspoken racist Gerard Batten to go by the pamphlets he produces which incline to incite racial hatred based on his personal fear and superstitions.Let us not forget the totally dishonest Marta Andreasen who tries to pass herself off as a self styled whistle blower which was shown to be a pack of lies in Court see CLICK HERE
Both Batten & andreasen were only too happy to take advantage of corrupt UKIP selections and elections in the past!
Details of the rigged selection process will be noted from Linda Robson’s letter, she was a senior member of Gerard Batten’s staff:
I am writing about numerous breaches of the Rules for Candidates by three candidates in London. One of them is Ralph Atkinson, but I will not go into details as I know Gerard Batten has already informed you about his activities.The other two are Marta Andreassen and Tim Worstall who I believe should be disqualified from this election. I am aware that Marta has decided to run in SE Region but believe that she should be disqualified in London and her votes reallocated since she was not entitled to them. This is quite a long email, I’m afraid, but there are an awful lot of rules being broken. The reasons I believe they have both breached the rules are as follows: 1. Eligibility (external, under Electoral Commission Rules)

Under Section 4, Becoming a Candidate, of its European Parliamentary Election Rules, Elcom says that candidates must be:
Quote:
A British citizen…. or a citizen of another member state who is resident in the UK or Gibraltar during the nomination period.
Both Marta and Tim are clearly not UK residents. When asked about this at the London hustings Marta airily replied she was ‘addressing’ this issue. Some people I spoke to afterwards interpreted this (possibly cynically, but in the light of recent developments perhaps not) as roughly meaning ‘ if I get a high place on the list I will find an accommodation address in the UK for the minimum time necessary to meet Elcom criteria’. Tim has apparently said he will move back to the UK ‘soon’. Seems odd since he is reportedly a tax exile who can only spend 183 days in the UK and he is building a house in Portugal for himself and his family and they are currently all resident there.
Christopher Gill’s response to this was that he had not bothered to consult Elcom or check its rules as this was an internal election – unbelievable!
One would hope that UKIP will not be a party to any breach of certainly the spirit, if not the letter, of the Electoral Commission rules but according to Christopher Gill: ‘At a later stage all candidates will of course have to comply with whatever electoral legislation is then in force or otherwise be disqualified from standing’ which seems to confirm the cynics’ idea that an accommodation address will be found for them for the minimum amount of time necessary.
2. Eligibility (internal, under UKIP rules)
Under its constitution UKIP restricts full membership to UK citizens and resident foreign nationals. It also requires its Parliamentary candidates to be fully paid-up members in good standing.
Marta could therefore not possibly be a full member at the time her nomination was made and must therefore be ineligible.
Christopher Gill says she is an Associate Member but cannot tell me exactly how many other Associate members we have in the Party and indeed how many of them there were before Marta was given this (possibly) unique status.
Certainly nowhere on the membership application form is there an option to become an Associate Member. The UKIP constitution also states (16.4) ‘All parliamentary candidates must be paid-up members of the Party in good standing…’ – no mention of associate members there, I see.
3. Same Proposer
Marta and Tim had the same proposer – Lord Pearson. This is expressly forbidden but Christopher Gill has told me categorically he is not prepared to take any action as he felt ‘Lord P. was only being helpful’! Apparently breaking rules is OK if it is Lord P. doing it for Marta and Tim!
4. CRB checks
All candidates were mandated to have a full, advanced CRB check (not something vaguely similar in another country, but the full UK version). Indeed, £41 of the £250 deposit was for this purpose. So important are these checks considered to be when identifying suitable candidates that the London Assembly candidates list was delayed for two months last year because of the requirement by the leadership, at a late stage, for all candidates to have these checks. You will all recall Nigel Farage stressing the importance of these checks and saying that if we had them in place in 2004 they would have picked up Ashley Mote’s transgressions – therefore it was imperative that all candidates must have them in 2008.
But to have a CRB check you need a UK address at which you reside and for which you can produce utility bills. Once again neither Tim (who I believe can only spend a certain amount of days in the UK, which would indicate he is non-resident for tax purposes) nor Marta (who lives in Barcelona) would have been able to obtain a UK advanced CRB check as neither is resident in the UK. Why was an exception made for them?
Very odd reply from CG to this one ‘Marta has never made any attempt to hide the fact that she lives in Barcelona’!! and ‘Tim lives in Bath’. However, TW told me that although he owns a flat in Bath this was rented out and he was living in Portugal with his family.
5. Candidates standing in more than one Region
It was clearly required that candidates make it clear, both at the hustings and by other means, if they are standing in more than one Region. Marta certainly didn’t mention it at the London Hustings, nor is it in her published candidate details. Many of these members who might otherwise vote for a certain candidate would be far less inclined to do so if they knew he/she actually considered our Region second best.
Christopher Gill’s response was: ‘The point you make about declaring an interest in another region is well made – in a message to all MEP Interview Panel Chairmen dated 10th July David Challice highlighted the fact that the onus was upon candidates to publicly disclose if they were standing in more than one region. This instruction seems to have been ignored in at least one other region to my certain knowledge and will feature in my report’.
What use is ‘featuring in his report’ going to be? The damage has been done and another rule broken.
I know that the fact the shortlists were published on the UKIP website should apparently have enabled members to do some detective work and identify who was standing in more than one Region – but again this does not seem to comply with the spirit of the rule or why it was made, as very few of our members ever look at the website, let alone delve deeply into the members section, and I doubt one in a thousand of our ‘ordinary’ members, as opposed to those of us more involved with the Party, is aware of multi-region candidates.
6. Electoral Roll number
All candidates were required to give their UK electoral roll number on the application form. Unless they have given a false address, neither of these candidates can possibly be on the UK electoral register.
Christopher Gill acknowledges this is a problem for MA which should have been noticed and addressed earlier, although he contends that TW is a UK resident (wonder if HMRC know this?) but again refuses to take any action.
From this litany you will realise why many of us are extremely sceptical about the validity of these two candidates. At every turn it would appear that exceptions and accommodations are being made, and rules broken and ignored, to get them on, and keep them on, the candidate lists. I would appreciate a full explanation of why they were exempted from the stringent criteria that the rest of us had to comply with in order to be considered and would ask the NEC to disqualify both of them.
To paraphrase George Orwell: ‘Why are some candidates more equal than others?’ I am absolutely sure that if when I had applied I had said :
I’m not a UK resident
I’m not a fully paid-up member of UKIP
I can’t get a CRB check
My proposer has also proposed someone else
I’m not on the UK electoral Register; and
I have no intention of mentioning I will be standing in two Regions
I believe I would have been very firmly rejected – and rightly so.
Such chicanery will not play well with Elcom or our other enemies in the media and the community at large. And there are a number of people already aware of these facts, and upset about them. Indeed some of these questions have already been asked on the Democracy Forum – whose members number many who most certainly do not wish us well – so are thus in the public domain . This really could badly damage our chances in the 2009 elections and we should not be putting ourselves in this position.
I would formally ask the NEC to disqualify these two candidates from standing in London Region.
Please do not think I have anything personal against Marta – on the contrary, my limited acquaintance with her has always been a pleasure. And Tim seems a personable sort of fellow. But rules are being broken and distorted to keep these two candidates on the list and this is simply WRONG.I have already informed Christopher Gill that should this request be ignored then I wish to withdraw from the London list, and whilst I will do everything to ensure Gerard is elected I will not campaign or fund-raise if Atkinson, Andreassen or Worstall remain on the List.
I have also told him that I want my £250 returned as this has obviously been taken from me under false pretences. The false pretext in this case being that all candidates would be treated equally and subject to the same rules, which is patently not the case.
It is also worth remembering the ways in which UKIP leadership chose to corrupt, rig and manipulate results as shown in the Party’s own report drawn up by the Party Returning Officer at CLICK HEREAnd Mr Batten was content to remain silent when complaints were brought to his attention regarding the same subject.
They are now, in my opinion, only expressing concerns because both their seats are due to be handed over to Farage’s toadies in 2014.Do excuse my scepticism perhaps even cynicism based on bitter experience and close observation of the underhand behaviour of UKIP’s leadership team and its weak and low life gofers.Frankly the corrupt around Farage have made a rod for their own backs – a problem the electorate have clearly noted and hence the constant and risible results UKIP gets in domestic elections whilst the media play them for fools and try to use them to bring pressure on the Government.Let us hope Britain survives long enough to Leave-The-EU and these corrupt self serving low lifes behind – though as a result of almost 100 years of idiots for politicians and the final straw of the economic illiteracy of Gordon Brown & the war crimes and lies of Tony Blair and his cabinet survival is by no means a certainty.

Someone has to find a way to repay some £10Trillion in debt and forward fund the overblown public services _ I fear it may prove impossible
See:
&:
 Please let me be an MEP again. I want the money!
Dear Fellow members,

I have recently received information from Gerard Batten (see below) about the procedure that the NEC will be implementing for the coming 2014 European elections.
I am of the opinion that the process, under which I was put second on the South East list in 2009, was a satisfactory one, notably in regards the involvement of the regional committees and the exercise of democratic rights by the members. Under the new rules, the Regional Committees will not establish the list of candidates; this will be determined by the NEC after certain interviews. More importantly the local party members will not have any say over the placement on the list, who you would prefer to see elected. Instead this will be done under the auspices of the NEC, but in reality by the Party Leader.A sitting MEP will not know if they will be permitted to stand again until literally just before the polls, giving no time to prepare or run a campaign or operate in a normal way. I value and respect your views as local members and activists. If you no longer want me to represent you, then that should be your choice.

But what has prompted me to communicate with you at this point in time, is the fact that this NEC has decided that for the period 2013-2014, no sitting MEPs will be allowed to communicate with you on any level. This is ostensibly to allow a level playing field for other candidates.

This restriction on communication is against my mandate, and therefore illegal, and prevents me as an MEP and you as a party activist or member from doing our jobs, effectively shutting down the region for twelve months in terms of campaign preparation and fund-raising.

As UKIP members and activists we are justly proud of our position in favour of individual freedom and minimal state interference. It is why we work against the anti-democratic laws and the government by decree emerging from the European Union.

I work everyday to uphold these principles and further our cause locally and at national level through constituency work and our activities in the media.

While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about Patrick O’Flynn and the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in the South East and South West.

I want to see UKIP getting seats at the next European and the General elections. It is one of the things I have been working for since I was elected, second only to the objective of getting the UK out of the EU. But these arrangements are not the way to achieve it. There is a danger of coercion and cronyism, which should have no place in our party.

I am writing to you to bring these concerns to your notice, and ask you to speak out to the party leadership if you share my concerns at the direction that the party seems to be taking. I also wish to say that I intend to continue to communicate with you to the extent that it is necessary for my functioning as an MEP, regardless of any possible sanction.

If you agree, I ask you to show your support by writing to the leadership to demand a more democratic and transparent selection process which allows your voice to be heard and respected.

This would also have the benefit of allowing candidates to be selected in good time, and for sitting MEPs to function effectively both as MEPs and as candidates.

It seems ironic that a party which stands on a platform of opposing the undemocratic decrees of the institutions of Brussels is in danger of mirroring those very same methods. Thank you for your time and trouble in reading this, and for your continuing support.

Sincerely,

Marta Andreasen

——————————————————————————
Then there is this letter from Batten which I received earlier this month:

Gerard Batten MEP
Report to the UKIP MEPs on the UKIP NEC meeting
3rd December 2012

MEP Selection 2014.
This subject arose towards the end of the meeting. Party Chairman, Steve Crowther, gave verbal report outlining the proposals for MEP selection in 2014. He said that written proposals would be circulated later.

I summarise what he said (I hope accurately) as follows:

Objectives
These are threefold:
1. To ensure all MEP list are made up of quality candidates.
2. To maximise the enthusiasm of the activists and members
3. To avoid the perception that the Leader has picked the candidates

The Process
1. This would begin in the New Year, and finalise just before the 2014 elections begin. The process is summarised as follows:
2. Nominations to open in early 2013
3. Applications for one Region only
4. Assessment of candidates for March 2013
5. Assessment to include: retrospective assessment of existing MEP performance; psychometric testing; media testing; etc
6. Provisional selection would be by a ballot of the Region’s members, but this would only decide the list not the placing on the list
7. NEC to discuss candidates if any problems perceived
8. Regional list places to be decided by a ballot of the members in the first quarter of 2014
9. Formal adopting of candidates by the NEC just before the campaign begins

Further conditions
Steve said that during the period 2013-2014 sitting MEPs would not be allowed to communicate with their Regional membership as this gave them an unfair advantage. Not deciding the places on the list for twelve month it was proposed by Steve that this would stimulate competition in the Region between the candidates in terms of positive activity.

I made the obvious point that MEPs not being able to communicate with their Regions would impede them from doing their job, and would impact adversely on the members’ perception of their performance. It is also totally impractical since MEPs cannot be prevented from communicating with their constituents who may, or may not be, UKIP members. I made the point that sitting MPs and MEPs etc would always have an advantage over other candidates (unless they were seen to underperform) and that other parties usually had some kind of preferential system for them.

I repeated my view that the best system would be as used before: for the Regional members to rank the candidates twelve months before by a ballot; if the lead candidates proved themselves unsuitable before the election they could be removed.

Paul Nuttall made the point that this process would effectively shut down the Region for twelve months in terms of campaign preparation and fund-raising.

At this point I had to leave the meeting.

I understand from others at the meeting that Nigel then returned to the meeting (having been absent for this part of the agenda) and on being told what had been discussed said that a secondary ballot with members ranking the candidates was unnecessary and the ranking would the decision of the Leader and NEC. Nigel also thought that we should have the flexibility to slot people in at the end of the process.

.
Then of course there was the anti homosexual ranting of UKIP NEC member Douglas Denny.
#386* - EUkip, DENNY & INSTITUTIONAL DISHONESTY
The criminal spamming and attempted harrassment by NEC member and serial liar and cheat as proven Mick McGough.
#281* - Bob Feel-Martinis - PROVIDES MORE FOOLISH IDIOCY
The astonishing efforts of Farage to try to rehabilitate the corrupt and disgraced failed Tory MP Neil Hamilton.The fact that we reliably hear that every UKIP MEP is currently under investigation over financial irregularities by the British Police and OLAF – Interestingly to date not only are OLAF Not interested in the financial activities of Nikki Sinclaire but The WQest Midlands Police have clearly been unable to establish any culpible deliberate offence in her accounts and some indication may be that after 2.1/2 years they have taken absolutely no action and I gather there is every possibility John Ison and others have realistic expectation of being charged and prosecuted – interestingly it seems that the odious little John Ison is no longer a member of UKIP whether by his choice to distance himself or in a duplicitous attempt by UKIP to disown his behaviour!
Consider the self serving duplicity and betrayal by Mike Nattrass CLICK HERE but lets face it once you are thrown out by your wife for your stupidity and you show that for lack of brains in your big head you have destroyed people’s lives by thinking with the blood in your little head I guess after that – Even if you have openly boasted of spending £!M in cash on your Portuguese villa where you spend so much time on ‘holiday’ – after that betraying your allies, friends, electorate, members and Country by trying to buy your re-election prostituting your views and values for personal gain AND of course because without having someone else make your choices almost everything turns to rubbish.
The betrayal of Team Sinclaire and the electorate by Mike Nattrass is beneath contempt and it is worth noting that it is quite astonishing just how much publicity Team Sinclaire have generated for the Referendum and inspite of the endless poisonous sabotage by UKIP who have done so very little towards the campaign and considering the £Millions of public money they have so blatantly stolen or at very least guided to their personal gain.And of course Mike Nattrass’ toxic betrayals.

UKIP are in almost every aspect a disgrace with their extremist associates and their overt racism and their openly anti homosexual stance as they support anti Jewish, Holocaust deniers and racist criminals.
Now we see the spectacle of UKIP having to close its own incestuous supposedly in house Forum to hide the fact of just how barking mad are some of their members and how despite rigid censorship even their NEC members are prone to rant and vilely at that!It seems that the latest of many i8diotic rants from the fantasist and fool Douglas Denny was the final straw with his outpouring of hate and fear of homosexuals and ever permitting them to have legitimised marriages or some such.
The Guardian, I gather, were fascinated by this odious ranting not to mention the streams of abuse and the near institutionalising of attacks on Nikki Sinclaire who had already left the party, openly stating her reason to be revulsion as it was so bound up in racism and extremist politics and involved in the corruption of their EU partners in the EFD – Cash cow as that may be for Nigel Farage!

The Guardian would seem to have rather broadened the issue, stealing something of a march on the serious researchers of the more serious and plausible media – whose time is coming!To quote The Guardian:

I gather divorces are very expensive for philanderers so to buy friends extremism, racism, anti homosexuality and corruption are just details!

Mike Nattrass, MEP

Mike Nattrass, MEP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is what Mike Nattrass really thinks of Farage & UKIP:

Dear All,

It may be too late but after all these years I can no longer stay silent.In the previous Leadership Election I, together with all candidates EXCEPT LORD PEARSON were rubbished by Nigel Farage on TV and elsewhere. This ensured the election of Nigel’s puppet Lord Pearson and allowed Nigel to continue to be the face of the party. That is Nigel’s view of the election rules and I think it is only fair and high time that his methods were exposed, USING HIS OWN RULES.Nigel already Leads the parliamentary Group and when he is also elected Leader this will amount to total control. Increasingly I am hearing the word “Spiv” used to describe him, from people who are not members but see his image. I am concerned that the UKIP party brand will be tarnished, even holed below the water line, by his monopoly of power.

Whilst Nigel is a very good speaker, he is also a control freak. He grabs all UKIP publicity to the detriment of any other UKIP spokesperson or MEP. He employs assistants with the MEP’s budgets without allowing those MEPs any say. This, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs demanded a chance to interview those who were being employed with their money. Nigel agreed, then totally ignored that promise. Consequently he has his own “group funded” team around him and all “hiring” takes place via his close friend Godfrey Bloom MEP (this person is said to be banned by 4 hotels for urinating in the corridors)

Nigel’s lack of experience in good staff management and his refusal to allow MEP consultation is complimented by the morals of an Alley Cat (and I will not go there). I have always said that this does not matter, because so long as we are all in the trench together with guns pointing at the enemy all are welcome. But he shot Nikki Sinclaire in the back when she became an MEP, for no Party reason, while she was giving all the effort she could give. She was expelled as a UKIP MEP for pointing out the Group facts. He does not like truth or competition.

I have put a lot of money, time and energy into promoting UKIP in the West Midlands and I watched it wrecked at the General Election by Nigel’s chosen people (Lords Pearson and Monckton) who appeared from nowhere and failed to understand our basic strategy or even comprehend from where our votes are derived. Worse, Nikki, who has vast energy at election time, was stopped from being a UKIP MEP by Nigel and has not been given a chance to defend herself or to state her case (legal matters are pending). She and I were told by Lord Pearson not to get involved in the election and not to fund the campaign. In fact you will see that we both made considerable financial contributions but our campaign was deeply damaged. Also the subsequent enquiry into the campaign, requested by the WM candidates, was “dealt with” by Monckton (who thought I was behind it) and because of this we have had resignations from very keen activists.

All this West Midlands destruction because Nigel hates Nikki and wants to rubbish me!! Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party…next to nothing.

I found allegations of fraud were brought against me when I stood for Leadership. These were in the Sunday Times. They melted away afterwards and had no foundation in truth, but they did the job intended.(My legal case against the Times is pending) Nigel has had a number of very real cases against him.. funny how that word does not get out.

My first major annoyance with Nigel’s manipulations stem from the time when I was first elected in 2004 and all UKIP MEPs had a meeting to agree three very basic points. One was that we could not employ wives (other Parties did) and this was agreed. In fact my wife comes to each Parliament and does not get paid (not even travel expenses) and I said that she wanted to contribute any proper payment to the Party, but no, rules were rules and she could be paid nothing. It was then later exposed that Nigel’s wife was being secretly paid out of his budget, breaking this rule. He did not seek any permission (to change his own rule) from the MEPs. He was simply “caught out” with both hands in the till. I fear that the whole Parliamentary Group in the EU is run for Nigel’s financial and public image. I left that ugly group.

Nigel has derailed every leader since the very first, except peacemaker Jeffery Titford (under whom I was Party Chairman). He is therefore hated by them all (except JT). plus never to be leader Kilroy Silk who must feel that Nigel gave him a wrong prospectus.

I expect that Nigel will be elected leader as no one else is effectively allowed to stand without a spin campaign against them. I can see less MEPs in the UKIP squad when he does win.

There is a false attack on Tim Congdon from Boggers 4 UKIP, this must mean he is a real threat! Good.

Mike

MIKE NATTRASS MEP

To view the details CLICK HERE
Minded of the huge damage done to the EUroSceptic movement at large by UKIP, its corruption, its racism, its anti homosexuality, its anti Islamism, anti Judaism and seeming terror of foreigners, to judge by its behaviour and the allies it chooses, there is one yet more unedifying spectacle!Here we see the naked greed and rivalry of the leadership members squabbling, presumably for position, whether that was John Wittacker in the past, who was described by a Judge in Court as ‘without credibility’ whilst Chairman of UKIP or his resignation in revultion at having to support Nigel Farage’s unstable doxy Annabelle Fuller who had breeched UKIP trust to criminally harass a contender in a UKIP selection process.Subsequently she went on to falsely accuse an MP of groping her in the presence of others when she went to his flat at after midninght and stole his Blackberry & House of Commons Pass.

Or The criminal and dishonest behaviour of Mick McGough, the fantasies and stupidity of the extremist Douglas Denny, the jockeying for position by Nigel Farage in negotiations with The BNP or the lies and deceit of Mark Croucher or even the braggadocio of Stuart Agnew in stealing public funds or Derek Clark’s theft of over £30,000 from the public purse on a par with Tom Wise.

Or of course the willingness of Mike Nattrass to apparently betray people besides his wife and family and prostitute what he claimed as principles, seemingly to fund a pending divorce, as he lept back into bed in Portugal & The EFD!
Indeed, little that UKIP leadership does would seem to bring more than opprobrium on the EUroSceptic movement.Yet again internecine warfare has broken out amongst the leadership with the utterly discreditted and dishonourable EX MP Neil Hamilton, seemingly in fear of losing his rumoured route to riches by exposure and defending his implausible posturings like any rat in a corner.It takes a fertile imagination to guess what merit there is in having this odious self publicist on UKIP NEC, as I would put that on a par with the crass appointment of Mick McGough, Andrew Smith, Michael Zuckerman, Peter Reeve, Oxley, Duffy, Croucher, Fuller, Nattrass, Clark, Lott, Legg, Crowther, Collett or any of the other puppets & muppets Farage has appointed as the low lifes in his claque.

A rabble of toxic waste befouling the EUroSceptic cause.

Yet the legend in his own lunchtime and political failure Hamilton chooses to do open battle, regardless of the effect on UKIP or EUroScepticism, against the elected, if proven corrupt and dishonest, Marta Andreasen UKIP MEP like Spanish Fly in the ointment!

Dear Marta,

Your e-mail about MEP selection, apparently sent to SE UKIP members, contains a false and defamatory statement about me and Christine: “While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about ….the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in……. the South West.” Firstly, Christine has no intention whatever of being a candidate in any elections.

Secondly, it is completely untrue that either of us has been ‘given top positions on the list in the…South West.”

I should be grateful to know why you have chosen to spread false rumours about Christine and me, without either identifying your source or having the courtesy to check the facts with either of us.

As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your e-mail is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations both within and beyond UKIP in its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage.

Please identify

(1) the source of the ‘rumours’ to which you refer;
(2) who made the alleged offer of top positions on the SW list and
(3) where, when and by what means such alleged offer was made;
(4) Please also supply me with a list of every recipient of the e-mail containing the false statement of which we complain.

Unless you can answer the above questions to our satisfaction, we require you immediately by e-mail to apologise and retract your false statements about us.

We also require you to send an apology and retraction (in terms to be agreed with me) to all recipents of the offending e-mail. You should also warn them that if they, in turn, repeat your false statements, they would also be exposing themselves to the threat of legal action.

I am copying this e-mail to the Party Chairman and Party Secretary for obvious reasons.
Yours sincerely,

Neil H

Andreasen’s response is nothing if not informative both of the situation and her willingness to defend her position whatever damage it does to EUroScepticism, but did anyone ever believe she had climbed on the band wagon for other than personal gain, and were that the case why did she tell so many lies to achieve her income stream?Dear Members,

I have received the email ABOVE from Mr. Neil Hamilton which is self-explanatory. He asks for apology and retraction: Well, the fact is that I heard the rumours I mentioned in my prior email. However I did not refer to the veracity of the rumours as I cannot verify if they are true or not, nor did I intend to portray them as true. I just wanted to point out how they became more credible to me when I learned about the new selection process. Whilst the rumours are in the public domain, I have not found any rebuttal from any of the parties mentioned.

Furthermore Mr. Neil Hamilton establishes a link which I did not certainly raise in my email when he refers to ” its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage”. I have to say that I was not aware of his or his wife’s involvement in the make over of the MEP selection process when I wrote the email to you. I was told NEC members wanting to stand as MEP would not be involved in defining the selection process or any part of it. I now feel I might have been misinformed.

Overall I feel that Neil´s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making in mine. He has not referred at all to the proposed gagging of MEPs in flagrant disregard for the terms of their mandate. Nor has he attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.

Please note his warning to you, the recipients of my email, at the end of his message.

In any case I think it is disgraceful that as an elected representative of the British people I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters and UKIP executive should not tolerate this behaviour….but, in this respect, I only get silence from that corner.

While you will now hear that the procedure I forwarded to you in regards MEP selection is ” only a draft” for discussion…to be modified…inaccurate, etc., the fact is that if I had not made you aware the decision would have been taken in the next few days and be presented to all of us as a “fait accompli”.

Clearly, with the new party constitution, the decision on who will eventually become a UKIP MEP in 2014 has been left in the hands of the Party Leader, which is very different from saying that it is in the hands of the Party (its members). And there lies the problem.

Best wishes
Marta Andreasen MEP

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

We welcome comments but reserve the right to moderate & refuse libelous or offensive comments and those we choose to delete when written by unidentifiable individuals hidden in anonymity in a cowardly manner to defame or abuse. No comment has EVER been barred or deleted which is genuine & clearly authored by a named & identifiable individual. You will note many comments made have been commented on and even corrected by the blog owner. We welcome genuine comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: