Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Revisiting Neil Hamilton’s Unsuitability For Office & Nigel Farage’s Duplicity!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/02/2016

Revisiting Neil Hamilton’s Unsuitability For Office & Nigel Farage’s Duplicity!
.

 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! 

.

Revisiting Neil Hamilton’s Clear Unsuitability For any Office & Nigel Farage’s self serving and insecure Duplicity!

000a ukip-025 count.png

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
after 20 years watching and paying attention to Ukip and having written something well over 3,000 blogs bringing people the facts and the truth, about Ukip behind the scenes, sometimes it is just too tedious to pull together yet another article about such a predictable bunch of self serving scoundrels and ne’r do wells as they squabble like ferretts in a sack.
We noted that Susanne Evans was unceremoniously dumped as deputy leader, it would seem this time that although it was undemocratic it did have two gains for Nigel Farage rather than his normal single fear of his ego being damaged by someone competent enough to challenge him!
This time it seems she was also dumped as it would reduce the possible claim that Vote Leave had cross party support – so now all Farage has to do is manage to find a way for one of his cronies to stab Douglas Carswell in the back and Farage would seem to think it will improve the chances of his two pronged efforts with Leave.EU and ‘Grassroots Out’ will have a better chance of getting theri hands on the Government money for the Referendum!
Meanwhile it would seem his efforts to unseat Neil Hamilton are proving something of a failure – I cautioned against Ukip having anything to do with the oleagenous and duplicitous self serving Hamilton’s before Farage brought him on board.
There is nothing new I can be bothered to write about the sordid publicity seeking pair so I shall cheat and use an article from elsewhere, to reitterate the many points I have flagged up in the past:

UKIP’s Welsh Meltdown

 
While much of the party’s energy is focused on the upcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, Nigel “Thirsty” Farage and his fellow saloon bar propper-uppers at UKIP also have local Government elections to fight, and the latter includes elections to the Welsh Assembly Government. Here, the Kippers face controversy over one potential candidate, former Tory MP Mostyn Neil Hamilton.

Hamilton claims to be “a proud Welshman”, and he did indeed grow up in the area around Carmarthen, before taking his first degree at Aberystwyth. But his Parliamentary career was as MP for Tatton, the constituency centred on the Cheshire town of Knutsford. He and wife Christine lived for many years at Nether Alderley, also in Cheshire, before moving to Wiltshire. His recent connection to Wales is therefore tenuous.

So the appearance of an anonymous leaflet passing severely adverse comment on Hamilton should not surprise anyone. Nor should any reference to his downfall at the 1997 General Election at the hands of independent candidate Martin Bell, in the wake of Hamilton’s collapsed libel action against theGuardian, over the claim of former Harrods boss Mohamed “you can call me Al” Fayed that Hamilton took “cash for questions”.

No-one should be surprised if UKIP members in Wales are reminded of the Guardian’s main headline the day after Hamilton’s legal capitulation: “A liar and a cheat”. Nor would it be any surprise to see his failed libel action against Fayed revisited, with the late George Carman QC describing Hamilton as “On the make, and on the take”. The cash for those questions was, according to Fayed, paid in used notes and in brown envelopes.

Hamilton has told of “This libellous leaflet recycled a Guardian newspaper cutting from 1996, falsely claiming I took large sums of money as an MP to ask parliamentary questions … The Inland Revenue dismissed these allegations as lies after their top forensic accountants (the Special Compliance Office) completed an exhaustive two-year investigation of all Christine’s and my financial affairs during ten tax years, 1987-97”.

But then, if money was paid in used notes and in brown envelopes, there would be nothing for the tax authorities to find. Indeed, Gordon Downey’s inquiry into the “cash for questions” affair found that the evidence Hamilton took cash from Fayed for asking questions “compelling”. One should also note that the Guardian article published after Hamilton’s libel action collapsed is still available online – and unaltered.

Neil Hamilton also misled Michael Heseltine over payments from lobbyist Ian Greer. He lobbied for the US tobacco industry. He joined the cause of the Apartheid régime in South Africa. He routinely failed to register payments and hospitality, including stays at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. He stood accused of taking a £10,000 payment from Mobil Oil to table an amendment to the 1989 Finance Bill, while a member of a Commons select committee.

Neil Hamilton can protest all he likes at the actions of those in UKIP who are unhappy about his potential candidacy. But his record and reputation is there for all to see, as is his over-zealous recourse to libel actions, which left him with a £3 million bill and facing bankruptcy. He is a thoroughly unsavoury character and anyone in UKIP who seeks to bring this to a wider audience is to be commended.

 

6 comments:

  1. He gets around does this boyo!

    He also had to drop out of the running for prospective candidate for the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency in December 2014 according to The Guardian due to a letter from the party’s finance and resources committee challenging some of his expenses claims.

    From the same article “Senior figures in Ukip had previously worked hard to successfully prevent the former Conservative MP becoming a candidate in Boston and Skegness, and managed to prevent him from becoming an MEP.”

    Have ambition to become MP will travel anywhere in the UK?

    One wonders who is driving force here, NH or his wife Christine?

    Reply

     
     
  2. Three short sentences in the Guardian article sum up the arrogance and hubris of Mostyn Neil Hamilton perfectly:

    “Another MP, Tim Smith, resigned his post as a Northern Ireland minister after he was accused in the same article of taking undeclared cash. He immediately admitted the Guardian story was true. Mr Hamilton, MP for Tatton, had instead tried to tough it out before resigning under pressure from Mr Major.”

    Isn’t it time Mostyn asked Google to forget him?

    Reply

     
     
  3. From memory: Neil Hamilton is an anagram of ‘ah ten million’. Or, if you prefer ‘then a million’.

    I couldnae resist.

    Reply

     
     
  4. “Isn’t it time Mostyn asked Google to forget him?”
    Hush! He might read this blog.

    Reply

     
     
  5. Neil Hamilton Chronology – How the scandal unfolded https://t.co/YqGTUMBjj6

    Reply

     
     
  6. A while back I wrote about Hamilton, UKIP and the Monday Club.

    https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/ukip-the-new-monday-club/

    some people just don’t change….

    Reply

To view the original of this article and the comments CLICK HERE
Here is the full front page Guardian article from 01-Oct-1996

A liar and a cheat

David Hencke, David Leigh and David Pallister

Tuesday 1 October 1996 11.43 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 5 January 2016 23.08 GMT

Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former minister, yesterday walked away in humiliation from a £10 million libel suit against the Guardian over the “cash for questions” scandal hours before the case was due to start today.

The former trade minister abandoned the case and agreed to pay some of the Guardian’s costs after a bitter two-year battle. He had recruited 421 Conservative MPs and peers, including Lady Thatcher, Lord Archer and cabinet members to change a 300-year-old law, which had prevented him, as an MP, bringing his action.

Ian Greer, the parliamentary lobbyist, also dropped his claim, part of the same libel suit, just minutes before a legal deadline to do so. He, too, agreed to pay some of the paper’s costs.

The Guardian stated on October 20, 1994, that Mr Hamilton had received thousands of pounds for asking parliamentary questions for Mohamed Al Fayed’s Harrods group. Mr Greer, who had been retained by Mr Al Fayed, was identified as the middleman.

Another MP, Tim Smith, resigned his post as a Northern Ireland minister after he was accused in the same article of taking undeclared cash. He immediately admitted the Guardian story was true. Mr Hamilton, MP for Tatton, had instead tried to tough it out before resigning under pressure from Mr Major.

The settlement, on the eve of what was labelled the libel trial of the century, came after a dramatic weekend of legal developments. Those began when the government disclosed crucial documents to the Guardian. The papers led to Mr Greer and Mr Hamilton falling out, and a conflict of interest developing. Mr Greer’s accounts were also in the newspaper’s possession.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

The Guardian also served on the men’s lawyers three statements from employees of Mr Al Fayed. They said Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer regularly called for envelopes stuffed with £50 notes in return for parliamentary lobbying.

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, said: “The decision by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer must be one of the most astonishing legal cave-ins in the history of the law of libel.”

He called for the trial papers to be examined by John Major, Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the Inland Revenue.

Although hampered by the law on what evidence it can publish, the Guardian today reveals the extent of Mr Hamilton’s covert links with Mr Greer. It also details the network of MPs linked to Mr Greer, including Mr Smith, Sir Michael Grylls, chairman of the backbench trade and industry committee, Sir Peter Hordern, MP for Horsham, and Sir Andrew Bowden, MP for Brighton Kemptown.
Advertisement

It was because the Guardian had subpoenaed Mr Major and Michael Heseltine to give evidence in the case that the government handed over key documents to the newspaper’s lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson, QC, and Geraldine Proudler. It would have been the first time this century a serving prime minister had appeared in the libel courts.

The trial would have re-opened the vexed question of parliamentary sleaze during the Tory party conference, and only a year after the government had made strenuous efforts to bury the issue. It implemented the Nolan Committee report and appointed a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to handle complaints about MPs.

Of the embarrassing climb-down by both men, Mr Rusbridger said: “Both Hamilton and Greer knew that the evidence the Guardian had obtained would have blown their action out of the water and revealed a pattern of parliamentary sleaze more far reaching than anyone had ever imagined.

“The Guardian has never doubted the truth of its original story. We would have produced damning evidence of Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer’s lack of integrity if the case had proceeded. No doubt that is why they dropped the action.

“The Greer accounts and the government documents tell an outrageous story of corruption which the public should know but which we are prevented, for legal reasons, from publishing.”

Mr Hamilton said he was ‘devastated’ at having to withdraw. He claimed he was innocent, but because of the conflict of interest with Mr Greer, each had to instruct new solicitors and counsel.
Advertisement

“The consequence of this is that the trial would have had to have been postponed to enable new sets of lawyers to go through the huge volume of papers and prepare the case afresh at enormously increased cost.”

His costs were already £150,000, and he did not have the cash to continue.

Mr Greer said: “I would want to continue on a matter of principle, but I have had to take a sensible commercial decision and I am happy a compromise has been reached.”

A spokesman for Mr Al Fayed said: “He was looking forward to telling the court of his experience of dealing with a number of Conservative MPs who describe themselves as “honourable members”. He will be sending his papers on the matter to Sir Gordon Downey.”

Downing Street last night insisted that the end of the libel action was purely a “matter between Mr Hamilton and the Guardian”.

Damning evidence

Sometimes he (Mr Greer) would ask me bluntly whether Mr Al Fayed had his money ready.
Mr Hamilton was as persistent as Mr Greer, if not more so, in asking for his envelope.

• Mohamed Al Fayed’s ex-personal assistant

I remember on several occasions that prior to a meeting with Mr Hamilton, Mr Al Fayed would make a remark… that he was coming to collect his money and would prepare an envelope for him with a bundle of £2,500 (in) notes in my presence.

• Mr Al Fayed’s secretary

On at least two occasions when I was sitting at the front desk, an envelope was brought down to me from Mr Al Fayed’s office and I was informed that Mr Hamilton would be stopping by to collect the envelope.

• Mr Al Fayed’s security man

Also there is the Guardian article of 22-Dec-1999:

A greedy, corrupt liar

Hamilton faces ruin after jury unanimously finds he took cash for questions

Hamilton, Al Fayed libel trial

Matt Wells, Jamie Wilson and David Pallister

Wednesday 22 December 1999 12.07 GMT
Last modified on Monday 18 January 2016 14.27 GMT

Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Shares
13
Save for later
Neil Hamilton’s five-year fight to clear his name ended in ignominious defeat and financial ruin last night when a high court jury unanimously declared the former Conservative MP corrupt.

The result ended any hopes he may have harboured of resuming his political career, condemning him as a greedy man who had been “on the make and on the take” during his time in parliament.

The verdict, delivered in the highly-charged atmosphere of a crowded court 13 at the high court in London, was a dramatic finale to the bruising five-week libel trial brought by the former minister against the owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al Fayed. It brought to an end his protracted battle to clear his name of the cash-for-questions controversy first reported by the Guardian in 1994.

After almost nine hours of deliberation, the jury returned to court yesterday to deliver its verdict. Asked whether members had found “on the balance of probabilities” that Mr Fayed had established corruption by Mr Hamilton “on highly convincing evidence”, their forewoman replied: “Yes.”

Sitting in the front of the court, Mr Hamilton and his distraught wife, Christine, looked on with disbelief. She held her face in her hands and he repeatedly shook his head. As the jury filed out, the couple stared intensely at them and then retreated through the corridors of the court to consult with their lawyers.

As the Hamiltons continued to protest their innocence of corruption, outside the court Mr Fayed – who had been accused of being “the biggest crook in town” and a Jekyll and Hyde character – arrived jubilant. Bowing on the steps of the court, he wished everyone a merry Christmas. Of Mr Hamilton, he said: “He knows he is corrupt. People like that should never be in power.”
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

Mr Hamilton sued Mr Fayed over claims he made in a Dispatches documentary broadcast on Channel 4 in 1997 that the former MP had demanded and received thousands of pounds in cash, Harrods gift vouchers and hospitality at the Ritz hotel in Paris, in return for parliamentary services. Mr Fayed pleaded justification – that the allegations were true.

The clinching piece of evidence in the case – introduced on subpoena only days before the trial began – concerned Mr Hamilton’s claim that he had a legitimate consultancy with Mobil Oil in 1989.

It later emerged that he had done little more for the company than to table an amendment to that year’s finance bill, for which he later demanded payment. Under ancient parliamentary rules taking cash solely for parliamentary action is corrupt.
Advertisement

Minutes before the jury said it was ready to deliver the verdict, its members were still divided: in a note to the judge, they asked whether they could disregard the adjective “highly” in the question put to them about convincing evidence. The judge refused their request.

Emerging from the court Mr Hamilton faced journalists with a grim smile.

With his wife beside him, he said: “I would never have embarked on this action had I been guilty of the charges against me. I do not regret bringing the case, of course, because I could not have gone through life without straining every sinew to do everything that was possible to bring the truth out. Sadly the jury were not convinced,” he said.

“The waters were muddied at the very beginning of the trial when, onto Mr Fayed’s allegations were clamped entirely unrelated ones connected to a consultancy I had with Mobil Oil. It may well be from the questions the jury asked the judge during the trial, that that is what has secured this verdict.”

Asked about the future, he simply said: “It is the beginning of a new road, I’m not sure where it leads but I will find out.”

For the first time his formidable wife, who has fiercely protected him since the allegations first broke, had no ready riposte. Asked how she had felt throughout the epic trial, she said: “I can’t tell you that now, but I will.”

Any hopes that Mr Hamilton may have harboured about a return to the political scene have now been utterly dashed. Conservative party chairman Michael Ancram was among the first to comment. “I have noted the verdict of the jury and I hope that this is the end of a sad and unpleasant episode which has been damaging to our party,” he said.
Advertisement

“I trust that the personalities involved will now retire from the scene. They certainly can expect little understanding from this party if they do not.”

Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, called for Mr Hamilton to make an apology to the newspaper over accusations he made against Guardian journalists.

“Neil Hamilton has now been found guilty by both Parliament and the courts,” he said. “Today’s verdict vindicates the Guardian’s reporting of this case. The jury has found that Neil Hamilton is corrupt.

“The Guardian’s reporting exposed the mire of MPs on the take in the mid to late eighties and led to the setting up of the Nolan Commission into standards in public life. Our original reporting has never been shaken despite the slurs of Mr Hamilton, his friends and his legal team. The Guardian never doubted the integrity of its journalists, who deserve an apology from Neil Hamilton.”

You will also note the degree of indebtedness of the Hamiltons who went spectacularly bankrupt dishonouring their debts to many to the tune of over £3M. CLICK HERE
Yet little or nothing is said of this despite the fact that a full on assault was made on Nikki Sinclaire over her discharged bankruptcy amounting to a few £1,000s over a propertyy deal which was eventually resolved and with the full knowledge of the party at the time!

I guess it all depend if Nigel Farage sees you as a threat to his snout in the troughs on the EU gravy train! Most clearly he saw Nikki Sinclaire as a threat as she clamoured for Ukip transparency and published her detailed accounts as an MEP whilst actively persuing efforts to expose EU corruption and obtain the signatures for her petition that eventually forced David Cameron to hold a debate in Parliament and then grant the promise of an IN OUT EU promise – activities Ukip has consistently failed to do in 23 years!

Desperate efforts and apparent conspiracies seem to have taken place to set up and damage Nikki Sinclaire and her anti EU activities, yet Nigel Farage welcomed Neil Hamilton with open arms – I guess the affinity may have something to do with ‘Birds of a feather …..’ whilst the attacks on Sinclaire may well be based on a genuine fear of exposure and the truth!
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.

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: