Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Archive for the ‘EU’ Category

Excorriation of #Ukip by A Branch Chairman Opens The Door For Comment & Analysis! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 17/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Excorriation of #Ukip by A Branch Chairman
Opens The Door For Comment & Analysis! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

further to the crass debacle orchestrated by Crowther, Richardson & the Ukip NEC regarding the utter stupidity and ill considered libellous malice of Ukip’s MEP Jane Collins which I covered at:
CLICK HERE 

From: UKIP Regional Chairman – London <walthamforest@ukip.org>
Date: 15 February 2018 at 19:20:17 WET
To: “myword_is_mybond@hotmail.com” <myword_is_mybond@hotmail.com> Subject: Two hundred thousand pounds !

Friends and others,

There’s bad news at the end of this email. And the timing is diabolical; even, suspicious.

Many of you will have been aware “we” (UKIP) were facing being forced to pay a substantial chunk of the defamation action costs (not damages) of Jane Collins MEP, over her alleged assertion that three local Labour MPs knew, in advance or at the time, about the ongoing child abuse in Rotherham, but did little or nothing about it to intervene or stop it.

If you don’t know about this, the (attached) High Court Approved Judgement from 54 weeks ago (Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) ) will provide the background you need.

I am not a lawyer but, in the late 1980s, my company and I were involved in not one but two unconnected actions for defamation. In one, as the potential plaintiff and the other – in respect of words written by someone else, published without my permission and which I did not endorse or agree with – as the defendant (I was worth suing, he wasn’t). I succeeded in both matters, out of Court – and I did not use a lawyer in either of them.

On the facts known to me (a small fraction of what there was to be known) about this present matter, I could not believe that we (UKIP) would not not be held liable.

The reasons are complicated, and it may be counter-productive for them to be aired here. As far as I could tell, UKIP was bang to rights and it was self-indulgent wishful thinking that we could escape by arguing that our objectives were principally philanthropic or charitable, and not self-serving as a political party with political objectives, however noble we believe them to be.

The number of people higher-up in UKIP who told me I was being alarmist, misguided or wrong is not funny. My questions were, however, not answered to my satisfaction.

Frankly, I’ve heard this “expert advice” twaddle all too often. The experts are often not independent or not experts, especially if even I know more than they do about what they claim to be expert at.

This is the main reason I refused to stand for election to the NEC, despite many telling me I should.

Had I been successful, I would have been a Director of UKIP Ltd (the limited company underlying our party) and so would have been privy to all sorts of information which I have not been (the only information to which I have been privy, to date, has been from public domain sources including the Electoral Commission and Companies House).

I fear what I might then have found out.

Had the company subsequently become insolvent, and furthermore (a huge leap here – hopefully this does not apply, and we have been as diligent as both law and common sense dictate we should have been) been found to have been trading while insolvent, as a Director or shadow Director I could have been potentially held liable personally. Arguably, more so than most or all who would then have been my co-Directors, because given both my professional background and subsequent experience, I could not plead financial ignorance or accounting naiveté without being guilty of perjury too. While almost all company Directors are not pursued in similar cases, us being UKIP, my guesswork (for guesswork is all it was, but so far my guesswork has been 100% correct) would have been that some of our Directors would be.

The case re our share of the liability was heard last week – Friday 9th February was the second day:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/high-court/529/date/2018-02-09/Royal-Courts-of-Justice-Cause-List

Royal Courts of Justice Cause List Court Listings 09/02/2018, Court Cases, Court Records, Court Details

http://www.thelawpages.com

Royal Courts of Justice Cause List date: 09/02/2018, Listings, Cases, hearings, UK

Well, and with exquisite “coincidental” timing, our share of the costs have been decided by the High Court a few minutes ago (in the afternoon of Thursday 15th February 2018), and it is an eye-watering £200,000:

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,ukip-ordered-to-pay-200k-of-mep-jane-collins-libel-bill_25637.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5396221/Ukip-faces-costs-bill-MEP-defamation-case-linked-Rotherham-scandal.html

Ukip faces costs bill over MEP defamation case linked to Rotherham…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

The judge said the defamation case brought against Jane Collins would probably have been settled `quite swiftly´. This is devastating. I’ve no idea whether this decision is practicably appealable.

Shouldn’t heads roll for this – have we been misled, misguided or betrayed?

With ill-concealed fury,

Freddy

How right Freddy was and is – lets face it the legal opinions Ukip received were at best crass and at worst utterly crass if not corrupt!

Anyone who doubts this summary might be well advised to read the full judgement:

Just CLICK: UKIP JUDGEMENT barron-v-COLLINS 15-Feb-2018 01

One has merely to consider which idiots put a dullard like Jane Collins on a party list within striking distance of being an MEP what talent did she have or was this just someone of influence in the party who either was or fancied their chances of bedding her!

I for one never saw one iota of talent she brought to Ukip, but then aqgain that goes for almost everyone amongst the leadership and staff of Ukip!

One has to ask why Ukip did not distance themselves from an idiot who would so freely libel anyone from a public platform in Ukip’s name – even after the event how on earth did Ukip fail to get competent legal advice let alone listen to someone, anyone, who offered to commit the Party to direct involvement in Collins’ utter stupidity!

It is my opinion that Ukip and the directors of the Party’s Limited Company were exceedingly lucky not to be found jointly and severally liable for both the libel and the subsequent costs.
Limited liability does not absolve directors party to either a Civil or Criminal action and its consequences!

Probably the most astonising fact is that there is an EGM today and at least two individuals are squabbling over which of them will take on the mantle of leader to lead this disaster! Perhaps the fact that they actually wish to be embroilled and probably participate in the debts of Ukip tells you all you need to know of their co0mpetence, judgement and ability!

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#Ukip & Their MEP #Jane_Collins Receive A Final Judgement For Her Libel Action & Their Costs! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 15/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
#Ukip & Their MEP #Jane_Collins Receive A Final Judgement For Her Libel Action & Their Costs! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

neither Ukip nor their MEP Jane Collins had a good day!

This judgement has finally been delivered after several years of it hanging over both the heads of Ukip who have been very fortunate and have had their liability limited to £200,000, I say lucky because no Court appreciates any individual or organisation trying to dupe them!

Read the full judgement and pay close attention as to how Richardson & Crowther sealed the Party’s fate with what seemed clearly, to me, to be an attempt to midlead the Court, which became apparent during ‘disclosure’.

The depth of Jane Collins’ problem is even greater due to her idiotic & unpleasant stupidity.

It looks to me as if Jane Collins managed to talk her way into owing 3 Labour MPs, who it seems offered to settle with an appology & a consequential donation to charity, for her odious & unprincipled public libel. Collins stupidly resiled on her offer and Richardson would seem to have presumed to ADVISE her to offer a risible £10,000!

ADVISE was a word that Ukip came to rue as it irrevocably locked Ukip into an element of liability, probably regardless of the NEC 12 to 1 decision to help fund Collins’ expenses.

Expenses that have ended up somewhere between £200K & £600K + expenses eventually set by the Courts at £100K each for the 3 MPs she libelled – so it sounds as if Collins has earned herself a bill that the Courts will ensure she must pay of possibly approaching a £Million, but clearly well over £500K.

Read the judgement for yourself and when you have finished remember this is just one of a number Ukip has so far accumulated with more to come seems likely!

Just CLICK: UKIP JUDGEMENT barron-v-COLLINS 15-Feb-2018 01

It also looks as if part of the Ukip settlement required by the applicants includes all Ukip’s intellectual properties – presumably name, web sites, logos and the like – I can’t think of any other signs of intellect in Ukip!

 

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Collins,, EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., Jane COLLINS, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Ukip Seems To have Bolt-Offs, Bolting, Bolted & Maybe Even A Bolton! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 13/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
‘Ukip Seems To have Bolt-Offs, Bolting, Bolted & Maybe Even A Bolton! …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Henry Bolton will find out this weekend whether his party wants to keep him, in fact it will be interesting to note if enough people turn up to reasonably be able to call Ukip a Party, for as Bolton publicly announced members have been Bolting at the rate of 1,000 a month.

Of course the figures do not seem very accurately to reflect membership as in the past Ukip had a habit of keeping long dead members on the books and many of the members are nothing more than those who have taken little interest and in fact may well have forgotten they were given free membership in an effort to boost figures a few years ago!

The reality is better defined by the percentage vote the rump party is getting on a national basis which seems at the moment to be less than 3%! They are currently a total irrelevance and it seems unlikely they could turn that around by May’s Local Government elections its unlikely due both to lack of finance and the paucity of competence of a single individual visible in the party over a prolongued period.

Ukip hasn’t even been able to find a competent leader for years and their NEC is even less impressive – clearly there isn’t a single MEP of calliber or stature who stands out – just a rag tag of self serving also rans. As of May they are unlikely to retain a single Council seat up for election and many have Bolted already as with Thurrock & also Thanet!

In a clearly desperate last-gasp attempt at hanging on to leadership Bolton has dreamed up a new party constitution/rules. You will find an insight in the article below there is little exciting in it, it seems and it comes across as somewhere between smoke & mirrors distraction from the main issues amounting to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic & a game of ‘spot the lady’.

There is much in his reforms which are similar to the power grabs Farage made in his time but was prevented by the membership; the aim seems to be to dramatically reduce the role of the party chairman, putting in place an unelected new Chief of Staff thus give sweeping new powers to the leader!

Whether the membership is so diluted now that with the support of Nigel Farage, who failed to change the Party will open the door to this centralising of power will become apparent on Saturday!

Already the proposal seems to be making waves as Ukip’s chairman Paul Oakden last night revealed he was stepping down he may of course be Bolting Off due to the parlous financial situation of the party where staff such as Gawain Towler have Bolted as there is clearly no longer money to fund his bloated salary, he is not alone I gather!

Bolton told LBC yesterday that ‘ex’ mistress Jo Marney ‘might’ get a Valentine’s card from him I guess she may, if the numbers are sufficiently diminished, be Bolted On as the new Chief Staff Officer, as I gather she is not working at the moment!

Astonishingly Bolton has been defending her vile racists texts attacking Meghan Markle, claiming they had been merely “fiery” and “provocative”.

This does sound ever so similar to the sort of justification KKK members make when they are thwarted in their efforts to lynch & murder on a racist basis – ‘Oh it was just a bit of fun’ – yeah yeah fun for whom:

IN MEMORIAM: 19-May-1918 8 mth pregnant lynched in Lowndes County, Georgia for speaking out about her husbands death. White men cut her open while suspended, the foetus fell out…& they stomped on it. Police did nothing..She was 19

The important point for Bolton is that the risidual members don’t Bolt is the defacto leader of Ukip for the last 23 years Nigel Farage & his openly stated support for absolute authority for the leader! Bolton’s future is largely in the hands of Farage whether Bolton does or doesn’t survive Saturday is of course of little consequence as it is unlikely Ukip will survive the loss of its NEC, as they have no choice but to resign if Bolton is supported if they have any integrity and act honourably.

Also it must be considered that IF Bolton survives or if not the main task of the leader will be fending off the many pending Court cases & very substantial debts minded that most of their MEPs have bolted, the staff seem to be Bolting & the income from the EU has seemingly Bolted.

No wonder Mr & Mrs Glum look so cheery:

BOLTON, Henry 03 + Jo MARNEY 04

Ukip Leader Henry Bolton Will Cut Power Of Party Chairman Under Make-Or-Break Reforms

His future will be decided at a meeting of party members on Saturday

PA Wire/PA Images

Under-fire Ukip leader Henry Bolton is set to release his blueprint for party reform at noon in a last-ditch attempt to save his political career.

Bolton, who was handed a vote of no confidence by Ukip’s ruling committee last month, will put out his proposed changes to how the party is run in a bid to win the support of rank and file members.

 

Bolton’s future is set to be decided at a crunch meeting in Saturday, where members will decide whether to back him as leader and adopt the new constitution, or oust him from the top job.

HuffPost UK understands Bolton’s changes to the party would see a dramatically reduced role for Ukip chairman Paul Oakden, the creation of a new Chief of Staff, and put the leader at the heart of the decision-making process on key issues.

 

One source said: “It’s very interesting, but is it enough to get a lot of people to get people to support him?

“We’ll have to wait and see.”

One person’s support Bolton will need if he is to persuade the membership to back his plans is former leader Nigel Farage.The MEP and talk-show host was sent a copy of the document this morning, and is set to give his verdict on the proposals later today.

Bolton’s position has become increasingly precarious since it emerged he had left his wife for Ukip activist Jo Marney – a move which some in the party felt undermined his ‘family man’ image.

Leaked texts from Marney which contained racist and derogatory comments about Prince Harry’s fiancée Meghan Markle only added to the pressure on Bolton, who then broke up with the glamour model in order to stay on as leader and fight for his position.

Since then, he was spotted by HuffPost UK having an intimate dinner with Marney at an exclusive members-only club on the banks of the Thames.

In an interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday, Bolton said: “There are strong affections there, yes,” when asked if the relationship was back on.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

BOLTON, Henry 03 + Jo MARNEY 04

Clearly Dopey & Mopey are an ongoing item – they are clearly well suited!

Already there have been moves to replace Bolton, unsurprisingly with various people putting themseves forward – Guido has rather belatedly published the story of the front runner IF/when Bolton is Bolted Off:

Interestingly in this bit of catchup by Guido he has published his thoughts on the possibility that the vile & corrupt Ukip MEP Gerard Batten might become interim leader if Bolton gets Booted Off:

UKIP Plot to Make Muslim-Bashing Batten Leader

Senior UKIP figures are proposing to appoint pink-suited Muslim-basher Gerard Batten as their interim leader if Henry Bolton loses the vote at this weekend’s EGM, Guido can reveal. The three UKIP peers, Lords Pearson, Stevens and Willoughby de Broke, have written to the party’s NEC this morning:

“We now write to suggest that, ahead of the EGM on 17th February, you resolve to immediately appoint Gerard Batten MEP as Interim Leader in the event that Henry Bolton loses the vote at the EGM. Further, we suggest that you publicly announce ahead of the EGM that it is your intention to appoint Gerard in the event that Henry Bolton loses, so that UKIP members will know as they vote that you have a plan of action around the party leadership and that there will not be any demoralising vacuum at the top.”

Batten’s support is growing: John Bickley says “most Kippers want Gerard Batten to be interim leader. He’s a safe pair of hands and the party’s Brexit guru. Many of the colleagues I work with and I would support him”. He has also won surely game-changing endorsements from Bill Etheridge and Ben Walker. Batten was previously best known for saying British Muslims must sign a code of conduct, describing Islam as “Mohammedanism” and a “death cult” of which we should have a “rational fear”, and calling for an end to the building of new mosques in the UK until a non-Muslim place of worship is built in Mecca. A supporter once defended him to HuffPo saying: “It’s not like he wants to kill all Muslims”. UKIP leadership jostling seems like bald men fighting over a comb to Guido…

It is of interest that amongst those seeking to empower the vile Racist Islamaphobe Gerard Batten; is the odious Malcolm Lord Pearson, who the informed will be aware is an award winning Zionist! Pearson is obscenely anti Muslim and about whom The News of The World did a double page expose, an expose which proved an embarrassment for Ukip during his leadership of the party which was amateur in the extreme and beset with problems due to his own dishonesty as a puppet for Nigel Farage and the dubious influence of the failed Tory MP Christopher Gill!

 

Well lets see what degree of debacle is the outcome of Saturdays EGM – debacle? well more probably blood bath followed by all too probably a funeral!

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

To Me It Smacks Of Corruption: This Is NOT Justice Being Done, Nor Seen To Be Done! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 12/02/2018

 

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
To Me It Smacks Of Corruption: This Is NOT Justice Being Done Nor Seen To Be Done! …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

this Is NOT Justice being done nor being seen to be done, in my opinion.

  1. 2m2 minutes ago

    Greg_Lance-Watkins Retweeted Greg_Lance-Watkins

Surely this is just a criminal with some revolting associates making a fool of the hospitality & shelter gave him & abusing the Justice system – If NOT I can only assume it is , & colluding in corruption

Greg_Lance-Watkins added,

How is justice being done or being seen to be done when one minute Bukovsky claims to be  not ill & seeking to sue the CPS for ‘libel’ for charging him twice!

Then we see Bukovsky is not ill atall and not only publishes but also promotes his own autobiography, just after his first trial was abandoned because he claimed to be ‘too ill’ to continue.
Notably Bukovsky isn’t too ill to travel to Moscow and participate in the Russian elections as a Moscow Mayoral Candidate, but is too ill to stand trial for the deplorable crimes he has clearly committed.
This dirty old man would seem to have put in place a series of defences most revolting of which was admitting he downloaded the material as a hobby (clearly a mistranslation of the Russian word for perversion I presume) – then he tried to justify his obscene criminal perversion by saying the children being abused looked as if they were enjoying it and laterly trying to claim he had nothing to do with downloading this vile and criminal material as the Russian State loaded it on his personal computer!
Perhaps he can find yet another implausible justification for the various independent storage devices he had with 1,000s of his vile collection of abuse of children and videos of sex acts involving children – all presumably enjoying it – I assume in the same way the baby Poppi Worthington enjoyed the full on rape by her father that led to her death!

Bukovsky’s appearaces regarding his gross perversion and criminal accumulation of hard core pornography involving small children seem to be performed in a wheel chair – his entire act is just not plausible and I am forced to wonder why the CPS, Police and Courts are seemingly colluding in what is very apparent as a criminal deception.

Why the trial of Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has taken four years to conclude

Russian-born Bukovsky, an author and activist, was first arrested in 2014

Vladimir Bukovsky stood accused of making and possessing thousands of indecent images of children – but will now face no further action

It was April 2015 when the media first heard Vladimir Bukovsky was due to be charged with making and possessing indecent images of children.

The case has taken almost four years to reach its conclusion – with Bukovsky first being arrested in 2014.

His trial started once and a jury was sworn in, but then abandoned due to the Russian dissident’s ill health.

Russian-born Bukovsky is an author and activist who became well-known internationally as a vocal critic of the Soviet regime.

He spent 12 years in Soviet prisons, forced-labour camps and psychiatric hospitals, which were used by the authorities to incarcerate political dissidents and submit them to compulsory treatment to “cure” their beliefs.

At Cambridge Crown Court today (Monday, February 12) the charges were ordered to lie on file, with no further action being taken against Bukovsky.

The court was told that Bukovsky was too ill to stand trial, so no further court proceedings would be brought against him.

Below, the News explores the background to the case – from when he was first charged to when the case was abandoned for what is thought to be the last time.

April 2015

The News told how Bukovsky was due to be charged with making and possessing indecent images of children.

He stood charged with five counts of making an indecent photograph of a child, five counts of possessing indecent photographs of children, and one count of possessing a prohibited image.

At the time Jenny Hopkins, chief crown prosecutor for the CPS in the East of England, told the News: “Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire Police, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Vladimir Bukovsky in relation to the alleged making and possessing of indecent images of children.”

She added: “The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.”

Vladimir Bukovsky arriving at Cambridge Crown Court

May 2015

The Russian dissident was due to make his first court appearance on May 5, 2015, to face the charges.

However, his appearance was delayed due to ill health.

Cambridge Magistrates’ Court was told how Bukovsky was seriously ill in hospital and was being treated in a clinic in Germany.

He was admitted there with renal failure on April 29, 2015, the court heard, and it was not known how long he would spend in hospital.

Another court hearing was scheduled for later that same month, but Bukovsky did not appear in court again until August 25, 2015.

He denied all charges against him, and was released on unconditional bail with a further scheduled hearing for September 1, 2015.

The case did not go back before the courts until May 2016, where it was adjourned again until December 12, 2016 after a discussion excluding the press and public.

December 12, 2016

Vladimir Bukovsky’s trial got underway at Cambridge Crown Court, with a jury sworn in and the case opened by Will Carter, prosecuting.

The dissident stood trial for allegedly accessing still and video images over 15 years, some of which were being downloaded at the point of his arrest in 2014.

The 73-year-old told police he had become curious at the end of the 1990s about issues involving control and censorship of the Internet and decided to look into what was available online, the court heard.

The pensioner, who sat in court in a wheelchair, was living alone in Cambridge when he was arrested.

He told officers that his online interests had become something of a hobby, which he told no-one else about.

Mr Carter said: “What he said was that his initial curiosity turned into a hobby rather like stamp-collecting.”

Mr Carter said some of the material found on hard drives at the defendant’s home involved children of toddler age. Bukovsky told police the youngest were six or seven.

Mr Carter said: “He said he wouldn’t download any which showed a toddler although he said age could be difficult to judge.”

The barrister said Bukovsky had noted that “they (those in the images) looked to him as if they were enjoying themselves”.

Bukovsky is considered a hero by some who pursue democratic reform in Russia and a handful of his supporters were in court.

But the jury was told that Bukovsky had another side to him beyond the heroic figure.

Mr Carter added: “The prosecution say that there was another side to this man which was far from laudable, an extensive interest in real children really being abused.”

 
Pro Ukraine anti Putin placards outside Cambridge Crown Court as Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky arrived at Cambridge Crown Court in 2016

December 13, 2016

Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial.

A computer expert who has worked for GCHQ said he was confident the images had not been put there by anyone other than Bukovsky.

Dr Howard Chivers, a lecturer at the University of York, examined five discs of files recovered from Bukovsky’s hard drives at his home in Cambridge.

Bukovsky told police he had been researching the images and videos out of “social” curiosity and not for sexual gratification, according to an agreed summary of his interview which was read to the court.

He said he became interested in the debate around internet censorship at the end of the 1990s and wanted to see if child pornography was as widely available online as people claimed.

Bukovsky told officers: “It was never done for any sexual pleasure on my part. I have never been attracted to children in that way.”

He said he did not believe searching for and having the material was criminal or causing any harm.

He referred to sadomasochistic imagery he had seen and told officers he was convinced it was staged because the children taking part appeared to be “giggling”.

Bukovsky, a highly-regarded human rights campaigner who has been a prominent opponent of the Russian regime, was arrested as part of the national Operation Notarise aimed at paedophiles and led by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP), Cambridge Crown Court heard.

Cambridgeshire police arrested Bukovsky at his home in an early morning swoop in October 2014 after information was passed to them by CEOP.

Detective Constable Gareth Purdy said Bukovsky answered the door when police arrived at around 7.30am and when officers asked him about computer equipment he said there was a computer in the study they would be “interested in”.

The court heard that Bukovsky’s collection of images grew after he discovered a file-sharing service and that he continued to download them, despite losing interest and coming close to deleting his collection which had become too big to analyse.

Det Con Purdy said the images had mostly been of boys, aged from around 8-14, although some were aged between 6-8 and a number were of toddlers.

There were some images of girls, although they were usually associated with boys, and the images were often grouped together in nationalities.

December 14, 2016

Jurors in the trial were discharged after the court heard Bukovsky’s ill health had deteriorated and he had been admitted to hospital.

Defence counsel Francis FitzGibbon QC told the court that Bukovsky had been admitted to hospital with bronchial pneumonia.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Bukovsky was a “very unwell man” who also suffered from congestive heart failure and diabetes.

He asked Judge Gareth Hawkesworth to discharge the jury in the case.

Judge Hawkesworth agreed, stating that the current jurors could not be “kept waiting in suspense”.

He said once, and if, Bukovsky was fit enough to stand trial then the trial would be with a different jury.

A further hearing was then scheduled for January 19, 2017.

July 2017

Bukovsky’s trial was delayed again – and did not reach the courts until July 2017.

The trial was listed to begin on July 24, 2017, with a new jury.

But the case was postponed again because of Bukovsky’s ill health, with a court appearance rescheduled for February 12, 2018.

 
Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky leaving court on November 9, 2015

January 2018

On January 16, it was announced that Bukovsky would finally stand trial.

A further call to Cambridge Crown Court confirmed the court hearing on February 12, 2018 would still take place.

February 2018

Today (February 12, 2018) Judge Gareth Hawkesworth ruled that charges against Vladimir Bukovsky, now 75, should remain on file after the Crown Prosecution Service said he was not fit to stand trial.

The charges related to making or possessing more than 19,000 still images and more than 8,700 films of child pornography.

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth ruled the trial be postponed indefinitely after prosecution and defence counsel said it was not in the interest of justice to proceed.

The trial could only happen by order of the court, or Court of Appeal, if and when Bukovsky’s health improves enough for him to stand trial.

Bukovsky was due to be tried via video link from his Cambridge home.

The court heard it was the third time the trial had come to the court after the defendant was admitted to hospital on the second day of a trial for the offences in December 2016.

Judge Hawkesworth said: “I’m quite satisfied in light of the continuing deterioration in his health that whilst he might not be able to catch up from time to time during the crown’s case when it comes to the moment whether or not Mr Bukovsky should or could give evidence… I take the view that it would not be fair to try a man in these circumstances.”

Prosecutor William Carter told the court that the situation had now got to the stage where there was “clearly a risk” to Bukovsky’s health.

He added: “The Crown have taken the view that the proper course in the interest of justice is not to oppose that [defence] application and indeed to go further and to add to it.”

After the hearing, defence lawyer Francis Fitzgibbon QC said Bukovsky denied all the allegations and his defence would have included claims the images were planted by Russian state operatives.

He told the court: “It is extremely unlikely that he would be able to participate effectively in a trial.”

Bukovksy was forced into exile and moved to the UK, where he studied biology at Cambridge University.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

See also CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#Henry_Bolton is fighting to cling on as #Ukip leader & to overtly #Racist #Jo_Marney …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 11/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
#Henry_Bolton is fighting to cling on as #Ukip leader & to overtly #Racist #Jo_Marney …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

first let us get a few things straight:

1. Bolton did NOT ‘go to’ Sandhurst.

2. Bolton was a Trooper in the Hussars.

3. Bolton was NOT an Officer in The Army.

4. Bolton does NOT have a University Degree.

5. Bolton, after he left The Army was an Officer in the Territorials.

6. Bolton promised Ukip & the public at large his affair with Ms. Marney was ended due to her racist comments in public.

7. Bolton’s qaffair with Ms. Marney, for whom he betrayed & dumped his third wife and most recent known 2 children at Christmas is far from over!

8, Bolton was the subject of a unanimous vote of NO CONFIDENCE by the NEC/Executive leadership of Ukip.

9. Bolton’s failure to act honourably and tender his resignation has led to the resignation of a number of Ukip staff & MEPs and approximately 1,000 members a month.

The media’s statement below:

Next weekend Mr Bolton, a former Army officer…’

is patently untrue and poorly researched.

Defiant Ukip chief Henry Bolton hints he IS back together with ‘racist texts’ model Jo Marney as he warns party could be OVER if he is sacked

  • Henry Bolton fighting to cling on as Ukip leader following row over Jo Marney
  • Ukip is holding an urgent meeting next weekend to decide Mr Bolton’s fate
  • Mr Bolton suggested he is back together with Miss Marney despite race row

Ukip chief Henry Bolton today made clear he is back with model ex-girlfriend Jo Marney – and warned that the party could be over if he is sacked at an emergency meeting next weekend.

Mr Bolton admitted there were still ‘strong affections’ with Miss Marney despite previously insisting he had ended their relationship after racist messages surfaced.

He also refused to challenge statements that Miss Marney was his girlfriend, after they were spotted out together last week.

The defiant stance, in an appearance on the BBC‘s Andrew Marr show, came as Mr Bolton fights to stay as leader after most of the party’s senior members quit their posts in protest.

In an appearance on the BBC's Andrew Marr show today, Mr Bolton admitted there were still 'strong affections' with Jo Marney

In an appearance on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show today, Mr Bolton admitted there were still ‘strong affections’ with Jo Marney

Mr Bolton, 54, claimed to have dumped the 25 year-old as he scrambled to try to salvage his political career – but has been spotted out several times with her since the scandal.

He was seen at a bar in Folkestone last week with the ex glamour model, who he left his wife and young children for over Christmas.

Asked today whether he was ‘in love’ with Miss Marney, Mr Bolton said: ‘There are strong affections for her, yes.’

Challenged that he had previously promised to end the relationship with Miss Marney, Mr Bolton said that was ‘not the point’. 

Next weekend Mr Bolton, a former Army officer will be hauled in for a crunch meeting that will decided if he stays on as leader or is booted out.

But he warned today that ejecting him would plunge the party into chaos and potentially end it as a political force. 

Mr Bolton admitted there had been a ‘problem with my judgment around that whole episode’ around Miss Marney, but added: ‘The point is that actually we are off, and we have been for a very long time, off the field in terms of the debate on leaving the European Union. 

‘What we should be doing is shaping the future of this country’s independence, and that’s what we should be focusing on, not whether or not somebody, way before I met them, actually sent private messages that actually had nothing to do with me and I had no means of knowing about.’ 

Mr Bolton also claimed that Miss Marney had been harshly treated and there was ‘context’ to her messaged that meant they were not as offensive – suggesting that would be revealed in the course of this week.

Video playing bottom right…
 
 
Ukip leader Henry Bolton has been spotted out with his glamour model girlfriend Jo Marney - despite insisting he has dumped her to cling on to his job (file pic)

Ukip leader Henry Bolton has been spotted out with his glamour model girlfriend Jo Marney – despite insisting he has dumped her to cling on to his job (file pic)

Mr Bolton left his wife Tatiana Smurova, 42,  and young children for Miss Marney over the Christmas break. 

Within days of going public with the affair it emerged that she had sent racist messages about Prince Harry’s fiance Meghan Markle.

Ms Marney said Prince Harry’s ‘black American’ fiancee will ‘taint’ the Royal Family with ‘her seed’ and pave the way for a ‘black king’.

Ms Marney also says that she would never have sex with ‘a n***o’ because they are ‘ugly’. 

Former Ukip leadership candidate Ben Walker said: ‘His refusal to stop seeing this woman angers party activists and gives fuel to our detractors that UKIP is a racist party. People have said they are afraid to canvass for the party now because they fear being called racists and even being attacked.

‘Mr Bolton called me a dissenter for disagreeing with him, his terrible leadership and this unacceptable relationship. I view myself as more of a whistleblower.’

‘Mr Bolton needs to remember that this is supposed to be a political party and not the TA.’ 

What is the Ukip meeting that will seal Henry Bolton’s fate and when is it?

Henry Bolton is battling to cling on as leader after losing a confidence vote at the party’s NEC meeting.

Al other 14 members of the ruling voted demanding he quit as leader – with only Mr Bolton himself voting for him to say on. 

Ukip will hold an emergency meeting in Birmingham on February 17 which will decide whether to back the motion to oust Mr Bolton or throw him a life line.

Members will all be given a chance to attend and vote on the decision.

If he loses this vote he will be sacked as leader with immediate effect.

It remains unclear who would take over the party if he goes.

Nigel Farage has ruled out a comeback and many commentators have speculated that Ukip would be finished as it cannot afford another leadership vote.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Catastrophic Judgements In Court Against #Farage’s & #Ukip Group …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
Catastrophic Judgements In Court Against #Farage’s & #Ukip Group …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

let us hope these United Kingdoms set an example in the field of Justice and ensure the fraudulent abuse of a huge amount of tax payers’ money is recovered, it having been misappropriated by British politicians stealing the money via the EU.

It is abundantly clear that for all the wriggling and spin from Nigerl Farage and his fellow travellers the Court Judgement below finds agains them on all counts – some speculate this could lead to debts running to many €Millions may be involved. Money due from the individuals and management on the basis of jointly and severally.

As an aside, this judgement may well explain why it coincided with Gawain Towler jumping ship – largely based upon the fact that his generous income stream was about to collapse – better in the world of management and PR to SEEM to be in control, when in reality you had no choice!

There must be Justice seen to be done and no possibility for a division of law into ‘them and us’, if you or I embezelled or stole a sum of money in these proportions we would indubitably be prosecuted and expect not just that we had our assetts removed to repay the sums misappropriated from the public purse and we would reasonably expect to be both bankrupted and serve a consequential prison sentence.

I take grave erxception at the very possibility that our Police, CPS, Justice system & Politicians might yet again turn a blind eye to these crimes by the very people charged with the responsibility to create the very laws we should all be subject to.

There are no ifs, buts or mittigation which are acceptable amongst men and women of integrity. ANYTHING short of full and transparent imposition of Justice is unacceptable.

Language of document :
ECLI:EU:T:2018:76

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

8 February 2018 (*)

(Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation for the financial year 2017 and providing for pre-financing at a rate of 33% of the maximum grant amount and the obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Financial regulation — Rules of application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Proportionality)

In Case T‑118/17,

Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Plasschaert and É. Montens, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Parliament decision FINS-2017-28 of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant insofar as that decision suspends the payment of that grant for the financial year 2017 and limits the pre-financing to 33% of the maximum grant amount subject to a bank guarantee being provided,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of A.M. Collins (Rapporteur), President, R. Barents and J. Passer, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

gives the following

Judgment

 Background to the dispute

1        The applicant, the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE) is a political foundation at European level within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).

2        The applicant is affiliated to the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe (ADDE), a political party at European level within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2004/2003.

3        In the context of the financial year 2015, the applicant presented for the first time an application for funding from the general EU budget. It obtained a maximum grant of EUR 730 053.

4        The applicant also submitted an application for funding for the financial year 2016, which it obtained and which is unrelated to the present dispute.

5        On 30 September 2016 the applicant submitted an application for funding for the financial year 2017.

6        At its meeting of 21 November 2016, the Bureau of the European Parliament examined the final report submitted by the applicant following the closure of the financial year 2015. The Bureau of the Parliament declared ineligible an amount of EUR 33 863.50 and determined the final grant awarded to the applicant at EUR 672 966.98. The applicant does not contest that decision.

7        According to information published by the press on 24 November 2016, the applicant had put in place a system in order to receive donations in exchange for awarding contracts for higher amounts to the donors.

8        By letter of 30 November 2016, the Director General for Finance of the Parliament informed the applicant that, in response to that information, its services had re-examined the accounts for the financial year 2015. They allegedly identified several cases in which a company or individual had made a donation and that same company or a company linked to the donor was awarded contracts for sums exceeding the amount of the relevant donation. Those donations were supposedly used to reach the minimum threshold of 15% own resources necessary to receive the grant from the Parliament. For those reasons, the Director General for Finance stated that a proposed decision to suspend the payment of the final balance of the grant for the financial year 2015 would be included in the agenda of the meeting of the Bureau of the Parliament scheduled for 12 December 2016. The applicant was invited to submit its observations on or before 6 December 2016.

9        By letter of 2 December 2016, the Director General for Finance of the Parliament, referring to his letter of 30 November 2016 and to the allegations set out therein, informed the applicant that the case would be brought to the attention of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). In addition, he pointed out to the applicant that, taking into account the serious allegations regarding the establishment of a system whereby donations were received in exchange for the award of contracts, they planned to suspend the payment of the grant for the financial year 2017. That issue was to be considered by the Bureau of the Parliament during its meeting of 12 December 2016. The applicant was invited to submit its observations on or before 8 December 2016.

10      On 6 December 2016, the applicant submitted its observations on the suspension of the payment of the final balance of the grant for the financial year 2015, in which it rejected the allegations in question and contested the planned decision. Furthermore, it requested to be heard during the meeting of the Bureau of the Parliament scheduled for 12 December 2016.

11      On 8 December 2016, the applicant submitted its observations on the suspension of the grant for the financial year 2017, in which it rejected the allegations in question and contested the planned suspension.

12      During its meeting of 12 December 2016, the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt decision FINS-2017-28, awarding the applicant a maximum grant of EUR 670 654.76 for the financial year 2017, but suspending its payment until the irregularities allegedly committed by the applicant had been investigated (‘the contested decision’). The Bureau of the Parliament added that, if those irregularities were not subsequently established, the grant would be paid, but that the pre-financing would be limited to 33% of the maximum amount of the grant, and its payment would be conditional upon the presentation of a first demand bank guarantee. That decision was signed and sent to the applicant on 15 December 2016.

13      At the same meeting of 12 December 2016, the Bureau of the Parliament decided to suspend the payment of the final balance of the grant for the financial year 2015 until the necessary investigation was concluded. That decision is not challenged in the present dispute.

14      On 20 December 2016, the Parliament referred the matter in question to OLAF.

 Procedure and forms of order sought

15      By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 February 2017, the applicant brought the present action.

16      By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same date, the applicant made an application for interim measures.

17      That application for interim measures was dismissed by the order of 4 July 2017, IDDE v Parliament (T‑118/17 R, not published, EU:T:2017:465), and the costs at that instance were reserved.

18      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        declare the action admissible;

–        annul the contested decision insofar as it suspends the payment of that grant for the financial year 2017 and limits the pre-financing to 33% of the maximum amount of the grant subject to a bank guarantee being provided;

–        order the Parliament to pay the costs.

19      The Parliament contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action as inadmissible in part;

–        dismiss the remainder of the action as unfounded;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

20      The Court (Eighth Chamber) decided, in application of Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure.

 Law

21      The applicant asks that the contested decision be annulled, first, insofar as it suspends the payment of that grant for the financial year 2017 and, second, limits the pre-financing to 33% of the maximum amount of the grant subject to a bank guarantee being provided.

 Decision to suspend the payment of the grant for the financial year 2017

22      In support of its application for annulment of the decision to suspend the payment of the grant for the financial year 2017, including the suspension of the pre-financing, the applicant relies upon three pleas in law, alleging, first, breach of the principle of good administration and the rights of the defence, second, infringement of Article 135 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1)(‘the financial regulation’), Article 208(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1)(‘ rules of application of the financial regulation’), the first paragraph of Article 8, sub-paragraph (a), of the Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation No 2004/2003, as amended (OJ 2014 C 63, p. 1)(‘the decision of the Bureau of 29 March 2004’) and Article II.13.2 of the contested decision, and, third, breach of the principle of proportionality.

 Breach of the principle of good administration and of the rights of the defence

23      The first plea is divided into two parts. By its first part, the applicant submits that the Parliament infringed the principle of good administration and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, insofar as the contested decision is allegedly neither fair nor impartial owing to the composition of the Bureau of the Parliament. In particular, the applicant argues that the Bureau of the Parliament, composed of the President and the 14 Vice-Presidents of the Parliament, does not include a single representative of the ‘eurosceptic’ parties. Therefore, taking into account its composition, the Bureau of the Parliament is not capable of ensuring impartial and objective control of the funds allocated to the European political parties and to the political foundations linked to them. Further, this is allegedly confirmed by the creation of an independent authority for those purposes pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (OJ 2014 L 317, p. 1).

24      The Parliament disputes the applicant’s arguments.

25      Under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, headed ‘Right to good administration’, every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

26      According to case-law, the principle of good administration entails an obligation for the competent institution to examine with care and impartiality all the relevant elements of the case at hand (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 June 2017, Schniga v CPVO, C‑625/15 P, EU:C:2017:435, paragraph 47).

27      Further, the requirement of impartiality encompasses, on the one hand, subjective impartiality, in so far as no member of the institution concerned who is responsible for the matter may show bias or personal prejudice, and, on the other hand, objective impartiality, in so far as there must be sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to bias on the part of the institution concerned (see judgment of 11 July 2013, Ziegler v Commission, C‑439/11 P, EU:C:2013:513, paragraph 155). It follows from case-law that subjective impartiality is presumed until proof to the contrary is adduced (judgments of 1 July 2008, Chronopostand La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 54, and of 19 February 2009, Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament, C‑308/07 P, EU:C:2009:103, paragraph 46).

28      In that regard, it must be noted that the applicant has put forward no argument challenging the personal impartiality of the members of the Bureau of the Parliament that adopted the contested decision. In reality, the applicant is of the opinion that, by its very nature, the composition of the Bureau is sufficient in itself to undermine the objective impartiality of that body.

29      That argument cannot be upheld for three reasons.

30      First, the Bureau of the Parliament is a collegiate body, composed of the President and the 14 Vice-Presidents of the Parliament, who are all elected by the Members of Parliament under Articles 16 and 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament in force at the time. Therefore, the composition of that body is intended to reflect the plurality of the Parliament itself.

31      Second, it is irrelevant that Regulation No 1141/2014 created an independent authority to exercise certain functions relating to political foundations at European level, given that that regulation does not apply to the facts giving rise to the present dispute. According to Article 41 thereof, that regulation only became applicable from 1 January 2017. In any case, according to Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1141/2014 read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 June 2017 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation No 1141/2014 (OJ 2017 C 205, p. 2), competence in taking decisions on funding application still rests with the Bureau.

32      Third, as the Parliament correctly indicates, it has to be found that the applicant has raised no plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU against the provisions governing the composition of the Bureau of the Parliament and its competence to take decisions on the funding of political foundations at European level, such as Articles 24 and 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament in force at the time and Article 4 of the decision of the Bureau of 29 March 2004.

33      The first part of the first plea in law must therefore be rejected.

34      By the second part of the first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of the rights of the defence. First, the Parliament granted it an excessively short period, namely, four working days, to respond to the allegations set out in paragraph 9 above. Second, in spite of its request to that effect, the applicant was not invited to be heard by the Bureau of the Parliament during the meeting in which the contested decision was adopted.

35      The Parliament disputes the applicant’s arguments.

36      It must be noted that, under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to good administration includes, inter alia, the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken.

37      Furthermore, observance of the rights of the defence is a general principle of EU law which applies when the authorities are minded to adopt in respect of a person a measure which will adversely affect him. In accordance with that principle, the addressees of decisions that significantly affect their interests must be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views as regards the information on which the authorities intend to base their decision. They must be given a sufficient period of time to do so (judgment of 18 December 2008, Sopropé, C‑349/07, EU:C:2008:746, paragraphs 36 and 37).

38      In the present case, it must be noted that, as follows from paragraph 9 above, on 2 December 2016, the Parliament invited the applicant to submit its observations on or before 8 December 2016, which is a period of six days. Although the period was indeed short, it nevertheless does not mean that the Parliament infringed the applicant’s rights of the defence in the present case.

39      It must be found that the period that the Parliament must grant a political foundation at European level in order for it to provide its observations in response to a letter, such as the one in the present case, must take into account the complexity and the volume of the allegations and factual elements raised.

40      In the present case, the Parliament informed the applicant of the allegations relating, in essence, to the establishment of a system whereby donations were received in exchange for the award of contracts and mentioned eight specific cases in support of its accusation. Thus, despite the serious nature of the accusation, it must be held that the Parliament’s letter did not raise particularly complex or numerous allegations or factual elements.

41      Moreover, as follows from paragraph 8 above, the Parliament had already informed the applicant of the allegations at issue in its letter of 30 November 2016, to which it makes reference in its subsequent letter, which gave the applicant two additional days to prepare its observations.

42      In addition, even if such a finding cannot in itself justify an infringement of the rights of the defence, it must be held that, according to the first paragraph of Article 4(2) of the decision of the Bureau of 29 March 2004, in principle the Bureau of the Parliament had to take its decision concerning the list of beneficiaries and the amounts of the grants awarded before 1 January 2017. As the last meeting of the Bureau of the Parliament for the year 2016 was scheduled for 12 December 2016, that fact explains the context in which the applicant was given a short period in which to deliver its observations.

43      Finally, it must be noted that the Parliament acted diligently by sending its letters to the applicant on 30 November and 2 December 2016, that is to say, only a few days after the publication by the press of the first pieces of information relating to the allegations at issue on 24 November 2016, after having internally re-examined the applicant’s accounts for the financial year 2015.

44      Taking into account all of those considerations, the plea alleging an excessively short period to answer the allegations against the applicant must be rejected.

45      As regards the refusal of the applicant’s request to be heard, specifically in the context of a hearing at the meeting of the Bureau of the Parliament that led to the adoption of the contested decision, it is sufficient to state that neither the specific legislation in question nor the general principle of observance of the rights of the defence gives the applicant the right to a formal hearing, the opportunity to submit its observations in writing being sufficient to ensure observance of the right to be heard (see, by analogy, judgments of 27 September 2005, Common Market Fertilizers v Commission, T‑134/03 and T‑135/03, EU:T:2005:339, paragraph 108, and of 6 September 2013, Bank Melli Iran v Council, T‑35/10 and T‑7/11, EU:T:2013:397, paragraph 105).

46      In view of the foregoing, the second part of the first plea in law must be rejected. Accordingly, the first plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.

 Infringement of the financial regulation, the rules of application of the financial regulation, the decision of the Bureau of 29 March 2004 and the provisions of the contested decision

47      By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that the Parliament infringed Article 135 of the financial regulation, Article 208(1) of the rules of application of the financial regulation, the first paragraph of Article 8, sub-paragraph (a), of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004 and Article II.13.2 of the contested decision, since none of those provisions allows the grant for the financial year 2017 to be suspended because of irregularities allegedly committed in the financial year 2015.

48      The Parliament disputes the applicant’s arguments.

49      First, it is appropriate to examine the applicant’s plea in law according to which Article 135 of the financial regulation and Article 208(1) of the rules of application of the financial regulation do not allow the grant for the financial year 2017 to be suspended because of irregularities allegedly committed in the financial year 2015.

50      According to Article 135(2) of the financial regulation, where the award procedure proves to have been subject to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud, the authorising officer responsible is to suspend the procedure and may take whatever measures that are necessary, including cancelling of the procedure. The authorising officer responsible is to inform OLAF immediately of suspected cases of fraud.

51      Under Article 208(1) of the rules of application of the financial regulation, the implementation of the grant agreement or decision, the participation of a beneficiary in its implementation or payments may be suspended in order to verify whether presumed substantial errors or irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations have occurred. If they are not confirmed, implementation is to resume as soon as possible.

52      Contrary to what the applicant maintains, the wording of those provisions does not prevent the institutions of the European Union from suspending the implementation of a grant for a given financial year because of suspected irregularities concerning another financial year.

53      Furthermore, it must be noted that, under Article 135(5) of the financial regulation, where controls or audits demonstrate systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or breach of obligations attributable to the beneficiary and having a material impact on a number of grants awarded to that beneficiary under similar conditions, the authorising officer responsible may suspend implementation of all the grants concerned or, where appropriate, terminate the concerned grant agreements or decisions with that beneficiary, in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities, fraud or breach of obligations, provided that the beneficiary has been given the opportunity to make observations.

54      It follows from the provision above that systematic or recurrent irregularities that have an impact on several grants that have been awarded in similar conditions may be taken into account in order to suspend or even terminate all relevant grants.

55      In the present case, the alleged irregularities that led to the decision to suspend and to the Parliament referring the matter to OLAF were both serious and systematic, since they involved the establishment of a mechanism whereby donations were received in exchange for the award of contracts. Therefore, it would be illogical, and even contrary to the requirement of protection of the financial interests of the European Union, that the institutions should be obliged to continue to pay funds during an appropriate ongoing investigation into beneficiaries suspected of having committed serious irregularities, even if those irregularities relate to an earlier financial year, and particularly if those irregularities, were they to be established, would be liable to lead to subsequent grants being terminated. The applicant’s first head of claim must therefore be rejected.

56      Second, the applicant alleges infringement of the first paragraph of Article 8, sub-paragraph (a), of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004, which, according to the applicant, allows suspension only in the event that the grant has been confirmed as having been used for unauthorised expenditure. In the present case, the irregularities invoked have allegedly not been confirmed.

57      Under the first paragraph of Article 8, sub-paragraph (a), of the decision of the Bureau of 29 March 2004, on a proposal from the Secretary-General, the Bureau of the Parliament is to suspend payments and reduce the grant, and, if appropriate, is to revoke the grant award decision, and may request appropriate repayment in the event of the grant being used to cover expenditure not authorised by Regulation No 2004/2003.

58      It must be found that the wording of that provision does not support the applicant’s interpretation. That provision does no more than to state that improper use of the grant for unauthorised expenses may justify the suspension, reduction and even revocation of that grant. It is logical that the reduction and revocation of the grant must therefore be justified by established circumstances. Moreover, that provision in no way excludes the possibility of suspending the grant during an appropriate ongoing investigation in order to establish whether funds have been used for unauthorised expenses. Accordingly, the applicant’s second argument must be rejected.

59      Third, the applicant alleges infringement of Article II.13.2 of the contested decision, inasmuch as that provision allows the grant to be suspended only when there are suspicions of unauthorised spending and additional checks are being carried out. It is the applicant’s submission that its accounts for the financial year 2015 have already been checked by an external auditor and by the Parliament’s services without the suspected irregularities having been confirmed.

60      That argument cannot be accepted. Even if it is true that the applicant’s accounts were checked by an external auditor at the time, information relating to serious irregularities that had been committed was published in the press on 24 November 2016. Following re-examination of the applicant’s accounts by the Parliament’s services for the financial year 2015, the Parliament found that there were sufficient indications for the allegations at issue to be established and decided to refer the matter to OLAF. Accordingly, the third plea in law must be rejected.

61      Finally, regarding the applicant’s argument that it has not committed the alleged irregularities, it suffices to note that the contested decision does not conclude that those irregularities exist, but does no more than to suspend the grant until OLAF’s investigation is concluded, as is stated in the letter of 2 December 2016.

62      In the light of the foregoing, the second plea in law must be rejected as unfounded.

 Breach of the principle of proportionality

63      By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicant, suspending the payment of the grant for the financial year 2017 is disproportionate, as in the present case there are merely suspicions of irregularities committed three years earlier with regard to a different grant decision that relates to an amount of only about EUR 68 000.

64      The Parliament contests the appellant’s arguments.

65      As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, requires acts adopted by EU institutions not to exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation in question; where there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous (judgment of 11 June 2009, Agrana Zucker, C‑33/08, EU:C:2009:367, paragraph 31).

66      As has been stated in paragraph 51 above, it follows from Article 208(1) of the rules of application of the financial regulation that the payment of a grant may be suspended in order to verify whether presumed substantial errors or irregularities or fraud have been committed.

67      It is clear therefrom that the Parliament has discretion to establish whether, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, there are ‘presumed substantial errors or irregularities or fraud’. It also has discretion as to the consequences to be drawn from such a situation, as it ‘may’ suspend the payment of the grant, without being obliged to do so.

68      With regard to the present case, it must be held that the allegations in question relate to serious irregularities, which led the Parliament to refer the matter to OLAF.

69      Furthermore, suspending the grant appears to be an appropriate and necessary measure for achieving the legitimate goal pursued, namely, the protection of the Union’s financial interests, taking into account the risk of its being impossible subsequently to recuperate the funds if the irregularities are confirmed.

70      In addition, even though the applicant refers to the relatively modest amount of the contested sums for the financial year 2015 when compared with the amount of the suspended grant for the financial year 2017, it follows from the letter of 30 November 2016 that there was a risk that the applicant would not reach the minimum threshold of 15% of own resources that was necessary in order to receive the grant from the Parliament.

71      Finally, it must be noted that the applicant proposes no alternative measure less restrictive for it that would ensure the protection of the financial interests of the Union in the same way.

72      The third plea must therefore be rejected as unfounded.

 Decision to limit pre-financing to 33% of the maximum grant amount subject to a bank guarantee being provided

73      In support of its application for the annulment of the contested decision, in that it limits the pre-financing to 33% of the maximum grant amount subject to a bank guarantee being provided, the applicant submits three pleas in law, alleging, first, breach of the principle of good administration and the rights of the defence, second, infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, of Article 134 of the financial regulation and of Article 206 of the rules of application of the financial regulation and, third, breach of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality.

74      Without formally raising a plea of inadmissibility under Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure, the Parliament takes the view that that part of the action is inadmissible for lack of a challengeable act.

75      In order to issue a judgment on the merits of the arguments relating to the partial inadmissibility of the action, it is necessary to examine the substance of the contested act rather than the form it takes. According to case-law, measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission, 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 9).

76      Acts that do no more than to show the intention of an institution or of its services of pursuing a certain course of action in the future are not capable of having legal effect and are therefore not challengeable acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 1988, United Kingdom v Commission, 114/86, EU:C:1988:449, paragraph 13, and order of 8 March 1991, Emerald Meats v Commission, C‑66/91 and C‑66/91 R, EU:C:1991:110, paragraph 28).

77      In the present case, the contested decision states as follows:

‘A pre-financing payment of EUR [221 316.07], representing 33% of the maximum amount established in Article I.3.2, shall be accorded to the Beneficiary, if the presumed irregularities are not confirmed on the basis of a new decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament. Following such Bureau [of the Parliament] Decision, the beneficiary shall seek a mandatory pre-financing first demand guarantee (template in Annex III) for the pre-financing amount.’

78      It follows from the wording of the contested decision that it does not produce the legal effects pleaded by the applicant, namely, limiting the pre-financing amount to 33% and requiring a bank guarantee. Those effects are conditional on the adoption of a new decision by the Parliament, as the contested decision expressly states. Therefore, it is only if, in a future decision, the Bureau of the Parliament should find that the irregularities have not been confirmed that that same decision would lift the suspension and could possibly make the payment of the pre-financing subject to the provision of a first demand bank guarantee and limit that pre-financing to 33%. However, at this stage, those passages of the contested decision can only be considered to be the expression of the future intention of the Parliament.

79      It is against that future decision that the applicant could, if appropriate, bring an action for annulment against any limitation of the pre-financing and the obligation to provide a bank guarantee.

80      In the light of the above, the application for annulment of the contested decision in that it limits the pre-financing to 33% of the maximum grant amount subject to a bank guarantee being provided is rejected as inadmissible.

81      The action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.

 Costs

82      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Parliament, including those relating to the application for interim measures, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Parliament.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (IDDE) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

Collins

Barents

Passer

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 February 2018.

E. Coulon

 

A. M. Collins

Registrar

 

President


*      Language of the case: English.

The original of this document can be seen at CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is #Ukip’s Doxy #Jo_Mornay Issuing Orders to The NEC via #Bolton? …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 07/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
Is #Ukip’s Doxy #Jo_Mornay Issuing Orders to The NEC via #Bolton? …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

MARNEY, Jo 11 + BOLTON

Is Henry Bolton ordering the UKIP NEC to delete content to please ‘racist’ Marney?

in Student Politics by

As Henry Bolton’s former (or so he claims) mistress Jo Marney came under fire for remarks deemed racist, he dumped her. On to TV the Harry Enfield look-a-like went saying it was over, only to then state on Russia Today that he was considering a rekindling of the relationship.

Doubts appeared after Christopher Snowden of the IEA claimed he saw the couple enjoying a meal in the Liberal Club in London. Now today, claim has been made that the couple were spotted together in Folkestone.

Screen-Shot-2018-02-07-at-18.52.48-594x500

Doubts extend further when we consider an email sent to the NEC, after Bonkerous Bolton’s bit of stuff kicked off about a tweet critical of her.

Screen-Shot-2018-02-07-at-18.49.04-768x401 02

Just over an hour later, an NEC member received an email from Horny Hooray Henry demanding Mick remove a tweet that had upset Jo Marney.

The girl was suspended by UKIP. Why is the party leader spending his time harassing actual members, elected NEC members in fact, for the sake of her?

Hasn’t Bolter got some real work to do? Like sorting a manifesto? Fixing the terrible digital outreach? Attending the non-partisan Brexit rallies over the past months? And no, the last minute flurry of activity now his seat is at threat only shows he could have done it previously.

botlyletter-768x1274

 

The word “moll” is slang for a female companion of a gangster – this would be defamatory if no one would deem Bolton to have behaved like a gangster. The definition of such a racketeer would be a person who engages in dishonest and fraudulent dealings.

He ran on the platform of a family man, wearing a wedding ring in a manifesto, but now claims his marriage was broken – was that misleading? You decide.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#Ukip #Thurrock Reaches A New Low Both In Numbers & In Ethics …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 06/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
#Ukip #Thurrock Reaches A New Low Both In Numbers & In Ethics …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

you may wish to clarify the personality of Ukip’s MEP for the region who is the Councillor Tim Aker, before you consider the ethics of the councillors who were elected by Ukip voters yet now, in what would seem to be their personal interests, rather than honour their contract with their electors have announced they are defecting to their own self interest group meanwhile all too happy to derive the benefits of their odious associates Ukip role!

Investigation of Tim Aker for Rape & Other Police Investigations of Ukip!

Posted on 01/10/2016

  ~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~ Investigation of Tim Aker for Rape & Other Police Investigations of Ukip! ~~~~~~~~~~#########

Read the rest of this post…

The unspeakable #Tania_Levin in pursuit of the offensive alleged UKIP rapist #Tim_Aker …

Posted on 24/08/2017

The millionaire head of the Del Monte fruit empire seduced a friend’s teenage daughter then took her on a twisted round-the-world sex spree. Super-fit Vivian Imerman, 43, wooed Tania Levin, with lavish gifts, wore her out with five-times-a-night sex then went JOGGING. But that wasn’t enough for him. She said: “He tried to buy a hooker for a threesome and offered to line up 10 men for me to take my pick.”

Read the rest of this post…

#Ukip MEP #Tim_Aker is facing FOUR new RAPE investigations …

Posted on 12/01/2017

  ~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~ Ukip MEP Tim Aker is facing FOUR new RAPE investigations … ~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Read the rest of this post…

I Understand Ukip’s MEP Tim (Timur) Aker Has Been Questioned!

Posted on 01/05/2016

I Understand Ukip’s MEP Tim (Timur) Aker Has Been Questioned! The full story so far + UPDATES can be found if you CLICK HERE .

Read the rest of this post…

One could be excused for wondering if Ukips new ‘Thurrock Independents Group, might more accurately be called the ‘Thurrock Independents Grope’!

Mr Perrin’s Blog: The Dependent Independents.

https://i1.wp.com/www.yourthurrock.com/wp-content/uploads/TIP.jpeg

Mr.Perrin’s blog: “A Word in Your Ear”.

The Dependent Independents.

SEVENTEEN Thurrock UKIP Councillors have resigned their membership of UKIP and formed a new “group” titled “Thurrock Independents Group (TIG)”. In a breathtaking display of arrogance and contempt they have abandoned Thurrock UKIP Members, along with the thousands who have supported and voted for them in both local and national elections and taken them for granted.

In so far as I am aware they took this action without consulting with Thurrock UKIP Members, assuming they were entitled to their continued support and membership of the newly formed Group. They say they are not a conventional political party and seek to convince the public of this by calling themselves a Group, not a Party, comprised of 17 Independent Councillors. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

These 17 Councillors are in need of tuition as to the criteria to be met in order to be defined as independent:-“Not depending upon the authority of another; not in a position of subordination; not subject to external control or rule; self governing; free; not dependent of each other; not dependent on another for support or supplies; not influenced or biased by the opinions of others; thinking and acting for oneself; refusing to be under obligation to others”.

These 17 Independent Councillors (albeit unelected as such) are entirely dependent upon each other for their ability to be an effective force within the Council, They are also dependent upon a paid membership for financial support in order to function effectively, which begs the question, are they using Thurrock UKIP Membership payments to fund the Thurrock Independents Group? They are nothing but a bunch of nonentities posing as elected Councillors for a Group/Party which did not exist at the time they were elected. They would be more respected if they had resigned their seats as Councillors and stated their case to the electorate by means of a bye-election.

I note that Cllr Graham Snell still functions as Leader of the 17 Independent Councillors, a contradiction; surely you cannot be independent if you are led, and a leader is someone you follow. He says that “TIG hopes that Conservatives and Labour share our rejection of the old politics of pettiness, confrontation and conflict. TIG will bring upbeat, optimistic and positive politics to Thurrock. TIG will be the standard bearer for “A new, kinder politics”. Fine words Cllr Snell and an admirable goal to strive for, but you seem to lay the blame entirely on the doorsteps of the Conservative and Labour Groups whilst ignoring the fact that a practitioner of confrontation, conflict and thuggish behaviour was one of your own Group, namely Cllr Kevin Wheeler.

In my opinion the Thurrock Independents Group is lacking integrity. Despite the fine words and lofty aspirations, espoused by Cllr Snell, I believe they are insincere and are just a means to an end, namely the furtherance of the political ambitions of the members of the Thurrock Independents Group.

I am not going to make any predictions about the fortunes of the Thurrock Independents Group candidates in the May Local Elections, nor will I be so foolish as to say I will eat my hat if they are not reduced to just a handful of seats. Suffice to say, it will be a very interesting count on the night of the 3/4May 2018.

Speaking of integrity brings me to Cllr Tim Aker and his “gang of four” local assistants, namely Cllrs Smith, Spillman, Duffin and Allen. Mr Aker claims, in order to remain a Councillor, he had “no option” other than to comply with the decision of the other UKIP Councillors and become a member of the Thurrock Independents Group, surely that is the action of someone who is dependent on the actions of others, not someone claiming to be Independent. I do not see any reason why he could not have remained a UKIP Councillor other than it was politically expedient and ensured the Thurrock Independents Group “inherited a majority of seats over the Labour Party.

Mr Aker, along with his “local assistants”, says he will continue to work as a UKIP MEP and support UKIP regarding BREXIT. Who do you think you are kidding Mr Aker? I believe your decision has more to do with the large salary and allowances you receive as a MEP which, despite the attempt by Cllr Spillman to give the impression that he is an “employee” of the European Parliament and therefore paid by the European Parliament, enables you to pay for the services of your little gang of helpers. Which is it Mr Aker, are you a member of UKIP, Thurrock Independents Party or just plain Independent?

I have just received a leaflet published by the “Thurrock Independents Party titled ”Who are Thurrock Independents? Quote:-
“Thurrock Independents, is a new residents party in Thurrock, currently we are the second largest party on Thurrock Council. Thurrock Independents have the only councillors in Thurrock whose prime concern will be Thurrock residents. They are not compromised by an attachment to a national party. The party will only be standing in local elections. Thurrock Independents have had enough of the aggressive and bitter reality of party politics. Our Councillors have won widespread admiration for their hard work from residents across the political spectrum. Our logo represents the ethos of our party; hard graft, working together towards common goals, sacrifice and the importance of the protection of our environment,”

I am still somewhat confused are the Thurrock Independents a Party, a Group or 17 individual Independents? It is my considered opinion that the episode is a desperate attempt by 16 Councillors of a disintegrating UKIP to cling on to their Council seats simply by changing their identity and a new logo. People are not idiots nor are they easily fooled, Thurrock Independents, you may fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

The Thurrock Independents end their leaflet with the rallying cry:-
“IF YOU WANT CHANGE, VOTE FOR IT!

I caution them, there could be a terminal sting in that little bee’s tail come the 3rd May 2018.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Does Anyone In #Ukip Tell The Truth? #Farage #Bolton #Collins #Nuttall #Batten etc. All Proven Liars! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 03/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Does Anyone In #Ukip Tell The Truth? #Farage #Bolton #Collins #Nuttall #Batten etc. All Proven Liars! …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Former Ukip leader Paul Nuttall will not face charges over electoral fraud claims

Former Ukip leader Paul Nuttall will not face charges over claims he used an empty house as his official address on a by-election form.

Labour accused Mr Nuttall of pretending to live in the Potteries before last February’s by-election in Stoke-on-Trent Central, after he gave his address as a property in the Penkhull area of the city.

Staffordshire Police said in a statement: ”We have conducted a thorough and extensive investigation into allegations that false information had been supplied on the nomination form of Paul Nuttall.

Former Ukip leader Paul Nuttall will not face charges over claims he used an empty house as his official address on a by-election form.

Former Ukip leader Paul Nuttall will not face charges over claims he used an empty house as his official address on a by-election form.

“After full consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service a decision has been made that there is insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed.

“We take any allegations of electoral fraud very seriously and will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission, and local authorities, to ensure we play our part to protect the integrity of the electoral process in Staffordshire.”

Although Parliamentary candidates are not required to be resident in the constituency where they are standing, it is an offence under the Representation of the People Act to knowingly provide false information on a nomination paper.

To view the original article CLICK HERE
One has to wonder who are the more corrupt the politicians the police or the CPS!
Many months ago, contemporary with Paul Nuttall’s criminal behaviour when he fraudulently claimed he lived in a flat in his chosen constituency, we published all the compelling evidence that he had lied & committed a crime under the British Electoral Law, including providing photographic evidence.
Now, minded that I live many miles away and was able to provide proof of the crime, the police & CPS claim they could not find sufficient evidence – are they really that incompetent or are they corrupt? I leave it to you to decide if this is outright corruption or a simple case of utter indollence or even a case of one law for the public & another for corrpt politicians!
You might also care to note that with no valid evidence, merely the lies of John Ison, who was colluding with Nigel Farage, the police spent over £1,500,000 trying to ‘fit up’ Nikki Sinclaire on a trumped up claim she had claimed for flights when she had taken the more costly option of driving to the tune of £3,000 claimed being an overspend of just a few £100!
They were able to fabricate enough evidence to drag the case on for 5 days in Court despite the fact that they colluded with John Ison in the criminal obtaining of some of the false evidence, a fact they were well aware of and which the Judge cautioned the witness for his criminality!
Nikki Sinclaire was eventually totally exhonerated of any crime yet to date John Ison has not been prosecuted for his undeniable and proven perjury nor the other crimes surrounding his offences, nor has Farage been prosecuted for his clear corruption & collusion with John Ison and as yet not a single one of thye corrupt police or any member of the CPS been prosecuted for their criminal actions!
There is no doubt of Paul Nuttall’s criminality nor of his fraudulent efforts to deceive the electorate with the CV he provided claiming he obtained a PhD at Hope University which was a lie. He also claimed that he playyed Football for Tranmere Rovers team which he did not – another lie. Paul Nuttall also claimed to have been at Hillsborough on that fatefull day when so many were killed & he claimed he lost close friend(s?) nearby – this also was a lie.
However it comes as no surprise that Gerard Batten also lied regarding Paul Nuttall in an effort to pretend Nuttall is not a liar.

You will note Gerard Bqatten’s lie above when you compare it with the facts on Linkedin, where it is clear Paul Nuttall lied:

 

You may be aware that The Liverpool Echo’s Court reporter Linda Roughly was blamed for the error on Paul Nuttall’s website – a claim that does not exhonourate Paul Nuttall in any way as he was responsible for anything on the site which, unlike Wikipedia, is password protected & pray who would invent the detail regarding Hope College?

I also find it utterly implausible that Linda Roughly would do anything without checking as Court reporting is a skill founded on absolute and reliable accuracy and checking every fact. Interesting to note that Linda Roughly has been a Court reporter for the Echo for many years even possibly dating back to Hillsborough here is a report of hers from 14-Feb-1992:

You will note, as ever, I have supported my claim thaty Paul Nuttall is an habitual liar, as is Gerard Batten with clear and compelling evidence.

Should you wish to check up on the lies and crimes of Nigel Farage, Laure Ferrarri, Henry Bolton, Annabelle Fuller, Mark Croucher, David Bannerman, Derek Clarke, Douglas Denny and many more in Ukip just start reading the rest of this blog & do use the search box in the right column to find the details!

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#Ukip faces Financial Ruin from #Jane_Collins_MEP’s Defamation Costs …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 01/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
#Ukip faces Financial Ruin from #Jane_Collins_MEP’s Defamation Costs …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

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

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Ukip faces financial ruin from MEP’s defamation costs

Jane Collins, a Ukip MEP, was successfully sued by three Labour MPs she accused of ignoring child sex abuse

Jane Collins, a Ukip MEP, was successfully sued by three Labour MPs she accused of ignoring child sex abuse       RICHARD STONEHOUSE/GETTY IMAGES

Ukip is facing demands that it pay the £670,000 costs of a defamation case against one of its MEPs, which could push the party into bankruptcy.

Money is tight for the anti-EU party, according to insiders, after a tumultuous 18 months during which it has had four leaders and been deserted by many donors and hordes of members.

Next week the party is due in court, where it will challenge demands that it pay the costs for a slander and libel case brought against one of its senior politicians.

Jane Collins, 55, Ukip MEP for the Yorkshire & Humber region, was successfully sued by three Labour MPs whom she had accused in 2014 of ignoring child sex abuse.

She alleged in a speech at a Ukip conference that Sarah Champion, Sir Kevin Barron and John Healey, who all represent seats in South Yorkshire, had known of the exploitation and had chosen to do nothing. The remark was made after a report found that about 1,400 children in the area were abused between 1997 and 2013.

 

After the High Court case last February, Ms Collins was ordered to pay a total of £162,000 damages to the MPs and £120,000 towards the £196,000 legal bill within 21 days, but failed to do so. A spokeswoman for Ms Collins said last year that she could face bankruptcy proceedings if it was found that she could not make the payments she owed.

The costs have risen to £669,605 and Gerald Shamash, the solicitor representing the three MPs, said he would be doing all he can to recover the costs from Ukip. He warned that he would seek the assets, including the intellectual property, of Ukip, a limited company, if it was ordered to pay the costs and failed to do so.

Mr Healey said: “The scale of the costs is directly a result of Jane Collins’s decision not to admit she was wrong, and to fight and lose at every stage.”

Ukip insiders are fearful that the party will face bankruptcy if it is forced to pay all or part of the costs when the matter comes before a judge next week.

Adam Richardson, the party secretary, released a statement making clear Ukip’s intention to challenge any attempt to find the party liable for the costs. He said: “Ukip has been added as a party to the Jane Collins defamation case as to costs only. This is because Ukip financially assisted Ms Collins MEP with her defamation case out of a moral obligation.

“This made Ukip a ‘pure funder’ and as such Ukip should not be found liable for any costs incurred as a result of Jane Collins’s case, regardless of the amount.”

The Labour MPs’ lawyers are expected to argue that Ukip had a degree of control over the litigation.

In its latest annual accounts, for the year to December 2016, Ukip listed assets of £223,350 and liabilities of £603,980. It noted a “concerning drop in the amount being donated to the party” but insisted that the party “maintained a stable cash position” at that time.

Last year the party raised £451,055 in donations and was given £450,000 in loans, which remain outstanding. It is unclear how much the party spent during the year.

A member of Ukip’s national executive committee said: “Money is tight. We don’t have access to millions and we have to cut our cloth accordingly.”

Ms Collins could not be reached for comment.

I regret the source is hidden behind a Pay Wall

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: