#92* – Robin PAGE EXPOSES EUkip’s CORRUPTION!
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
THE ENDEMIC CORRUPTION IN EUkip & THE WAY AHEAD!
I gather EUkip has started openly conceding that it acted dishonestly and is in breech of its contract with members who stood for selection/election as prospective MEP candidates.
Open Letter to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage 19.10.2008
There are a number of issues, which need seriously addressing. Failure to deal with them brings the whole of UKIP into disrepute and in my view raises the question of whether you are a fit person to lead a political party.
I would remind you that I am not a politician. However I have always been concerned by those who enter politics and who lie and cheat as a normal part of their lives. As a result I want to know whether or not lying and cheating is now an accepted part of UKIP’s philosophy and internal management.
I suppose my mother is to blame for all this. Her philosophy was always “Tell the truth. Say what you mean, and don’t hold grudges”. It seems to me that you, and most of those sycophants that surround you, might take a completely opposite view.
To start with Nigel, you are aware that I made a Data Protection Act request to UKIP. The Party has made no effort to comply with the Law. How can you be taken seriously as a Party leader when you have allowed this to happen? Do you regard you and the Party to be above the Law? Perhaps you do and of course several senior Party members are currently being investigated by the police and OLAF.
Let me remind you of my background.
My first major choice of blatant lies or the truth came in 1969. The then Secretary of State for Social Security Richard Crossman, and his henchman, an MP from Kent called David Ennals – later ennobled, were liars. I could have ignored their lies or challenged them. I decided to challenge them.
The two of them lied their way through a Panorama programme on BBC television. Being a civil servant in the same department I was appalled, but was told by a senior officer that we could do nothing as the department paid our wages.
I took a different view, believing that as a” public servant” my first loyalty was to “the public”. Consequently as a matter of principle I believed that the truth should be told. As a result I wrote a series of articles under a pseudonym for The Spectator under the Editorship of Nigel Lawson. Needless to say, because my articles were totally factual the super-sleuths tracked me down, and at the age of twenty-six I was sacked and threatened with legal action under the Official Secrets Acts if I wrote another word. Of course I wrote again and of course I was not prosecuted – although for a young country boy taking on a bunch of dishonest politicians it was all rather stressful. Everything I said was later confirmed by a Committee of Inquiry.
I have made several other stands since then on matters of principle – usually honesty against political dishonesty – even police dishonesty. Stress is now not an issue as I am used to it all and of course won damages earlier in the year from the Gloucestershire Police. Information received under the Data Protection Act clearly showed that the police had lied about me and had no reasons to act against me. BY complying with the Data Protection Act the Gloucestershire Police actually incriminated themselves. Please note Nigel – UKIP still has not complied with my Data Protection Act request – thus not only breaking the provisions of the Act – but also implying to me, and others, that you have things to hide. Nigel, why won’t you comply with the ACT? I need to see the minutes of the “Political Committee” that allegedly discussed my case at the time of the internal elections. There are many emails too that I know exist and you must divulge. The Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act are virtually the only pieces of good legislation passed by Blair – you seem to be frightened by them – why?
In 1979 I stood in the Thatcher General Election as a Tory in Bethnal Green. I achieved the second highest swing to the Tories in the country, and easily saved my deposit. It is normal after such an event and after such a personal result, to then put in for a safe seat. However, I found some of the other neighbouring Tories so deceitful, unpleasant and dishonest (some of whom went off in the traditional way to get safe seats) that I went off to write “The Wildlife of the Royal Estates” instead. I decided against a life in politics as I found most of those climbing the ladder totally unpleasant, as indeed I do today. Indeed the only politician that I met at the time that I held any respect for was Peter Shore in the next constituency. He seemed out of character for politicians past or present – straight, honest and pleasant.
When Jimmy Goldsmith came along I changed my mind. I felt I should get involved again – not for my sake – but to help save the pound, and even the country. I got on very well with him. Unlike some of those who huffed and puffed around him, bowing and scraping – I told him exactly how I saw things and I believe that he respected me for that – unlike you Nigel. Anybody who disagrees with you seems to be ejected from the Party – or set-up – and I expect in due course you will set up a Kangaroo Court full of “Yes men” to get rid of me – that seems to be democracy UKIP style at the moment.
Interestingly, or not, Jimmy wanted me to stand against John Major, but I refused, believing that local people should represent their own areas if at all possible. That is why in the Europeans I believe that David Bannerman should stand in London. Also of course, because I believe in total honesty, I do not believe that he should be using the name David Campbell Bannerman. He should be standing on his own ability, not on the name of a long dead politician – what is your take on this Nigel?
It may be of interest to you Nigel that because of my experience in broadcasting and writing I did the voice-over on the Referendum Party’s video that went to thousands of houses and also had some input on the script. Oddly I have never been asked for any input from UKIP as I am told that Jeffrey Titford would not allow it. I have never known why – although in the past you have confirmed the situation? So what was the problem Nigel?
With the sad loss of Jimmy Goldsmith you pleaded with me to join UKIP. After serious consideration, and realising that it could damage me professionally, particularly with the BBC, I agreed. At the same time I was doing much for the Countryside Alliance and at one rally addressed 125,000 people.
At the time of the European Elections in 2003 I agreed to be a candidate. As usually happens at the hustings I injured myself just before. I fell off a ladder and landed on my head – on concrete – concussing myself and damaging an arm. For trying to take part in one hustings meeting – with a splitting headache and leaving early, certain people within UKIP started “spinning” against me. A reliable journalist would not reveal the person or people involved but informed me that it came from the UKIP computer at its Chelmsford HQ. It was said later that the computer was examined and the entire material for the time concerned had been wiped. You stated at the time that the spinning must have been done by Titford, Gulleford or Wise individually or in combination. I have no idea. It was said that even so I missed second place by four votes. From the way in which UKIP runs its elections, I do not necessarily accept the result.
However – although I believe that I was stitched up – I agreed to do nothing, for the sake of UKIP.
However Nigel, you know that I have been stitched up for a second time and in view of the behaviour of Wise etc I am not prepared to allow blatant dishonesty to prevail again.
You know that for these elections I did exactly what your paid staff asked me to do. Strangely, an email from Stuart Agnew to John West actually confirms this and there should be other evidence that is almost certainly being withheld (or of course destroyed). You also know that the Curtis Report was nonsense and of course Wise put Curtis in place originally. You have also totally ignored the report and recommendations of your Returning Officer, Piers Merchant. The sooner UKIP elections are handled by the Electoral Reform Society to prevent vote rigging, gerrymandering and or corruption the better – but of course Nigel, I think you are opposed to that – why? You know that people were accepted late onto lists and apparently you have put your own choices at the top of lists. And are you going to parachute Bob Spink into the East? Then of course it was you who described the weak and silver-spooned Gill as “unprofessional”. The elections were a total farce. I am told that you spoke against me at meetings, when you told me you had no say in the matter at all. Thanks friend. Strange that – I did regard you as a friend. Evidently you regarded me in the same way as you regarded Richard North – what was that? Some sort of threat? You certainly don’t seem to understand teamwork, combining skills and abilities; you just seem to want to dominate “gofors” who say “Yes Nigel. No Nigel. Three bags full Nigel”.
Incidentally, your treatment of Richard North was a disgrace and at this particular time, Richard onboard, as part of a team, would have been invaluable. Where has UKIP been lately? Invisible – congratulations.
But there are other issues Nigel. I remember you boasting to me how much the call-centres were making. Where did the money go and how much did they make?
In my view you must also come clean about the Isle of Man. Have you and/or your brother got a Trust Fund there or not? What is it for and where did the money come from? If it is an educational Trust, as it is rumoured, who can benefit from it? I know you were on the Isle of Man for two days in May – did any aspect of your trip involve money? These are all reasonable questions Nigel and require an answer. Are members of the NEC incapable of asking these questions?
It is odd – in the past you have claimed to want honesty and transparency in Europe. I want to see honesty and transparency in UKIP. At the moment UKIP has become the “sleaze party” it seems to me.
Then there is the “wog” issue. If it is just a story to create mischief, fine, say so and it gives people chance to believe you. But it is also said that there are witnesses and you were filmed – which if true would make it difficult. So be honest Nigel. Did it occur? If it did you should stand down. If it did not – fine.
I urged you to stand as leader. I was wrong. In my view you have shown that you have few leadership qualities – surrounding yourself with yes men and in my view flouting UKIP’s own rules. You are turning UKIP into a one-man band – a dictatorship – and at the same time turning a small party into an even smaller party. All this also helps to explain to me why you gave me virtually no support when at short notice I was removed from the BBC’s “Question Time” and never put back on again.
In my view Nigel your honesty and integrity has descended to the same level as Edward Heath. I am disappointed as I considered you as a friend and taking on my mother’s philosophy I still like you, as I don’t bear grudges. However Nigel for the sake of UKIP and the good people making up the grass roots – stand down before you do any more damage to the anti-EU cause. You are not only bringing UKIP into disrepute, in my view, you are confirming that politics brings out the worst in people. Power and politics, however small and insignificant, corrupt – pathetic isn’t it?
I am sure many of you could list far more comments than those Robin has chosen – had you heard that I am mad?
Many will recall the lies of Farage during the hustings and the lies of his supporters and staff to ensure they kept their snouts in the troughs.What do you think of this comment:
From: Sent: 21 October 2008 00:15To: glancebackSubject: Ukip’s failure to comply with Data Protection Act request
From Robin Page by email 19.10.2008
Hard copy to be sent on 20.10.2008
Dear Paul Nuttall,
This is to remind you that UKIP has failed to comply with any aspect of my Data Protection Act request.
As required by law I am sending you a copy of the original request made to your predecessor.
I am now giving you seven days to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Failure to do this will mean that I will have to take my complaint directly to the Information Commissioner, Mr.Richard Thomas.
I have to say that UKIP’s failure to comply with the law further brings UKIP, particular its leader and members of the NEC, into disrepute, and in my view indicates serious maladministration. From comments I have heard I believe that there is a growing feeling within UKIP that the present leader and several members of the NEC should stand down before dragging UKIP even further down into the gutter and into electoral oblivion at the next European elections.
I have to say too that by simply returning my cheque emphasises UKIP’s incompetence and belief that it is above the law. In fact the reality of the action is that UKIP has been shown itself to be childish, as well as incompetent, a very unfortunate condition for a political party that wants to run a country.
I hope to hear from you soon with all the information requested under the Data Protection Act. A further result of your failure to comply will also mean that I will have to inform the Electoral Commission of your behaviour, which is totally unacceptable.
Robin is being foolish thinking NuttAll has any say!
PLEASE HELP US TO CLEAN UP EUkip and restore it to the people as UKIP in a fit and proper condition that men and women of integrity could vote for it and if that can not be done
PLEASE HELP US ensure not one single MEP is elected from amongst the scum that are listed.