Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Archive for the ‘EUkip; UKIP; Drew Belobaba; Kris Latham; Alan Latham;’ Category

#272* – EUkip CHANGES A SOLICITORS VIEW

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 06/02/2009

#272* – EUkip CHANGES A SOLICITORS VIEW

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!

The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership
& NEC is what gives the remaining 10%
a bad name!

EUkip’s OVERHASTY & MISS TIMED CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION – A PPC & SOLICITORS VIEW – DISCUSSED!

Hi,

I am pleased to see that there is reasoned objection to the changes in the constitution taking place in EUkip.

I am deeply concerned that EUkip would see it as apposite to seek to force through such divisive and potentially dangerous manipulation in the very run up to a major and very decisive election!

That the duplicitous leadership who have shown they are untrustworthy to be seeking to force this through at such an inopportune time based on what many of us know to be a fabricated pack of lies – A fact we have proven beyond any doubt and substantiated with documentary evidence.

You will note that this is #272* in a series of eMaiils mostly highlighting or exposing dishonesty, corruption, lies, bullying, questionable financing, questionable finance etc. etc. all within the milieu of the NEC, leadership, staff and sycophants!

NOT ONE material correction has needed to be made of any consequence regarding a single fact I have put before a discerning audience including EUkip’s lawyers – my every fact has been materially correct.

There are many amongst the leadership and NEC, staff and higher levels (or their secretaries with access to their computers and data) who have supplied me with information as they believe EUkip must be cleaned up.

It is clear that these attempts to make constitutional changes are deeply, deeply suspect.

Those with longer memories will be aware that the NEC with many of the same nodding donkeys of The Faragista Fan Club implemented changes not so long ago promising the hapless and gullible members that the changes were essential only to find when they were made that they were largely unworkable!

You will have noted one of the main drafters of the substance of the constitution has denounced these new changes as removing essential checks and balances giving the leader and his unelected puppet chairman far to much power and control.

We already know that the leader has seized to himself dictatorial powers through implimentation of a ‘Political Committee’ which has no members set, save the leader, keeps no minutes and implements decisions with executive function WTF!!

Now it is interesting aftert I had stated that on the point of having formed a comp[any granting obscene profits to the ‘former’ thereof – it is bizarre that the decision has been made, the money allocated and no doubt the task performed! Yet the vote has not been held yet!

There is no problem in an honest organisation forming a company but this is NOT an honest organisation – further it has provided no articles of association nor prospectus – just what are the members being asked to vote on?

This is fundamentally dishonest!

Then consider EUkip’s own Returning Officer produced an Official Report stating EUkip leadership could not be trusted to hold an election – they proved so untrustworthy that they ignored it and rubbised and lied about all who commented!

Do not take my word for this consider the correspondence which I have posted in #271 earlier Blogs! Now consider this correspondence sent to me by someone close to The Lewis Constituency.

Please be minded that Drew Belababa is a qualified Solicitor and the elected PPC for his constituency, with extensive political experience in his Country of origin Canada before he chose to come and raise his family in Britain with his wife a pharmacist from Australia.

Drew & Lena’s child has, I am told, the energy of Tigger, hops around like Kanga and is as cute as a baby polar bear – they must be doing something right they CHOSE to live in Britain AND they come from the Commonwealth! After being raised in saskatchawen I believe , as far from the sea as you can be in the western world he now lives on the South Coast as for Lena raised with the outdoor life of Oz one wonders what attracted her to this climate! Especially with all the global warming that has been falling recently 😉

Read his comments and those of others and you decide – personally I could only vote NO but I am rather better informed than most with almost a dozen years of experience of EUkip and UKIP before it.

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 06:35:15 -0800
From: dbelobaba@yahoo.ca
Subject: Proposal to turn UKIP into a Limited Company.
To: dbelobaba@yahoo.ca

Dear everyone

I received my ballot papers today. Together with the ballot papers for the NEC elections and the constitutional changes I note that members are being balloted as to whether UKIP should be turned into a Company limited by guarantee.

As a solicitor (albeit not one who has practiced company law) I do have an elementary knowledge of Company Law and this proposal gives me great concern, unaccompanied as it is by any detailed information.

For those of you who are not familiar with these sorts of matters, a company limited by guarantee is a type of company in which members of the company, rather than holding shares, give a guarantee of the debts of the company. It is often used by clubs and other non-profit groups that wish to incorporate (most incorporated businesses are companies limited by shares).

I think it would have been very helpful if together with the ballot question, details of the proposed articles of association of the company had been provided, in particular the following information:

1. Who are to be the guarantors of the company? Is it to be the ordinary members of the party?

2. If the ordinary members of the party are to be the guarantors what is the amount of the guarantee to be given by each member?

3. Companies law allows for different classes of members. How many classes of members is it proposed the new company will have and what rights will each proposed class have.

4. As a company limited by guarantee, I presume that it would become easier for UKIP to borrow money as its members would be guaranteeing the debt. What rights will members of the company have to scrutinize and consent to liabilities that the company may incur?

In my opinion, at the very least members require answers to the above questions before they can make an informed decision about the wisdom of incorporating. Many, if not most of our members will not realize that they are potentially voting on something that may cause them to incur financial liabilities. Therefore to put this question before them at best suggests a serious lack of judgement on the part of those proposing it.

I will be voting no to this proposal. If the proposal passes then I feel that Ileana and I will have no choice but to relinquish our memberships in UKIP until any potential liabilitys attaching to membership are made clear to us.

Yours truly,

Drew Belobaba

From: kris latham culatham@hotmail.co.uk
To: Drew UKIP PPC Lewes Belobaba dbelobaba@yahoo.ca
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2009 6:50:47 PM
Subject: FW: Proposal to turn UKIP into a Limited Company.

Hi Drew,

please read the below, also could you send me the email address`s you have sent this to or forward this email on to them many thanks

Kris

From: al@axis2000.net
To: culatham@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: RE: Proposal to turn UKIP into a Limited Company.
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:20:52 +0000

Dear Kris,

I’m not an expert either but I am involved with a number of institutions (universities, charities, etc) which are Companies Limited by Guarantee.

A Company Limited by Guarantee is a legal entity which does not have share capital or shareholders and is designed specifically to manage not for profit non-commercial institutions (including political parties). Such a company has trustees who are guarantors who enjoy limited liability status but accept a nominal financial risk (usually set at £1) should the company run into financial difficulty.

The Articles of Association of a Company Limited by Guarantee state the company’s business (sometimes called charitable objects) and what happens to surplus income – usually invested in furthering its business but not to be paid to directors or members.

There are very many such companies in the UK and many are extremely successful in fulfilling their objects and benefit the public yet with the protection afforded by legal status. Therefore I cannot agree with Drew. I certainly shall vote “Yes” and I think Drew should be corrected (as should others who may have received his email).

Alan

Alan Latham, Ph.D., MIoD.

From: Drew Belobaba [mailto:dbelobaba@yahoo.ca]
Sent: 05 February 2009 19:50
To: kris latham; dbelobaba@yahoo.ca
Subject: Re: Proposal to turn UKIP into a Limited Company.

Kris,

I have no objection to UKIP becoming a limited party and I broadly agree with what Alan has written. Companies limited by guarantee can be very useful instruments. Unfortunately we don’t know whether the guarantee will be £1 or £100 or £1000 and whether only some “trustees” or all members will be guarantors.

When I sat on the Surrey Committee there was discussion of turning the UKIP Surrey News into a Company Limited by Guarantee. This was in order to protect the editors/publishers of it in the event someone sued for defamation of character. In that case there was great resistance because it the guarantees would have to have been substantial if we were to protect the editorial team from excessive liability.

My concern is that UKIP has failed to raise enough money to finance European election campaign and that this is a desperate gambit to turn the party into a body with a substantial “guarantee” beyond it with a view to enabling it to borrow a lot of money in order to finance the election campaign. This of course could potentially expose members to unpaid debts.

I also note that the Electoral Commission was successful in its appeal over the illegitimate donation from Alan Bown and the matter has been referred back to the Court in which it was first heard. It is quite likely that the next judgement will not be as favourable as the last. Now Alan Bown has agreed to cover the costs of the action and any potential forfeiture. However it is possible that the eventual bill for all this could come to close to £500,000 and Mr. Bown could change his mind or indeed be hit by a bus tomorrow and then where would we be.

I am forwarding Alan’s comments on nonetheless. If the party had sent out the proposed articles of association and the details of guarantors/guarantees, classes of membership etc and I had found them to be acceptable I would happily vote for this proposal, but as they say the devil is in the details and right now we have none of those.

Drew

TO LEAVE THE EU

What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.

Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.

The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!

To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we leave our children and the future, with shame!

Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62

PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!

I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper:

LEAVE THE EU

Posted in EUkip; UKIP; Drew Belobaba; Kris Latham; Alan Latham; | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: