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

Archive for the ‘EUkip; UKIP; Zucherman; Titford; Derek Clark; corruption; witness intimidation; lies; dishonesty;’ Category


Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 16/03/2009


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!



One could barely make this up – not only is Ma Zucherman displaying either a cavalier attitude to professional standards or he is a fool – though to judge by his associates he is nothing more than a grubby little scheister.

Clearly Derek Clark should in fact be suspended as an MEP let alone an officer of EUkip on the NEC pending a Disciplinary Hearing for broinging EUkip into disrepute as not only is he a proven liar, he has betrayed these United Kingdoms and treacherously colluded in corruption, dishonesty and assisting the EU to impose greater subsidiarity on Britain.

Also being under Formal Investigation for fraud and abuse of public money by OLAF.

Titford also should be on a Disciplinary Hearing for colluding in corruption in the selection and so called election process for MEP candidates for details CLICK HERE, further Titford has abandoned his constituents and now lives on the South Coast at Ditchling, permitting the odious Golom who we know is untrustworthy and was recently dumpped by The CIB. A parasite who has done little for EUroScepticism whilst making it as career, in which he has been only too happy to lie and cheat for personal gain.

That Titford is under investigation by OLAF for fraud and no doubt other criteria in which John West has been put on notice that he may be called as a prosecution witness. What validity Titford’s trumpped up pack of lies as a complaint – Titford is as discreditted as Ma Zucherman, derek Clark and the other pond life in EUkip who have so damaged the party and should be facing a disciplinary hearing themselves.

Having read in detail the pretence ‘Complaint’ from Titford – It is my opinion that Titford should be on a Disciplinary Hearing facing kicking out for having trumpped up a pack of lies as false witness against a decent honest member.

These people are beneath contempt and with Farage, Bannerma, Andrew Smith, NuttAll, Denny and the rest of the shower on the NEC and leadership they have as I predicted would occur if Farage was ever able to take charge of the leadership all but destroyed EUkip – their only achievement being self enrichment and acting as recruiting sargeants for the BNP.

EUkip’s leadership and NEC should face the Courts for their crimes.

Study the series of letters below which I have received from a contact with access to NEC correspondence:

Note The Dates for a Show Trial & Kangaroo Court on Monday 16th. March 2009 11:30hrs.!

From: john west []
Sent: 12 March 2009 22:04
Cc:;; DAVID BANNERMAN;; Farage MEP. Nigel (LEADER);;; Paul Nuttall;; Derek Clark
Subject: RE: Disciplinary Hearing

Dear Mr Zuckerman,

I am in receipt of your email dated 11th March informing me that you have withdrawn from your involvement in my case due to having been put on notice of my complaint against you by the SRA. I am surprised that you have seen fit to withdraw only at this very late stage in view of my previous objections to your role in this matter .
You will recall that in two of my previous letters to you ( 3/2/9 & 23/2/9) I put you on notice that I had complained to the SRA about your conduct. I pointed out that because of this complaint you had an interest to declare and should withdraw from the proceedings. You declined to do so.
In view of the above I am astonished that you are still clearly involving yourself in this matter by requesting further information from me concerning the case. You have either withdrawn from this matter or you have not .
You cannot purport to do so and then continue with your inquiries on behalf of UKIP. It is now quite clear to me that the conduct of this case has been so badly handled by UKIP`s representatives that I have no faith in these proceedings. I have therefore decided to withdraw from them and I will not be attending the hearing.
Yours sincerely,
John West
Clearly Ma Zucherman has absolutely no understanding of ethics, morality or legal professionalism! You will note John West is forced to communicate via a secretary at Bent & Manure!
NOTE The response comes from an intermediary at Bent & Manure NOT Ma Zucherman!
Subject: RE: Disciplinary Hearing
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:29:03 +0000
DO NOTE: This letter is after hours on Friday for a Kangaroo Court on Monday morning!! Very professional!!
Dear Sir,

I have your letter of 12 March 2009 and note your comments. I am able to advise you that the Chairman of the Disciplinary Hearing on Monday will now be Derek Clark MEP, who has kindly agreed to take my place. I note that you will not be attending. The hearing will therefore take place in your absence.

Yours faithfully,

M A Zuckerman
Party Secretary

Subject: RE: Derek Clark & Disciplinary Hearing
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:28:01 +0000
Dear Mr Zuckerman,
Your last email is unacceptable.
1. As a member of the NEC Derek Clark is the subject of complaints to the ICO and the Police. I am also taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process and the Youtube leak. Mr Clark could very well be called as a defendant in this case.Derek Clark has an interest to declare and cannot be considered impartial.
2. Para 1.6 of the Disciplinary Rules states that no-one can sit on the panel where there is a close connection between them and the complainant or respondent.Derek Clark is an MEP and so is the complainant. This is a close enough connection to disqualify a member of the panel but apparently not enough to disqualify the chairman!
3. At no point have you stated which rules you are following and why or whether the NEC were consulted in choosing Clark as replacement chairman.
4. Neil Thomson of OLAF has confirmed that I can expect to be called as a prosecution witness if OLAF decides to proceed with the complaint against Jeffrey Titford. Mr Titford is aware that OLAF is looking into his case and yet he is still using UKIP’s complaints process to intimidate a potential prosecution witness. As a solicitor you must realise that intimidation of a potential prosecution witness is a very serious matter.
5. Despite claiming to have removed yourself from the disciplinary process you have continued to send me emails about this matter. Under the Discipline Rules 1.3 and 1.4 it is clear that you should have handed over the conduct of the case to another member of the Discipline Panel.
I would remind you that I put you on notice on two occasions that you were the subject of a complaint to the SRA. Despite this you declined to remove yourself from the process.
I am sorry Mr Zuckerman but once you withdraw from the proceedings you cannot continue to arrange the hearing and the paperwork .
You can`t have your cake and eat it!
As a solicitor you should know that justice must be seen to be done. In this case justice is not being seen to be done.
I put you on notice that I will be making a formal complaint to the SRA about your role in this affair.
I will be also speaking to my solicitor with a view to taking further legal action against UKIP over this issue.
Yours sincerely,
John West

One has to ask whether Ma Zucherman a supposedly qualified solicitor, has advised:

Michael Bedford
Yvonne Larg
Yvonne McGuire

Daniel Stowell
that they may, as panelists on this Kangaroo Court, be taking part potentially in a criminal action in that they are colluding in what is clearly an unlawfull abuse designed to intimidate a prosecution witness!

Clearly John West is under absolutely no compulsion to attend this Kangaroo Court which has been dishonestly and disreputably convened – Bringing what little reputation the party still has into further disrepute!

Should the so called hearing continued it will be in deliberate disregard of the two fundamental tennets of British law as it ignores ‘nemo judex in causa sua’.
Nor does it pay any cogniscence to the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’.

The so called verdict will have no meaningfull validity but it will tell the electorate in no uncertain teerms that EUkip and its officers, candidates and supporters have absolutely no moral right to solicit YOUR vote.


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!

Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62


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:


Posted in EUkip; UKIP; Zucherman; Titford; Derek Clark; corruption; witness intimidation; lies; dishonesty; | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: