As published on http://john-ison.blogspot.com earlier this morning!!
it is interesting to note the obvious disgust at John Ison’s behaviour and revulsion at the unprofessional behaviour of UKIP leadership in their anti homosexual and vindictive treatment of Nikki Sinclaire, on a UKIP controlled Forum!
It is all but impossible for UKIP to claim it is not anti homosexual and now especially with the addition of the supporter of Tom Wise!
Roger Helmer defedtee from the Tories because he could not get his own way when he stepped down as an MEP, he who set out to try to have the deffinition of where his house was, in order to try to claim even more expenses as an MEP!
Roger Helmer recently stated his opinion that homosexuality was a treatable mental illness – surely the world left that view behind in the 1960s, when we campaigned for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults. I should imagine The Tories are glad to see the back of this idiotic man with his arcane views and his plastic EUroScepticism as he milks the system for all it is worth TO HIM!
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
One could, or one could try to think beyond the purely superficial.
In January 2010, UKIP’s NEC unwisely allowed itself to be dragged into what was basically a personal spat between two MEPs, Sinclaire and Farage.
The correct course would have been to tell Nigel Farage that the NEC had no constitutional power to compel MEPs to join a particular group (which it hadn’t), and that any complaint about Nikki Sinclaire leaving the EFD should be submitted through the party’s disciplinary channel. That would have forced Farage to demonstrate exactly how Sinclaire had breached UKIP’s rules (if she had), provided an opportunity for mediation, and ensured that if necessary the matter be decided in the proper way by the discipline committee (from which NEC members are barred).
Instead of which, the chairman of the NEC foolishly issued a statement Statement from UKIP chairman – UK Independence Party on behalf of the committee, announcing that Sinclaire would not be permitted to stand for UKIP at future elections on the grounds of her having left the EP group, and having “failed to declare other relevant issues to the interview panel when she was selected as a UKIP candidate” (which she denied). If Sinclaire chose to challenge this legally, as past experience suggested she might, any breach of normal disciplinary procedure or evidence of her having been treated less favourably than others in similar situations, would obviously disadvantage UKIP hugely.
Within a matter of months, first Mike Nattrass then Trevor Colman followed her out of the EFD, yet no action was taken against them by the NEC and, unlike Sinclaire, both are still accepted as UKIP MEPs and listed as such on the party website.
Now we see that the article linked by Alex McKee at #9 raises the possibility that the second of the accusations levelled at Sinclaire – that of failing to declare relevant issues to a candidate selection panel – may also have applied to John Ison.
Ison stood as UKIP candidate in Redditch in 2005 and Solihull in 2010, being bound by the party constitution on both occasions to make “a written application and shall make full disclosure of any fact, political or personal, that may have a bearing on their suitability for selection as a candidate”. In 2010 the application form stated: “I am not aware of any circumstances from my past that might cause embarrassment to the party were it to be revealed”.
Did Ison fail to declare that he had been banned by court order from seeing his children, and lie by signing the form anyway? If so, now that the story is known through circulation on the internet, the NEC will be guilty of victimizing Nikki Sinclaire if it doesn’t ban Ison from standing in all future elections just as it has banned her.
If he did declare it and was allowed to stand despite this, the party and all its future candidates will be at risk from resulting bad publicity, but why would a party that goes to the length of demanding CRB checks on its candidates precisely in order to screen out potential problems, regard a court order protecting five-year-olds from their own father as not having a bearing on his suitability as a candidate?
Yesterday, 10:33 PM #23
And indeed you do, Barboo. A quite stunning post, extraordinarily well-informed and astute.
The questions it raises, which I asked myself on being informed of the archive article on the court case only recently, are for members of the party. Which is why I did not ask them publicly.
What a mess.Steve
Today, 12:11 AM #24
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
Today, 05:51 AM #26
Today, 05:59 AM #27
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
I haven’t come to any conclusion on the matter and that is not the point. UKIP’s constitution does not put responsibility onto candidate selection panels for acquainting themselves with applicants’ personal circumstances from what is in the public domain. It states categorically that candidates shall make full disclosure.
If John Ison did not do so then natural justice demands that he should be treated the same as Nikki Sinclaire in what the NEC claims was a similar circumstance (failure to disclose, which she denies), and banned as she was from standing in future elections. Not to ban Ison would be a second example of Sinclaire being treated more harshly than others, the first being that action was taken against her for leaving the EFD but not against Nattrass and Colman.
Today, 09:07 AM #28
You may be interested to note YET AGAIN that the false accusation of failure to disclose made against Nikki Sinclaire was an unprofessional pack of lies from UKIP Leadership and pure discrimination.
Nikki Sinclaire was madse technically bankrupt (ie based on the claim of one man who served p0apers at an address at which she clearly did not live as she washelping UKIP set up their head office in Birmingham!).
The details were IMMEDIATELY reported by Nikki Sinclaire to The Returning Officer in the election, in which she stood. She also informed Michael Zucherman The UKIP Part Secretary at the time.
I also published the full details at the time as they were a matter of public record, as is the fact that John Ison was not found guilty in a Court Case of assault on his wife who left him for another woman but WAS deemed unfit to have access to his children, presumably his volatile temper or underhand behaviour were deemed a risk to children.
As to bankruptcy being ostensibly a cause of the UKIP Leadership’s unprofessional and partisan behaviour the Guilty Judgement against Nigel Farage, Godfrey Bloom and UKIP inCourt would seem to indicate otherwise as would the official caution from the EU Parliament aganst Godfrey Bloom for his anti homosexual bullying.
It is interesting to note that John Ison’s vindictive and malicious behaviour against Nikki Sinclaire and his various thefts and seeming ‘construction’ of so called evidence, in collusion with others (including the proven corrupt Christopher Gill see: CLICK HERE) may all be a vindictive attack based on John Ison’s seemingly very ‘challenged’ sexuality and unhappy marriage!
Nikki Sinclaire’s treatment at the hands of UKIP’s partyisan and unprofessional leadership can not be on the grounds of her historic bankruptcy reported at the time, despite the clamourings of Nigel Farage’s sewer rat Mark Croucher who we KNOW colluded in what seems clearly to be efforts to set Nikki Sinclaire up to curry favour with Nigel Farage!
I say it can not be based on the irrefutable fact that Niel Hamilton the formerly disgraced Tory MP was courted by Farage and joined UKIP some 5 years ago and is now, we understand, promised a leading seat as a contender for election to public office once more and as is also a matter of record he was bankrupt and was recently boasting of it on national TV.
Perhaps Niall Warry was correct that in the corrupt world of UKIP:
It is very simple really Nigel doesn’t concern himself with rule books, as I’ve had experience of, by his selfish standards there is one rule for him and his mates and another for his foes.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins