RT @ThomBradley8: @Electroversenet It's summertime in Antarctica. The sun right now is shining on the South Pole 24/7. It's summer and they… 8 hours ago
RT @Electroversenet: ANTARCTICA LOGS COLDEST-EVER JAN TEMPS; UTAH TO -62F; ASIA’S ALL-TIME LOWS; + “THE STRATOSPHERE HAS SUDDENLY BECOME VE… 8 hours ago
RT @PeterSweden7: "Climate change is a scam to remove your freedoms" - Peter Imanuelsen 8 hours ago
RT @TonyClimate: On January 31, 1917 it was 72 degrees at Anna, Illinois - about 50 degrees warmer than today's forecast.
#ClimateScam8 hours ago
RT @AlexEpstein: “My philosophy background enabled me to understand why our leading thinkers made the errors of ignoring the benefits of fo… 8 hours ago
RT @EcoSenseNow: This peer-reviewed paper I published in 2017 has never been refuted on a single point. Human CO2 emissions are the salvati… 8 hours ago
RT @jordanbpeterson: And we'll be counting on every citizen who is interested to help, without relying on compulsion. Invitation not force.… 8 hours ago
RT @WelshRarebitt: NEW WORLD ORDER EXPLAINED
UN & WEF - Sustainable development control plan, is Corporate & NGO theft of ALL Earth’s inve… 8 hours ago
RT @WelshRarebitt: LOOK WHAT WEFMINSTER HAS PLANNED
15 MINUTE SMART CITIES -
It isn’t only about cars!
Councils signed up to Net Zero road… 8 hours ago
RT @david_r_morgan: They are not 'predicting' another pandemic.
They are planning another pandemic. 10 hours ago
RT @johnredwood: It is great we are now free to make our own laws and spend our own money thanks to Brexit. We now need to use those freedo… 17 hours ago
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!
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.
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
(Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — Action manifestly inadmissible — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
In Case T‑919/16,
Jane Maria Collins, residing in Hotham (United Kingdom), represented by I. Anderson, solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Parliament, represented by S. Alonso de León and M. Dean, acting as Agents,
defendant,
concerning, first, an action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 not to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, secondly, an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly incurred as a result of that decision and, thirdly, a request that the General Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, L. Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín (Rapporteur) and I. Reine, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 In the elections held on 25 May 2014, the applicant, Ms Jane Maria Collins, was elected to the European Parliament on the list of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).
2 On 26 September 2014, the applicant made a speech at a UKIP conference in the constituency of Yorkshire and Humber (United Kingdom). On that occasion, she mentioned a child sexual abuse scandal in the area of Rotherham (United Kingdom), which is part of that constituency, and stated that she was convinced that three members of the Labour party who were elected from that constituency to the Parliament of the United Kingdom ‘knew many of the details of what was happening’. She further stated that, by failing to take action, the persons who were aware of the abuse in question had helped and encouraged the perpetrators and were just as guilty (‘the statements at issue’).
3 On 5 December 2014, before the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom), the three MPs in question brought a civil action against the applicant, seeking, on the one hand, damages for libel and slander and, on the other, an injunction restraining the applicant from repeating the statements at issue.
4 On 3 May 2016, the applicant made a request to the European Parliament, on the basis of Article 7 of its Rules of Procedure, for the defence, in the proceedings referred to above, of her privileges and immunities as enshrined in Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266; ‘the protocol’).
5 On 17 May 2016, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) suspended the proceedings after having been informed, by the European Parliament, of the Applicant’s request for the defence of her privileges and immunities.
6 By decision of 25 October 2016, the European Parliament decided not to defend the privileges and immunity of the applicant (‘the contested decision’). The decision is reasoned as follows:
‘whereas … the request concerns the defence of the freedom of Members of the European Parliament, under Article 8 of the Protocol, from any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties;
whereas this part of the request relates to the fact that [the applicant] is subject to a civil claim in the United Kingdom for damages, including aggravated damages, for alleged libel and slander, as well as to a claim for an injunction against her to desist from repeating the [statements at issue];
whereas the claim of libel and slander concerns accusations which [the applicant] made at a party conference;
whereas the parliamentary immunity conferred by Article 8 of the Protocol applies to opinions expressed by Members of the European Parliament only in the performance of their duties;
whereas statements made by Members of the European Parliament outside the precincts of the European Parliament are considered to be made in the performance of their duties only if they amount to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties …;
whereas, however, there is no direct [and] obvious connection between the [statements at issue] and [the applicant]’s duties as a Member of the European Parliament, as they do not relate to her activity as a Member of the European Parliament or to the policies of the European Union, and were made in the context of national political debate;
whereas the [statements at issue] are, therefore, not covered by Article 8 of the Protocol.’
7 On 27 October 2016, a journalist of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published an article on the BBC website setting out the background and political context of the case, the scope of the contested decision, as well as comments from a Member of the European Parliament on the matter. In its comments, the MEP in question stated that there had been, within the European Parliament, some raised eyebrows as to what he described as the apparent hypocrisy of a member of a party that wants to dismantle all European Union institutions apparently trying to hide behind one of them to avoid the decision of a court of the United Kingdom.
Procedure and forms of order sought
8 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 December 2016, the applicant brought the present action.
9 By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 July 2017, the Parliament raised a plea of inadmissibility under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The applicant lodged its observations on that objection on 21 August 2017.
10 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– decide on her request for the defence of her immunity and privileges;
– order the Parliament to pay her compensation for the damage suffered, in the amount of EUR 10 000 for non-material damage and in the amount of EUR 25 000 for material damage;
– order the Parliament to pay the costs.
11 The Parliament contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as inadmissible;
– in the alternative, in the event that the plea of inadmissibility is not upheld or is reserved for the final judgment, prescribe new time-limits to enable the Parliament to submit its defence, pursuant to Article 130(8) of the Rules of Procedure;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
12 Pursuant to Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may, if the defendant so requests, rule on the question of admissibility or lack of competence without considering the merits of the case. Furthermore, under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where it is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
13 In the present case, the Tribunal considers that there is sufficient information before it and has decided, pursuant to those provisions, to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
The claim for annulment
Arguments of the parties
14 The European Parliament submits that the contested decision did not bring about a distinct change in the applicant’s legal situation and that it is therefore not a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought. The purpose of the request for the defence of parliamentary immunity was not the adoption of a measure producing binding legal effects; a decision taken on the basis of such a request merely constitutes an opinion. Consequently, the Parliament took the view that the claims for annulment must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
15 The applicant states, first, that in her action she alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), that the breach of those provisions had brought about a distinct change in her legal situation, and that that breach gave her a right of action before the General Court. On the one hand, the contested decision was intended to produce legal effects and that had been the case in practice, inasmuch as the infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard fairly and impartially caused her damage. On the other, if the contested decision were not subject to challenge before the Court, the Parliament could act without having to comply with the above provisions.
16 Secondly, the case-law is not unambiguous. In its judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579), the Court held that the decision of the Parliament not to defend the immunity of one of its Members constituted an opinion which was not binding on national courts. In its objection of inadmissibility, the Parliament inferred from the order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek (T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403), that that case-law was well established. However, the case which gave rise to that order concerned a financial penalty imposed by the institution on one of its members. Moreover, in its judgment of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament (T‑345/05, EU:T:2008:440), the General Court held that a decision of Parliament lifting the immunity of one of its members was a measure which could be the subject of an action for annulment.
17 Thirdly, although the judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 32), states that the protocol does not confer on the Parliament the power to determine, in cases of legal proceedings against one of its Members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by him, whether the conditions for applying that immunity are met, the fact remains that the Parliament did, in the present case, act as the competent authority in that regard. In those circumstances, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales) may take the view that it is not for it to examine itself whether the statements at issue are covered by the immunity provided for in Article 8 of the Protocol. The contested decision thus has an impact on the proceedings before that court.
18 Fourthly, it is apparent from Rule 7(5) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure that a decision of the Parliament not to defend the immunity of one of its members is subject to appeal before the General Court.
Findings of the Court
19 According to settled case-law, an institution’s reply to a request addressed to it does not necessarily constitute a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, thus opening the way for the addressee of that reply to bring an action for its annulment. In addition, it has consistently been held that only a measure the legal effects of which are binding on and capable of affecting the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 263 TFEU. It follows that the rejection by an institution of a request addressed to it does not constitute a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought where that request did not lead to the adoption, by that institution, of a measure producing binding legal effects (see order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek, T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
20 As regards, more particularly, a request for the defence of parliamentary immunity, it must be borne in mind that Article 8 of the Protocol provides that ‘Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties’. Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that any request addressed to the President of the Parliament by a Member of the Parliament to defend his immunity and privileges is to be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible. Furthermore, it is apparent from a reading of Article 9(8) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 9(9) of those rules that the discussions before the Parliament concern only the reasons for and against defence of immunity or a privilege. Finally, it is stated in Article 9(10) of those rules that the competent authority of the Member State concerned, to which Parliament’s decision is communicated, is invited to inform it of any developments and judicial rulings issued in the proceedings in question.
21 In a similar context, the Court held, in its judgments of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 39) and of 6 September 2011, Patriciello (C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543, paragraph 39) that, even where criminal proceedings have been brought against a Member before a national court, a decision to defend immunity, adopted by the Parliament on the basis of the Rules of Procedure following a request from the Member concerned, constitutes only an opinion which does not have binding effect with regard to national judicial authorities. It necessarily follows that a decision rejecting a request for the adoption of such a decision does not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects and cannot be the subject of an action for annulment (order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek, T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403, paragraph 28).
22 The fact that no action may be brought against the contested decision is not called into question by the arguments put forward by the applicant in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility.
23 First, as regards the applicant’s argument that the contested decision was intended to go beyond the mere expression of an opinion and to produce legal effects vis-à-vis the national judicial authorities, it should be recalled that in order to determine whether an act is capable of having legal effects and, therefore, whether an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU can be brought against it, it is necessary to examine its wording and context, its substance and the intention of its author (see order of 12 October 2016, Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission, T‑41/16, not published, EU:T:2016:613, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
24 However, although, in the contested decision, the Parliament took the view that ‘there was no direct [and] obvious connection between the [statements at issue] and [the applicant]’s duties as a Member of the European Parliament’ and that ‘the [statements at issue] [were], therefore, not covered by Article 8 of the Protocol’, the Parliament thus confined itself to replying to the application submitted to it by the applicant for the defence of her immunity and privileges.
25 Secondly, while Article 7(5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a decision not to defend the privileges and immunities of an MEP has been taken, that MEP may make a request for reconsideration unless an action has been brought against the decision under Article 263 TFEU. However, those rules are an act of internal organisation and cannot grant powers to the Parliament which are not expressly acknowledged by a legislative measure, in this case by the protocol (judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra, C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 38).
26 Thirdly, the applicant’s claim that the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales) may consider itself bound by the contested decision is purely speculative. Since the contested decision is merely an opinion, the national court is entitled to depart from it (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543, paragraph 40).
27 Fourthly, as regards the applicant’s argument alleging infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the ECHR which she claims to have suffered, it must be pointed out that it amounts, in actual fact, to inferring that the contested decision is an act adversely affecting a person on the basis of its alleged illegality. In so doing, the applicant conflates the separate issues of the admissibility and the merits of the claim for annulment, whereas the existence of possible unlawful acts does not fall within the scope of the examination of the admissibility of the action for annulment, but of its merits (see judgment of 20 May 2010, Commission v Violetti and Others, T‑261/09 P, EU:T:2010:215, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the alleged infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the ECHR, moreover not formally incorporated into EU law (judgments of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 44, and of 18 July 2013, Schindler Holding and Others v Commission, C‑501/11 P, EU:C:2013:522, paragraph 32), is not sufficient to render admissible an action for annulment against an act which does not produce binding legal effects and does not therefore affect the interests of an applicant, by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 January 2003, Philip Morris International v Commission, T‑377/00, T‑379/00, T‑380/00, T‑260/01 and T‑272/01, EU:T:2003:6, paragraph 87). In any event, the alleged infringement could, at most, be linked to the conduct of Parliament lacking the features of a decision. In that case, the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection is ensured by the possibility of bringing an action for damages conferred on her by Article 268 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2016, SACBO v Commission and INEA, C‑281/14 P, not published, EU:C:2016:46, paragraph 47, and of 20 May 2010, Commission v Violetti and Others, T‑261/09 P, EU:T:2010:215, paragraph 59), which the applicant moreover did in her third head of claim (see paragraph 30 et seq. below).
28 Fifthly, the case-law is not inconsistent, contrary to what the applicant claims. First of all, while paragraph 31 of the judgment of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament (T‑345/05, EU:T:2008:440) accepted that the contested decision constituted a measure against which an action for annulment could be brought, it related to a Parliament decision waiving the immunity of one of its Members in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 10 of the protocol, so as to make it possible to bring criminal proceedings against that Member, and not a decision finding that there were no grounds for defending the immunity of an MEP provided for in Article 8 of that protocol. Subsequently, although the order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek (T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403), did relate to an action brought against a financial penalty imposed by the institution on one of its members, the Court also ruled, in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its order, on the admissibility of the action in so far as it was also directed against a decision refusing to defend the immunity of the Member concerned. On that occasion, the Court held, in line with the judgments of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579), and of 6 September 2011, Patriciello (C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543), that such a decision did not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects capable of being the subject of an action for annulment.
29 It follows from the foregoing that it is necessary to uphold the plea of inadmissibility and to dismiss the claim for annulment of the contested decision as manifestly inadmissible.
The claim that the Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant
30 The Parliament submits that the General Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim that it should itself rule on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant, since it is not for the Court to issue directions to the institutions or to substitute itself for them.
31 The applicant did not respond to that plea of inadmissibility.
32 According to settled case-law, the General Court is not entitled, in the context of a review of legality on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, to issue directions to the institutions or to assume the role assigned to them. That limitation of the scope of judicial review applies to all types of contentious matters that might be brought before the Court (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 July 2001, Mattila v Council and Commission, T‑204/99, EU:T:2001:190, paragraph 26; of 8 October 2008, Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission, T‑51/07, EU:T:2008:420, paragraphs 27 and 28; and of 17 December 2010, EWRIA and Others v Commission, T‑369/08, EU:T:2010:549, paragraph 45), and thus also in the field of immunity and privileges granted to Members (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 June 2017, Bay v Parliament, T‑302/16, EU:T:2017:390, paragraph 45).
33 In the light of the foregoing, the claim that the Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant must be rejected on the grounds of manifest lack of jurisdiction.
The claim that the Court should order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicant for the damage allegedly suffered by it
34 The Parliament submits that, in so far as the claim for annulment is manifestly inadmissible, the same applies to the claim for compensation.
35 It should be borne in mind that the action for compensation based on the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU is an autonomous form of action in the system of remedies available in EU law, so that the fact that an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for damages inadmissible (order of 13 January 2014, Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission, T‑134/12, EU:T:2014:31, paragraph 59).
36 Admittedly, where an action for damages is actually aimed at securing the withdrawal of an individual decision addressed to the applicant which has become definitive — so that it has the same purpose and the same effect as an action for annulment — that action for damages might be regarded as an abuse of process; the burden of proving such an abuse of process lies on the party pleading it (see order of 13 January 2014, Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission, T‑134/12, EU:T:2014:31, paragraph 60).
37 However, in the present case, the Parliament does not allege, let alone prove, that the applicant’s claims for compensation have the same purpose and the same effect as her claim for annulment, which was deemed inadmissible in paragraph 29 above.
38 The Parliament’s plea of inadmissibility in respect of the claim for damages must therefore be rejected.
39 It should nevertheless be pointed out, ex officio, that the claim in question does not meet part of the requirements laid down by Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
40 In order to meet the requirements of that provision, any application must state the subject matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of law and fact relied on are stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. More specifically, in order to satisfy those requirements, the claims relating to compensation for the damage allegedly caused by a European Union institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution may be identified, the reasons why it considers that a causal link exists between that conduct and the damage which it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (see order of 14 July 2016, Alcimos Consulting v ECB, T‑368/15, not published, EU:T:2016:438, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
41 The applicant claims, first, that, ‘in refusing to defend the immunity of the Applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol, the Parliament … [has] exposed the Applicant to substantial aggravated damages in the national courts for causing proceedings to be stayed under the principle of sincere cooperation in order for the request to the Parliament to be heard’.
42 That finding does not, however, make it possible to identify with the degree of clarity and precision required by Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure either the nature of the damage allegedly suffered, or the extent or the existence of a sufficiently direct causal link between the alleged unlawful acts and the alleged damage. Consequently, that claim is manifestly inadmissible.
43 As regards the substance of the claim, it is settled case-law that in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU for unlawful conduct on the part of its institutions, a number of conditions must be satisfied: the institutions’ conduct must be unlawful; actual damage must have been suffered; and there must be a causal link between the conduct and the damage pleaded. Since those three conditions are cumulative, the absence of any one of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T‑346/11 and T‑347/11, EU:T:2013:23, paragraphs 210 and 211 and the case-law cited, and of 15 January 2015, Ziegler and Ziegler Relocation v Commission, T‑539/12 and T‑150/13, not published, EU:T:2015:15, paragraphs 59 and 60).
44 With regard more specifically to the condition relating to the existence of a causal link, it is met where there is a direct link of cause and effect between the fault committed by the institution concerned and the alleged damage, the existence of which the applicant must prove. In other words, the European Union can be held liable only for damage which is a sufficiently direct consequence of the wrongful act of the institution concerned, that is to say, the conduct must be the determining cause of the harm. By contrast, it is not for the Union to make good every harmful consequence, even a remote one, of the conduct of its institutions (judgments of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T‑346/11 and T‑347/11, EU:T:2013:23, paragraph 222, and of 16 December 2015, Chart v EEAS, T‑138/14, EU:T:2015:981, paragraph 53).
45 It must be observed in that regard that, even assuming the admissibility of the statement in question referring to the stay of proceedings granted by the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales), the damage resulting from such a stay of proceedings is directly caused by the choice, made freely by the applicant, to ask the Parliament to defend her privileges and immunities.
46 In its application, the applicant maintains, secondly, that the comment on the case by an MEP, reproduced in the article of 27 October 2016 published by a BBC journalist, involves an assessment that is damaging to her reputation and which is the direct consequence of the contested decision.
47 However, it is clear from the wording of the contested decision, as reproduced in paragraph 6 above, that, in that decision, the Parliament merely recalled briefly the background to the case and the scope of Article 8 of the Protocol, before concluding that, in its view, the statements at issue had no connection with the applicant’s activity as a Member of the Parliament or with the policies of the European Union. The contested decision is drafted in neutral terms and does not reflect any opinion unfavourable to the applicant, especially with regard to the potentially libellous or defamatory nature of the statements at issue. Furthermore, under Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, Parliament’s debates are open to the public, and the texts it adopts are also made public pursuant to Article 116 of those rules. Consequently, the applicant could not have been unaware, in her capacity as MEP, that the request that she had freely chosen to introduce for the defence of her immunity and privileges would lead to the adoption by the Parliament of a decision which would be made public.
48 In those circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there is a direct link of cause and effect between the alleged illegalities committed by the Parliament at the time of the adoption of the contested decision and the alleged damage to the applicant’s reputation, since such damage could ensue, by definition, only from the press article drafted by a journalist.
49 In its application, the applicant alleges, thirdly, that she suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that, in order to bring the present action before the Court, she was obliged to pay a lawyer.
50 However, it is settled case-law that the expenses incurred by the parties for the purposes of legal proceedings before a court of the European Union are not material damage but costs (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 June 1999, Commission v Montorio, C‑334/97, EU:C:1999:290, paragraph 54, and order of 17 February 2012, Dagher v Council, T‑218/11, not published, EU:T:2012:82, paragraph 39).
51 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the applicant’s claims for compensation are in part manifestly inadmissible, and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
52 Consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, in part as it is manifestly inadmissible, in part as it manifestly falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and in part as it is manifestly unfounded.
Costs
53 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, and the Parliament has applied for costs, she must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. Jane Maria Collins is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.
Luxembourg, 1 February 2018.
E. Coulon H. Kanninen Registrar
To view the original of this Judgement
Against Jane Collins Ukip MEP 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.
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
UKIP MEP Jane Collins has thrown her hat into the ring to be the party’s next leader.
Ms Collins represents Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire for UKIP in the European Parliament.
She is currently facing possible bankruptcy after failing to pay damages to three Labour MPs over remarks she made about the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
But that has not stopped her from announcing her ambition to become UKIP’s next leader.
The role is currently vacant following the resignation of Paul Nuttall after the party’s disastrous performance in the general election.
Ms Collins, who lives in East Yorkshire, said she wanted to re-build UKIP’s reputation.
“Having watched what has happened to my party over the last few months I have decided to stand for leadership,” she said.
“The infighting and carpet-bagging going on within UKIP is quite frankly very disappointing.
“I have seen UKIP in this position before in the 90s when I worked with Godfrey Bloom and through Godfrey’s hard work and dedication throughout the region we built Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire into one of UKIP’s most strongest region’s with some great election results.
Hull-based UKIP MEP Mike Hookem with party colleague and fellow Yorkshire MEP Jane Collins
“At present we are still not out of the water with Brexit and UKIP must survive, thrive and succeed in delivering what the British public voted for delivering.
“Brexit is the start of the process and the next stage of the game for UKIP.”
Ms Collins, who was elected as an MEP in 2014, has been embroiled in controversy over comments she made in a speech at a UKIP conference a month after a report found that around 1,400 children in Rotherham had been abused between 1997 and 2013.
In the speech, she claimed Rotherham MPs Sir Kevin Baron, John Healey and Sarah Champion knew about child exploitation in the town but did not intervene.
Ms Collins argued it was a political speech which reflected her opinion that the MPs were likely to have known the issue was a serious problem.
But the MPs sued for libel and slander and in February she was told to pay £358,000 in damages and costs. She appeared in county court in Hull in May after failing to pay within the required timescale.
After the hearing was adjourned for an examination of her financial assets, a spokesman for Ms Collins said she would face bankruptcy proceedings if it was found she could not make the payments owed.
In a statement announcing her intention to stand for the UKIP leadership, she said: “Over the last few years, since becoming an MEP, I have been subjected to legal action by three Rotherham MPs which unfortunately put severe constraints on my party activities.
“My personal life has been badly affected and the party and my constituents who I have felt I had to speak up for have been let down by all statutory bodies in Rotherham.
“The case is still in the process with the European Court of Justice and police investigations are on-going.”
Ms Collins has also continued to question the case brought against her by the three MPs on her Twitter account.
Last month she tweeted: “I’m being sued for £250k for speaking up against Child Exploitation by predominantly Muslim gangs but somehow I am some aplogist. Weird.”
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
Jane Collins outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. She argued that the speech was political and expressed an opinion. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA
A Ukip MEP has been ordered to pay more than £160,000 in libel and slander damages, and faces an additional costs bill of £196,000, after alleging that three Labour MPs knew about the widespread abuse of children in Rotherham, but deliberately chose to do nothing.
The high court in London ordered Jane Collins to pay £54,000 each to Sarah Champion, Kevin Barron and John Healey, the MPs for Rotherham, Rother Valley, and Wentworth and Dearne respectively.
The judge, Mr Justice Warby, ordered the MEP to make an interim payment of £120,000 costs, plus the damages, within 21 days.
It is understood that Collins will have to cover the bill herself, with Ukip not expected to contribute.
Collins, an MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, made the comments in a speech to Ukip’s annual conference in Doncaster in September 2014.
Warby said Collins claimed that each of the MPs had known many of the details of the exploitation of more than 1,400 children in Rotherham over a 16-year period, but chosen to not act.
Collins argued in her speech that the MPs had failed to speak out about the abuse, carried out mostly by Asian men, because of political correctness, cowardice or selfishness, and were thus guilty of grave misconduct.
“The abusers time and time again walked away. And why? It was because of their Asian origin,” Collins said in the speech.
Gavin Millar QC, representing the MPs, said the allegations led to his clients being targeted repeatedly on social media before the 2015 general election.
“The impact of the allegations on the claimants was extremely grave,” he said. “They caused immense damage and made the whole election extremely stressful for each of the claimants.”
In a joint statement, the MPs said the case had been “delayed and dragged out time [and] again by Jane Collins’ repeated attempts to evade justice”.
“She has run out of places to hide and the judge said in no uncertain terms that her behaviour since proceedings began has been unreasonable and offensive,” they said.
“The judge has also noted [that] the impact on each claimant’s reputation was seriously harmful, [bringing a] cascade of hostile social media response.
“Ms Collins could have admitted her mistake, withdrawn her remarks and apologised to us. Instead, she tried every trick in the book, including the absurd irony of trying, and failing, to seek immunity by hiding behind the EU institutions she is so keen for us to leave behind.”
A spokesman for Collins said she had no immediate comment on the ruling.
The court was told that Collins refused to withdraw the allegations during the 2015 general election campaign, had not apologised and had repeatedly tried to delay the litigation.
She made an offer of amends that was accepted, but the amount of compensation could not be agreed and had to come back to court.
In her defence, Collins argued that it was a political speech, which did not contain any allegation of fact, but merely expressed an opinion.
The award of £54,000 for defamation in each case was composed of £45,000 for libel and £9,000 for slander.
An official inquiry into the Rotherham abuse scandal blamed failings by Rotherham council and South Yorkshire police. The report by Prof Alexis Jay, a former chief inspector of social work, concluded that the council knew as far back as 2005 of sexual exploitation being committed on a wide scale, yet failed to act.
In a separate case, Barron and Healey won a similar libel case against the former Rotherham Ukip councillor Caven Vines. Last June, he was ordered to pay £40,000 in damages to each MP, and costs.
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
Ukip Is Clearly Its Own Worst Enemy In The Long Run, with its leadership, MEPs, Councillors and staff constantly making complete fools of themselves and under investigation for corruption.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
little wonder that despite everything in favour of a Ukip win in the Police Crime Commissioner by election in South Yorkshire the antics of Ukip themselves gave Labour an open goal where Ukip gained 4.7% of the electorate’s vote about half of that of Labour with 7.4% largely due to a meager 14.9% turnout displaying contempt for a democracy which offers such low grade candidates.
Consider the fact that Ukip’s local MEP Jane Collins clearly has little control of her own behaviour let alone any qualities of leadership or ethics! This does of course ensure yet another area where Nigel farage can count on no challenge in his fiefdom thaty may damage his income stream and personal ambitions!
A party without dignity, competence, ethics, integrity, morality or ability that has failed to show any gravitas, any leadership, any intellectual ability or even any responsible, honourable EU exit and survival strategy after 21 years, with some of the most revolting people in British politics chasing any form of vulgar populism at the expense of these United Kingdoms and the hopes of Leaving_The_EU.
Ukip MEP apologises for apparently calling charity boss a paedophile
Jane Collins deletes tweet to Church Army boss Mark Russell, saying she was ‘a bit hot headed’
Jane Collins wrote in a tweet to Mark Russell: ‘Yes because we’d soon stop your criminal activity. Paedos leave our kids alone.’ Photograph: Fabio De Paola
A Ukip MEP has been forced to apologise for apparently calling the head of a Christian charity a paedophile on Twitter.
Jane Collins, one of Ukip’s leading politicians, agreed to make a donation to the charity after she implied that Mark Russell was a criminal on the social networking site on Thursday.
Russell, who is a Labour party member and head of the Church Army charity, had posted support for his party’s candidate in the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner byelection.
But Collins replied, telling Russell: “Yes because we’d soon stop your criminal activity. Paedos leave our kids alone. #Ukip.”
The byelection was prompted by the resignation of the Labour police commissioner Shaun Wright in the wake of the Rotherham child exploitation scandal.
Collins initially refused to apologise for her paedophile implication, saying: “It was aimed at the paedophiles not you.” But she agreed to delete the tweet because it “read wrong”, explaining: “I’m a bit hot headed sometimes.”
She later added: “I apologise for associating you with paedophiles but you’re still supporting a party that has failed our children badly.”
However, Russell said the Ukip MEP was turning her mistake into party politics and threatened her with legal action. Eventually she conceded: “I am in the wrong … I unreservedly apologise for implication.”
Russell told the Guardian the tweet was highly damaging to his work, which includes supporting vulnerable people. It was made worse because Collins’s accusation was retweeted many times by Ukip supporters, he said.
He told Collins: “I’ve dedicated my life to helping kids and your tweet was as hurtful as offensive … this is my reputation.
“I merely encouraged my fellow South Yorks residents to vote for Alan Billings, the Labour candidate.”
Russell is the head of Church Army, an evangelist charity linked to the Church of England that has the Queen as its patron. He said the MEP had offered to make a donation to the group after he threatened to sue her.
Collins’s tweet follows accusations that Ukip exploited the suffering of Rotherham sex abuse victims for political gain in the police and crime commissioner byelection. One victim denounced the party’s tactics as “disrespectful” after it launched a “1,400 reasons to vote” campaign, in reference to the estimated number of victims in the city between 1997 and 2013.
Collins did not respond to emails from The Guardian.
UKIP Sells Seats, Candidacies & Office for Cash (It has also been claimed that publicly funded jobs have been the reward of sexual favours!), Often Undeclared – which may well explain the astonishingly low calliber and lack of gravitas of its MEPs and candidates, now and in the past.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
that UKIP attracts front page news like this can not be passed off, even to the most gullible, as some sort of smear tactics – this is clearly and undeniably reliable journalism and carrying out their duty to inform the public. Were this the action of any other party responsible UKIPpers would be only too pleased to see such blatant corruption exposed.
I have never heard a spokesman for UKIP speak out in support of Labour for rewarding their donors with Peerages, nor for that matter has anyone officially spoken out against Peerages for services to the Tories as in the case of the liar and racist scoundrel Malcolm Pearson!
Ukip faces scandal over ‘cash for Euro seats’
Jane Collins made an interest-free loan of £10,000 to the regional party branch weeks after her selection Adam Gerrard/SWNS
Billy Kenber and Alexi Mostrous Last updated at 12:01AM, May 14 2014
Ukip faces a “cash-for-Euro-seats” scandal after forcing MEPs to donate large sums and threatening to bar those who refused from standing again, its former deputy leader says. Ex-Ukip insiders have also raised concerns that the party favoured wealthy MEP candidates before this month’s European elections.
Two leading candidates for the May 22 poll, and the partner of a third, donated or lent the party tens of thousands of pounds about the time they were selected for safe seats, according to an analysis of Electoral Commission records.
No new MEP candidates from the Labour or Conservative party have made declarable donations in the past four years. Three Liberal Democrat candidates who have donated large amounts have not been given winnable seats.
The revelations come amid further controversy for Ukip. Yesterday a British Asian former chairman of its youth wing resigned from the party, claiming that it “deliberately attracts the racist vote”, while Janice Atkinson, a prospective MEP, provoked derision by asking police to arrest protesters who called Ukip members “fascists”.
David Campbell-Bannerman, Ukip’s former deputy leader, left the party in 2011 after repeatedly warning Nigel Farage and other top officials about its “overt [link] between financial contributions and selection to a public elected office”. He said that it was “potentially very dangerous” and could be seen as being “cash for Euroseats”.
In his resignation letter, leaked to The Times by a former Ukip branch chairman, Mr Campbell-Bannerman raised concerns including that “Ukip MEPs will only be there in future to keep the party solvent or to pay lip service to the leader”.
Mr Campbell-Bannerman, now a Conservative MEP, accused Ukip of drawing up plans to field four MEP candidates simply so they could “pay all their salary to the party” without carrying out any work.
He wrote that his “urgent calls” for legal advice had gone unheeded and warned that “any future Ukip MEPs beyond 2014 will either be very rich or just sycophantic placemen/women of the leader”. Mr Campbell-Bannerman said yesterday that he stood by his comments.
All Ukip MEPs elected this month will have signed a “code of conduct” forcing them to donate 10 per cent of their salary, equivalent to about €10,000 (£8,000) a year, to the party. Any MEP not fulfilling this promise risks being “blackballed”, according to emails sent by Alan Bown, one of Ukip’s biggest donors.
Mr Campbell-Bannerman was primarily concerned with pressure applied to sitting MEPs. However, a number of new candidates likely to win seats at the European Parliament on May 22 have also given generously to the party.
Under European electoral rules, parties register a list of candidates in ranked order in each of the UK’s 12 regions.Voters choose a political party rather than an individual candidate and each party’s share of the vote then determines how many of their ranked candidates are elected in each region.
Jill Seymour, 56, a parish councillor in Shropshire, is ranked first on Ukip’s regional list for the West Midlands, making her almost certain to become an MEP. She and her husband Brian, 77, a manufacturing tycoon, paid the price of a “car” to host what was then Ukip’s biggest public meeting, a 900-person gathering, in Telford last September.
Ms Seymour was the highest-ranked candidate in the region in a preliminary list endorsed by Ukip’s selection committee and was voted in by the party membership as the top candidate two weeks after the Telford event. Ukip has not registered the donation, which it would have been required to do if it exceeded £7,500.
Jane Collins and Amjad Bashir, who are ranked first and second in Yorkshire and the Humber, made interest-free loans of £10,000 each to the regional party branch in November and December 2013, weeks after their selection. Mr Bashir also financed a Ukip event attended by more than 1,200 people in Gateshead last month. Staff said hiring the venue with sound and lighting equipment and crew for an evening event would cost £10,200.
Mr Bashir declined to say how much the event had cost but that he was “democratically elected on merit and am working hard as a part of a team to secure the best possible result for Ukip in the European elections”. Ms Collins did not comment.
Ms Seymour has not campaigned as fervently as some of her fellow prospective MEPs. She has only spoken at three Ukip-organised events in the West Midlands this year, while the second- and third-ranked candidates have each spoken at least a dozen times, according to the party’s website.
In seven local hustings organised between the West Midlands MEP candidates since April, Ukip was the only party not to field their top-ranked candidate on a single occasion.
Ms Seymour said she was unable to attend every hustings because she had been “inundated” with requests, adding that she was “all over the place, we’re out all the time”. “I can’t fit myself into every hustings,” she added.
A Ukip spokesman said the party believed there was “no point” in responding to detailed questions from this newspaper because “past experience has taught us that you will not fully or fairly record our responses”.
Three new Lib Dem candidates have donated to the party since mid-2010, although none of the donations came within a year either side of the party’s regional lists being announced in December 2012.
Rob Speht, a former councillor, gave donations valued at £3,300 in mid-2011 while Jo Hayes, a councillor in Colchester, gave £10,000 last December. Both are number two on their regional lists in areas where the Lib Dems may well miss out on winning a single seat.
A Lib Dem spokesman said the party does not “require either MEPs or candidates to donate to the party” and that donations “do not play a role in the selection or ranking of Liberal Democrat European election candidates”.
That UKIP’s selection processes for office in both elected office and employment was corrupt has long been known to those informed in the matter of dishonesty withing UKIP and its unarguably corrupt leadership. The problem has always been the willingness of the leadership clique and much of its claque to brazenly lie to the media, the legal authorities and others in a manner most redolent of sociopathy – in that it seems probable that they believed their lies were justified in their belief of the cause they claimed to represent.
To understand the style and extent of corruption one need only read of the lies and dishonesty of Douglas Denny in his capacity as a party returning officer yet willing to utterly corrupt any concepts of democracy to ensure his benefactor Nigel Farage was elected see CLICK HERE
That this was an institutionalised process is shown by the report of another returning officer for the party who enumerated corruption and outlined its extent CLICK HERE.
The indubitable and undeniable corruption that put UKIP MEPs and other officers in position is most clearly displayed by the intellectual pygmies and the institutionalised lack of gravitas of those holding office in the party; clear failings that are glibly passed off as some sort of merit in their not being competent politicians as they are not career politicians and be it the serial failure in The City, fired from his main job for his habitual drunkenness, or the shop sales assistant for BT, or even the Tory serial failure at elections David Bannerman, or even the inherited wealth and status of Stuart Agnew or William Legge, or the good fortune of making money from building society buy outs of estate agencies UKIP has not attracted and kept a single solitary MEP of any realistic competence or calliber.
The serial failures and indisputable self serving rascals and nere do wells who have ridden MEP tickets in UKIP are most plausibly understood to have gained office by bribery in one form or another, be that even pure sychophancy than was ever displayed in merit or democratic due process within the party.
That UKIP is unfit for office is hard to deny be that in its inability to either represent or even understand the processes required either to win a referendum to Leave-The-EU or to promote the benefits of Leaving where after 21 years they have achieved virtually nothing and have even failed plausibly to represent the huge upswing in opposition to membership of The EU amongst the public, diluting the message with their racist stance in supporting racism across The EU, as the undeniably do in offering support and encouragement and even direct financial succour to their CHOSEN colleagues in their Pan EU Political EFD Group, whilst having closely associated via their tawdry MEPs with such organisations as The Front National of France, The Lega Nord of Italy, The EDL and even the BNP.
That UKIP’s line is to lie to claim they are not racist, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary and the odious display of those of ‘different’ ethnicity as a clear display of tokenism has been as risible as the individual who in pretence of lack of overt prejudice states ‘some of my friends are black’ or ‘I have several gay friends’ when they base their association with black friends or homosexual chums on very febrile linkage – just as where Nigel Farage ensures a photo shoot is organised that can be captioned ‘We are not racist we have several non white candidates’!!
Yet it was Nigel Farage, UKIP’s founder Prof. Alan Skedd assures us to this day, stated Nigel Farage said:
“We will never get the nigger vote”
which of course has been frequently denied, yet seems all too likely to be true as this most litigious of politicians has never visibly taken action to gain redress on the statement and whose subsequent support for racism has been transparent.
I do not for a moment claim that all members of UKIP are racist but it is undeniable that its leadership and senior members aid and support racism and as shown by Sanya-Jeet Thandi racism is rife a’s leadership and the party policies incline to encourage racism see: CLICK HERE
I reiterate that I do not for a moment claim UKIP membership is largely racist but it is clear that racism is a very marked part of the makeup of UKIP as a party or ALL of its members would have spoken out in disgust at the support for xenophobes,over racism, Holocaust Denial, anti homosexuality and the like amongst their CHOSEN partners in the EU EFD Group and even closer to home the propensity to incite racial hatred of Gerard Batten based upon his superstitious beliefs in association with known racists and with his vile attack on honest decent followers of Islam, which inclines and is likely to incite racial hatred and animosity – little wonder he recently obtained notoriety with allegations of a brick being thrown at his house and braking a window!
Despite Gerard Batten’s undeniable lack of understanding of the basic tenets of justice and his willingness to abuse his position to seek to pervert the course of justice I would not put it past him to have invented the story of a brick being thrown at his house for personal publicity – he was after all only too willing to ‘use’ the police to make patently false allegations against me – which fortunately the South Wales Police dismissed despite the efforts of the less diligent and untrustworthy Metropolitan Police.
Am I saying that all of UKIP members are corrupt and racist, clearly not but just as with The Metropolitan Police there is a very clear sector who are corrupt and lack due diligence.
UKIP’s Jane COLLINS Either Daft or Gullible! You Have To Build A Party With Activists NOT CASH! You Have to work from the grass roots up, NOT FROM The Top Down in deceit, funded from the spillings from the trough buying the hirelings and parasites!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
sadly UKIP has been so terribly damaged as our lifeboat they have by and large lost their activists and their core supporters.
Clearly the leadership has little interest in Britain or the party all but head down in the troughs on the gravy train – I concede the message they pretend to carry is popular and has maintained their normal membership of around 10,000 of any meaning for all they may have signed up the occupants of a number of care homes!
UKIP Leadership has made it clear that it is all about their positioning at the troughs on the gravy train what with trying hard to sell the obscene concept of PEPPs to help The EU and earn their bribes for services to The EU.
We note the huge amount of publicity engineered for Jane Collins in her last bye election but of course that was to desperately TRY to raise their profile for their attempted re-launch conference where desppite somewhere around £1/4 Million for PR Agencies and Press Staff they managed to get almost ZERO publicity bar a fleeting glimpse on The BBC web site that was of no consequence.
Yet again and again we get the myth that by joining with racists, xenophobes, anti Jewish and violent anti homosexual pro EU reformists in The Pan EU Political Party EFD Group UKIP will have a higher profile – yeah indeed HIGH like Gorgonzolla!
Currently UKIP Leadership and the maggots feeding on the corpse STINK and the stench of corruption is all pervading.
It seems their only policy is to use hirelings and filth like McGough, Douglas Denny and an army of dishonest cowards too ashamed to put their name to their lies and bullying like Independent UKIP, Skeptyk, Stathan, Baron von Lottsov and otjher corrupt clowns and low lifes – THEY HAVE NO Vision, NO Strategy, NO Tactics and clearly NO ETHICS.
Jane are you daft or just gullible – have you money to burn or just lack the intelligence to fund a good cause – try the dogs home!
Activists ‘count more than cash’
Published on Saturday 2 April 2011 07:00
ACTIVISTS on the ground are more important than vast sums of money, according to the biggest-spending UK Independence Party (UKip) candidate.
Jane Collins trailed in fourth in Scunthorpe with just 1,686 votes, despite spending £10,072 during the campaign – more than any of her rivals. Labour held the seat with 14,640 votes despite a strong challenge from the Conservatives, who polled 12,091.
“I decided I wanted to put some money into the campaign,” said Ms Collins. “It was a bit of an experiment to see how it affected the result in Scunthorpe. But because of the determination to keep the Conservatives out and the determination of the Conservatives to get in – they made very big inroads – my campaign made very little difference.
“You can spend what you like but if you don’t door knock and get in touch with the people and create enough of a rapport with them to get the ball rolling, you can spend what you like but it won’t make any difference.”
Labour’s Nic Dakin, who won the seat with a majority of more than 2,500, spent just £6,957.36 – less than half that of Ms Collins.
Across 39 seats in the region, UKip spent £66,088.47 but failed to make a breakthrough.
Meanwhile candidates for the British National Party spent nearly £20,000 failing to make a breakthrough in the region – including £1,171 fighting against former Cabinet Minister Ed Balls in Morley and Outwood.
Building a Party is not just from the bottom up, working with activists it is based on trust and built over a long lead time – not like Delboy turning up on the day chucking other peoples’ cash at it and hoping to find a bargain.
Politics is all about trust and reliability two commodities UKIP seems deliberately to have squandered importing a claque of vile and dishonest liars who seemingly are paid and rewarded to praise their idiotic leadership team and its obscene chums.
Nigel Farage may well have a winsome way and a quick mouth but in politics you play the long game NOT the quick buck. You seek a reputation for gravitas and probity not cheap shot clever dick. You hunt out reliable contacts NOT trash you can pick up in any gutter.
The serious question that must be asked is has UKIP a future or has it so befouled itself that it will just bump along enriching a few and as with the last election capitalising on misconception and public hatred opf politicians.
Is it ANY wonder that in a recent poll MEPs were top of the Poll as THE MOST HATED & DESPISED OCCUPATION!.
#0328* – Gothmog and that style is SO VERY Damaging for UKIP! .
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! .
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name! .
Gothmog and that style is SO VERY Damaging for UKIP! There are all too many such low lifes in UKIP! It is little wonder they are so reveilled by the meeeeja!
After she has done such damage to UKIP dragging the party into her gutter to see Annabelle Fuller flouncing around as if she was relevant at the conference yet flaunted in Kirsten Farage’s face was tastless in extreme!
We note Farage wore his best mix with the proles costume!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
I see the executives of UKIP leadership ever the gentlemen seated in comfort with the women on their knees already 😉
It was interesting to hear from one of my media contacts that despite having been at the conference they filed no story as the Party just didn’t seem relevant with its idiotic posturing making them look even more stupid than The Liberal Party with a young David Steele and his ridiculous comment ‘Return to your homes and prepare for government’ – well at least they filled the hall at their rally and had over 120,000 members!
My friend informed me he had NEVER been to such a crass event with Farage not even knowing the time of day when he started his speech! That William Dartmouth was as dull as ditchwater and as spokesman for UKIP’s AV campaign I gather he barely grasped the subject but Chris Monkton’s speech as policy director was I gather enthusiastic and little short of farsical, a good job no one votes for UKIP based on policies as all but the odd idiot votes to Leave-The-EU and for no other reason.
It was noted just how hard the Barnsley election had proved for Jane Collins when one looked at her publicity photos and actually chatted with her it was clearly a long hard campaign to hang onto the UKIP core vote of 4% and see it boosted to 12% by the 2/3rds. stay at home vote.
It was interesting to note that based on a 1/3rd. turnout and getting the Leave-The-EU 4% die hard vote out UKIP was making much of their achievements in Barnsley. Not just with talk of winning seats in the near future but with Jane Collins now lined up as a replacement for Godfrey Bloom when the party eventually gets rid of the embarrassing old fool.
Interestingly UKIP Wales having been all but invisible throughout the recent referendum to change the constitution with NOTHING on their little web site and only abuse heard from their unpleasant local mouthpiece – seemingly they have been, as with UKIP main Party and the Lisbon Shambles, they are all of a sudden coming alive!
Whilst UKIP make much of 12% on a 1/3rd. turnout when it is their candidate –
UKIP Wales sabotages the main plank of the main party relaunch debacle stating a 1/3rd. turnout in Wales grants no mandate!
The level of incompetence and political stupidity would be hard to make up – and to think Farage uses party money for his girlfriend’s professional services!!
None will be surprised that I aplaud the efforts of Jon Gaunt of Referendum Pledge Campaign and if you want more details of how YOU can help CLICK HERE
In the light of the typically unpleasant UKIP style behaviour of a poster on Anthony Butcher’s squalid little UKIP controlled Forum, so redolent of the likes of Annabelle Fuller, Mark Croucher, Independent UKIP, Douglas Denny, Mike McGough, Brendan Padmore, Derek Clark MEP and their ilk I thought I would check out and see who Gothmog was.
I note that having checked for the name on UKIP’s members’ Forum there is a Gothmog with a similar style – that it is unlikely there are two people so competently bringing UKIP into disrepute with their manner who use the same name is clear!
#0322* – BARNSLEY – UKIP – Jane COLLINS – Well Done! .
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! .
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name! .
BARNSLEY By-Election & UKIP’s Jane COLLINS Did Excellently!
– Well Done Despite The Betrayal of the decent grass roots by UKIP’s Sordid Leadership Team!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
Congratulations to Jane Collins with one of the most notable domestic results ever for UKIP.
That an MP has been elected with a mere 20% of the electorate supporting them is risible equally sad is that more votes were not obtained by the activists of UKIP who have been so successfully demoralised by the divisive behaviour of the leadership of UKIP and on such a low turnout UKIP were a huge beneficiary with around 4% of the electorate voting for them.
That as a racist anti Jewish and sexually intollerant party we see those sharing the position of UKIP and their pals in The EFD their vile group in The EU amalgamated with the votes of other racist groups it is a tragedy and a shame for Britain that we see this extremist result in a by election burgeoning.
UKIP with their partners in this moral crime represent 18.2% of the vote cast.
Clearly it is a shame to the peoples of Britain that there is no Patriotic National Party that anyone could reasonably and morally vote for.
Let us hope that a part of UKIP’s attempt to relaunch as a party this weekend will be to disassociate itself from its racist, xenophobic, anti Jewish and sexually intollerant, violent extremist foundations in The EU with The EFD.
We hope that despite the utter lack of competent leadership, so insecure in their ability that they have chosen to employ the so called leader’s sometime mistress’ Athena-PR company to even get elected as leader a PR company that boasts of their behaviour in expanding The EU and has as directors those who set out to betray UKIP via their ever duplicitous Press Office as a plant from Tory Central Office!
Let us hope someone of stature rises to lead the party forward as a British Party unprepared to jump through the hoops claimed for The EU to create Pan EU Political Parties permitting The EU ever greater hold over these United Kingdoms even though it was clearly Nigel Farage’s aim to work towartds greater subsidiarity with his Athena-PR agency using Derek Clark MEP as his sock puppet to betray Britain in increased subsidiarity for Britain and the strengthening of EU Committees over Britain as a vassal State.
Jane Collins is clearly popular and might she care to front this movement away from prostituting UKIP to The EU for the leader’s income. She has all to gain and little to loose as we have all watched the way in which women who have given service to UKIP are, if popular and with leadership skills have been bullied, abused, sworn at and removed from leadership positions in the party. Only the subservient and geriatric seem to flourish!
Clearly Campaigning For UKIP
Plays havoc with one’s age!
On the day of your victory Jane – Take note and seek to learn from history, such that you can move forward despite the knives you will find in your back from UKIP leadership as other women of stature in the party have noted! .
#0316* – UKIP Clean-up Campaigner Jane COLLINS in BARNSLEY! .
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! .
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name! .
UKIP Clean-up Campaigner Jane COLLINS in BARNSLEY Badly Let Down By UKIP MEP and the scum that support UKIP on Butcher’s UKIP controlled Forum!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Hi,
I have just visited Anthony Butcher’s squalid UKIP controlled Forum to see if AMNYONE has had the decency to offer good wishes and get well felicitations to John Bufton or see if UKIP’s vile supporters have made any comment on The Welsh referendum vote to give greater powers to their EU Regional Ass – Surely UKIP have read the Treaties which show the extent to which the various Mikey mouse regions are just an EU construct – Yet UKIP seem to have absolutely no interest in Wales with their leader much too busy swanning around on fatuous jollies in Finland – Was his PR agent with him for the 3 days to hold his hand?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING just abusive comments from the idiots who post as Skeptyk and I have been mailed some abusive comments posted as PM’s to Tim to show just what gutter trash Skeptyk is and how rigged the Forum is for UKIP and their lies, as Paul Wesson has arbitrarily given Tim an Infraction for mentioning the FACT that John Bufton has had a stroke – if that isn’t censorship what is?
Particularly as Tom Wilde, A MODERATOR & MOTOR MOUTH on the Forum, tried to imply Tim was attacking someone who was ill, which clearly was a lie – still no UKIP supporter is offering ANY support to John Bufton and clearly UKIP Leadership are having more fun in Finland than addressing their elected duty in Britain.
I also note that some squalid little mischief maker has posted a comment from The Barnsley Chronicle starting:
Monday 28th February 2011
An election candidate who is campaigning for cleaner streets has been left embarrassed after a party activist was spotted peeing on a residential street.
Firstly I am glad that an 80 year old was not publicly humiliated in the local press, another geriatric Derek Clark MEP couldn’t even be bothered to help campaigning for Jane Collins – even when offered the light duties of sitting in the office to speak with the media etc. on the phone he turned it down.
The elderly gentleman campaigning in Barnsley was at least behaving better than the exemplar Godfrey Bloom MEP provides when urinating in the corridors of hotels – it seems he confines his outdoor activities to having sex with coloured women he buys on the bonnets of cars in public.
I feel Jane Collins’ may have greater ease cleaning-up Barnsley than cleaning-up UKIP leadership and their parasites!
I was amused to see The Barnsley Chronical made much of which streets one is permitted to urinate in, with no comment of the center of town running with urine from both the lads and the lasses out binge drinking and vomiting their way through Friday and Saturday nights!
Perhaps Jane Collins would care to add to her campaign, not just cleaning of filthy streets but the building of more public toilets!
I know exactly how this elderly gentleman must have felt – at 80 he probably has a very enlarged prostate and even possibly prostate cancer in a mild form – I can empathise with the urgency of his need at times, in my case as a result of bladder cancer! Aware of his restrictive limitations may I commend him for taking an interest in the well being of OUR Country.
When Jane Collins’ efforts to beat The BNP are completed perhaps she could take on two more small causes: 01. Explain to The Barnsley Chronicle – or should that be chronical! – that to make much of a ‘Residential Street’ and then quote a local shopkeeper makes them look foolish!
02. Perhaps she would care to try to clean up some of the filth that is so clearlu UKIP Leadership their parasites and supporters.
These two tasks completed perhaps she could continue cleaning up of scum like Skeptyk, Baron vL, Douglas Denny, Goathog, Tom Wilde, John Ison, Annabelle Fuller, Mike McGough, Derek Clark MEP, Stuart Agnew MEP, Marta Andreasen MEP, David Bannerman MEP, Godfrey Bloom MEP, Mark Croucher, Gawain Towler, Malcolm Wood, Kevin Mahoney and their ilk OUT of UKIP as part of cleaning up UKIP the party – Which WAS our only lifeboat MIGHT be worthy of votes from the public.
Good luck Jane Collins & a full recovery to John Bufton since clearly Wales deserves better! .