Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Archive for the ‘Jonathan ARNOTT’ Category

#0577* – Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 02/07/2011

#0577* – Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!!

 Please Be Sure To 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.  
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

&

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!    
.
~Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!!

As many UKIP Supporters like myself will have noted – A main example of why UKIP should sell out to The EU & Help Them form Pan EU Political Parties has been the fact that Godfrey Bloom joined one and bought a printer!

Personally my principles are not for sale and never have been!

For more details of Yes or No to PEPPs see: CLICK HERE
 

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 01-Jul-2011 – Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!!

Hi,

it was quite funny to see one of the UKIP Parasites funded by The Party exposing the odious bean counter and serial liar Mick McGOUGH‘s best selling line as a ‘red Herring’ – Now we all know McGough’s ethics stink and his understanding of duty and probity are more than a little ‘Fishy’ but to have a Farage appointee point out the man is a fool amuses me.


What little Jonathan Arnott forgets to remind people is that the lies Mick McGough deliberately told on his squalid little video showed how willing he was to lie and be emotive when bereft of facts to support him.



This is in keeping with McGough as he has a track record of lies and setting out to deceive his coleagues and UKIP members which has been proven.


He has the gutter manners, temperament and ethics of the very worst of Essex stereotypes! Judging by his actions in other areas I believe we can safely believe that he would lie and conive to sell his grandmother if he could gain from it.

Jonathan Arnott
Administrator
General
*****
Offline Offline

Position in UKIP: General Secretary
UKIP Branch: Sheffield
Full Name: Jonathan Arnott
Posts: 2615

« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2011, 06:55:26 PM »

Reply with quote

The printer is a BAD example for the YES campaign to use because it’s a complete red herring.

Our MEPs get about 4,000 euros a month office allowance each, which can be spent on things like risographs anyway.

The North West region has two risographs but no PEP; there’s no shortage of money available for MEPs to buy office equipment.  A few other regions have a risograph, and probably paid for by EU money through the office allowance.

The YES campaign should focus on things that we can’t/aren’t doing without it.

 . .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62
of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

&

Posted in Jonathan ARNOTT, Mick McGOUGH, PEPPs, Printer, Risograph, UKIP PEPPs | Leave a Comment »

#0474* – UKIP’s AIM WAS TO LOOSE IN MORE SEATS – I SEE

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 12/05/2011

#0474* – UKIP’s AIM WAS TO LOOSE IN MORE SEATS – I SEE
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 05:  Nigel Farage, ...Image by Getty Images via @daylife

.
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’s AIM WAS TO LOOSE IN MORE SEATS – I SEE!

I do believe as a party they were as surprised as I – it took them 5 days to dream that one up!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

here is a brief extract from The Spectator with a link to the full article:
David Blackburn

Nigel Farage is in a bullish mood. Buoyed by the coalition’s unpopularity, Labour’s listlessness and the success of the True Finns Party, he has declared that Ukip is “no longer a minority party”.

I interviewed him ahead of tomorrow’s local election, the first test of his second leadership stint and the new direction in which he is trying to take the party. You can read the full interview as a web exclusive here;

To view the full article CLICK HERE

I gather I am not alone in thinking that few of us thought for a moment when we heard Nigel Farage’s comments that for UKIP this was going to be the great election – 2011 and UKIP’s time had come!

Little did we realise when he said on the day of election that UKIP were expecting to win at least one seat in Wales’ EU Council and had two targeted in Northern Ireland and expected to gain 24 seats in English Councils.

We not for a moment thought when Farage travelled to the unlikely count at Newport  where the new seat was to be delivered.

No indeed – it seems the aim was not to win seats but to loose in more seats – due clearly to incompetence, lack of preparation, lack of planning, no competent training, no vision, no strategy, no tactics, no clear message, no competent branding and a clear disinterest from the leadership team who deligated to utter incompetents who command no respect due to clear and obvious incompetence and lack of personality.

WHAT A DISASTER!

Here is the spin put forward by the little boy whose career experience we understand is teaching sums in a small private school:

Dear [REDACTED],

Much misinformation has been spread concerning UKIP’s performance at this year’s elections. The same seats were up for election this year as in 2007; therefore any fair comparison must be with 2007. I would like to draw your attention to the following facts:

  • In 2007 5 councillors were elected as UKIP. In 2011 9 councillors were elected as UKIP.
  • In 2011 UKIP took control of Ramsey Town Council. There is no comparable result for 2007.
  • In 2007 we took 208180 votes; in 2011 we took 323065. (an increase of 55.1%).
  • In 2007 UKIP fielded 957 candidates; in 2011 we had 1211.
  • In 2007 the average UKIP Council elections candidate took 217.5 votes; in 2011 it was 266.8 (a 22.7% increase).
  • In 2007 UKIP Scotland took 8197 votes on the regional lists; in 2011 we took 18138.
  • In 2007 UKIP Wales took 38490 votes on the regional lists; in 2011 we took 43756.
  • In 2007 UKIP’s lead Northern Ireland candidate Henry Reilly took 1229 first-preference votes in his constituency at the Northern Ireland Assembly election. In 2011 he took 2322.

I appreciate that we would all like UKIP to progress even quicker – but rest assured, we are making progress!

Yours,

Jonathan Arnott (UKIP General Secretary)
UKIP’s great guru of local politics managed to loose his seat with almost the aplombe and alacrity with which he sabotaged Prof. Tim Congdon‘s leadership bid!

Much is made of seizing overall control of a Parish Council!!!! One where Party politics has never featured before!
Vicar of Dibbley here we come – Next stop Government and the world.

Almost as hysterical as when UKIP made much of selling Marion Mason of Stevenage as a defectee from the Tories who was leader of the Tories in the Council – Indeed she was there were two of them!

As risible as the fantasy world of David Bannerman and the lies about his ancestry or the cheating and lies of Mick McGough, the lies of George Curtis or the utter unprofessional incompetence and dishonesty of Andrew Smith, Mark Croucher, Gawain Towler, Annabelle Fuller, John Ison and their sordid ilk – this sort of behaviour by UKIP’s failed leadership team merely brings the party into disrepute!

To make much of a seat in Northern Ireland is just a joke – If Henry Reilley had stood for the Sectarian Knicker Elastic Party he would have bounced back into the office he has held based on his PERSONAL record for 22 years.

Of the 9 District Councillors at least 3 were elected because of who they are NOT BECAUSE they were UKIP.

I appreciate UKIP has little professionalism and seemingly less competence but isn’t it time after 18 years that they started to get something right – this is a failure of leadership and just look at the entire so called leadership team can YOU identify a single solitary individual on that team and amongst its parasites that you would fund for a leadership role – Just one to start to build on!

The answer is clearly there isn’t one!

IF there was someone of competence training would have been insisted on – back up woul;d have been constantly available, campaigning would have commenced at least a year ago, target seats would have been selected and none but a congenital idiot would have expected to get a member elected in Wales without a campaign, strategy AND tactics – they didn’t even have anyone with one wit of political competence to put on radio and had such contempt for Wales they didn’t stand a single individual in a single seat – there’s commitment boyo!

We desperately need UKIP but with its present leadership team and the useless articles gathered around them UKIP is going nowehere – no wonder Marta Andreasen is making her bid for re-election through gesture politics so early!

To secure a British flag in The EPP will be a coup for them that will no doubt translate into a safe MEP seat in the center right politics of Spain.

Marta Andreasen‘s attack on Farage was unprincipled, unprofessional and underhand – her behaviour has yet again been, as this blog has warned since the duplicitous Hugh Williams put her forward for Malcolm Pearson’s insipid and witless support, she has acted entirely in keeping with her CV and track record which marked her out as self serving, venal, untrustworthy and dishonest – Spain is more than welcome to this viper.

For the many attacks mounted on Nikki Sinclaire, the lies promoted about her the sneering and efforts to denigrate her and the dishonesty and duplicity of Pearson, farage, Gill and others – perhaps you can identify a single speech or statement made in attack on UKIP or its core values nor has she spoken out against even Farage despite his having lied to her and about her and even gone so far as to denounce her on National TV.

Clearly Marta Andreasen has shown no such restraint and it is clear from the continuum of work for her constituents and the cause that despite Farage’s betrayal of her Sinclaire is unwilling to demean herself by acting in his manner lining up dishonest stooges to burgle and rob his offices!

In fact I follow her actions fairly closely in the public domain as with others who might be competent to crew OUR lifeboat and never once have I noted an act of disloyalty to UKIP, her electorate or her colleagues and until stabbed in the back by the party I note she was one of the largest single donors to the party even whilst trying to fund a Nationwide Petition to raise the profile of EUroScepticism and exploit the Government undertaking to hold a full debate on any issue that gained 100,000 signatures.

Farage MUST be retained IF he is prepared to be answerable to a leadership team in which he has no part – if he lacks the competence and common sense to accept his incompetence as a leader then there is surely no place for him in UKIP and it is time to remove UKIP from the scum that as gathered at its troughs and if need be start to rebuild and reconstruct our lifeboat.

Clearly Farage would/could be a great asset IF he is prepared to throw his weight and ability behind the cause as a team player but as an out of control prima donna propped up as a strutting poppinjay crowing from the dung heap he has built of those he pays as praise singers he is worse than useless and this same debate will, as in the past, continually be repeated.

I note with interest another of Farage’s proteges fell from grace in the courts with a driving conviction in Banbury, loss of two vehicles to the repo man and at least two more serious driving related incidents on the horizon! I gather perforce that Utility may prove a stumbling block and did anyone check the CRBs of staff, employees and party icons?

If for no other reason than the dung stacked high on which Farage must stand whilst others seek to stand on the shoulders of giants the rotten core of UKIP which he has built and engineered for himself precludes him being other than risible as a leader as results have shown repeatedly in domestic politics.

Sadly, possibly the only lesson that is learned from history is that we never seemingly learn from history!

Decent folk and activists identify the problem TRY to make changes from within fail and drift away faced by the scum of the earth gathered in defence of the indefensible AND their own interests – time and again this has happened and only the low lifes are willing to prostitute themselves to remain a part of the dung heap from which the cock crows endlessly.

Consider the impossible position of Bufton who was a complete failure in The Welsh elections as he had acted with SOME integrity and knowing what Farage and the idiots gathered in Wales wanted to do was bound to fail and was fundamentally dishonest he distanced him,self.

He knows now he will be snipped at and preached against and he knows that supporting The EFD is morally reprehensible but seeing his main chance of re-election he will pretend to stay top make changes from within when in reality he just lacks the moral fiber to stand on his own feet. Look at the other UKIP MEPs who remain wallowing in the dung heap under Farage’s control, they are without exception self serving trash – liars, cheats, nebishes and fools.

The circular argument will return and return until change or collapse occurs – whichever comes first and just as in 18 years UKIP has not moved Britain one inch closer to the exit clearly as part of a Pan EU political party to oblige The EU makes them part of the problem and no part of the solution as they carouse around the flesh pots and honey traps of Brussels & Strasburgh – bought and paid for by their masters The EU.
.

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62

Posted in Jonathan ARNOTT, Mark CROUCHER, Marta ANDREASEN MEP, Nigel FARAGE MEP, Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP, Northern Ireland, Steve ALISON, Tim Congdon | Leave a Comment »

#0194* – Hardy vs Parkin & UKIP: UKIP BANG TO RIGHTS IN COURT – AGAIN!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 18/11/2010

#0194* – Hardy vs Parkin & UKIP: UKIP BANG TO RIGHTS IN COURT – AGAIN! !
.
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!  
.
Hardy vs Parkin & UKIP: UKIP BANG TO RIGHTS IN COURT – AGAIN! – 
UKIP YET AGAIN SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR THE LAWS OF THE LAND!! <!–var googleUrl="/telegraph/template/ver1-0/templates/fragments/search/components/google/GAFSTransform.jsp?";function doneGAFShtml (htmlstr) { //alert(htmlstr); htmlstr = htmlstr.split("<").join("”).join(“>”).split(“&”).join(“&”); var parts = htmlstr.split(“[BREAK]”); var slot1 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot1”); var slot2 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot2”); if (parts[0] != null) { slot1.innerHTML=parts[0]; if (parts[1] != null) { slot2.innerHTML=parts[1]; } }}function initGoogleWS () { var ajaxgws = new AJAXInteraction(googleUrl+’q=%22tim+Congdon%22&ua=Mozilla%2F5.0+%28Windows%3B+U%3B+Windows+NT+5.1%3B+en-US%3B+rv%3A1.9.1.10%29+Gecko%2F20100504+Firefox%2F3.5.10+%28+.NET+CLR+3.5.30729%29&ip=81.129.95.33&p=’, null, doneGAFShtml); ajaxgws.doGet();}initGoogleWS();//–>

var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.&#8221; : “http://www.&#8221;);document.write(unescape(“%3Cscript src='” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E”)); try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(“UA-7226372-1”);pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {} .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

<!–var googleUrl="/telegraph/template/ver1-0/templates/fragments/search/components/google/GAFSTransform.jsp?";function doneGAFShtml (htmlstr) { //alert(htmlstr); htmlstr = htmlstr.split("<").join("”).join(“>”).split(“&”).join(“&”); var parts = htmlstr.split(“[BREAK]”); var slot1 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot1”); var slot2 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot2”); if (parts[0] != null) { slot1.innerHTML=parts[0]; if (parts[1] != null) { slot2.innerHTML=parts[1]; } }}function initGoogleWS () { var ajaxgws = new AJAXInteraction(googleUrl+’q=%22tim+Congdon%22&ua=Mozilla%2F5.0+%28Windows%3B+U%3B+Windows+NT+5.1%3B+en-US%3B+rv%3A1.9.1.10%29+Gecko%2F20100504+Firefox%2F3.5.10+%28+.NET+CLR+3.5.30729%29&ip=81.129.95.33&p=’, null, doneGAFShtml); ajaxgws.doGet();}initGoogleWS();//–>

var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.&#8221; : “http://www.&#8221;);document.write(unescape(“%3Cscript src='” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E”)); try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(“UA-7226372-1”);pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}

Hardy V Parkin & UKIP: The Full Court Judgement

Why does The Spiv Farage still think that UKIP is above the law? 
We note from the OFFICIAL JUDGEMENT:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

John West beat them in Court. 
Greg Lance-Watkins beat Mark Croucher, Paul Nuttall, Clive Page of UKIP in Court. 
Censure from The Information Commission who found against UKIP.
Nikki Sinclaire beat UKIP in Court & was reinstated & compensated!
Michael Holmes was compensated & withdrew his money.
John Wittaker was defined as untrustworthy in Court by the Judge & lost the employment case.
UKIP lost in Court & were forced to forfeit for accepting illegal donations from Alan Bown. 
They treat Nikki Sinclaire like dirt, Lord Pearson lied about her, Christopher Gill instructed theft from her offices, John Ison seemingly planted material as ‘time bombs’ in her accounts and when he left mysteriously he did not seemingly leave empty handed! Sinclaire as an MEP having been lied about and defamed by these gutter slime they then seem surprised when she refuses to let them get away with it. 
Would you trust Farage’s Fan Club to run the country when clearly his claque UKIP can’t act honourably, settle their debts or even respect the laws of these United Kingdoms as they enrich themselves undermining British values and our Courts as they stuff their pockets and each other at the expense of Patriotism, the electorate and liberty?
We note they will assist any scum in EUrope as long as they personally make money out of it and angle and fiddle for positions in other parties risible as their overtures may be – who would want the sweepings of scum from Farage’s UKIP?
Agnew, Bannerman, Clark as openly recorded theives are not alone. The treacherous pond life Tom Wise only half way through a 2 year jail sentence for his thefts from the public purse is now out on license.

Just read the judgement of His Honour Judge P Fox QC,The Recorder of Middlesbrough against Farage’s UKIP where as you can see he clearly castigates Farage, The NEC, Lisa the Duff, the risible little Jonathan Arnott, the puppet & placeman Gordon Parkin & of course UKIP who lost the case YET AGAIN.

I wonder if The Edisbury Constituency and the behaviour of UKIP there, the bullying & abuse of George Yoxall, will be next in the Courts as UKIP shuts and amalgamates branches as it collapses as a credible force in British politics.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MIDDLESBROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY

CASE NOS. 9MB03865
AND 0MB00631

BETWEEN

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

GORDON H. PARKIN (DEFENDANT)

……….

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

JUDGMENT

1. This is a consolidated action for damages and for a declaration that the Claimant’s purported expulsion from membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party is null and void.

2. As I shall explain, the narrative of the matter of complaint covers two episodes; hence two actions until they were consolidated by Order. The first episode concerns the actions of Mr Gordon Parkin who at all material times was, as he remains, Branch Chairman of the Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP as I shall call the Party; the second episode concerns the actions by officers of the Party in their central organisation. Because the Claimant has at no time been represented by solicitor or counsel and because the point emerged only in the course of the Defendants’ counsel’s closing submissions I allow the Claimant to add as a defendant in the consolidated action Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP. The reason for and significance of this will become apparent.

3. Essentially this is a hard fought political dispute in Stockton on Tees between Mr Hardy, supported by others some of whom have given evidence before me, and Mr Parkin the constitutionally elected Branch Chairman, no doubt with his supporters and apparently backed by the central organisation. In a nutshell Mr Hardy accuses Mr Parkin of being incompetent; dishonest and self seeking in his political ambitions so that the interests of UKIP are thereby ill served. Mr Parkin denies all this but accuses Mr Hardy of being so disruptive a member that it was impossible for the business of the branch to be done, as well as dishonesty in his attempts to unseat Mr Parkin from his position. Thankfully none of these matters is the concern of this Court which is able to determine the legal issues between the parties on a factual basis virtually of common ground, by which I mean an undisputed history of events and correspondence. I would add however, before turning to such uncontroversial territory, that having seen and heard Mr Hardy as his own advocate in these proceedings as well as a witness, and Mr Parkin as a witness, and given that the dispute between the two men is political, a subject invariably both powerful and sensitive in its nature, it is not difficult to see how temperamentally they could never work together in harmony. Mr Hardy is forceful of manner and frequently irrelevant in speech: Mr Parkin is quietly dogged and determined.

4. The following is, however, not in dispute and page numbering is with reference to the agreed trial bundle. For some time until he resigned in June 2005 Mr Hardy had been a member of the British National Party (BNP). In February 2007 his application to join UKIP was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton branch and was quickly active as such becoming its Press Officer as well as putting himself forward as a potential parliamentary candidate. Although unsuccessful in this latter ambition (Section 2 page 29) he received the commendation of UKIP’s head office in the former (Section 2, page 35). The significance of this factually is the actual knowledge which head office officials had of Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP, as also had Mr Nigel Farage MEP as may be seen from his correspondence with Mr Hardy (Section 2, page 26).

5. The date for membership renewal on payment of the appropriate subscription was 1st February each year. Mr Hardy’s membership was renewed in 2008 and 2009. Yet by this latter date all was not well within the Stockton branch. Indeed trouble had been brewing for some time. As early as 8th November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as Press Officer and by letter of that date (Section 1, page 26.43) wrote to Mr Parkin that he would not serve “the branch in any post so long as you remain as chairman”. At some time during the winter of 2008/2009 a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house or sufficiently on the Roseworth housing estate so that Mr Hardy and his supporter Mr Himmelblau conducted a partial enquiry door to door which in turn Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross accusations of lying.

6. On 8th January 2009 as Mr Himmelblau told me, and I accept, he and Mr Hardy met Mr Parkin by arrangement at the Central Library, Stockton and on grounds of incompetence and the fact that the membership was not increasing in size from a handful or so they asked Mr Parkin to stand down as branch chairman. He refused.

7. Branch meetings were approximately monthly. That for January 2009 was minuted (Section 1 page. 26.3) and held on 20th. That for February 2009 was held on 17th and as it was not minuted there is no record of the minutes for January being approved. There is only the notation (Section 1, page 26.7), “Minutes verified by GP before issue”. GP plainly refers to Mr Parkin and his perspective of that meeting and Mr Hardy’s part in it is clear. Worse was to follow because on 17th February the caretaker of the hall hired for the meeting of that date broke the meeting up and asked everyone present to leave the building on account of raised voices. Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin had each called the other a liar. The row was of such proportion that the building’s owners did not permit the Branch to return for a period of months.

8. On 10th March Mr Parkin wrote to all branch members (Section 1, page 26.20) that “Due to high campaign activity and the loss of our meeting venue we have decided that there will be no branch meeting this month……….. . Matters that were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as is practical”. Mr Parkin told me that “ we “ meant “I”.

9. From 29th March to 26th June Mr Hardy was in Saudi Arabia, teaching. Meanwhile, Mr Parkin having consulted a Mr Allison, UKIP’s regional organiser who had in turn passed the problem to Head Office, the Party Chairman Mr Paul Nuttall wrote to Mr Hardy on 30th March (Section 1, page 26.33) inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14th April. Naturally Mr Hardy did not and could not either receive that letter in time or attend the meeting. Yet from his reply (Section 1, page 80A) it seems very doubtful that he would have gone if he could. Of significance however, in my view is the reply Mr Hardy received from Head Office (Section 2 page 33), “I have decided that this office had better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you”.

10. Upon his return from Saudi Arabia and on 4th July Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr. Goyns (Section 1, page 26.56) asking him to telephone him. On 8th July Dr Goyns replied (Section 1, page 26.57) that on Mr Parkin’s advice, “it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you”. On 24th August Mr Hardy was writing to Mr Parkin (Section 1, page 26.18). On 11th September Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy (Section 1, page 79), “I feel it is time I must set this matter to rest…..I have decided on the following actions …. you will no longer be permitted to attend any branch meeting of which I am Chairman”. His reasons were that Mr Hardy had brought the January and February “meetings into disrepute”, that at the February meeting his “actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return “, that he and his “colleagues decided to withdraw your support from UKIP in January of this year at both local and national levels” and that in his, Mr Parkin’s, opinion that was disloyal. He concluded, “I strongly recommend that you withdraw from the membership of the party forthwith…… . I have advised the branch secretary not to enter into any further communications with you…… . Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through head office”. When he wrote this letter Mr Parkin told me he was aware that Mr Hardy had by then returned from Saudi Arabia. From the e-mails between Mr Hardy and Dr. Goyns it seems to me that Mr Parkin must have known that from early July.

11. There the matter lay until membership renewal time came round. Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office as was usual. He wrote on 30th January 2010 and 11th February (Section 2, pages 7 and 8) sending his subscription. On 19th February Lisa Duffy, Party Director, replied (Section 2 page 16) that when Mr Hardy left the BNP “to rejoin UKIP the National Executive Committee was not informed – as it should have been – and it was therefore unable to consider your re-application. This was an administrative error …… . In the circumstances I feel that before your membership is renewed the NEC must be given a proper opportunity to fully consider the matter. I am therefore referring this to the next meeting of the NEC and in the meantime am returning your £10 membership renewal cheque”. On 23rd March Mrs Duffy wrote again (Section 2 page 17) that the NEC had considered the matter and “would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”.

12. This is at serious variance with the content of a memorandum dated 8th September (Section 2, page 54) from Mr Arnott, UKIP General Secretary, addressed “to whom it may concern”. Its first paragraph plainly refers to Mrs Duffy’s letter of 23rd March. It has not been suggested it refers to any other. Her letter makes no mention of internal disciplinary proceedings being commenced immediately upon Mr Hardy accepting her invitation to re-apply and I have received no evidence that he was so informed. The second paragraph about there being 3 months grace for renewal and that thereafter “Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application” appears again without there having been evidence of any general notice of such a rule or specific notice of it to Mr Hardy. It is to be noted this document is dated only weeks before this hearing. The third paragraph needs citing in full: “It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds”. Mrs Duffy, whose evidence I find to be honest and accurate, tells me that the position is as follows. In November 2009 when she was a member of the NEC, which was until she assumed her present full time post as Party Director, that body made a policy decision that henceforth applications to join UKIP from people who had been members of the BNP should be referred “to the NEC for approval”. This was because there had been “infiltration” from a date in 2008. I infer she meant deliberate infiltration as fifth columnists in order to disrupt the work or besmirch the reputation of UKIP. This would be consistent with her letters to Mr Hardy in March the contents of which she tells me, and I accept, are true.

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage. There has, moreover been not the slightest suggestion made during this hearing that Mr Hardy has turned his political coat once again. I have no choice therefore but to hold Mr Arnott’s memorandum as a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds.

13. Moreover Mrs Duffy tells me, and I accept, that her second letter to Mr Hardy was badly worded and the meaning ordinarily to be attributed to her words does not reflect the true position which was not that Mr Hardy would need to re-apply for membership but that if he would send her back the cheque she wrongly returned to him his membership would continue seamlessly. I take it she now realises her words conveyed a different and adverse impression. Clearly they did in the mind of Mr Hardy and understandably so in the context of what had already passed. It was hardly to be relieved by Mr Arnott’s general communication.

14. Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of branch and party. Was either entitled in law so to do?

15. Although no reference was made to either document during the evidence, during his final submissions Mr Holland, counsel for both Mr Parkin and UKIP, and upon taking instructions, also for the Stockton Branch sought to rely upon UKIP’s written constitution and the Branch’s rules to be found at Section1 pages 66 and 71 respectively in the agreed bundle. No point was taken regarding this by Mr Hardy nor do I think could there be. The following points of fact emerge:

(1) That the party is authorised to raise funds, purchase property and invest
monies (clause 3) – it is therefore in law a proprietary club;

(2) that membership is open to people who are not members of any other
political party which the NEC has declared incompatible with membership
of UKIP (clause 4.1), that if such a member of UKIP subsequently joins
such a party his membership is automatically revoked (clause 4.2), that if
a UKIP member is a member of such a party such a person will be given
28 days to leave that other party (clause 4.3), that members must maintain
their subscriptions (clause 4.4.), that members shall accept the party’s
Constitution and rules and do nothing to undermine the party’s reputation
or bring it into disrepute, or act in a way intending to cause or causing damage
to the party’s interests (clause 4.5);

(3) that by clause 4.6 upon which Mr Holland places particular reliance,
where constituency associations are established membership shall be of that
association and by affiliation of the association then of the party – there is
no issue but that the Stockton Branch equates to a constituency association
for this purpose;

(4) that by clause 5.3 the constituency association has the responsibility
for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency
rule book approved by the NEC – Mr Holland here submits that the Branch
was and is for present purposes “autonomous” so that the party is absolved
from the potential liability in this matter of either the branch or its chairman – a submission I have difficulty in accepting; it is not in issue but that the branch was affiliated to the party. Branch membership must then be membership “of the party” as well as of the branch.

(5) that by clause 14 the party shall establish a discipline committee;

(6) that by clause 15 the NEC shall establish the rules governing
constituency associations, disciplinary procedures and all other rules and
procedures forming part of the formal management; conduct and
administration of the party.

(7) that the branch rules should be read in conjunction with the party constitution which shall take precedence;

(8) that all party members are members of the branch in which they live (rule 2.1) – Mr Hardy lives and has at all material times lived in
Stockton;

(9) that Rule 3 is entitled Branch Committees

(10) that “branches are responsible for their own actions “rule 3.1) – a provision further relied upon in support of the autonomy argument;

(11) that the chairman “has principal responsibility of the direction of the branch” (rule 3.8.1)

(12) that rule 7 is entitled “Disputes”;

(13) that by rule 7.1 “instances may arise when differences within a branch threatens its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by branch committee or at a full meeting of the Branch. If this does not succeed the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser acting on behalf of the party chairman “- it is impossible to think of what transpired within the Stockton branch as other than a dispute but I have heard no evidence
from any member of the branch committee, directly or indirectly or of its involvement in this matter – likewise there has been no evidence of a full meeting or for that matter any meeting of the branch attempting to resolve this dispute;

(14) that by rule 7.2 if the dispute remains irreconcilable the party chairman may suspend or dissolve the committee or dissolve the Branch in its entirety.

16. Mr Holland submits that the law of contract is to be applied. With that I agree – next that as the constitution does not provide for expulsion the Branch rules are to be applied and where they are silent as to procedure the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case. Again I agree that the constitution does not provide for expulsion in the particular circumstances of this case although I find clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are not without relevance when I come to consider Mr Arnott’s general memorandum of 10th September this year. In fact such reliance upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP is in the whole context of this case patently a fig leaf the removal of which discloses an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price. Clearly Mr Arnott had no regard for this clause had it been a real reason to expel. Save for this consideration which is not without its own significance overall I accept Mr Holland’s argument so far.

17. So he contends Mr Parkin’s banning letter of 11th September 2009 was an action he was authorised by rule 3.1 to take particularly when regard is had to his “principal responsibility for the direction of the branch” under rule 3.8.1. Thus the argument runs Mr Parkin had legitimate power so to regulate branch meetings and in doing so what he did was within a reasonable and proportionate range of actions open to him. It is not for this Court, he submits, to prefer an alternative, particularly with the advantage of hindsight which is within such a range. With this last proposition I entirely concur.

18. Yet applying these principles of law as well as the ordinary meaning to be attached to rules 3.1, 3.8.1 and rule 7 (disputes) it seems to me that Mr Parkin did not have the power to act as he did and wholly failed to invoke rule 7. I do not underestimate the real difficulty of chairing a meeting attended by such a strong opponent as Mr Hardy and he could not in my judgment have been criticised for suspending one or any number of meetings summarily, nor for invoking the rule 7 disputes procedure with regard to all or any of Mr Hardy’s complaints. But instead he appears to me to have acted autocratically, taking sole not principal responsibility even if, which I doubt, the proper meaning of the phrase “direction of the branch” includes doing what he did by his letter of 11th September 2009. That speaks for itself and Mr Parkin has not suggested any alternative construction. It was his decision and his alone to banish Mr Hardy from branch meetings. That act effectively at least suspended Mr Hardy’s membership and although a less stringent test is applicable in law compared with expulsion the principles are the same and in my judgment even suspension in such terms, being for at least as long as Mr Parkin remained branch chairman, was for the same reasons as I have already provided in the context of expulsion, without authority, unreasonable and disproportionate. There is no evidence whatever of his having convened a meeting of either the branch committee or of the whole branch to consider the question of Mr Hardy’s suspension or expulsion. Plainly in March he involved Head Office but by July they seem to have left him high and dry. By September he was on his own. The letter of 11th was his and his alone, without further consultation and without giving Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward any case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or expelled. He appears to have been both prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously pronounced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10th September. The only inference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back.

20. Part of the “factual matrix”, as Mr Holland puts it, in my consideration of this matter is he concedes that unlike other kinds of proprietary clubs such as an allotment association or a tennis club the UKIP party is the only political party available to Mr Hardy, given his particular political views and allegiance, that the Stockton branch is the only branch to which by reason of his place of abode he could belong, and further unlike other activities of a sporting or other recreational type, political activity so long as it is conducted within a democratic framework carries its own special importance. Such considerations are in my view germane not only to the question of compensation but also to that of being treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the branch rules. In each respect I find Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton Branch on whose behalf to the last Mr Parkin has, through Mr Holland, maintained he exercised lawful authority, to have failed so to do. Each party is therefore in breach of his and its contractual duty to Mr Hardy.

21. I therefore hold that their purported expulsion of Mr Hardy to have been null and void and upon his payment of his £10 membership subscription for the current year his membership of the party and the branch continues uninterrupted both to the present day, and until either by lawful means he is expelled or otherwise resigns or retires.

22. Before turning to the matter of compensation and for the sake of completeness I hold that Mr Hardy has not been excluded from any public meeting as he once maintained, neither has he a valid cause of action under the Human Right’s Act as he also contended.

23. With regard to damages Mr Holland submits they should be nominal but I disagree. In effect Mr Hardy has for almost exactly 12 months been deprived of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activity to which he has plainly been deeply committed. He would not however have held any office during that time nor I think been elected to either local or central government notwithstanding his clear ambitions. Neither do I find he is entitled to punitive damages in this case because I judge the unlawfulness of the defendants to stem from ill judgment and inattention to their own rules rather than bad faith. I therefore assess damages in the sum of £750.

His Honour Judge P Fox QC
The Recorder of Middlesbrough

Permission to publish this Judgement has been granted and you will find a copy at Junius also CLICK HERE
.

;~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Alan HARDY, Alan SKED, Christopher GILL, Clive PAGE, COURT JUDGEMENT, George YOXALL, Gordon PARKIN, Jonathan ARNOTT, Mark CROUCHER, Nigel FARAGE MEP UKIP, Paul Nuttall, Tom WISE | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: