is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
Marta ANDREASEN’s Unlawfull Election by: Lynnda RobsonClean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership
& NEC is what gives the remaining 10%
a bad name!
The Court Judgement against Marta Andreasen in full can be viewed at CLICK HERE
That Marta Andreasen is clearly corrupt, blatantly dishonest and utterly discredited has never been in contention – that EUkip have exploited her dishonesty seems obvious and that the liars, cheats and low lifes can expect reward as a part of The EU scam is clear for all to see!
Marta Andreasen is unfit as an MEP for these United Kingdoms and brings shame and contempt on the due process of EUkip’s own legally constituted rules and so called Constitution. It is clear that EUkip lack the moral compass to find their way home let alone lead anyone forward!
let us not forget what Lynnda Robson of UKIP who worked for the odious Gerard Batten in his offices in London had to say about Marta Andreasen in the context of elections:
Lynnda Robson – aide to Gerard Batten MEP – warned Farage, Christopher Gill and the NEC. They ALL ignored her:
I am writing about numerous breaches of the Rules for Candidates by three
candidates in London. One of them is Ralph Atkinson, but I will not go
into details as I know Gerard Batten has already informed you about his
activities.The other two are Marta Andreassen and Tim Worstall who I
believe should be disqualified from this election. I am aware that Marta
has decided to run in SE Region but believe that she should be
disqualified in London and her votes reallocated since she was not
entitled to them.
This is quite a long email, I’m afraid, but there are an awful lot of rules being broken.
The reasons I believe they have both breached the rules are as follows:
1. Eligibility (external, under Electoral Commission Rules)
Under Section 4, Becoming a Candidate, of its European Parliamentary Election Rules, Elcom says that candidates must be:
A British citizen…. or a citizen of another member state who is resident in the UK or Gibraltar during the nomination period.
Marta and Tim are clearly not UK residents. When asked about this at
the London hustings Marta airily replied she was ‘addressing’ this
issue. Some people I spoke to afterwards interpreted this (possibly
cynically, but in the light of recent developments perhaps not) as
roughly meaning ‘ if I get a high place on the list I will find an
accommodation address in the UK for the minimum time necessary to meet
Elcom criteria’. Tim has apparently said he will move back to the UK
‘soon’. Seems odd since he is reportedly a tax exile who can only spend
183 days in the UK and he is building a house in Portugal for himself
and his family and they are currently all resident there.
Gill’s response to this was that he had not bothered to consult Elcom
or check its rules as this was an internal election – unbelievable!
would hope that UKIP will not be a party to any breach of certainly the
spirit, if not the letter, of the Electoral Commission rules but
according to Christopher Gill: ‘At a later stage all candidates will of
course have to comply with whatever electoral legislation is then in
force or otherwise be disqualified from standing’ which seems to confirm
the cynics’ idea that an accommodation address will be found for them
for the minimum amount of time necessary.
2. Eligibility (internal, under UKIP rules)
its constitution UKIP restricts full membership to UK citizens and
resident foreign nationals. It also requires its Parliamentary
candidates to be fully paid-up members in good standing.
Marta could therefore not possibly be a full member at the time her nomination was made and must therefore be ineligible.
Gill says she is an Associate Member but cannot tell me exactly how
many other Associate members we have in the Party and indeed how many of
them there were before Marta was given this (possibly) unique status.
nowhere on the membership application form is there an option to become
an Associate Member. The UKIP constitution also states (16.4) ‘All
parliamentary candidates must be paid-up members of the Party in good
standing…’ – no mention of associate members there, I see.
3. Same Proposer
and Tim had the same proposer – Lord Pearson. This is expressly
forbidden but Christopher Gill has told me categorically he is not
prepared to take any action as he felt ‘Lord P. was only being helpful’!
Apparently breaking rules is OK if it is Lord P. doing it for Marta and
4. CRB checks
All candidates were mandated to have a
full, advanced CRB check (not something vaguely similar in another
country, but the full UK version). Indeed, £41 of the £250 deposit was
for this purpose. So important are these checks considered to be when
identifying suitable candidates that the London Assembly candidates list
was delayed for two months last year because of the requirement by the
leadership, at a late stage, for all candidates to have these checks.
You will all recall Nigel Farage stressing the importance of these
checks and saying that if we had them in place in 2004 they would have
picked up Ashley Mote’s transgressions – therefore it was imperative
that all candidates must have them in 2008.
But to have a CRB
check you need a UK address at which you reside and for which you can
produce utility bills. Once again neither Tim (who I believe can only
spend a certain amount of days in the UK, which would indicate he is
non-resident for tax purposes) nor Marta (who lives in Barcelona) would
have been able to obtain a UK advanced CRB check as neither is resident
in the UK. Why was an exception made for them?
Very odd reply
from CG to this one ‘Marta has never made any attempt to hide the fact
that she lives in Barcelona’!! and ‘Tim lives in Bath’. However, TW told
me that although he owns a flat in Bath this was rented out and he was
living in Portugal with his family.
5. Candidates standing in more than one Region
was clearly required that candidates make it clear, both at the
hustings and by other means, if they are standing in more than one
Region. Marta certainly didn’t mention it at the London Hustings, nor is
it in her published candidate details. Many of these members who might
otherwise vote for a certain candidate would be far less inclined to do
so if they knew he/she actually considered our Region second best.
Gill’s response was: ‘The point you make about declaring an interest in
another region is well made – in a message to all MEP Interview Panel
Chairmen dated 10th July David Challice highlighted the fact that the
onus was upon candidates to publicly disclose if they were standing in
more than one region. This instruction seems to have been ignored in at
least one other region to my certain knowledge and will feature in my
What use is ‘featuring in his report’ going to be? The damage has been done and another rule broken.
know that the fact the shortlists were published on the UKIP website
should apparently have enabled members to do some detective work and
identify who was standing in more than one Region – but again this does
not seem to comply with the spirit of the rule or why it was made, as
very few of our members ever look at the website, let alone delve deeply
into the members section, and I doubt one in a thousand of our
‘ordinary’ members, as opposed to those of us more involved with the
Party, is aware of multi-region candidates.
6. Electoral Roll number
candidates were required to give their UK electoral roll number on the
application form. Unless they have given a false address, neither of
these candidates can possibly be on the UK electoral register.
Gill acknowledges this is a problem for MA which should have been
noticed and addressed earlier, although he contends that TW is a UK
resident (wonder if HMRC know this?) but again refuses to take any
From this litany you will realise why many of us are
extremely sceptical about the validity of these two candidates. At every
turn it would appear that exceptions and accommodations are being made,
and rules broken and ignored, to get them on, and keep them on, the
candidate lists. I would appreciate a full explanation of why they were
exempted from the stringent criteria that the rest of us had to comply
with in order to be considered and would ask the NEC to disqualify both
To paraphrase George Orwell: ‘Why are some candidates
more equal than others?’ I am absolutely sure that if when I had applied
I had said :
I’m not a UK resident
I’m not a fully paid-up member of UKIP
I can’t get a CRB check
My proposer has also proposed someone else
I’m not on the UK electoral Register; and
I have no intention of mentioning I will be standing in two Regions
I believe I would have been very firmly rejected – and rightly so.
chicanery will not play well with Elcom or our other enemies in the
media and the community at large. And there are a number of people
already aware of these facts, and upset about them. Indeed some of these
questions have already been asked on the Democracy Forum – whose
members number many who most certainly do not wish us well – so are thus
in the public domain . This really could badly damage our chances in
the 2009 elections and we should not be putting ourselves in this
I would formally ask the NEC to disqualify these two candidates from standing in London Region.
do not think I have anything personal against Marta – on the contrary,
my limited acquaintance with her has always been a pleasure. And Tim
seems a personable sort of fellow. But rules are being broken and
distorted to keep these two candidates on the list and this is simply
WRONG.I have already informed Christopher Gill that should this request
be ignored then I wish to withdraw from the London list, and whilst I
will do everything to ensure Gerard is elected I will not campaign or
fund-raise if Atkinson, Andreassen or Worstall remain on the List.
have also told him that I want my £250 returned as this has obviously
been taken from me under false pretences. The false pretext in this case
being that all candidates would be treated equally and subject to the
same rules, which is patently not the case.Ends.
being sued in the Court for the return of her £250 deposit UKIP paid
her the money, plus costs. However, they refused to admit liability and
said that they were returning her deposit “as a gesture of goodwill”.This
is, of course, complete nonsense. UKIP returned the deposit because
Lynnda asked for documents, including a copy of Marta Andreasen’s
application form and a copy of her £250 cheque and CRB documentation. It
is thought these may not have existed in a form which would have
satisfied the Electoral Commission or UKIP’s Constitution.
Worstall’s application form would have proved interesting reading since
he was a tax exile living in Portugal and, therefore, could not be a
full member of UKIP, legally pay his £250 donation OR get a CRB check.
For more details of the dishonesty & corruption of UKIP’s selection process including the outright lies and cheating of Mick McGough see: CLICK HERE
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper:
LEAVE THE EU
. . .
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance