Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

  • GOOGLE TRANSLATE

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • TWITTER N.I.Bs.

  • PAGES:

  • Just Say NO to EU

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • FleXit A WAY FORWARD

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • HoC – EU Exit Plan

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • EU_Referendum.com

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • JUNIUS On UKIP

    JUNIUS is a Blog authored by informed individual in The EU 'Team UKIP'; Supporters of UKIP over many years who seek to expose corruption & make UKIP genuinely elec table for the informed!

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • REFERENDUM & How To Win!

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • Greg LANCE-WATKINS Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

  • Contact YOUR Political Servants

    Contact Your Politician
    writetothem.com
  • GLOBAL WARMING, Heaven and Earth

    PLIMER, Proff. Ian

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • February 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728  
  • Flying Spaghetti Monster

    TO VIEW: Just CLICK The Picture

  • The EU In A Nutshell

    ROTHERHAM, Dr. Lee & STARKEY, Dr. David

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The EUropean PARLIAMENT

    CORBETT, Richard; JACOBS, Francis & SHACKLETON, Michael

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The European Union

    BOMBERG, Elizabeth; CORBETT, Richard & PETERSON, John

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • GLOBAL WARMING, The Real Disaster

    BOOKER, Christopher

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The GREAT DECEPTION

    NORTH, Dr. Richard & BOOKER, Christopher

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The MANY NOT THE FEW

    Dr. Richard NORTH

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • MINISTRY of DEFEAT

    NORTH, Dr. Richard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The RIGHTS of ENGLISHMEN

    YOUNG, William - 1793

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • The ROTTEN HEART of EUROPE

    CONNOLLY, Bernard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • SCARED to DEATH

    BOOKER, Christopher & NORTH, Dr. Richard

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • Ten Years on

    ROTHERHAM, Dr. Lee

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • VIGILANCE

    MOTE, Ashley (MEP rtd.)

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • Voodoo Histories

    AARONOVITCH, David

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

  • WATERMELONS

    DELINGPOLE, James

    TO VIEW: Just Click The Picture

Posts Tagged ‘UKIP NEC’

Excorriation of #Ukip by A Branch Chairman Opens The Door For Comment & Analysis! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 17/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Excorriation of #Ukip by A Branch Chairman
Opens The Door For Comment & Analysis! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

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

.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

further to the crass debacle orchestrated by Crowther, Richardson & the Ukip NEC regarding the utter stupidity and ill considered libellous malice of Ukip’s MEP Jane Collins which I covered at:
CLICK HERE 

From: UKIP Regional Chairman – London <walthamforest@ukip.org>
Date: 15 February 2018 at 19:20:17 WET
To: “myword_is_mybond@hotmail.com” <myword_is_mybond@hotmail.com> Subject: Two hundred thousand pounds !

Friends and others,

There’s bad news at the end of this email. And the timing is diabolical; even, suspicious.

Many of you will have been aware “we” (UKIP) were facing being forced to pay a substantial chunk of the defamation action costs (not damages) of Jane Collins MEP, over her alleged assertion that three local Labour MPs knew, in advance or at the time, about the ongoing child abuse in Rotherham, but did little or nothing about it to intervene or stop it.

If you don’t know about this, the (attached) High Court Approved Judgement from 54 weeks ago (Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) ) will provide the background you need.

I am not a lawyer but, in the late 1980s, my company and I were involved in not one but two unconnected actions for defamation. In one, as the potential plaintiff and the other – in respect of words written by someone else, published without my permission and which I did not endorse or agree with – as the defendant (I was worth suing, he wasn’t). I succeeded in both matters, out of Court – and I did not use a lawyer in either of them.

On the facts known to me (a small fraction of what there was to be known) about this present matter, I could not believe that we (UKIP) would not not be held liable.

The reasons are complicated, and it may be counter-productive for them to be aired here. As far as I could tell, UKIP was bang to rights and it was self-indulgent wishful thinking that we could escape by arguing that our objectives were principally philanthropic or charitable, and not self-serving as a political party with political objectives, however noble we believe them to be.

The number of people higher-up in UKIP who told me I was being alarmist, misguided or wrong is not funny. My questions were, however, not answered to my satisfaction.

Frankly, I’ve heard this “expert advice” twaddle all too often. The experts are often not independent or not experts, especially if even I know more than they do about what they claim to be expert at.

This is the main reason I refused to stand for election to the NEC, despite many telling me I should.

Had I been successful, I would have been a Director of UKIP Ltd (the limited company underlying our party) and so would have been privy to all sorts of information which I have not been (the only information to which I have been privy, to date, has been from public domain sources including the Electoral Commission and Companies House).

I fear what I might then have found out.

Had the company subsequently become insolvent, and furthermore (a huge leap here – hopefully this does not apply, and we have been as diligent as both law and common sense dictate we should have been) been found to have been trading while insolvent, as a Director or shadow Director I could have been potentially held liable personally. Arguably, more so than most or all who would then have been my co-Directors, because given both my professional background and subsequent experience, I could not plead financial ignorance or accounting naiveté without being guilty of perjury too. While almost all company Directors are not pursued in similar cases, us being UKIP, my guesswork (for guesswork is all it was, but so far my guesswork has been 100% correct) would have been that some of our Directors would be.

The case re our share of the liability was heard last week – Friday 9th February was the second day:

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/high-court/529/date/2018-02-09/Royal-Courts-of-Justice-Cause-List

Royal Courts of Justice Cause List Court Listings 09/02/2018, Court Cases, Court Records, Court Details

http://www.thelawpages.com

Royal Courts of Justice Cause List date: 09/02/2018, Listings, Cases, hearings, UK

Well, and with exquisite “coincidental” timing, our share of the costs have been decided by the High Court a few minutes ago (in the afternoon of Thursday 15th February 2018), and it is an eye-watering £200,000:

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,ukip-ordered-to-pay-200k-of-mep-jane-collins-libel-bill_25637.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5396221/Ukip-faces-costs-bill-MEP-defamation-case-linked-Rotherham-scandal.html

Ukip faces costs bill over MEP defamation case linked to Rotherham…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

The judge said the defamation case brought against Jane Collins would probably have been settled `quite swiftly´. This is devastating. I’ve no idea whether this decision is practicably appealable.

Shouldn’t heads roll for this – have we been misled, misguided or betrayed?

With ill-concealed fury,

Freddy

How right Freddy was and is – lets face it the legal opinions Ukip received were at best crass and at worst utterly crass if not corrupt!

Anyone who doubts this summary might be well advised to read the full judgement:

Just CLICK: UKIP JUDGEMENT barron-v-COLLINS 15-Feb-2018 01

One has merely to consider which idiots put a dullard like Jane Collins on a party list within striking distance of being an MEP what talent did she have or was this just someone of influence in the party who either was or fancied their chances of bedding her!

I for one never saw one iota of talent she brought to Ukip, but then aqgain that goes for almost everyone amongst the leadership and staff of Ukip!

One has to ask why Ukip did not distance themselves from an idiot who would so freely libel anyone from a public platform in Ukip’s name – even after the event how on earth did Ukip fail to get competent legal advice let alone listen to someone, anyone, who offered to commit the Party to direct involvement in Collins’ utter stupidity!

It is my opinion that Ukip and the directors of the Party’s Limited Company were exceedingly lucky not to be found jointly and severally liable for both the libel and the subsequent costs.
Limited liability does not absolve directors party to either a Civil or Criminal action and its consequences!

Probably the most astonising fact is that there is an EGM today and at least two individuals are squabbling over which of them will take on the mantle of leader to lead this disaster! Perhaps the fact that they actually wish to be embroilled and probably participate in the debts of Ukip tells you all you need to know of their co0mpetence, judgement and ability!

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.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

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

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Has #Ukip Lost Its Most Valuable Asset In The Depature Of #Douglas_Carswell? …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/03/2017

Do Visit Our New Website @

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
Also: The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Has #Ukip Lost Its Most Valuable Asset In The Depature Of #Douglas_Carswell? …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

with the defection to being an Independent MP it can clearly be shown that Ukip has lost its most valuable asset as it now has no voice at Westminster!

Further – can you think of a single solitary individual of stature or credibility, competence or integrity – they not only lack a leader of any credible standing, Paul Nuttall having been shown to be a liar, a fantasist who is both integrity and charisma bereft and like his predecessor Nigel Farage Paul Nuttall has yet again been resoundingly rejected for a role in Domestic Politics!

The manner in which Douglas Carswell joined the party was, as I explained at the time CLICK HERE, a very questionable process! It was widely believed at the time of Carswell’s defection from the Tories that the defection had much more to do with a temper tantrum, having failed, despite seeing himself to be very important, to be allocated a room in the main hotel, for the Tory conference.

Being cast into the wilderness of a mere annex was thought to be the reason he organised a rapid dinner date with Stuart Wheeler the professional gambler who made his money spread betting and subsequently lost much of it due to commercial ineptitude and poor investments, you will recall that at the time Wheeler was another defector from the Tories and Ukip’s only backer of any note, though he didn’t trust Ukip or its Farage manipulated NEC, with any of his money, insisting that as their backer he must also be in control of their finances as their Financial Director!

It is understood that at the dinner Wheeler offered Carswell the leadership of Ukip, conveniently overlooking the fact that Nigel Farage was leader. Wheeler and Carswell were of course not the only ones who realised that Nigel Farage, although seen as a great asset to the Leave-The-EU cause by his devotees he alienated far more people than he could consider supporters and with the low grade of appointees he permitted around him his leadership of the Leave-The-EU movement and the BreXit cause would do infinitely more harm than good.

Ego won the day and Carswell, who was on the verge of leaving the Tories, having had his ego severely bruised by being bannished to the annex succumbed to Wheeler’s massaging of his ego by promising him the leadership which was in fact not in Wheeler’s gift!

That Carswell has put the spin on his joining that claims he joined Ukip to make the party more electable than with Nigel Farage orchestrating the band is a proof of the value of hindsight:

though it is reasonable to point out that Douglas Carswell did not just add a new string to Farage’s bow but an entirely new instrument – plausibility and electability.

You will note from Douglas Carswell’s statement/appologia that he makes some very valid points but there is more than a hint, in his self justification, that he has jumped before he was pushed and reading the vitriolic comments of Ukip’s now ex backer, who has left the party, Arron Banks and the needless vindictiveness of Nigel Farage, who is no longer leader of Ukip on the domestic front, Carswell was clearly right to leave before it became apparent he was dumped – in the true flavour of democratic behaviour that is well founded in EU style politics, where Ukip has honed its skills of treachery and back stabbing.

Ukip has always been a party of dubious morality and a tendency to fight and squabble like ferrets in a sack!

You will note from the other articles that I have posted from Douglas Carswell’s web site that he has voiced a number of sound concepts put forward in a reasoned and electable manner that is very out of keeping with the self aggrandising and sneering denigration style of most Ukip web sites, I trust you find this insight of the practices of Ukip and its style of some help in your decision making for the future as it becomes ever more obvious that Ukip’s role is now over.

Clearly Ukip has no role in the future BreXit negotiations as it is clear from their efforts and comments to date that they have little or no understanding of tyhe complexities of international law, the WTO, CODEX, WHO, UN, OPEC and the like. Ukip can not even seem to understand, let alone agree, as to whether they seek the votes of the left wing so called socialists, the center left of the hopelessly lost Libdems or the right of center Tory and capatalist supporters of free trade and international competition.

Further: Ukip would seem to be bereft of a funding policy with Nigel Farage in control of the EFDD Group funding the unlikely scenario of a Ukip MEP putting his hand in his pocket for the benefit of the party and no clear backer of stature it would seem t6hey are likely to be forced to return to the ‘caroussel’ methodology as they lurch along, as they did prior to Stuart Wheeler’s intervention and Arron Banks’ control.

At this moment I see little hope for Ukip, which is on the verge of insolvency, if not bankruptcy, near leaderless, in any real terms, when you consider the implausibility of Paul Nuttall’s claims and his recent abject failure when presented to the public in a by election on the most winnable occasion in Ukip’s entire history!

Consider Douglas Carswell’s statement and other suggestions and then consider which of Ukip’s MEPs have ever been able to string together as plausible or electable a role particularly since Nikki Sinclaire left the party to set up the petition which forced the debate in the House of Commons that gave rise to the promise of a Referendum in tyhe Tory Manifesto that led to the demise of the LibDems and fractured sqabbling in what was the Labour Party, which is so clearly torn in half and likely to be a political irrelevance organising fatuous anti democratic marches and counter productive demonstrations for at least a decade – particularly if it tries to remain as one party!

Job done – thank UKIP!

It has been an extraordinary achievement. UKIP, my party, which was founded in 1993 in order to get Britain out of the European Union, has now achieved what we were established to do.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister is going to trigger Article 50, beginning the formal process of withdrawing our country from the EU. By April 2019, Britain will no longer be a member of the EU. After twenty-four years, we have done it. Brexit is in good hands.

UKIP might not have managed to win many seats in Parliament, but in a way we are the most successful political party in Britain ever. We have achieved what we were established to do – and in doing so we have changed the course of our country’s history for the better. Make no mistake; we would not be leaving the EU if it was not for UKIP – and for those remarkable people who founded, supported and sustained our party over that period.

Our party has prevailed thanks to the heroic efforts of UKIP party members and supporters. You ensured we got a referendum. With your street stalls and leafleting, you helped Vote Leave win the referendum. You should all be given medals for what you helped make happen – and face the future with optimism.

Like many of you, I switched to UKIP because I desperately wanted us to leave the EU. Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have decided that I will be leaving UKIP.

I will not be switching parties, nor crossing the floor to the Conservatives, so do not need to call a by election, as I did when switching from the Conservatives to UKIP. I will simply be the Member of Parliament for Clacton, sitting as an independent.

I will leave UKIP amicably, cheerfully and in the knowledge that we won.

At the hundreds of meetings and action days I have attended as a UKIP activist across the country since I joined in August 2014, I have met some truly remarkable people. You are heroes! Thank you and well done. I wish you all well.

When first elected to represent Clacton in 2005, I promised to do all I could to help ensure that Britain left the EU. To the consternation of my then party whips (some of who, I’m delighted to see, are now ministers helping make Brexit happen), I made my intentions on that front plain in my maiden speech. Job done.

I will be putting all of my effort into tackling some of the local problems affecting the NHS in our part of Essex, including GP shortages and the threat to our local Minor Injuries Unit. In that spirit, I called a Westminster Hall debate last week about the future of primary care in our part of Essex. Local comes first.

Cheer up! The days when small elites can try to arrange human social and economic affairs by grand design are coming to an end. Change is coming – Brexit is just the beginning.

24 MAR 2017
Secrecy in family courts must stop
New research on the family courts documents that, despite transparency guidance, only a tiny minority of proceedings are published. That’s deeply concerning – because secrecy promotes injustice.
Sadly, children do sometimes need to be taken into care. Most of the time, I’m sure, family courts make the right call.
However, some families are broken up unnecessarily. In 2008, Camilla Cavendish wrote a number of articles for The Times, documenting serious mistakes by social services. In several cases, expert witnesses gave testimony without ever having met the families involved.
The problem is that we don’t know how widespread these errors are, because the courts sit in secret. Adoption order proceedings are closed to the public and the press, and rarely published. Moreover, the identities of expert witnesses are protected. Secrecy allows injustice to be covered up.
It has long been recognised – by both ministers and judges – that more transparency is required. Yet efforts to increase it have fallen short.
Sir James Munby’s transparency guidance, for example, left the decision as to whether to publish to judges’ discretion. The new research by academics at Cardiff University reveals that very few judges have opted to do so – as a paper published by the UKIP PRU predicted.
The system needs much bolder reform. In our paper, we called for the publication of judgments to be mandatory, greater media access to both proceedings and case documents, and expert witnesses to be identified.
We also advocated greater use of Special Guardianship Orders, so that, if children do have to be taken from their families, they are placed at least temporarily with grandparents or other relatives, rather than total strangers.
Transparency helps ensure justice. It shouldn’t be resisted.
22 MAR 2017

Monetary policy is hurting productivity

 

Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, has admitted that ultra-loose monetary policy is a drag on productivity. So why won’t the Bank change course?

Productivity is the key to prosperity. Increased wealth comes from producing more using less effort, time, and resources. If productivity stagnates – as it has in the UK – prosperity will follow suit.

One of the drivers of low productivity growth is cheap credit. Inefficient companies that would otherwise have failed, and replaced by better competitors, have been sustained by artificially low borrowing costs.

Haldane’s case for record-low interest rates is that they prevented mass unemployment. Perpetuating zombie companies was worth it, he claims, to safeguard jobs.

That argument had some force in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. Less so nearly a decade later. Keeping interest rates at record lows indefinitely means making low productivity growth the norm, while at the same time creating the conditions for another job-destroying financial crisis.

Cheap money is not the only reason for poor productivity. Another, which Haldane neglected to mention, is corporate welfare. Tax credits incentivise employers to use cheap (often imported) labour, rather than invest in new technology – as UKIP’s Economy Spokesman, Mark Reckless, explains in a recent paper.

But the economic effects of artificially manipulating the price of capital shouldn’t be underestimated. Experience has shown that official price controls create either gluts or shortages. Market prices always allocate resources better.

Capital is no different. Lower productivity is one of many dangerous imbalances caused by ultra-loose monetary policy. They need to be corrected, not excused.

21 MAR 2017

Give voters the right to sack MPs

 

Like so much of what the House of Commons does these days, yesterday’s debate on MPs double-jobbing was mostly virtue signalling. That’s because MPs don’t like the real solution: recall elections.

In the United States, representatives can be recalled by their electorate. If enough local people sign a petition, they trigger a by-election. Voters then decide whether or not to renew their representative’s mandate at the ballot box.

We could have had the same system here. In 2014, a Recall of MPs Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

But the title was misleading. Under the final legislation, voters can only trigger a by-election if a committee of grandees – or a court of law – has first found an MP guilty of wrongdoing. Rather than put voters in charge, the Bill let MPs act as a self-serving cartel.

Indeed, the government made sure Zac Goldsmith’s amendments to the Bill – which would have led to a real right of recall – were rejected.

Now we see why. Would the former Chancellor would have taken on so many roles outside Parliament if a recall election in Tatton were a possibility?

The debate about MPs taking jobs outside Westminster in any case misses the point. The most common form of double-jobbing is the appointment of MPs as ministers. Voters should have a say on that too.

Until a century ago, they did. Prior to the Re-Election of Ministers Acts (1919 & 1926), MPs had to face ministerial by-elections to join the Cabinet. They could only become ministers with their constituents’ consent.

Consent wasn’t always given. Between 1895 and 1926, there were 127 ministerial by-elections. On eight occasions, the ministers-designate lost.

The way to keep MPs in check isn’t to empower a toothless regulator. It’s to let their constituents hold them to account.

20 MAR 2017

Politicians and press have become indistinguishable

 

George Osborne’s appointment as Evening Standard editor says a lot about the state of the press. It ought to be perverse for a politician to be a journalist. But, when many so-called journalists do little more than push a political agenda, what’s the difference?

The idea of journalists as brave, independent scrutineers of politics may be appealing, but it’s not accurate. The relationship between the Fourth Estate and the political class is actually far too cosy.

Because politicians trade access for positive coverage, many journalists end up going native. Instead of exposing the governing elite, they act as its cheerleaders.

“That’s nothing new,” you might think. “Newspapers have always had a clear bias.”

Of course, there has always been an editorial point of view. The difference now is that there is little but opinion. Subjective analysis now masquerades as news.

During the referendum campaign, for example, it was striking how both print and broadcast media reported George Osborne’s Project Fear narrative as objective fact. No matter that none of it has turned out to be true.

Pundits frequently make out that established media are losing market share because consumers are now more interested in fake news than truth. The people, we’re told, are at fault.

The reality is the opposite. People are losing faith in established media because they see through the false pretence to objectivity. There’s a market for truth which the press is failing to deliver. Rather than cater to the public, pundits have joined the oligarchy.

Osborne will no doubt use his perch at the Standard to push the same spin he did as Chancellor. Far from being unqualified, he’s taking up an all too familiar role. That’s the problem.

17 MAR 2017

The Bank of England should follow the Fed’s lead

 

Ultra-loose monetary policy is one of the biggest risks to the global economy. Belatedly, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates this week. The Bank of England should follow suit.

There is no justification for record low interest rates. They were supposed to be temporary measure, in the wake of the financial crisis. Instead, they have become permanent. Indeed, the Bank cut them even further last August.

The consequences of artificially cheap credit are disastrous. It encourages consumers to borrow too much, banks to take excessive risks, and companies to buy back shares rather than invest in improving productivity.

Moreover, it transfers wealth from the asset poor to the asset rich. It is stoking a housing bubble that is preventing a generation from buying their own homes. 

Central banks are reluctant to raise interests because they fear the only thing keeping the global economy afloat is consumer borrowing and spending. Yet they must know that is an unsustainable model.

Eventually, borrowers will default, and contagion will spread to the entire system – just as it did a decade ago. Compounding the problem with more debt will only make the ultimate correction all the more painful. (For more on this, see my paper After Osbrown.)

Yesterday, Kristin Forbes, one of the nine members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, dissented from the majority decision to leave rates unchanged, and voted to raise them. Let’s hope she persuades the rest of her colleagues next month.

16 MAR 2017

Forcing U-turns is Parliament’s job

 

Pundits see the government’s decision to scrap its planned rise in NI contributions for the self-employed as the Chancellor’s failure. Perhaps it should just be seen as Parliament doing its job.

Politicos have become so used to budgets being nodded through by MPs that they have come to believe Parliament is supposed to work like this. But it’s not.

Prior to the 1930s, backbench MPs could table amendments to the budget resolutions. The national government changed the rules to prevent it. Since then, Parliament has tended just to rubber stamp hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of spending and taxation.

Yet opposition from MPs has now forced a volte face on the centrepiece of the budget after only a week. Perhaps Parliament isn’t quite so powerless after all.

It will be interesting to see how the Chancellor now replaces the ditched measures.

In autumn 2015, George Osborne backtracked over tax-credit reductions without replacing them with alternative cuts. Instead, he conjured up an extra £27 billion from nowhere – based on conveniently revised borrowing projections. In effect, he simply borrowed more money.

By contrast, Hammond has hinted at a broader rethink of the treatment of the self-employed in the tax system – so as to achieve the same ends by different means. That suggests self-employed people shouldn’t celebrate just yet. Alternative tax rises may be coming in the autumn.

That’s the wrong approach. Rather than tax – or borrow – more, government needs to spend less.

Parliament has demonstrated that cross-party opposition can block tax rises. Now we need cross-party support for spending cuts.

15 MAR 2017

We need a Bloggers Freedom Bill

 

Five years ago, I crowdsourced a Private Members’ Bill on Guido Fawkes. From five options, the people picked a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act. How prescient they were. Now I’d like to revive another of my suggestions: a Bloggers Freedom Bill.

Britain’s libel laws are out of date. They were developed at a time when very few people published anything. Those who did were affiliated to large organisations with the financial resources to defend themselves in court.

Yet they are now applied in a world where millions of individuals – without financial backing – publish constantly, both online and on social media.

The law needs to be updated for the digital age.

People do need protection from libel, and their intellectual property should be safeguarded. But, at the same time, those posting on social media should have some security against being sued.

The Bloggers Freedom Bill I suggested would be a compromise. It would give bloggers and tweeters a 48-hour period of grace – to remove content – before legal action could be taken.

The status quo skews the law in the interests of big media, rich claimants, and lawyers. It restricts the democratisation of media made possible by the digital revolution.

Let’s make libel law reflect today’s reality – and the public interest.

14 MAR 2017

WTO terms are an asset – not a foe

 

The UK should be able to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU. It is in our mutual interests to do so. However, if we cannot reach a good deal, the World Trade Organisation helps us ensure workable terms of trade even if we walk away.

Some MPs seem to think that trading under WTO terms is tantamount to isolation or protectionism. It appears to escape their notice that the precise purpose of the WTO is to facilitate trade.

Under the most-favoured-nation principle, the EU would not be able to discriminate against UK goods with extortionate tariffs even if it wanted to.

As to non-tariff barriers, remember all British companies already comply with single-market regulations and standards by default – unlike those of any other country that trades with the EU on WTO terms.

Imports, meanwhile, would be entirely at our discretion. We could not only set tariffs as low as we want, but also unilaterally allow any product manufactured to EU standards to be sold here – thereby keeping the compliance costs passed on to UK consumers as low as possible.

Those MPs who claim any deal with the EU is better than no deal are being disingenuous about what a bad deal would mean.

An agreement that failed to restore our sovereignty, or our control over our borders and fishing waters, or our freedom to determine our own regulatory environment, or our ability to sign free-trade deals with other – growing – economies beyond Europe is an agreement we cannot accept. Acquiescence would be not only counter to our economic interest, but anti-democratic.

Those who want the government to rule out trading with the EU on WTO terms are, in effect, attempting to rule out Brexit. They are seeking to give the EU sole discretion over our terms of exit – which would mean never leaving.

But Brexit is happening. Parliament has – finally – voted for it. There is every reason to believe we will sign mutually beneficial trading deal with the EU. Yet, whatever the outcome of negotiations, we must all now adapt to a new reality.

13 MAR 2017

Brexit begins

 

264 days since the referendum, Article 50 could be triggered this week. Finally, Brexit is becoming a reality.

Assuming the House of Commons votes down the Lords’ amendments to the Article 50 Bill today, the Lords will be unlikely to obstruct the Bill again. The PM could then trigger Article 50 as soon as tomorrow morning.

Of course, there will be other big Parliamentary votes on the Brexit process – both on the final deal and on the Great Repeal Bill.

But the nature of the debate will now change. There will be no going back.

Ideally, from now on, Parliament would play a constructive – rather than obstructive – role. We can now have substantive discussions about vast areas of policy that were delegated to the EU.

Taking back control shouldn’t be thought of as the end of the process, but the beginning. Power should be spread outwards and downwards: not just from Brussels to Westminster, but from Westminster to local communities, and ultimately to individuals.

But, as the budget debate testifies, the instincts of both the government and the opposition are fundamentally statist. There is a gap in the political marketplace for a localist, classically liberal domestic agenda.

I set out some ideas for what that agenda could look like in my new book, Rebel – published April 6th. No time to lose.

See older posts (3075 more)

See all posts (3085)

Archive

2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

Printed by Douglas Carswell of 61 Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex

To view the original article 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.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. 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

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Hillsborough, Paul Nuttall, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#Paul_Nuttall Responds To #Arron_Banks With An Appologist Suicide Note …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 14/03/2017

Do Visit Our New Website @

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
Also: The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
#Paul_Nuttall Responds To #Arron_Banks With An Appologist Suicide Note …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

it would seem that Ukip is determined to seek a position in oblivion!

Here is the leaked letter from Paul Nuttall which shows that the statement from Ukip as published at CLICK HERE would seem to be at best an error or to state the obvious untrue!

PN to BANKS 01A

there is an overlap to show the follow on of each page

PN to BANKS 01B
PN to BANKS 01C

The saga continues and I feel sure the squabbling in Ukip and over its corpse has a long way to run yet.

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.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. 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

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Hillsborough, Paul Nuttall, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Anger on #Ukip’s NEC at “weak and wounded” #Paul_Nuttall

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/02/2017

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
Also: The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Anger on #Ukip’s NEC at “weak and wounded” #Paul_Nuttall …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Paul Nuttall

UKIP’s NEC will meet today in Manchester, and the agenda is set to be more than a little fraught.

After Paul Nuttall’s torrid experience, and embarrassing result, in Stoke-on-Trent Central, a party already prone to vicious factional infighting appears to be at daggers drawn once more. One NEC member described Nuttall to me as “weak and walking wounded” in the aftermath of the by-election, which is never a good reputation for a party leader to develop – particularly when they became leader by default in the first place. Elsewhere, senior UKIP figures openly mock Nuttall as “Andy Capp”, a reference to the layabout cartoon character inspired by Nuttall’s ever-present tweed cap.

Arron Banks, the multi-millionaire donor who has kept them afloat thus far, demanded over the weekend that he be made chairman and given the power to purge Douglas Carswell, the sole UKIP MP, among others. He has made similar demands before, and is now threatening to withdraw all financial support unless he gets his way.

For a party whose money troubles are set to get worse when Brexit abolishes their lucrative band of MEPs, Banks’s threat has power. The same NEC source says: “After Stoke [the] future is bleak and we need money. To me Arron is [the] best hope…if we don’t accept Banks he will set up [a] new outfit with Farage”.

Banks has certainly been testing the water for a new party for some time. History – and Leave.EU’s chaotic record – suggests that such an outfit would struggle, but that matters rather less than the damage it would do to UKIP simply by existing. He seems to have the will, as well as the means, to go through with his threat regardless of the wisdom of doing so.

So, with a severely weakened leader and a desperate need for cash, it’s not impossible that the NEC will accept his terms. If they do, it would mean not just kicking out Carswell but also various other senior figures whom Banks dislikes. Some are uncomfortable about the idea of more infighting, while others dislike the prospect of appearing to be bought outright by a donor. Peter Whittle, UKIP’s Deputy Leader, told Marr yesterday that “if Arron were to take his money, there are other people”.

On the face of it, it doesn’t sound like this week is going to be much better than last week for UKIP or Nuttall. Another NEC member predicts that today’s meeting will be “emotional” – regardless of the outcome, that looks likely.

To view the original article 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.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. 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

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Hillsborough, Paul Nuttall, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ukip NEC Is A Bit Short Of Long Term Competence – Tomaz Slivnik QUITS!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 13/10/2016

 
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Ukip NEC Is A Bit Short Of Long Term Competence – Tomaz Slivnik QUITS!
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

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

.

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!

.

Ukip NEC Is A Bit Short Of Long Term Competence, one could argue that they are in fact short of ANY competence – For an inside understanding note Tomaz Slivnik QUITS, here is his lengthy resignation statement in full!

000a ukip-025 count.png

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

Hi,

2015 NEC election results

Published Nov 13, 2015

The following have been duly elected in this year’s NEC elections:

Name

Votes

Victoria Ayling

3400

Alan Bown

3086

Elizabeth Jones

2650

Richard Coke

2630

Piers Wauchope

2206

Tomaz Slivnik

1970

Party chairman Steve Crowther said: “I am delighted to welcome the 6 new members of the NEC including Alan Bown and Pier Wauchope who have been returned. I am also pleased to see that over 40% of the elected NEC is now female. This is an NEC combining experience and new blood. I look forward to working with them in continuing to modernise and develop the Party to meet its challenges as the UK’s 3rd major political force.”

The Returning Officer, Adam Richardson, said: “All the results were clear and without dispute and I would like to thank the dedicated team of volunteers at Lexdrum House that assisted in a very professionally conducted count and would like to congratulate the new NEC members on their election.”

The full results were:

Name

Votes

Victoria Ayling 

3400

Alan Bown 

3086

Elizabeth Jones 

2650

Richard Coke 

2630

Piers Wauchope

2206

Tomaz Slivnik 

1970

Raj Chandran
1946
Mick McGough
1644
Terry Durrance
1631
Deborah Rennie
1562
Roger Arthur
1555
Andrew Moncreiff
1554
Richard Hilton
1308
Rosamund Beattie
1246
Roger Gravett
1170
Calum Walker
1067
Otto Inglis
1016
Afzal Akram
1008
Alan Love
1006
Melanie Roberts
1002
Mark Hughes
980
Caven Vines
975
Colin Nicholson
971
Peter Griffiths
949
Mark Anderson
942
Neville Watson
928
David Palmer
911
Mark Hanson
878
Anil Bhatti
815
David Allen
764
Andrew Chapman
761
Rathy Alagaratnam
671
John Terry
661
Robert Kimbell
626
Nigel Sussman
494
Seamus Martin
483
Seton During
442
Patrick Dearsley
412
Andrew Beadle
403
Andrew Price
363
John Poynton
300

Rejected Ballots

68

TOMAZ SLIVNIK NEC RESIGNATION

There follows the full statement by  Dr Tomaz Slivnik explaining his resignation from the National Executive Committee of UKIP.

He was first elected to the NEC in November 2015.

The statement is over 14,500 words long and treats several key issues of real importance to the Party in recent months. There are 12 ‘chapter’ headings as follows:

  1. Tomaz’s background and beliefs
  2. His reason for Resignation
  3. Who Runs UKIP ?
  4. The financial situation of the Party – its current predicament
  5. Who runs UKIP # 2 – the Question about potential ‘Off Balance Sheet’ arrangements
  6. The background to the Welsh Campaign
  7. The Leadership Election question
  8. Lyoness – the dubious shopping card scheme
  9. Our London offices
  10. Nathan Gill
  11. Members Questions
  12. Communication with the members and Conclusion

Tomaz Slivnik writes

On 8 September 2016, I resigned from NEC. I have received many e-mails asking me why – as well as surprisingly many e-mails expressing sorrow or even despondency at my resignation. I did not expect this and it is very touching! To those who voted for me, I would like to express my gratitude, to those members who have expressed their appreciation for taking up their causes at the NEC, I would like to say that your appreciation and support was very satisfying and much appreciated. And to those who are feeling despondent about it, don’t! All will be clear by the end of this letter. So here are my reasons.

1. Background

I have been a member of the Party since 2007, and a very keen activist. When the Patron’s club was first established, I joined it right at the start and remained a member throughout. I joined the Party and contributed for purely idealistic reasons – because of my experience of a totalitarian regime in Yugoslavia which I saw being replicated in the European Union. I was watching the European Union destroying what freedom and rule of law was left in the Crown Dependencies, in the UK and in Europe. And similar events taking place the world over – freedom has been dying and continues to die! I believe in personal liberty, small government, low taxes, free markets, free trade, the rule of law and equality before the law. In my early days in UKIP, everyone I met shared my ideals and they were genuine, friendly, altruistic, common sense people who only wanted the best for their country, were willing to put everything in, never asked for anything back and were not in it for themselves. We never sought or asked for anything from the Party. We didn’t seek elected office, publicity or advantage for ourselves. We donated freely our time, money and effort – canvassing, leafleting, etc. UKIP party conferences were oases away from a mad, politically correct world where one went to get a dose of sanity and share some enjoyable time with like-minded genuine people.

I first noticed dark clouds on the horizon in 2013 when Godfrey Bloom was unceremoniously and callously discarded by the Party – this was perhaps the first time I saw the Party do something I found very disturbing. A somewhat colourful and occasionally controversial speaker, Godfrey was the very epitome of the genuine gentleman member and the values our party espoused. Then we gained electoral traction. As a result, our membership grew – was allowed to, even encouraged to grow – too quickly, which may well have stroked some people’s vanity and egos, but it also destroyed the heart and soul of the party. We were joined by all kinds of authoritarians, opportunists and failed politicians from other parties who saw us as a quick and easy way to elected office, taxpayer funded salaries, fancy titles and easy fame. Slowly but surely, our libertarian, small government, low tax values started being replaced by “tax them til pips squeeze” ideas on the one hand and ever more intolerant, authoritarian rhetoric on the other. By 2014, I started toying with the idea of leaving the Party, or standing for the NEC to try to help fix things, and in 2015, I tried the latter route. My sole objective was to put our Party back on the right track. I felt achieving this was hugely important, not just for our party, but also for our country and for the future of liberty worldwide. The UK is perhaps the last hope for freedom in Europe, and I see UKIP as the UK’s last hope of freedom – at least for a long time. I stood for the NEC neither as a springboard for elected office nor to further any personal agenda – I like a quiet private life and already have everything I want in life, bar being able to live in peace in a country that is free and which I know will remain free.

Since my election, I was one of the most active members of the NEC. Indeed I believe most of my (now former) colleagues would probably say the most active; some have even expressed exasperation at the volume of NEC e-mail I generated. I was the only NEC member to be a member of all its sub-committees – constitution, policy, technical, finance & resource – and the most active contributor to the constitution sub-committee and one of the more active ones on the policy sub-committee.

When I stood for the NEC, I thought it would be a one day a month commitment. It turned out to be much much more than that – a full time job would be an understatement, and 24/7 would be closer to the mark. It required sacrificing a lot of time from running my businesses, other board commitments, and my work as an angel investor. I have had to pay others to take on duties in my business I was unable to fulfil because of my NEC work. I was of course also paying all my own expenses – a return flight and usually two overnight stays in a hotel for every meeting, with, at one point, one NEC meeting plus two policy sub-committee meetings per month.

I considered all this to be very much worthwhile – if only it could put the Party, and then the UK and then the cause for liberty world-wide back on the right track. I never expected anything else in return – to say that successfully achieving these objectives would be more than enough reward would be an understatement – it was always going to be a massive David vs. Goliath task and a massive prize if we were successful.

To those considering standing for the NEC, I warn you that it is a poisoned chalice – you will occasionally be required to apply the Party Constitution and the Party Rulebook, and if there is any honesty in you, you will strive to apply both correctly and equally in all cases, ruling if need be against or in favour of people when your personal preference might dictate otherwise, even ruling against your friends. This is not fun. It will not win you any friends, and it may well lose you some.

2. Resignation

The reasons I resigned from the NEC will be clear by the end of this letter, but in summary, it was because we as company directors carried all the liability and responsibility for decisions which were taken out of our hands by persons who wielded all the authority but carried no liability, because in my view, we were being obstructed if not sabotaged at every step to the point that in the end, being a member of the NEC became a complete and frustrating waste of time and amounted to sitting through many long meetings as a spectator, watching things happen I did not approve of, which we got the blame for, with little or no ability to do anything about it or even get any answers to my legitimate questions as a company director.

So who was behind this obstruction?

3. Who runs UKIP?

Many members appear to hold the entirely reasonable but not entirely accurate belief that the NEC is very powerful and runs UKIP. So let me spend a few paragraphs describing how the Party is run – as best I can tell.

Members of the NEC comprise 12 elected members and some other voting and non-voting members, like the representatives of the MEPs, MPs, councillors and the various party officers. The NEC meets once a month; in between meetings, members are in regular contact by telecommunications.

The Party is also a limited liability company (so I shall interchangeably refer to “the Party” also as “the company”) which has a board of directors – the only persons who are members of the board of directors automatically are the elected members of the NEC, although the NEC can appoint any other member of the NEC to sit on the board. Members of the board carry all the same liabilities and responsibilities as the directors of any limited liability company.

The day to day running of the Party – at least the duties of the staff that are actually employed by the Party on balance sheet, more on this below – is in the hands of the Party officers – the Party Chairman, the General Secretary and the Party Treasurer – and those who report to them.

The Party Chairman is the CEO of the party, as well as the chairman of the NEC. By practice (poor practice, in my view), he has also been a member and the chairman of the board of directors – although this is not automatic. All the rest of the staff of the party proper report to the officers, primarily to the Party Chairman.

Members of the NEC can do virtually nothing, nor obtain virtually any information about the company, other than by going through the Party Chairman and the other officers.

In any normal company, the CEO is hired, fired and is accountable to the board, and if the CEO either fails to answer the board’s questions or orders the staff to obstruct board members in the performance of their duties, or fails to follow an order of the board, the board can, and will, fire the CEO. But in UKIP, the NEC and the board have no power to either appoint or remove from office, the Party Chairman, or even to veto his appointment (there is a sort of a power of veto to appointment but it can be overridden). These powers are entirely within the gift of the Party Leader, to whom the Party Chairman is solely accountable. The entire organisation then reports to the Party Chairman. In theory, the CEO reports to the board at the board’s monthly meetings – but when the CEO is not accountable to the board, and chairs the board, and the board has no power over him, what do you think happens in practice? Particularly since the Party Leader currently has an axe to grind against the NEC, and the Party Chairman’s loyalty is to the Party Leader, the NEC has effectively been almost completely cut off from any information and ability to take part in any meaningful decision making process, and we were unable to do anything much about it. However, as board members, legally the buck still stopped with us and we remained liable for any decisions, and continued to be seen by the membership as being behind those decisions – even when we had little or no ability to influence them, or even have any information about them, and even when the Party officers acted in direct defiance of NEC decisions, as has happened on a number of occasions, some of which I detail below.

Most of our members will not be familiar with (and why should they be) with the lack of control the NEC has over the way the Party is run. This is what one Party member wrote to me: “None of us ordinary members have any idea how UKIP is set up, who has access to what, how many data controllers there are, but I note that NEC members are company directors. I happen to be Chairman of a company and my board can order up whatever information they like. You can’t?” An eminently reasonable question. I, too, am a director of a number of companies, and I, too, can order up whatever information I want about any of the other companies I am director off, and it always just turns up on request. I don’t even have to follow up on it. In any normal limited company, those accountable to the board would not even consider obstructing a director in the performance of his or her duties. But when I first joined the board of UKIP Ltd and my fellow directors complained they could not get any information about the company and I suggested that as directors, we were entitled to have any information about the company we wanted and that not supplying it to us was an offence, I was laughed at. Now I know what they meant.

Things were, in my opinion, bad when Steve Crowther was Party Chairman but we had hoped things might improve once he left. However, in my view, they haven’t. They may have got worse.

As one Party Chairman reportedly said himself, the job of the Party Chairman is to “keep the NEC off the Leader’s back”. If any other member of any other board of directors admitted to that in all seriousness, in my opinion, it would likely lead to him facing criminal charges.

I will give some concrete examples of conduct of the last two Party Chairmen below – which might be seen to border on malfeasance, obstruction and sabotage of the NEC and the board, were it not for the fact that it is indeed a part of the Party Chairman’s job to keep the NEC off the Leader’s back and to ensure that the NEC can’t operate. Let me give just one example for now. After the August 2016 NEC meeting, I e-mailed the Party Chairman and the General Secretary various urgent and reasonable questions in my capacity as a director, so I could fulfil my duties as such. I received no reply whatsoever to any of my questions, or to any of my follow ups.

“Ordinary” members often complain that they write to the Party Chairman and get no reply, or no satisfactory reply to their questions. I know. It’s true. Members of the NEC can’t either. Some members describe the NEC as being opaque (and the communication with the members does leave something to be desired, more on this below), but how could NEC members report things to members if we ourselves couldn’t find out anything about them?

Eventually, the Party Chairman telephoned me and said that he would not reply to any of my questions in writing, but that he would answer all my questions verbally at the September 2016 NEC meeting. Considering that a number of questions were asking for sufficient disclosure to give me comfort that certain activities the Party was engaged in were lawful – why would the Party Chairman not want to reply to me in writing?

About a week ahead of the meeting, I e-mailed both the Party Chairman and the General Secretary a summary of my outstanding questions and requested that my questions either be answered in writing ahead of the NEC meeting, or at the NEC meeting itself, included in the Party Chairman’s report and the General Secretary’s report. There were about 20-25 outstanding and well overdue questions in all. The NEC meeting came, the Party Chairman’s report came and went, and none of my questions were answered. I challenged the Party Chairman. He replied that he did not understand I wanted the questions answered as a part of the Party Chairman’s report, although I had made it very clear in my written request to him that I did. He said that he would cover them under AOB at the end of the NEC meeting. This is what the Party Chairmen always do when they don’t want to cover something – put it at the end of the agenda, so we run out of time and the matter doesn’t get covered – as happened this time too. None of my questions – by this time, many urgent and yet outstanding for a month – was answered. I followed up by e-mail the following day, requesting that my questions therefore be answered in writing. You can guess yourselves how much of a reply I received. Well, I did get a reply telling me that the reason we had run out of time was all my fault because I had asked other questions during the meeting itself and that my questions can’t be allowed to dominate the agenda (but still no written answers either, or any explanation as to why, if there was no time at the meeting to answer any of my questions, they couldn’t be answered in writing before or after the meeting). I had asked several motions be included on the agenda, and the constitution sub-committee likewise asked that our report with propositions be included on the agenda. Our report came just before AOB, and guess what – we were given only a few minutes to present our report, while the Party Treasurer earlier on on the agenda was given over 20 minutes to present his constitutional ideas, even though the proper channel for such ideas is to put them before the constitution sub-committee, and we had already considered his proposals and were able to explain in 30 seconds why they were not viable. I explained that this was a duplication of effort and a waste of time. The majority of our motions were never discussed, of course. The Party Chairman claimed that we had been given 45 minutes to represent our report, but I know this to be untrue, because I was looking at the clock nervously and insisted we got our turn when the time came to about 4:50pm, and at 4:55pm I was told to stop because the room had been booked only until 5pm.

I took legal advice as to whether the board (rather than the NEC) was empowered to remove the Party Chairman from his office, as I contend it can on the grounds that the board can exercise all the powers of a company, but the generalist legal advice I got was that the situation was complex and that we would need to seek the opinion of a specialist barrister.

Regarding scrutinizing the work of Party officers and asking them questions, “you must trust the Party officers” was the line we were given by the Leadership, and if we didn’t like it, we were told, we could resign.

I understand that until the 2015 crop of NEC members joined the NEC, the NEC were known either as the “nodding donkeys” because they always nodded with approval without any questions when the Leadership wanted something, and as “mushrooms” (because they were kept in the dark and fed bullshit). Steve Crowther described the 2015 NEC (to my face) as “bolshy”.

4. The Financial Situation of the Party

One of the first questions I asked, as a matter of course, when I first joined the board of directors of UKIP Ltd, was whether the company was solvent. No board meetings were being held at the time (board meetings are different and separate from NEC meetings) and most directors had no idea what the answer to that question was, although there were rumours circulating that the Party might be insolvent. I called a board meeting. At our first board meeting, the Treasurer made representations to us to the effect that we were solvent and that our assets exceeded our liabilities. By the second board meeting, we were shown financial statements which proved that the first set of financial statements we had been shown were far from correct – the Treasurer had failed to disclose several very large debts to us. The financial statements were circulated to us hastily, we were asked to initial them (presumably to confirm for the record that we had seen them) and then they were just as quickly whisked away from us – we were not allowed to keep (copies of) them. The statements were printed on a black and white printer so red figures could not be seen (since then, all the statements we have received have been printed in colour).

It turned out that the company’s net assets were minus £600k, and that the company was losing £100k per month, and was projected to continue losing the same amount for the foreseeable future with no visible prospect of recovery (the accounts have now been approved so this is now all public information).

How did we find ourselves in this position? The answer: massive over-spend during the General Election of 2015. At whose behest? I was not on the NEC then, but I know this much: not the NEC’s.

On the basis of this discovery, it was only at my insistence that we started to hold regular board meetings and to seek the advice of an insolvency specialist to decide (a) whether we were able to continue to trade at all and if so, (b) how to trade lawfully so as to fulfil our fiduciary duties to all our creditors and to help us get back to a solvent position.

Our financial position improved so that at our July 2016 meeting, our net assets were only minus £50k – but the Party has never been solvent for at least the past 15 months. The Leader has never accepted that we were balance sheet insolvent and attacked me at every board meeting he attended for using the word “insolvent” which I was told was a dangerous word to use, and apparently was not factual but my “opinion”. I noted that because of our insolvency, our fiduciary duties were owed to our creditors, not to our members, but this has largely been ignored by the board and the party officers. Director loans have been paid off and director salaries have been paid – and continue to be paid (off)! – despite our inability to pay off all our other creditors at the moment. I have been regularly objecting to this on the record – but to no avail.

The NEC has been accused of having unnecessarily prevented the spending of “millions” on the referendum campaign and on our other (Welsh, Scottish) campaigns. What millions? Our Leader wanted us to approve a spending plan which would have spent several hundred thousand pounds more than we did, all money we did not have, and which, if implemented, would have left us in a position we will face in about a month’s time (more on this below) but months earlier – i.e. by the time the referendum campaign was over. I was the only board member to insist that we ended the referendum campaign in the black and with 2-3 months’ reserves as we all knew getting donations after the referendum was going to be difficult.

In July 2016, our net assets were approximately -£50k. In August 2016, I understand they were -£100k. I say I understand, because, although I called a board meeting before that NEC meeting on that day too (as it is the legal obligation of a board of an insolvent company to hold regular board meetings and consider its ability to meet the company’s obligations to its creditors), the Party Chairman bungled things so the board meeting didn’t take place. Since it was his first meeting as Party Chairman, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. In September 2016, our net assets were -£180k and we were left with net current assets (i.e. net cash in the bank available to spend) of £105k together with £285k long term debt and a cash burn rate of about £80k/month.

With about £20k/week cash burn rate and about £100k in the bank, if we continue burning cash at this rate, we are 5 weeks away from being not only balance sheet insolvent, but also cash flow insolvent – i.e. unable to pay our current bills such as salaries, rent, utilities, HMRC etc.; 5 weeks away from hitting a financial brick wall, where if the board does not call in an administrator, our creditors will.

The Party Treasurer had advised us that for 3 months, Arron Banks had agreed to pay for the Leader’s security, which ran at £20,000 per month. Apparently, this did not occur, so the Party Treasurer made an ex gratia payment (by the Party) of £40,000 to the security company in lieu of these payments, “to stop them going bust”, and without prior board approval. How can we afford to spend this kind of money in our current financial situation? Why was the board – which remains liable – not asked for prior approval? What if, as a consequence, we now go bust instead?

I asked at our board meeting what the plan was to remedy the current financial situation. The Party Treasurer replied – raise more money and cut spending. That much is obvious. Raise more money how? “When there is a new Leader I’m sure he will bring in new donors” or words to that effect was the reply. Cut our costs how? The gist of the reply was that we were a political party, we couldn’t cut any more costs, or we might as well not keep going. This is the plan? There is no plan to raise any more money and we have no idea where any more money is coming from – we only hope the new Leader will bring it in – and we refuse to cut costs more than perhaps by token amounts? The Party Treasurer told us that we would look at cutting costs if and when necessary. Meaning it is not necessary now? How much more urgent could the situation be?

I pointed out that should we be lucky enough to have any donor willing to come up with the money in 5 weeks’ time to bail us out, we would legally have no choice but to accept their terms, whatever they were – if our options were to accept the cash, pay off our creditors and take the donor’s terms – whatever terms! – or not take the cash, and be unable to pay off the creditors, we would legally be under the obligation to take the money and take whatever terms were on offer, because due to our insolvency, our first fiduciary duty by law is required to be to our creditors, not to our political ideals or to our members. If we acted any other way, the board would be guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty to our creditors and possibly of defrauding our creditors.

I asked – say the new Leader were to be Diane James and the donor were to be Arron Banks and his terms were that he would give us £10m on condition that the NEC was abolished and we turned into a 5 star Beppe Grillo movement. What’s the plan? There was no answer. I can tell you the answer, though: the board, no matter who they are or what they believe or what they want to do, will have to take that offer.

Such conduct is, in my view, reckless.

When I was unable to get any information about the company which a director legitimately is entitled to, I sought legal advice on how to enforce my information rights guaranteed by the Companies Act, and the legal advice was that (a) having considered all the facts, my only available remedy if I was not satisfied was to resign, and (b) I should not resign if I believed that my continued presence on the board was required to protect the interests of our creditors. (b) is one of the reasons I remained on the board and the NEC for as long as I have done – I did everything I could to protect the interest of our creditors, with some success, but now the point has been reached where I believe I am no longer able to do so. Even without everything else, this reason by itself is sufficient to make one’s position as a director untenable.

When I first learned about our insolvency, I and some other of my fellow directors requested that we be provided the list of all our members of staff, details of their salaries, details of their duties and their contracts of employment. We did get a list of staff member names and salary numbers, but the rest was limited to short job descriptions in under about 20 characters for each of them. The salaries stated were not believable – many were down at £400/month or £500/month.

Which brings me to the next issue about which I have been asking questions for months (including being one of the questions to the Party Chairman for the last NEC meeting) and never got any answers.

5. Who runs UKIP? #2 (a.k.a. Off Balance Sheet Funding of the Party)

The NEC and the board of directors of UKIP Ltd having very limited input into, or knowledge of, the running of the party proper may sound bad enough. But it gets worse.

When the Party Treasurer at one board meeting provided us with two consecutive financial reports which claimed that in the intervening period, the company’s revenues were about £250k, expenditures over £100k, but that the balance sheet in the same period had improved by about £500k, I challenged the financial statements as not providing a true and correct state of the Party’s financial position. I kept repeating the question many times, but no satisfactory answers were forthcoming. Therefore, I and another director decided to drive to Lexdrum House unannounced and requested direct access to the company’s accounting records. We were severely castigated by the Party Treasurer for turning up unannounced, but we did not want to announce our visit because we did not want the Party Chairman, who lived nearby, to be tipped off, to turn up and (as we feared might happen) to obstruct our investigation. We discovered that most of “our” staff (i.e. people who spend most of their time in “our” London office and whom you would recognize as “UKIP” members and team) were not employed by the Party at all, but were employed either mainly, or entirely, off balance sheet – e.g. one staff member is on the Party’s books at £500 per month but we also discovered monthly payments to him of £10,000 off balance sheet. We now finally started to get some idea how “our” staff were employed and who paid them.

Most of these off-balance sheet funding comes either from ADDE, IDDE, EFDD or MEP payrolls. Despite repeated requests, we have never been able to see the corresponding employment contracts, contracts between the Party and these organizations or any meaningful information about these arrangements. No contract between UKIP and any of these organizations is kept at the registered office, the staff at the registered office told us they didn’t know where any contract might be kept, but speculated that it might be kept privately by one of the officers. The General Secretary told us that there is, in fact, no contract. The way this funding works is that UKIP pays a staff member some salary (e.g. in one case £500/month), it pays e.g. ADDE some further sum (in that same case £1500/month) and ADDE pays that sum on to the staff member, plus a top up (£8500/month in that case). What is the contractual basis for making these payments? Who decides who gets paid what? Who controls the money flow? Who hires and fires these people? Who do they report to? The payments between ADDE, IDDE, EFDD on the one hand and UKIP on the other go only one way – out of UKIP’s coffers and to some or all of these organizations – and these payments represent a very substantial proportion of UKIP’s outgoings. We are about to hit a financial brick wall and there is a liability on our balance sheet of about £18k to ADDE. Why are we spending this money? What are we getting in return? Are we still due to pay them more money? In our current situation, the board must know the answers to these questions – but we are unable to receive any. The board has no idea what we were paying for, nor any ability to find out. Our questions went unanswered for many months. Considering our insolvent position, the directors have an absolute duty to know what these payments are for and whether we can legitimately make them and still discharge our fiduciary duties to our creditors. We have personal liability but no ability to find anything out. One director told me she had asked these questions before and was told by one of the officers that this information was “above her pay grade” – with implication that it was not above his.

Furthermore, it appeared that many of these staff members may be working either exclusively or primarily on party political activities for the Party. Take one example – during the Welsh election campaign, the board received allegations supported with a certain amount of documentary evidence suggesting that our Head of Media was briefing the press against many of our own candidates and sabotaging our election campaign. There were legitimate grounds to consider having her dismissed. Guess what? She was not employed by us at all – her only salary came from Nathan Gill MEP and David Coburn MEP and her only employment contracts were with them. The board and the NEC had no control over one of the most important positions in the Party – Head of Media – we had no ability to sack her for alleged misconduct (if proven and appropriate), direct her behaviour, strip her of her responsibilities, control her salary, make her stop briefing against our own candidates – nothing. Since being on an MEP payroll by law requires that staff member to work on European related business only, a very serious question arose over whether these arrangements were lawful at all. Our Head of Media was based in Wales – did she ever set foot in Scotland? What European related work was she doing for David Coburn MEP? What were her duties for the MEPs and what proportion of her time was she spending working as our Head of Media and what proportion for each of the MEPs, and were these proportions consistent with the salaries being paid?

I understand that many MEPs may take part in similar arrangements, but one of them told me that he did not want to take part in it because he believed such arrangements to be unlawful. Douglas Carswell’s version of the story about the dispute over the Short Money was that he was asked to allow the Short Money to be used for off balance sheet funding of Party political activities, which he refused on the grounds that he also believed this to be unlawful.

Since this discovery, the board have been asking repeatedly for disclosures on these funding arrangements and sufficient information to confirm that the Party was not engaging in anything unlawful. It is perfectly possible that these arrangements are all above board. What is definitively not above board, however, is that the board was not being told anything about them, despite constant questioning. Even if something with these arrangements is questionable, the board needed to know and take steps to remedy it. The potential legal risk and reputational damage to the Party is enormous, and we, as directors, were the ones liable if anything was amiss. We were continuously rebuffed, obstructed and obfuscated. One of the NEC’s supposed great sins is the poking of our noses into these financial arrangements. We are told that we had no right to information about anything other than employees of UKIP Ltd and direct employment contracts with UKIP Ltd. Some MEPs were particularly annoyed about our poking around (I note that several MEPs now are among the most vocal people now calling for the NEC’s abolition – although some MEPs are of the opposite view). I do not know what proportion of the “UKIP family” financing flows off balance sheet in this fashion, all I know is that one staff member is paid £500/month on balance sheet and £10,000/month off balance sheet and of the many staff members milling around our London office, as far as I know, only one is paid on balance sheet by the Party. So the size of the off balance sheet operation totally outside of the control of the board is likely to be quite significant. I don’t know – nor have I been able to find out, despite asking many questions repeatedly – who ultimately controls this money either, as we were never being told. It’s not the NEC, however, and it won’t be the new Party Leader either.

6. The Welsh Campaign

During my time on the NEC, the NEC rattled the Leader’s cage, either by standing up to him, or asking too many questions, on only 4 occasions that I can remember. I don’t believe people generally stand for the NEC with the idea of obstructing the Leader, and the basic starting point for most of us, certainly myself, was to have a lot of respect for Nigel and what he has done for the Party. However, sometimes no is the only right answer and when this is the case, it is the duty of an NEC member and the NEC to give no as the answer.

I have already mentioned two of the four: (a) proposed (what we saw as over-) spending during our period of insolvency and (b) off balance sheet funding of the Party. The other two both related to our Welsh campaign and they were: (c) whether Neil Hamilton should be allowed to be an AM candidate, and (d) whether our Head of Media should be allowed to be am AM candidate. The Leader did not want Neil Hamilton to be allowed to be a candidate and he wanted our Head of Media to be a candidate, whereas the NEC took the opposite view. In the end, the matter was resolved by letting our members in Wales decide, and the members came back with the same answer and essentially the same candidate ranking as the NEC initially wanted to approve. Of the four issues, in my perception at least, by far the most explosive confrontation between the NEC and the Leader was issue (d). I believe the bulk of at least 3 NEC meetings was dedicated to discussing that issue, as well as furious e-mail correspondence in between – including a totally unprecedented personal intervention by the Leader’s wife in NEC business.

In one instance, a motion regarding this candidate was proposed to the NEC. The Party Chairman put it to an e-mail vote at 10am and said he would close the voting at noon – a very short timescale, within which many NEC members would not have become aware of the vote. At noon, the vote was going the wrong way for the Party Chairman, so he refused to declare the vote closed. At about half past noon, one NEC member e-mailed in to say he wanted to change his vote (in the Party Chairman’s favour) and a few hours later, the vote closed, very narrowly in favour of the outcome the Party Chairman wanted.

Parenthetically, I will now relate two other stories of how the Party Chairmen, shall we say “massage” NEC and board votes.

The first occasion was when UKIP endorsed Leave.EU for the designation. I woke up one morning to find several e-mails in my inbox. The first e-mail pointed to a link to a newspaper article saying UKIP had endorsed Leave.EU. The second e-mail, a little later, invited NEC members to vote to endorse Leave.EU. Four or five e-mails that followed were votes in favour of such an endorsement, then an e-mail objecting to this process, then an e-mail from the Party Chairman declaring the endorsement motion had received the support of 9 members, which is sufficient to carry it. All these e-mails were sent while I was away from my computer and I received them all at around 11am or so before I had any idea a vote was taking place. Then followed an e-mail asking the Party Chairman to share the names of these 9 NEC members who had voted in favour. Then there was a lot of silence. Then more challenges to the Party Chairman asking him to release the 9 names. About 10 hours later, there was another vote e-mailed in in favour, and then the Party Chairman revealed the 9 names of people who had voted in favour – but to have the 9, he relied on the last vote which only came in 10 hours after he claimed to already have had 9 votes in favour. So how could he have had the 9 when he claimed he did, and declared the motion carried?

The second occasion was when I moved that the board elect someone other than Steve Crowther as the chairman of the board. It is very poor corporate governance for the chairman of the board to be an executive director. We voted to remove him as chairman. The vote was 5:4 in favour of him being removed. Steve Crowther just sat there and kept looking around, refusing to declare the motion carried. Eventually, one member changed his vote, and now the vote was tied and Steve Crowther exercised his casting vote to keep himself as chairman – even though he had an interest in the matter and was thus ineligible to vote and even though the Articles of Association state that “32. A person who is a director by reason only of his holding office as Party Chairman, Party Secretary or (as the case may be) Party Treasurer shall not be entitled to vote on any question arising at a meeting of directors and in each such case membership shall merely confer the right to attend at directors meetings.”

I will relate one more such occasion, still relevant, in the section “Leadership Election” below.

Minutes are kept of board and NEC meetings. They are prepared by the General Secretary. At one point, meetings started to be audio recorded and the General Secretary started to transcribe the audio recording in full, and then prepare a set of summary minutes. Even the summary minutes are quite a long document – the draft summary minutes of the September 2016 meeting ran to 9 pages. Draft minutes for one meeting are presented in printed form to the NEC at the beginning of the following meeting, and the NEC is then asked to vote to approve them, subject to NEC members reading them afterwards and e-mailing in any amendments. I never, except on two occasions, had the time to read the minutes afterwards. I don’t know if anyone else did. I never voted to approve the minutes, because I had not had any opportunity to read them before so voting, but most of the NEC always voted to approve them – without having been able to read them. On the first occasion that I did read the minutes afterwards, at the meeting itself some members of the NEC had an issue with a candidate list the NEC was about to approve. The Party Chairman suggested we establish a vetting panel which could revisit the lists afterwards and that Liz Jones and I could be on the vetting panel if we wanted to be. On this basis, the deadlock was resolved and the debate ended so we could move on. The minutes we received (in paper form), however, read as me asking if I could be on the vetting panel (which I never did) and the Party Chairman saying no, I couldn’t be. I e-mailed the General Secretary asking him to amend this aspect of the minutes. He replied thanking me and confirming that it has been taken care of. I e-mailed him asking to send me the amended minutes for my records. He now replied that he could not find the statement I wanted to correct anywhere in the minutes. It turned out that the General Secretary only had an electronic copy of the verbatim transcribed minutes, which did not contain the incorrect statement. The summary minutes which did contain the incorrect account had been prepared by the Party Chairman (rather than the General Secretary as had been our understanding), who had the only electronic copy – this is why the General Secretary could not find the error in his version. The second time I read the minutes of a meeting was the draft summary minutes of the August 2016 NEC meeting; I did not recognize any of the statements attributed to me and e-mailed in to object to the minutes. I give some more detail in the section “Nathan Gill” below.

It has been alleged that voting in MEP selections and NEC elections may have been rigged in the past. Given what I have experienced directly, it would not surprise me one bit if this in fact turned out to be true.

After the Welsh members returned our AM candidate lists, our Head of Media ended up as number two on her list. A young man, totally unknown to all of us on the NEC, called Gareth Bennett, topped the list. I spoke to Gareth many times since and in my opinion, he is a very pleasant young man. The NEC, however, received written complaints from witnesses who stated that the Leader’s preferred candidate, however, insisted that she had been promised an electable position and that she was threatening to sue the Party because she had been made such a promise and was not given one (number two on the list was not seen as electable). Promised by whom? Not by the NEC. Not by our members in Wales. So who has the right and power to promise what outcome the democratic process in Wales and/or the NEC, in a free vote, would deliver? Since the top slot in that region was virtually guaranteed to become an AM – who had the power to promise an AM position to someone and why?

This is what one member in Wales told me: “As for [candidate] … well, she was suddenly sprung on us at our branch hustings in autumn last year. None of us Cardiff branch members had ever seen her, she was suddenly there, as one of the candidates for the AM. Two other candidates came from other branches. One other candidate was not known to us, but she was from another branch. The other two – Sarul Islam and Gareth Bennet – were of course our branch members. …  I was stunned by [candidate] because she was, for me, the epitome of a candidate parachuted in with no connection to the constituency. She didn’t have a clue about Cardiff problems or indeed Welsh Assembly problems … She is the perfect reason why these things should be kept at branch and regional level, with no interference from Head Office. In retrospect, I’m relieved that what our American cousins call ‘bullshit meter’ did work perfectly: I knew she was a wrong’un from the moment she started her performance.”

The whole machine in Wales, particularly those employed by Nathan Gill, went into overdrive. We received allegations and supporting accounts that our own Head of Media (who was also the number two candidate on the list headed by Gareth Bennett) may have been briefing the media against our own candidates, Gareth Bennet particularly, to try to get him dislodged as a candidate. His only sin appeared to be to come top of his list and ahead of someone else who wanted his spot. Steven Woolfe – whom, as far as I know, was not particularly closely acquainted with Gareth Bennett and his situation – even made a negative comment about him in the media.

It is my firm view that it was this standoff, which the NEC won, which sealed the fate of the NEC and which is why there so much baying for the NEC’s blood now.

Of the four battles fought between the Leader and the NEC, this is the one that stood out by far as the most vigorous, fierce, bloody, long standing and personal.

7. Leadership Election

When allegations surfaced that Steven Woolfe (and indeed two other Leadership candidates) might not have been keeping their membership subscriptions up to date, I called Lexdrum House and requested access to the company’s accounting records, specifically bank statements confirming which candidate paid us what, when, so that I could determine conclusively for myself whether the allegations were true or false (without any prejudice or preferred outcome on my part). Lexdrum House staff (whom, incidentally, I have mostly all met and whom I believe to be fundamentally very honourable, underpaid and professional) told me they were very sorry, but they were not allowed to give access to the relevant accounting records to any director other than the Party Chairman or the Party Treasurer, by the order of the Party Chairman. I can only guess that this was as a result of our earlier unannounced visit to Lexdrum House and inspection of the company’s accounting records. I pointed out that under Articles 386-389 of the Companies Act, (a) the company had a duty to maintain proper accounting records, (b) had a duty to make the same available to any director on demand at any time for inspection, and (c) it was an offence punishable by up to 2 years in prison to fail to observe (a) and/or (b). I was told I would be required to sign a Data Protection Act form to get access to the accounting records. I took legal advice and was advised this was unnecessary, but I signed such a form ex gratia nevertheless to get the process moving, explaining that I did not accept this was necessary. The form required counter-signature by the Party Chairman or General Secretary. Unsurprisingly, such a signature was never forthcoming, so I had to kiss goodbye the idea of seeing the accounting records.

Had I been given access to those accounting records, we could have countered the allegations about Steven Woolfe there and then, as in the end, it turned out that all the Leadership candidates had properly maintained their membership dues. I say it turned out to be the case, but of course I cannot vouch for this personally, because I have never been able to access the company’s relevant accounting records and have to rely on the report of the vetting panel, who in turn (I believe) relied on an investigation by the Party Treasurer.

When eventually, Steven Woolfe was disqualified because his application was received late, the NEC received no opposition to this from the Party officers whatsoever – indeed, quite the contrary is true. Regrettably for Steven Woolfe, I believe that the decision made was legally correct and the only one we could take. However, what is poignant here is that if the Leadership had wanted Steven Woolfe in the race, we have seen in the case of the Welsh campaign what would have happened, rules or no rules. On the contrary, in this case, the General Secretary and Steve Crowther were fully on board with the disqualification. Two days before the deadline, Diane James was persuaded to stand and became the anointed “ditch the NEC” or perhaps it should be called “5 star Beppe Grillo movement” agenda candidate; I believe Steven Woolfe may have been dropped at the same time by that camp and that this sealed his fate. I cannot say for sure why, but I take the comment from the Party Leader that had he known about Steven’s drink driving conviction when he stood for PCC, he would not have let him stand, as the message that Steven was being dropped.

What I find more interesting is the shenanigans around the 5 year vs. 2 year rule. The NEC was asked by the Returning Officer to approve the length of membership requirement for a member in good standing to be allowed to stand for Leader. The options made available were 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or 5 years. I suggested 5 years out of the last 8, or some variant of that, specifically on concerns that some members’ memberships might have temporarily lapsed and to provide some kind of grace period for those circumstances. My proposal was ignored and the NEC, after about a week of considered discussion, approved the 5 year rule. Then suddenly, the Party Treasurer and another NEC member sprung upon us a proposal to change the period to 2 years, and in a snap vote, without any debate, the NEC voted to change this by a narrow margin. I objected to changing the rules mid-contest. Legal advice was obtained by the Party Chairman stating that we could, and I obtained opposing legal advice privately stating that we couldn’t – because a candidate had already submitted his application and paid his fee while the 5 year rule was in effect; we already had a contract in place. The NEC voted again and reinstated the 5 year rule.

Steve Crowther, who was then the Party Chairman, went absolutely berserk. He went ahead and announced the 2 year rule to the members despite the NEC decision to revert back to the 5 year rule. He tried to shut down the NEC forum, and he instructed the chairman of the technical committee to disable the functionality on the forum for the NEC to vote on any motions, he shut down debate in some forum threads and he insisted that no e-mail votes were valid unless he gave his approval to a motion being voted on (all this, in my view, is absolutely unconstitutional interference in NEC’s right to conduct its affairs as it deems fit, unconstitutional interference in NEC democracy and free speech). He also purported to impose arbitrary restrictions with no constitutional basis on what conditions NEC votes had to satisfy in order to be valid and binding. The Party Chairman and the Party Treasurer certainly seemed very committed to changing the rule to a 2 year rule – this was at about the time the “ditch the NEC” horse in the race was being changed, and I understand the new favourite did not meet the 5 year requirement.

I suggested to my NEC colleagues that we insist that an announcement be released that the 2 year change was announced without proper authority. Reactions ranged from “it’s already done, it’s too late, it’s already out there” to claims – from those favouring the 2 year rule – that the last vote was somehow deficient. Because the Party Chairman had not allowed voting on that motion (there is absolutely no requirement that he should have to), because there wasn’t enough time to vote (the voting was open for a lot longer than many snap votes the Party Chairman had held previously), because there wasn’t an absolute majority of 8 in favour (the vote was 5:2 – but there is no requirement that there should be an absolute majority in favour), because there was too much activity on the forum and some members were not aware the voting was taking place …

At the following NEC meeting, I brought up the issue of us being unable to change the rules mid-contest, particularly because there was a contract with one candidate already in place. The General Secretary admitted that I had been correct, we were not legally able to change to the 2 year rule because the contract had already been in place, but waved a waiver from that candidate in my face, saying we are OK with the 2 year rule now because we got this waiver. I asked the candidate in question and he told me that he was accosted on 31 July by the Party Chairman and the General Secretary who told him he had not yet been approved by the vetting panel (which met on 3 August), but was assured that he would be, however would he please kindly sign this waiver right now, because if he did not do so, it would open the door to (what the candidate tells me was implied to be Suzanne Evans) being able to enter the race, and he was leant upon to sign the waiver there and then. I know for a fact that no such lawsuit was on the cards and that his failure to sign a waiver would not have resulted in Suzanne Evans entering the race, so it was all cobblers. I asked the General Secretary to explain to the NEC what he had said to the candidate in question to induce him to sign the waiver, whether what he had told the candidate was true, and evidence to prove it was true – this was another one of my 20-25 questions for the September 2016 NEC meeting which has gone unanswered and which remains unanswered.

When Steven Woolfe was disqualified, members wrote in to suggest that we asked the other 6 candidates to sign a waiver to extend the 12:00 deadline to 12:30 and that if we did so, Steven Woolfe would be allowed to stand. While I disagree with changing the rules mid-contest, how am I supposed in good faith and in good conscience to defend the Returning Officer’s actions in light of this contention, given what I know went on in relation to the 2 year rule?

What is worse is that the NEC vote which reinstated the 5 year rule in my view legally still remains validly in effect, although everyone conducts themselves as though it doesn’t.

8. Lyoness

At my first NEC meeting, the NEC was pitched the Lyoness shopping card by a UKIP member and a business partner of our Deputy Treasurer Peter Jewell. We were told this would be a great money maker for UKIP. I understand that this was not the first time this shopping card was pitched to the NEC, nor the first time the NEC rejected the pitch. The way the card works is the Party signs up our members, they get issued the card, they use the card at shops to buy groceries, and the Party gets a commission on any of their spend. And the man who introduced the card to us also gets a commission – but he didn’t tell us this until we asked him. I don’t know whether Peter Jewell also benefits from this financially, or not.

The scheme is a pyramid scheme. The NEC did some research on this card and decided joining the scheme carried far too much reputational risk and that it was not something we wanted to recommend to our members. We also flagged up that we were effectively being asked to market financial services to our members, which was potentially an FCA regulated activity. So even if we had decided to approve the scheme, we would first need to get legal advice as to whether we required an FCA licence and then possibly to obtain such a licence. What would be the expected revenue from such a card, and how does it compare to the cost of getting such legal advice and possibly obtaining such a licence?

Despite the NEC’s rejection of the scheme, we got wind of the fact that Peter Jewell was planning to nevertheless market the scheme at the chairmen’s conference on 30 July, because someone had forwarded the agenda for the latter event to some NEC members. The NEC passed a motion saying that the scheme shall not be promoted at UKIP events, and shall not be promoted by UKIP officers to UKIP members, and that a violation of this ban shall automatically be considered to have brought the Party into disrepute. The Party Treasurer was instructed to communicate this to the Deputy Treasurer, which he advised us he did (and the Party Chairman advised us he did the same) but not before frantically proposing a motion, which he heavily lobbied for, that we should reverse our earlier decision and adopt the scheme – a motion which the NEC also rejected.

Regardless, I received complaints from members saying that Peter Jewell did promote the scheme at the conference despite the NEC ban. I received a photograph of the Lyoness stand taken at that conference, and witness statements from members confirming that the scheme was being marketed at the conference, that Steve Crowther was on the podium when Peter Jewell talked about the scheme and said and did nothing (despite being aware of the NEC ban).

I challenged the officers on this, and was forward a reply purportedly from Steve Crowther saying he had received no complaints about the marketing of the scheme, only questions from members at the conference as to why the NEC would be so daft as not to approve it.

Now consider the possibility that such marketing of financial services is an FCA regulated activity – a question I tried to answer by reading the FCA handbook myself, but which without legal advice, I have not yet been able to answer – then the Party might have engaged in a licensed activity without a licence. I know someone on Sark who is currently serving an 8 year sentence in jail for doing exactly this. Who do you think is responsible for ensuring compliance and carries the legal risk and liability? If you answered “the board of directors”, you answered correctly.

One of the 20-25 questions I asked to be addressed at the September 2016 meeting by the Party Chairman was also what was being done about this marketing in defiance of the NEC ban. I received no answer, except verbally on the phone from the Party Chairman saying that Peter Jewell did not promote the scheme at the conference. Er, what about the photographic evidence and the witness statements from members saying the contrary? Why would attendees of the conference pull this idea out of thin air that some scheme called “Lyoness” was being promoted at the conference if in fact nobody had mentioned the scheme and its name there?

To add insult to injury, because this promotion was being done without the approval of the NEC, I can only assume that the Party would not be receiving any commission arising from it, but the promoters likely still would.

The Lyoness example is a perfect example of the relationship between the Party Officers and the NEC and the impotence of the latter.

What action could we take against the Deputy Treasurer? Remove him from office? This is the prerogative of the Party Treasurer. Take disciplinary action? There are two routes to this – emergency action under Article 11.9 of the Constitution, which is the sole prerogative of the Party Chairman. And the regular Disciplinary Panel route under Article 11.3 of the Constitution – which is entirely under the control of the General Secretary.

I know of one party member (more on this below) who has been waiting for an Emergency Disciplinary Panel appeal for 8 months, and a disciplinary complaint which has been waiting for 6 months to be heard by a Disciplinary Panel.

Under the Party Constitution, the NEC has no power to take disciplinary action other than by individual NEC members making a disciplinary complaint, like any other member in good standing, to the General Secretary.

9. Our London Offices

Because of our insolvent balance sheet, the board is under an obligation to hold regular board meetings and to monitor all expenditure which could prejudice our ability to pay off our existing creditors, and the board passed some standing orders to the effect that expenditure and liabilities could not be incurred by the Party officers without board approval.

Yet earlier in the year, we were advised that the General Secretary signed a lease for a London office at a cost of £15,000 to the Party, which we were told was a bargain.

We held one NEC meeting at this office. Then, we were told that the board was no longer welcome there. So every time the NEC and/or the board wanted to meet, we had to hire an additional room for our board meeting, at an additional cost to the Party. That is for the room only – we provided the sandwiches and the juice (and any rucksacks) ourselves. The board was unable to enter the premises we had supposedly leased, and paid for.

We were told our lease paid for one floor (the 3rd floor) of a 3 storey building which we shared with our landlord. I asked why we could not use our floor for our board meetings. The answer was because the Party had swapped our floor with one of the landlord’s floors. So why could we not then use the floor we had swapped the third floor for? Because the landlord can legally use our floor, but we cannot legally use their floor – was the explanation. Does this sound like a “swap” to you? So what did we pay the £15,000 for? And how can we afford it?

Since the board had not given our approval to enter this lease, I asked with what authority the General Secretary had signed the lease. With the authority of the Party Chairman and the Party Leader, was the answer. In other words, without proper authority. And why did the Party Chairman not see fit to ask board approval before doing so? Well, at least Steve Crowther was kind enough to answer the question (a rarity) – because it had not occurred to him to do so. Is this a sign of deference and fear of God in the Party Chairman before the all-powerful NEC?

I proposed that the lease not be renewed, and this was one of my motions for the September 2016 meeting. It never saw the light of day. The Party Chairman intimated to me before that he would not be renewing the lease, but has he really done so and why was this not reported at the meeting?

10. Nathan Gill

I have written about the Nathan Gill saga elsewhere. Suffice to say that the NEC voted to expel Nathan Gill from the Party and that his expulsion became effective at 12:09pm on 8 August 2016. I did most of the constitutional research (although credit for the discovery of Article 12.11 of the Party Constitution is due to John Bickley) and drafted the motion, as well as 6 other variant motions – all the different options the NEC could pursue, from little more than a minor reprimand, to an unconditional expulsion. The NEC decided to approve my draft Motion number 3, which was conditional expulsion – give Nathan 7 days to quit double jobbing or be expelled automatically. Nathan was expelled under Article 12.11 of the Party Constitution:

“12.11 … the NEC shall have the right to regard all undertakings signed by candidates prior to their election or subsequent to it as morally binding and binding under the Rules of the Party and shall have the right to … expel from the Party any member who is in breach of any such undertaking, under this Article.”

At the 8 August 2016 NEC meeting, the Party Chairman and the Party Treasurer put forward the idea that Nathan should be un-expelled. But this is impossible. Once a member is expelled, and all the appeals exhausted (there is no appeal to expulsion under Article 12.11), the member’s contract with the Party is terminated, there is no relationship between the member and the Party, and the only way for the (former) member to become a member again is to re-apply for membership.

However, Article 4.3(e) of the Party Constitution forbids a formerly expelled member from being readmitted:

“4.3 If, after becoming a member of the Party, a person e) is found to be a person who has been expelled from the Party, the Party Chairman shall revoke their membership forthwith.”

This can be over-ridden under Article 4.4.1 of the Party Constitution, but only in exceptional circumstances:

“4.4.1 In exceptional circumstances the Party Chairman may, with the agreement of the NEC, cause to be admitted to membership any applicant who would otherwise be prohibited from membership.”

So, at the 8 August 2016 meeting, a couple of hours after Nathan was expelled, at the instigation of the Party Chairman and the Party Treasurer, the NEC voted to give our consent under Article 4.4.1, should Nathan decide to re-apply for membership, and the Party Chairman suggested that he would call Nathan and invite him to re-apply. The Party Chairman later confirmed that Nathan did re-apply and was re-admitted.

Again, at the Party Chairman’s and the Party Treasurer’s instigation, the NEC voted to commission a ballot of our Welsh members, at the likely cost of £5,000, to ask them whether they wanted Nathan re-expelled or not, and then re-expel him if the members so wanted.

There are a couple of problems with this.

First, Nathan now has a new membership contract, whereas his “no double jobbing” commitment was made under the old membership contract (before expulsion), so in my view, his commitment is no longer binding and the NEC has no constitutional or legal mechanism to expel him from the Party, if the members ask the NEC to do so, for the pre-conditions of Article 12.11 no longer apply. So, in my view, the only way to expel him is via a disciplinary process – but the disciplinary process is a quasi-judicial process which must apply the law to the facts, and cannot have its decision pre-determined and prejudiced by the outcome of a popular opinion poll. So the whole members’ poll, in my opinion, is a waste of time and money. If the members ask the NEC to re-expel Nathan, and the NEC tries to do so, and he sues, in my view, he will be successful and the NEC will look really stupid (as, in relation to this issue, in my view, it already does).

A credible institution considers the evidence and makes a decision: either to expel a member, or not to expel a member. It does not spend three monthly meetings in a row deciding to expel, un-expel and conditionally re-expel someone. The only person who proposes such a course of action is someone (in this case the Party Chairman) who wants, deliberately, to make a body look like a bunch of incompetent idiots. I proposed, as an alternative, us keeping the expulsion and polling our members in Wales, then re-admitting Nathan to membership if our members in Wales so instructed us. I may have been seeing things, but I could swear the nervousness I appeared to detect in the General Secretary and Party Chairman when I made this proposal was palpable. Fortunately for them, the Party Treasurer made sure my motion went nowhere.

Steve Crowther and Paul Oakden have very different modi operandi as Party Chairmen. Steve Crowther defied the NEC more or less overtly. Paul Oakden tells the NEC he is on the NEC’s side, but then advises and steers the NEC to do the daftest of things that make the NEC look stupid, incompetent and like the NEC is failing to do the right thing. For example, in the case of Steven Woolfe, I proposed that we should communicate with the membership openly, frankly and immediately, whereas Paul Oakden advocated very terse and minimal communication, which view prevailed because the members supposedly don’t have the attention span to read detailed documents making full and frank disclosures. When the NEC found itself in a burning building, I found Paul Oakden’s advice generally was to do nothing, because he did not want to add oxygen to the fire. Better to remain a sitting duck, do nothing and just burn down without a fight.

One consequence of his temporary expulsion meant that all Nathan’s offices in the Party (e.g. Leader in Wales) terminated when he was temporarily expelled. But the Party Chairman maintains that this is not the case, and that Article 12.11 of the Party Constitution still applies, because Nathan was not re-admitted to membership, but was “reinstated” by the Party Chairman.

The minutes of the meeting omit all references to Article 4.4.1 of the Party Constitution, although this Article was very extensively debated and constituted the core of our discussion. The minutes read instead that “With the support of the NEC the chairman at this meeting exercised his powers to reinstate Nathan Gill”. But the Party Chairman has no power to reinstate a member to membership once he has been expelled. No more than you can reinstate an employee you made redundant without that employee’s consent. A new contract, in this case a membership application, is required. The Party Chairman has no power to “reinstate” a member – he is trying to conjure up this power from thin air (I have asked what the legal or Constitutional basis is for this purported power, and got no answer, of course, as there isn’t one) – only the power to re-admit him to membership, with the consent of the NEC, under Article 4.4.1 of the Party Constitution, but only if the latter re-applies for membership.

Some of the 20-25 questions for the September 2016 meeting I asked of the Party Chairman was (a) on what legal basis did he believe the NEC retained the power to re-expel Nathan Gill if the membership wanted the NEC to, (b) to confirm on what date Nathan Gill re-applied for membership of the Party. Because the way I read the Party Chairman’s communications, Nathan may not have re-applied for membership at all, as the Party Chairman maintains he “re-instated him” rather than “re-admitted him” to membership. In my view, if Nathan has not re-applied, he is not a member, but if he has, he is a member (while not being Leader in Wales), and he cannot be re-expelled. Either way, he was not a member of the Party for the required 28 days when the Leadership ballots went out, so under our rules, he shouldn’t have been able to vote in that election, but the Returning Officer wouldn’t confirm if this was the case or not either.

11. Member’s Questions

Being a member of the NEC is somewhat analogous, within the Party, to being an MP – while the Leader might be analogous to being the King, and the officers his Ministers, with the Party Chairman as the Speaker-cum-Prime Minister.

This means that one of the duties of an NEC member – as grass roots members representing grass roots Party members to the “salariat” – is to ask questions on behalf of, and pursue causes for other grass roots members who have been wronged. NEC members have (at least theoretically) some powers to ask questions and demand answers which other grass roots members (“ordinary” members) do not.

When on the NEC, I was regularly contacted by members whom I’d never heard of before, with such questions and requests, most of them entirely legitimate, and sometimes horrifying.

I was contacted by a member who had disciplinary action taken against him in January 2016 by a Regional Organiser and who has been waiting now for 8 months for the Emergency Disciplinary Panel to hear his constitutionally guaranteed appeal. I have raised this issue by e-mail and at NEC meetings several times. I have never received an answer. The appeal still has not taken place.

Worse, the Party Rulebook rule under which the Regional Organiser took this action is unconstitutional. The Constitution empowers only two bodies in the Party with such disciplinary powers – the Disciplinary Panel and, in an emergency, and on a strictly temporary basis until an Emergency Disciplinary Panel can be immediately convened (“as soon as possible” is the exact wording in the relevant article of the Constitution – Article 11.10; how’s 8 months for “as soon as possible”?), the Party Chairman. The Constitution provides no ability for this power to be delegated and rule K.13 expressly prohibits such delegation.

Under the auspices of the constitution sub-committee, I made a proposal for the September 2016 NEC meeting to revise this, and a number of other, unconstitutional rules in the Party Rulebook, all of them related to all kinds of people exercising disciplinary powers for which the rulebook furthermore provides no right of appeal – but which the Party Constitution guarantees. The Party Chairman ensured these amendments were not even debated.

This is not the first time I tried to get this matter remedied – I have been trying to get it remedied for months.

Another member wrote to me to alert me to the fact that members of his branch had validly called an EGM of the branch and that the branch committee had refused to call the EGM within the required 21 day period. I have been raising the matter repeatedly at NEC meetings and the Party Chairman promised the NEC personally to ensure that the EGM would be held and that he would personally chair it – none of which has happened, and all of my follow up questions have fallen on deaf ears. This was another of the questions I had put on the September 2016 NEC agenda, and another question which the Party Chairman refused to answer.

This is not the first time I tried to get this matter remedied either – it is another one that I have been pursuing repeatedly.

12. Communication with the Members and Conclusion

Members complain that the NEC does not communicate with them enough and I agree. As a member of the NEC, one is in quite a difficult position because of the rules on NEC confidentiality and the rules which forbid NEC members criticizing NEC decisions in public – even when they violently disagree with them. There is some merit to both these requirements, but I believe that the rules on NEC confidentiality are being applied incorrectly. The decision as to what is NEC confidential and what is not is the sole prerogative of the Party Chairman, and I got castigated a number of times (by the Party officers, most often by the Party Treasurer) for copying an e-mail addressed to NEC members also to party members who were not members of the NEC, even where the subject matter was not NEC confidential and was relevant to the members in question. In my view, there should be a presumption of openness and NEC confidentiality applied only when there is a good reason for it. One case where I believe there is a good reason is in naming individual NEC members re. what they said or how they voted, when they had an expectation this would remain private, i.e. unless it was made clear at the time that their contribution or voting record would subsequently be made public (which would be a reasonable practice, provided it is established in advance).

When Steven Woolfe did not make the ballot paper, there was an urgent need, in my opinion, for the NEC to communicate with our members. I drafted what I believed was an open, frank and detailed communication and proposed the NEC release it. The Party Chairman preferred to communicate more tersely. I sought permission to communicate directly myself, even though by doing so and defending the NEC as a body, I was putting myself personally in the firing line. To be fair to the Party Chairman, on this occasion he had no issue with me communicating directly myself. I waited for a few days to see if the NEC and/or the Party Chairman would coalesce around a joint statement – I believe our release should have happened much sooner – but after a few days I fired my own communication off anyway, taking a bit of a risk. Then later on came some official communications too.

If I remained on the NEC, I would not have been comfortable releasing such a detailed communication as this letter and possibly would not have been able to at all.

At the time of my resignation, my term on the NEC had only one or two more meetings left to run. The last two NEC meetings have achieved absolutely nothing, and I don’t expect the next one or two would have achieved anything either. Being a member of the NEC entailed an enormous amount of work, liability, and frustration as I felt I was being obstructed and sabotaged.

There are a number of successful business people on the NEC with a lot of life experience – all elected by you.

But none of this experience is being put to good use, because the NEC is being vilified and the Party is being run by a few young people with little life experience who were not accountable to us. Remind yourself, who appoints the chief of these, the Party Chairman?

Who has done a better job choosing a competent and qualified board – the members or the Leader?

This letter is very long (for which I apologize – I did not have much time, and have some pressing other deadlines to get onto) so if you are still reading, I assume you are interested in hearing what I have to say.

So what, in my opinion, can you do?

Take a step back and ask yourself – what do you want to achieve?

What I want is the restoration of some liberty into this incresingly authoritarian world. There is a tremendous opportunity to do this in the UK right now, such as there probably isn’t and won’t any time soon be, available anywhere else in the world. In order to achieve this, a strong and successful UKIP is required.

We need to clean up our act, but we need to stay united, and ensure a) Brexit happens, b) Brexit happens soon, c) Brexit happens on the right terms, and d) in order to achieve a-c, Brexit is negotiated by the right team. Once Brexit is delivered, we must ensure that we have a strong libertarian Party which can credibly claim to be a challenger to the corrupt establishment parties – not be as bad as them, or worse than them. The voters are not stupid.

What we must not have is a civil war, infighting, or the dismemberment of UKIP by forces trying to create a competing party modelled on the “5 star Beppe Grillo” lines. We must not have attempts to destroy internal party democracy.

I hope this letter will help diffuse some of the violent, vitriolic ire directed at the NEC in recent times.

Should you then, instead, direct your ire in an intolerant fashion at the Party officers or the Party Chairman and post pictures on your Facebook page calling for them to be shot, like some YI members did about the NEC members?

No. Here are my views.

One, I encourage you to not quit, stay on and keep up the fight, because the stakes are very high and the prize is well worth it.

Secondly, I encourage you not to be intolerant towards the NEC, and to resist calls for the NEC’s abolition. I can say this now, no longer being a member of the NEC, without risk of being accused of having a vested interest and wanting to self-perpetuate. Yes, there are probably members of the present NEC who aren’t much good. But the NEC is the only means of democratic control within our Party – the NEC is elected by you, and abolishing it means the end of democracy within the Party. Is it a rational reaction to one candidate not making the Leadership ballot to abolish democracy within the Party (Steven Woolfe not making the ballot paper has nothing to do with the calls to abolish the NEC, which were made by Arron Banks long before then). Or even a rational reaction to our former Head of Media not being able to be an AM (which I personally am persuaded had more to do with these ideas)? What kind of a message does it send to the public if we do not even believe in internal Party democracy and want to be a personality cult and a dictatorship of the Leader? That, if elected, we will abolish Parliament and want the country to be run in the same way, because this is more efficient, so that the executive Leader can “get on with it” without the inconvenience of scrutiny from a body of elected representatives of the grass roots – be it the NEC or Parliament?

The sort of abuse the NEC has been getting will discourage any good candidates wanting to stand. Who wants to put themselves to such abuse and be a member of a body which is getting such a bad name, and then spend all their time being frustrated and obstructed by an appointed salaried employee? If good people don’t put themselves forward, this would lead to the worst possible outcome. New NEC elections are coming soon, and this will be an opportunity for you to elect members of ability, industry and integrity – if any are willing to put themselves forward.

I have suggested to the NEC that NEC elections should be a more elaborate affair. The NEC is (supposed to be) our ultimate governing body, yet we elect members on the basis of a photograph and a 150 word write-up. I believe members should be given more information to base their votes on – hustings, videos and/or Q&A sessions I believe could all be in order.

At the next NEC election, there will likely be a slate of NEC candidates whose manifesto will be to abolish the NEC. I urge you to vote against this slate.

I urge you to elect a leader who will unite the Party, who will defend internal party democracy and take it forward to a libertarian future.

I further urge you, if you are capable, industrious and have selfless integrity, to put yourself forward for the NEC and I urge everyone else to vote for such people – you need a strong, competent, tenacious NEC whose members have integrity and are not there to pursue a personal agenda.

Secondly, the NEC as a body is indeed dysfunctional. This is true. But the reason for this is that it is chaired by a Trojan horse called the Party Chairman. No body can function unless its chairman is accountable to it, works in its interest and enjoys its confidence. In relation to the NEC and the Party Chairman, none of this is, in my view, the case. The role of the Party Chairman needs to be split. The chairman of NEC meetings needs to be elected by the NEC members from among themselves, and must be accountable and removable by them. The CEO must be a separate role and must be accountable to the board. The board carry the ultimate legal liability for the actions of the Party, so they must also have the ultimate authority over those actions. The board must also be the body to hire and fire the CEO. The constitution sub-committee made such a proposal to the September 2016 NEC meeting, but this proposal was also suppressed. I would encourage you to – calmly and politely – support and lobby for this constitutional change.

The biggest risk is that the Party may not survive until the next NEC elections – because it might run out of cash before then, and have to accept whatever bailout conditions are demanded of it. In my view, this was done deliberately, and the NEC will get blamed for it, even though it was not caused by the NEC and the NEC has been the only body standing in the way of this happening sooner. I don’t see any solution to this, unless the Party Treasurer is able to find a way to cut expenditure drastically and immediately, because most sensible donors will not give money to the Party under the present conditions and no white knight will be able to be found. I don’t really have a solution for this problem – but one thing I am sure of, it will not be solved while there is infighting and things continue as they are.

End of statement by Dr Tomaz Slivnik

first published on the Right Way Campaign WordPress.Com blog on 13th September 2016

 

 

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.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. 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

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in EU, EUkip, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ukip’s Squabbling Ferrets Are Set A Clear Example By Ukip’s Own NEC

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/08/2016

Ukip’s Squabbling Ferrets Are Set A Clear Example By Ukip’s Own NEC
.

 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! 

.

Ukip’s Squabbling Ferrets in their sack Are Set A Clear Example By Ukip’s Own NEC – showing the utter incompetence of Ukip at all levels to manage the simplest of tasks with competence, integrity & without corruption and vituperative self destruction!

000a ukip-025 count.png

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
Ukip’s Squabbling Ferrets Are Set A Clear Example By Ukip’s Own NEC
The low grade corrupt liars, cheats, criminals & clowns that form Ukip’s management and senior members consistently manage to bring Ukip into disrepute from their leader, whether when he admits to the position of leader or is acting as puppet master, to the lowest levels of the odious squabbling claque – as they jockey for position trying to emulate their leaders and get their snouts in the troughs on the EU Gravy Train.
Create an account or log in to Facebook to connect with friends and share photos.
 
NEC – Bending the rules and Breaking the Law …
Yesterday · Public

Breaking the Law …

6th July, 03:16:40 pm Piers Wauchope

Email to all member of the NEC:
“UKIP Councillor in Cambridgeshire, Lisa Duffy, is “certain” to replace Nigel Farage as Party Leader.” The headline and article form Peterborough Today.

8th July, 06:36:13 pm Liz Jones

Good for her and best of luck. She is certainly a hard worker.

10th July, 10:27:29 am John Bickley

She will be a very good candidate. She did a fantastic job for me when I stood in Wythenshawe & Sale in January 2014.

10th July, 10:51:10 am Rob McWhirter

Is her mobile still like a broken mirror? She might want to fix that if she stands. But yes, I like her too.

12th July, 09:29:28 pm Mick McGough

Sadly, I could write a CV on her catalogue of failures; she has made many serious cock-ups costing the party thousands and caused me no end of grief, once resulting in a re-run of an NEC election and a re-run of selection of London Assembly candidates when she missed out great chunks of CV text. Only last year she was intrinsically involved in the many failures regarding general election address print and distribution. When co-ordinator for the Eastern region EFDD referendum campaign she wilfully ignored instructions and I had to get Patrick (O’Flynn) to replace her with Andy Monk.
If anybody wishes to know more about problems with by-elections speak to Margo Parker MEP or ex NEC member Toby Micklethwaite. We on the NEC were always asked to clap her after by-elections not knowing about the work she failed to do – ask me at the next NEC.
She rarely answers phones or responds to emails and texts. After raising this at the NEC she left an auto reply to emails to the effect that if you haven’t had a reply within a week, re-send your email.
TOO MANY HATS MEAN JOBS DONE BADLY

13th July, 12:21:24 pm Adrianne Smyth

Adrianne Smyth (2013-2016)
I think that is a little unfair, Mick. I totally agree with you that too many hats mean jobs are not done satisfactorily but I think over the last few years so much has been heaped on Lisa and she has really worked for too many hours and for too long on day after day.
I recall doing assessments all day with her in Huntingdonshire into the evening (tiring in itself), after which she snatched a quick supper and then drove all the way to Eastleigh that night to run the (very successful) by-election for Diane James.
Lisa has dedicated herself to the Party and the huge success UKIP is currently enjoying in East Anglia is in large part due to her efforts, especially around the Ramsey area, where she has not only promoted UKIP most successfully but also been responsible for enormous improvements in the town, the shopping, the market and the general way in which UKIP is viewed by the local populace. We need more community minded people like her in our tanks.

13th July, 12:34:42 pm Rob McWhirter

I have just posted my form assenting to her candidacy, following the withdrawal of Paul.

13th July, 01:38:15 pm Mick McGough

I’m sorry Adrianne Smyth but please read the catalogue of faults I have emailed you directly, which is far from exhaustive.

14th July, 11:39:38 pm Victoria Ayling

I will not support Lisa under any circumstances. An incompetent loud mouthed bully. Totally without conviction and more interested in filling her boots. With all the demands for intense vetting for candidates, I find it very odd that you support one who is so unsuitable.

15th July, 07:12:31 am Rob McWhirter

If she is (unsuitable), then vetting should show it. I’m looking forward to finding out who the rest of her supporters are – I only know her proposer so far …

15th July, 10:16:25 am Mick McGough

Lisa is being promoted using the Eastern database. Eastern Region Newsletter – View this in your browser.

Note:

UKIP like all political parties and organisations, has to abide by laws that govern the use, safekeeping and sharing of personal data such as addresses and phone numbers of our members. All of this information is kept on databases. We can’t just let anyone know these details. In each branch, the officers: The Chair, Secretary and Membership Secretary, may have a legal right to view the personal data of the members, but only because they have read and signed the UKIP Data Protection Forms. These forms aren’t merely for internal administration, they are a legal requirement.
The only members other than branch officers, who may have access to databases are the County and Regional Chairs and Regional Organisers. The amount of data they can access depends on their level.
The crucial law everyone must follow is contained and explained in the Data Protection Act 1998. Basically, in layman’s terms, you’re not allowed to share any data in these records with someone else, who hasn’t also signed the necessary UKIP forms, and isn’t entitled to have access because their position doesn’t warrant it or they are a non- member. If someone stops being an officer or a senior regional position, then their right to access the data also stops. They are not allowed to copy and keep it for their own means or as personal records either.
If you’re in a position of trust and you pass on any Party data, which you are responsible for, to someone who shouldn’t see it, then you have broken the law. Not simply a Party rule – the LAW. Therefore any claims that someone within UKIP was doing this, should have been immediately investigated. After all, if UKIP were known to be allowing unauthorised members free access to secure data, it would be a criminal matter. It’s not the kind of thing you would expect anyone in a senior position of the party, to turn a blind eye to.

15th July, 10:49:53 am Rob McWhirter

I’ll leave such things to the Returning Officer, Adam Richardson, (who I don’t envy).

15th July, 04:29:03 pm Victoria Ayling

Adam (Richardson):
I am very concerned that Lisa is using the Eastern Region database to promote her leadership ambitions. This I believe is wrong. Please can you look into this?

15th July, 04:45:15 pm Adam Richardson

I have already set about doing so and sent a warning to David Platt (Eastern Region Organiser for Cambridgeshire, which coincidentally is where Lisa Duffy lives). But am currently working towards a solution to promotion of candidates. No databases should be used to promote candidates or potential candidates without sign off and even then the opportunity must be afforded to ALL candidates.

Note

Adam Richardson says he sent a warning to David Platt (the Regional Organiser). But what he doesn’t say is “and George Konstantinidis (the Eastern Regional Chairman)”. Why is the Returning Officer sending a warning to only ONE of the two possible senior regional sources who could have fed Lisa Duffy the Eastern Database? Does the Returning Officer think ONLY David Platt is capable or most likely to have broken the law? Or is this because he knew, even before it came to the attention of at least two NEC members, that David Platt and Lisa Duffy were in this together?
Why does the Returning Officer send only a warning to David Platt and not sanction him and Lisa Duffy? Lisa Duffy used to be the Director of UKIP, the position Paul Oakden held directly before being appointed the new Party Chairman. Has Lisa Duffy suddenly and conveniently forgotten the rules of obtaining and using confidential data?
Adam Richardson and the NEC have allowed David Platt and Lisa Duffy to get away with breaking the law governing Data Protection. This is deliberate criminal activity by someone who wants to be the leader of this Party. Suzanne Evans was suspended from the party for 6 months for what, complaining about what a UKIP candidate had said? Meanwhile, David Platt and Lisa Duffy are known to have broken the law, and what do they get, a warning!

Fast forward 12 days …

27th July, 09:32 am Nathan Gill

To: John Bickley
The subscriptions and renewals in a failed pathetic system, John. I stopped paying into Patrons when multi jobber Reeve and Duffy illegally campaigned against me just as they have been illegally using the Eastern Database recently. I told you this. You said someone would contact me. THEY DIDN’T. We have a database system that is not used to its potential and never has been. Patrons were left off list of members, less they were offended by being chased for renewals. How many lapsed members of the Patrons club are there and how many have confirmed they had left? What is the chase up procedure, none I’d gather?
Once we accept that elected members can ride carte blanche over the rules of the Party and act just like LibLabCon we might as well give up and go home.
I joined UKIP because I thought it was different. What I’m witnessing now is the same grubby clambering up the greasy pole, the sacrifice of principles and loyalty in order to chase power and money. It’s rather unedifying and probably in reality completely predictable.

27th July, 09:34 am Mick McGough

To: John Bickley
Still a pathetic system, totally neglected. So, let us check:
Janis has gone
Douglas’s Twitter chum Amjad has gone
You want Nathan Gill gone
Next Steven Woolfe
Then Bill Etheridge
Actually, you’d find it easier to impose the Charter, should lose half that way.

What has UKIP become?

Everyone will have their favourites in any election or race to become the leader and that’s natural. Most of us would do anything to help someone get to the top but breaking the law? There has to be a limit. What has the NEC and the Returning Officer allowed UKIP become? Why is criminal activity being allowed to go unchecked and unpunished? Despite being mentioned and brought to the attention of senior members of the party; not by one member with their own axe to grind, but by two on the NEC and on a completely separate occasion, an MEP; no internal charges, or reports to the Police are made. Wouldn’t you expect, after all the complaints UKIP officials have made about the Conservatives breaking the law on election expenses, they’d want to make sure none of our members were breaking the law?
If UKIP’s NEC cannot police itself and will not bring to account senior members in neglect of their duty, let alone members with designs on being Party Leader; behaving with full knowledge of their actions, breaking the law, then it has failed in its duty to govern and represent this Party.
John Gurney
Missed yesterdays episode?

Thank you kindly for following and sharing, but we really do need your help, if we are to succeed in putting #StevenWoolfe4Leader onto the Ballot paper – it is about democracy…

The Woolfe Pack is asking for anyone who wants to see honesty and justice by bringing the NEC to court, because they refuse to answer our questions and own up now.
Please make a donation. In the event that we do not need to take legal action, or spend all the money that is donated on legal costs; all monies will be donated to Steven Woolfe’s Leadership campaign fund. For any further information, please contact us at: this page The Woolfe Pack, via our messenger service.
Unlike others who make apparently ambiguous statements about having lots of (financial) backers, we really do need your money. We need approximately £2,000 to engage a solicitor and barrister, and a further £3,000 to put forward an injunction to stop this whole leadership farce continuing: –
Please Click Donate Now to make donations to “The Woolfe Pack” PayPal account (you will be taken to another page whereupon you can make your donation).

Thank you kindly,

The Woolfe Pack, we don’t follow the sheep!
Published 25/08/16, For The Woolfe Pack and Written by John Gurney.
Steve Evans and 7 others like this.

David Griffiths

Who ever thought that Lisa Duffy would be remotely suitable as leader? She might just be suitable on a Parish Council, but the thought that she might possibly become leader of a national party is just a joke. She has no public speaking skills, she has no presence.
14 · Thursday at 18:02

Myra Lovett

There is no way Lisa Duffy could be regarded as a possible Leader of UKIP. She cannot even have a discussion of anything without recourse to and many hesitations reading her notes for goodness sake. She makes statements, but does nothing to explain the why’s and wherefor’s. It is tremendously tedious attempting to follow what she is on about at the best of times.
Edited · 6 · Thursday at 18:44

Peter Shaw

I have to agree with Myra concerning Liza Duffy, she lack’s presence whilst one could be forgiving in respect that the party is young and public skill’s are still being honed,
from the speech’s I have seen many of the current candidates lack that projection of confidence not only within themselves but to gain the attention of other’s,
It’s one thing talking at village hall’s but taking that to the extreme of national debate’s and winning over somewhat militant votes is an art that few process.
6 · Thursday at 19:53
The Woolfe Pack
The Woolfe Pack
UKIP is nearly Quarter of a century. We do not require the likes of Duffy to ruin it.

Martin Ginever

If Duffy wins the leadership, then there has been large scale vote rigging
11 · Thursday at 19:59

Anne Lyons

This lot are like Fred Carnos circus. Most need booting out and starting again.
Edited · 5 · Yesterday at 00:09

Steve Jones

This is a poor reflection of UKIP leadership, at a time when the party should be exploiting the mess in the Labour Party those who should be leading are massaging egos, ask Farage to return it is clear that the remaining hierarchy is unfit to lead.
7 · Yesterday at 08:01

Mike Walker

I have asked this woolfe pack why Steve left it so late to register ,without an answer,this is all so sad and ukip will lose another member and donor if i cant get satisfactory answers.
2 · Yesterday at 09:28
The Woolfe Pack
The Woolfe Pack
The answer to your question will be posted tomorrow a.m

Gladys Galvin

👎😪
Yesterday at 13:24

Lisa Grant

Duffy as Leader, this would be Party SUICIDE! I wouldn’t let her run a jumble sale, let alone a political party, give her a dinner ladies job and see what hard working dinner ladies think of her, loudmouth with no skills!
3 · 11 hours ago

Glenys Hutchinson

Sending out ballot papers on 1st September so hoping mine gets here on time (if at all).
1 · 8 hours ago
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Posted in EU, EUkip, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Douglas Denny, Nigel Farage’s Ukip Cult Fixer, Bites Back

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 18/05/2015

Douglas Denny, Nigel Farage’s Ukip Cult Fixer, Bites Back
.

 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! 

.

Douglas Denny, who corruptly and venally acted as one of Nigel Farage’s Ukip Cult Fixers, Bites Back exposing a few reasons he believes Farage is unsound and unfit to lead Ukip.

000a ukip-025 count.png

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
I do appreciate that Douglas Denny has been consistently proven a liar, a cheat, a fantasis and undeniably corrupt having for many years acted as part of Nigel Farage’s clique of fixers helping to rig Ukip internal elections and selection processes and cloaking and defending the excesses of Nigel Farage – one of his snappy yappy unethical and unprincipled attack poodles.
However there are few who were acting for and on behalf of Nigel Farage for so long and though he may well not be prepared to publish the full facts, for fear of his own prosecution, in this effort of mitigation I do believe he goes some way to showing the personality and unsuitability of Nigel Farage who he for so long was willing to befoul Ukip and the body politic.
This letter was sent by Douglas Denny to Ukip NEC:
From: ddennyoptom@gmail.com
To: douglas.denny@btopenworld.com
Subject: Fw: Nigel and Leadership
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015
Dear REDACTED,

You probably think this email is sent out of vindictiveness. It is not. I have always been concerned with the best interests of UKIP as it is the only viable anti-EU movement in British politics.

If you ever considered my submissions at the NEC over the fifteen years I was there to have had any merit then I ask you to now consider what I have to say in a spirit of pragmatism and honest opinion.

I think (very much) you are backing the wrong horse. Nigel has had his day. He is to be thanked for taking UKIP to where it is now – but I assure you all my political instincts say he is definitely NOT the man to take it forwards into this new era where there is a referendum campaign to be fought. Now is the time he should gracefully go and look back on a golden career. To continue he will descend into acrimony and in-fighting within UKIP and ultimately be deposed, or UKIP become more and more irrelevant in British politics. The public hate in-fighting in a party and it kills it in the public mind.

What IS important is persuading the British public of the issues so they understand it is not in the interests of the country to stay in the EU.

Note: the GBP (Great British Public) have already been brainwashed over the years such that a recent poll indicates that 54% of the public want to actually stay in. That means with the don’t know’s and those that don’t vote, a referendum if carried out now would be lost.

Nigel with his aggressive shouty personality is simply not the person to put the arguments cogently and assertively and quietly with authority – without appearing to be a right wing bigot. It now needs someone different to put those arguments that the public can trust – and I mean ALL political shades of the public.

Like it or not Nigel does indeed appear to be a right wing bigot, and puts off a large percentage of the people. That is why UKIP has never shaken off the image of being BNP-lite. He did not get in to Thanet because of this very reason. (Patrick O’Flynn put his finger on it when he said Thanet has a UKIP council elected – but did not vote for Nigel as MP). Nigel puts off the ‘Left’ wing people, and more importantly – women who immediately see through him straight away as a manipulating aggressive bigot. I have had heard several women, when he has been mentioned, say he gives them the creeps.

I admire your loyalty to him but in politics one has to be flexible. Leaders have their moment, their time in the spotlight – and the trick is in knowing when they should leave. They never do themselves. They always have to be pushed. NOW is Nigel’s time to go.

Listen to Stuart Wheeler and Hugh Williams – both quiet people who observe, digest and come up with sensible opinions. They are right. Patrick O’Flynn is right too, and his public denouncement will dog Nigel constantly if Nigel tries to stay in position as leader. Also Nigel does NOT have the mandate of the membership after this GE – he LOST – so he should go back to the membership – that is only right and proper. It is improper to cling on like a limpet and is another reason to go as the public don’t like that aspect of it either. Nigel is damaged goods now. He must go or the party, though it will of course continue, will slowly whither on the vine as support drains away with a damaged leader who will attract much criticism of his leadership – it will keep coming up..

UKIP needs new blood in the leadership if it is to continue as a viable force in British politics. I am very sorry that you cannot seem to see this.

Douglas Carswell is the only man with the qualifications to carry UKIP forward successfully.

Best regards,
Douglas Denny.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from Number Withheld phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded & leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

 

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS

& >Right Side Bar<

& the >Left Side Bar<
& The >Top Bar< just below the web site title
>PAGES<

Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

SKYPE:  GregL-W

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in Douglas DENNY, EU, EUkip, Nigel FARAGE, UKIP, Ukip Cult | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Holding A Mirror To The Lies Of Ukip

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 20/01/2015

Holding A Mirror To The Lies Of Ukip
.

 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!  

.

Holding A Mirror To The Lies Of Ukip but fair play to Nigel Farage & his placemen they are well aware they are telling lies and almost bright enough to realise they just aren’t credible to thinking people!

000a ukip-025 count.png

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,clearly Ukip and what passes for their executive have learned absolutely nothing from the lessons, which they admitted to in April 2013.

Ukip realised they were telling lies to the electorate and their promises just did not add up, leading to a credibility gap where the more intelligent voters just could not believe their promises and unfunded policy claims.

It does seem that in fact they did learn something, to be fair, they learned they couldn’t get away with it so they seem merely to have dropped their standards and have continued telling the public lies but now have made a policy decision (rare in Ukip!) they seem now to be pandering to ther less well educated and poorly informed in society to seek out the populist vote.

This would seem to be a ploy well learned from the likes of Oswald Mosley and Adolf Hitler who used both overt and concealed racism to sweep the gutters of politics for any available vote, hate filled as it may have been.

Clearly the policy worked and Oswald Mosley was voted man of the year in 1934 and Hitler featured on Time magazine’s cover as the man of the year in 1938 as it worked for them clearly it worked for Nigel Farage, who became man of the year 2014, by telling lies and steering his cult down market to pander to that same audience.

Interestingly he failed in Scotland where he was rivalled in the same ploy by Alex Salmond!

That these facts are still irrefutable less than 100 days befor Britain’s General Election and Ukip still has neither a credible Manifesto nor any signs of a responsible, reputable policy for an EU eXit and survival strategy – surely no one but the illiterate and semie literate bigots and all be it veiled racists could possibly be so irresponsible as to vote for a Ukip candidate.

There are, I am sure, still some die hard principled members of Ukip who have remained in the party long past the time their common sense and ethics dictated, in the vein hope they just might be able to reform it from within. Sadly a hope that has been swamped by the corruption, squabbling, infighting and clear lack of principles competent leadership.

I still find it embarrassing to admit that although I was not adequately beguiled to join Ukip as a member nor accept any position with the party I did spend an inordinate amount of time acting behind the scenes to try to change its direction to make it credible as the party to lead the British peoples out of the EU.

Sadly, I confess, I failed and Ukip are now more of a hinderance to any hopes Britain has of repatriating our democracy, reinstating our sovereignty, re-establishing our borders and reforming our justice system by the fundamental human right, as defined by the UN and others, of ‘self determination’ and a clear unequivocal vote to Leave_The_EU.

It is for this reason that I shall refuse to place my cross against any whipped party hack which would be to spoil my ballot paper and I will, as I have done for many years, clearly write on my ballot paper the only political view I value LEAVE_THE_EU

Nigel Farage admits Ukip is NOT a credible party and has not been honest with voters

 Ukip Leader Nigel Farage

Not credible: Ukip Leader Nigel Farage

Two-faced Nigel Farage privately told pals UKIP is not a “credible” party, secret papers reveal today.

In an explosive party document leaked to the Mirror he admits “promising the earth to everybody”.

He told UKIP chums the party had a “problem” due to a raft of unaffordable pledges including tax cuts, and extra cash for police.

“We are not passing the credibility test as a party,” said Mr Farage, who has repeatedly claimed UKIP is always honest with voters.

Neil and Christine Hamilton.
Warning: Neil Hamilton with wife Christine

But the leaked papers – minutes of a meeting of UKIP’s ruling executive – show the party’s top brass brazenly admit they have not been straight with the public.

UKIP deputy chairman Neil Hamilton – the disgraced ex-Tory MP – warned colleagues: “This is the last time we can get away with this.

“We can say anything on the doorstep.

“But on television we will have some pretty searching questions to answer.”

At the meeting, in April 2013, a panicking Mr Farage agreed voters are starting to see through UKIP’s endless unfunded promises.

The minutes state: “NF (Nigel Farage) thinks we cannot talk about council tax cuts and spending more on policing etc all at the same time.

“We are setting ourselves up for a fall.

“His problem is that we are promising the earth to everybody.”

The minutes go on: “NF feels we are not passing the credibility test as a party.”

UKIP claimed it had “taken on board” Mr Farage’s warnings and changed its ways.

Labour MP Sarah Champion said the damaging leak lays bare the truth behind UKIP’s public charade.

“This is absolutely typical of UKIP politicians who say one thing on the telly but have entirely different views in private,” she blasted.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.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
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A GUEST POST> Displaying UKIP’s Degeneracy by An Insider!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 12/03/2014

A GUEST POST> Displaying UKIP’s Degeneracy by An Insider!
.

 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!  

.

A GUEST POST>
Displaying UKIP’s Degeneracy by An Insider, who was at the time an elected member of UKIP NEC!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

Annabelle Fuller named by Nikki Sinclare in European Parliament

On 11th Dec 2009 I published the letter below from NEC member Del Young to then UKIP chairman John Whittaker concerning the unacceptable activities of Annabelle Fuller in relation to a confidential UKIP candidate test interview of a potential UKIP MEP candidate, John West, which subsequently appeared in the public domain on the internet with the sneering headline, “How not to do politics”. As a result of Del’s letter and subsequent discussions we were told by Whittaker that Annabelle Fuller’s links to UKIP would be severed. That clearly did not happen. The Telegraph reports she returned to UKIP last year. Click below to read  the report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10692247/Nigel-Farage-employs-both-his-wife-and-mistress-at-public-expense.html

In the report Farage denies he ever had an affair with Miss Fuller. So who is tellling the truth Ms Sinclare or Mr Farage? The UK electorate are entitled to know.

For the record, and with Del’s agreement I publish below an email Del sent to John Whitaker copy to the whole NEC concerning John West’s treatment by UKIP. It speaks for itself.

“Date: Saturday, 26 July, 2008, 16:52

Saturday 26 July 2008
Dear Mr. Whitaker,
First of all let me say that I can sympathise with the fact that a stupid, selfish and destructive action concerning the posting of John West’s MEP media interview on YouTube by Annabelle Fuller has put you in a difficult position.
When the actions of others put us in difficult positions it can be highly frustrating, however given the circumstantial evidence that there is a 99% chance that this video was indeed posted by Miss Fuller, from your email I get the impression that you have not spoken to Miss Fuller indepth regarding this matter.
Instead you have chosen to email the National Executive of the party a fanciful story from Miss Fuller, which is hugely insulting to what little intelligence I possess.
Not only is it damaging to Mr. West that this video has been leaked, it is potentially far more damaging to the party that this video and Miss Fullers Comments – “UKIP are the Eurosceptic nutters” etc. – have ended up in the public domain, and indeed I believe it was posted for a time on the BNP website for god’s sake.
The leader and his disciples have always accused innocent hard working activists of doing things to damage the party and yet one of his most protected confidants has done immense damage to the party with her vengeful, spiteful actions.
As the Chairman of the party and NEC, your first loyalty should be to the best interests of the party and the cause for which we fight, but increasingly over the years you and the majority of NEC members seem to have put loyalty to the leader ahead of the interests of the members, the party and our cause.
As an NEC member I have a duty to work with the elected leader of the party to take our cause forward, but I do not owe that duty blindly and unquestioningly – I have to balance what help or support I give to our leader with the best interests of the party, its members and our objectives.
It has been an open secret within the party that Miss Fuller was under the protection of the party leader and that is why on many occasions Miss Fuller has written things on internet forums that were hugely offensive to members, including certain NEC members and yet no action has ever been taken against her.
Indeed there was a particular series of postings on an internet forum regarding Tom Wise & Roger Knapman a year or two ago by an individual and Miss Fuller which caused some concern to me in so much that this individual and Miss Fuller must have had first hand and unrestricted knowledge of the matter.
At that time I raised my concerns to the NEC and they were minuted regarding persons in the press office having access to information of a sensitive nature and not handling it with confidentiality and care.
I later found out that the person in question was Miss Fullers partner and I was assured by Clive Page that Miss Fuller would not make any future postings and that she had been warned about her behaviour.
Yet after a couple of months Miss Fuller was once again posting on Internet forums commenting in ways unbecoming of a professional member of this party.
Indeed she stated on the Independence and Democracy forum that she is not answerable to the party, instead claiming that she reported to someone in the European parliament and yet it seems she has open licence to abuse UKIP’s name, members and NEC.
If Miss Fuller chooses to resign from whatever positions she holds or indeed from the party before a disciplinary hearing can be arranged, if that is deemed appropriate, there is little that you can do.
However I still believe you should have had a meeting with Miss Fuller to establish all the facts in this matter and prepared a report for the NEC to consider, at the specially convened meeting Eric Edmonds requested and any response to the wider members then agreed by the NEC, instead of this Hollywood fantasy involving a taxi driver and a mysterious computer specialist – I did not realise Stephen Spielberg had joined the party!
Miss Fuller’s actions have left the party with a potentially very large can of legal worms and a high risk of financial liability, I understand that Mr. West has now engaged lawyers and intends to sue the party, as it was UKIP that was responsible under the data protection act and not Miss Fuller.
I would also like to point out that all members of the NEC are liable and responsible for any financial liabilities of the party.
I also believe that the police will be interviewing Mr. West in the near future with a view to launching an investigation and that the information commissioner to whom this matter has been reported may also conduct an investigation, which may lead to the party receiving a sizeable fine.
So you see Mr. Whitaker, Miss Fuller may have walked off into the sunset, whilst we are left to face the music and the possibility of picking up a number of huge bills and your email has done very little to help matters and gives the impression we are running for political numpties of the year award (hotly contested with Gordon Brown I believe).
I suspect that this may not be the last we see of Miss Fuller with regards to UKIP and the InDem group and their activities, I rather suspect that she will be employed by someone connected to UKIP or as a consultant in the 2009 campaign and hence again given the right to apparently speak on behalf of the party.
What has happened to Mr. West has been totally hurtful, unprofessional and hugely unacceptable on all levels, however sometimes we cannot control what happens to us, but we can manage the effects of what happens to us.
As an NEC member I want to work with you and the other members of the NEC in managing this very fine mess once again, created by someone under the protection of the party leader.
Firstly I would respectfully suggest that you write a letter on behalf of yourself and the NEC unreservedly apologising to Mr. West and call an extraordinary NEC meeting as requested by Eric Edmonds so that we can work through and manage where possible, repair where we can, apologise where we must and ensure that the party does not find itself in this position again.
There is an increasingly distasteful pattern appearing in the party, that when party members raise concerns or lodge complaints, they are treated with disdain, contempt and viciousness and in some cases are openly attacked or have lies told about them.
There also seems to be a general refusal to investigate complaints, which in turn leads to further dissatisfaction and trouble that could have been avoided in the first place.
Dr. David Abbott stressed at the NEC meeting in July that we really need to investigate John West’s and others complaints, because failure to do so upsets the activists and rubs the members up the wrong way, sadly his request as per usual appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
Mr. Whitaker you are a very intelligent man and I know you are better than this.
Loyalty to our leader is admirable and should be encouraged, but that loyalty cannot take precedence over the interests of the members and our cause, if the leader is hell-bent on taking us down a very narrow political dead end, there is no good to come from us ignoring the signs and pretending that we cannot see the dangers that lie ahead – it is our duty to advise the leader that he must change direction – this is not disloyal, this is common sense.
At the NEC meeting in June I tried to point out to our leader some of things he needs to change and some of the things that he needs to change, including certain personnel, to get the party back on the right road but this also fell on deaf ears.
We need to have a clear functional and effective strategy, working closely with our branches and our activists in moving forward and growing the party, as our hardest task is to educate the British people on the dangers of the Political EU.
Simply concentrating on returning as many MEP’s as possible in 2009, whilst maybe being admirable and right is not a wholesale or effective strategy for achieving what we must achieve in the UK .
One does not have to like the messenger, but it does help on the odd occasion to listen to the message.
Please call an extraordinary NEC meeting for early in August so that as an NEC we can ask the relevant questions and uniformly manage this mess.
The NEC needs to get back and manage this party as laid down in the constitution, as there are far too many individuals or little groups who are unaccountable to the NEC and yet are making decisions or taking actions whilst being given licence and protection by the leader to use UKIP’s name, sometimes causing damage to the party’s name or members, whilst the NEC is responsible and liable for any recriminations.
It is time for us to stop being the see no evil, hear no evil, but do much evil club.
I have no doubt I will be branded mal-content or trouble maker etc. as usual, however I can assure you that I have just one agenda, and that is to save this country from the political EU and to make this party as strong and effective as it can be to achieve that aim.
Yours truly,
Del


The culture in Farage’s UKIP has not changed and was captured today in a Daily Mail description of what is going on in UKIP’s new election HQ in Mayfair. Click link to read.


The culture of any organisation is set by the man at the top and his close associates.

Mrs Farage is quoted as describing the office atmosphere thus, “a freakshow”

Clearly this office is completely out of control. Is this Farage’s idea of the  professional party he boasts at having created?

The Mail quotes UKIP quotes Ukip director of communications Patrick O’Flynn thus: ‘I have been in post since the start of February and I have been hugely impressed with the professionalism and dedication of staff at Brooks Mews. 
‘The Times clearly would prefer Ukip to do very badly at the forthcoming local and European elections. But everyone at Brooks Mews is working flat out to ensure that the opposite occurs. Given the positive response Ukip is getting from the British public, we are very hopeful of achieving an excellent result.’

Its a joke party that is letting down the decent UKIP members hugely.
They deserve better than this.

To view the original article CLICK HERE & search 12-Mar-2014
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.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
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in Annabelle FULLER, Del YOUNG, GL-W, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., John WEST, John Whittaker, Nigel FARAGE, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Favoured BNP Alliance.

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/03/2014

Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Favoured BNP Alliance.
.

 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!  

.

Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Dr. David Abbott & Dr. Eric Edmond Favoured Alliance between UKIP & The BNP & dishonesty in their removal from the NEC as with Richard Suchorzewski.

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
one has to wonder if some authors, be that media or book authors do any research or whether they just write the propaganda as it is fed to them!

Senior Ukip members ‘backed pact with BNP’

Proposal was canvassed among party’s National Executive Committee in 2008 according to a new book

Daniel Boffey, policy editor
Saturday 8 March 2014 16.29 GMT
Nigel Farage
Nigel Farage
Two members of Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP five years ago but in 2008 Nigel Farage said the deal had been unanimously rejected. Photograph: Simon James/GC Images
A new book has revealed that Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP six years ago, with two members of the party’s national executive committee at the time in favour of the idea.In 2008 Nigel Farage acknowledged that the BNP had proposed a deal for the European elections the following year, but insisted it had been unanimously rejected. Farage told reporters then: “I’m simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing.”

Now the new book, Revolt on the Right, by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Robert Ford – called the most definitive account yet of the Ukip movement – reveals that the BNP’s proposal was canvassed among 17 members of the party’s NEC. Two members supported the proposal, it has emerged.

Farage, who said he had been against a pact, told the authors: “There were a lot of people saying to me at that time, ‘You’ve got to do a deal with them.’ I even had Tory MEPs saying to me, ‘Nigel, you’ve got to do a deal with these people.’ We were being beaten by them regularly in local elections. So there was huge pressure on me. The nature of the deal was the BNP would stand in some regions in the European elections in the north, and Ukip would stand in the south, and that would be the electoral pact: we wouldn’t oppose each other.”

Of the members who offered support for the pact, Farage said: “They were the angry old men of old Ukip who thought Ukip was doomed.”

The political predicament of Ukip in 2008 contrasts with its potential today, the authors say. In the book, published this week, they say the party has emerged from the crash with the potential to attract a third of the electorate.

Around 30% of voters are now believed to be both Eurosceptic and opposed to immigration, or Eurosceptic and politically dissatisfied, the defining themes for Ukip. Such sentiments are continuing to grow in strength among the electorate, according to the authors, who draw on the biggest pool of data so far amassed on the political movement.

The book provides evidence that the share of voters holding Eurosceptic views and at least one other radical right belief has increased by five to seven percentage points since 2008. Ukip is widely seen as not having a credible manifesto and has faced serious questions about the calibre of its MEPs, the authors note.

This weekend, the party was dogged by claims that it had misused EU funds in paying staff working in the UK. Yet Goodwin, from Nottingham University, and Ford, of Manchester University, say the “army of potential supporters for Ukip is growing in size” and is being aided by continued anger at Labour’s record and disaffection with the Tory leader.

They argue that Farage and Ukip face huge challenges in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and given the party’s continued unpopularity among women, ethnic minorities, graduates and the young. However, Ukip is now the favoured electoral option among those who strongly disapprove of the EU – 20% of all British voters.

Over the past three years, the party has also performed better than Labour among older, working-class voters and those who are struggling financially. The party is using tactics similar to those once successfully deployed by the Lib Dems, the authors say, in that they seek to deepen their vote in particular areas by getting into local councils and building strongholds.

It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield and Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.

The book suggests that the potential for Ukip’s rise can be clearly seen in societal changes that developed decades ago. The authors write: “Its seeds lay among groups of voters who struggled with the destabilising and threatening changes brought by deindustrialisation, globalisation and, later, European integration and mass immigration.”

The academics claim Farage is fusing three issues to make a coherent message: “Farage’s party now encourages voters to say ‘no’ three times: no to the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg; no to the politicians in Westminster; and no to immigration. This is not a grand ideological vision – there is no ‘Farageism’ – but it is a coherent and highly effective message.”

They add: “Ukip is not a second home for disgruntled Tories in the shires; it is a first home for disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them long ago.”

To view the original article CLICK HERE
On publication of the book Revolt on the Right I read it but found it was tedious and pretentious in the extreme and the reporting of this story in the article above was just as inaccurate as shown! The story put forward regarding the claim that an official approach from the BNP was made and was supported by two members of UKIP’s NEC is utter hogwash.
At the time I wrote numerous factually based and sourced articles regarding this even which I showed to be nothing more than Nigel Farage’s ‘Reichstag Fire’ event giving him an excuse for his own ‘Crystalnacht’.
Never have those who Farage and his clique identified who actually proposed a link with the BNP backed by a single fact.
Was it in fact Nigel Farage?
FARAGE, Nigel 37 DEAVIN, Mark - LeCOMBER, TonyThis photo shows Nigel Farage, Mark Deavin (who sat with UKIP NEC) and Tony LeComber (National Front & subsequently BNP Lecomber was convicted for criminal damage in 1982, offences under the Explosives Act in 1985, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1991 for an attack on a Jewish teacher.)
It is widely believed that the photograph was taken after a lunch between the three in which the possibility of Nigel Farage joining the BNP with a view to leading the party as at the time Farage was not a member of UKIP having fallen out with his colleagues!
The NEC meeting referred to in the article, and in the rather sloppy book, was attended by arrangement, as a guest of Martin Hasslam, an attendee at the NEC at the behest of Nigel Farage, agreed to by Nigel Farage, by Buster Mottram, a Farage family friend who I understand was living with a relation of Nigel Farage’s and let us not forget that Nigel Farage, against widespread advice, enrolled and welcomed Buster Mottram as a favoured member of UKIP and as something of a personality and spokesman.
Buster Mottram presented a scenario of association with the BNP claiming he had the approval of the BNP leadership!
I am reliably advised that NO ONE elected to UKIP NEC was in favour of the suggested scenario, interestingly by dint of lies and inuendo, rumours and spin it was claimed by the ‘Farage faction’, a view promoted via certain liars amongst UKIP’s press staff, that two members of the elected NEC supported the suggestion – this was and is a lie.

The claimed, by inuendo, supporters were Dr. David Abbott and Dr. Eric Edmond, both of whom have sought clarification of the implied slur and have promised to sue Farage and any member of his odious clique who claims they have supported the BNP in this context. It is interesting to note that both Abbott & Edmond had actively campaigned for transparency in UKIP’s use and abuse of both tax payers’ money and that of UKIP donors – particularly in respect of the apparent scam of The Ashford Call Center and its ramifications where another elected member of the UKIP NEC Richard Suchozevski had proved that less than 15% of the money raised by ‘Ashford’ ever reached the Party!
Interestingly not only were Drs. Abbott and Edmond forced off of UKIP NEC by Farage’s cult but so also was Richard Suchorzewski, a position that was inevitable once he had, in campaigning for clarity and probity, asked 30 questions regarding UKIP accounts and use of donors’ and tax payers’ money, questions that Andrew Smith, treasurer at the time, was seemingly unable to answer and quit his position thereby avoiding the question leaving UKIP accounts in total disaray  – seemingly with possibly £Millions unaccounted for.
I must apologise for not having posted this article when it was first published, but at the time I felt it was so shoddy, inaccurate and unchecked as to be irrelevant, as with the book quoted! I find that a subsequent article elsewhere made it relevant and therefore added the article with this comment on 10-May-2014.
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.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
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in Buster MOTRAM, Buster Mottram, David ABBOTT, David ABBOTT Dr, Eric EDMOND, Eric EDMOND Dr, Martin HASSLAM, Nigel FARAGE, UKIP, UKIP and BNP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: