UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Monday, September 22, 2003

UKIP Cabal and GLW

The letter below from UKIP Vice Chairman and NEC member Damian Hockney is being circulated on various internet discussion groups. It provides yet further evidence of the continuing and close relationship between those in the UKIP Cabal and the disgraced Greg Lance-Watkins. It is quoted in full:-

I too am very disappointed that the illegal sacking of the Party Treasurer was aired in public, but this of course was done by a telephone call from an NEC member at 6.30pm immediately after the September NEC to Greg Lance Watkins' home telephone number, who then put out an e-mail to a list of 300 people in the party with the wearying familiar arguments attacking the Party Treasurer to which we had just been subjected (which of course invited further comment and thought from members and precipitated the Branch Chairmen meeting and the wide discussion of our illegal and unconstitutional actions): GLW then also called a number of NEC members, in at least one instance leaving a somewhat hysterical message on their answerphone.

Similarly, I am unhappy that GLW knew a week before I did that it was planned to revive discipline proceedings against me, apparently out of spite because of my involvement in defending the Party Treasurer and the Constitution, and the use of my lawyers to assist in restoring the party to order. I made clear the content of GLW's e-mail on this matter to the Party Secretary 10 days ago...and received notice of these proceedings from him a few days back, just after the resolution of the illegal sacking. GLW claims in an e-mail to Richard North that a group of people, meeting on the day the illegal sacking was reversed, decided to "get Hockney". At least he wasn't suggesting (yet) that it would be the 'act of a patriot' to murder me as he did with a Swedish Yes campaigner.

A couple of weeks ago, I correctly advised that the sacking of the Party Treasurer was unconstitutional and would lead to unintended consequences.

Now I am giving some more helpful advice, that the manner in which this planned kangaroo court is being arranged is also unconstitutional. Additionally it is of doubtful legality, due to the defamatory nature of the allegations which are being placed in the public arena without any proof other than one person's opinion, together with the proof we now have of pre-planning (thank you GLW), and I put on notice the almost suicidal lack of wisdom of proceeding with another divisive action which this time has the added bonus of possibly breaking criminal law. I will in any event not be 'judged' by a collection of party employees who have been told in advance, according again to the GLW e-mail, that my sentence is to be 18 months disbarment from office. Very convenient if you consider the NEC election cycle, and my own re-election year. Is this what we mean by 'slimming down the NEC'? I will respond appropriately again to restore order to the party if this continuing public attack is not stopped.

All those who are party to these illegal attacks, or who support them, are liable. The Constitution cannot indemnify those on the Discipline Panel who knowingly act in the manner decribed above, and the indemnity outlined in the Constitution is not applicable in such a case. If I do not hear that this case has been dropped, I will be initially obliged, in order to restore order to the party again, to instruct my lawyers to write to the Discipline Panel to ask them to take legal advice in the knowledge that the party secretary has failed to provide them with the proper indemnity, is inciting them to break the law and does not actually know what he is doing in this case - they will have to make their decisions on whether they wish to be accomplices in breaking the law accordingly. Similarly, the discipline action revives the legal actions I myself kindly and good-heartedly in a spirit of co-operation placed on hold once I thought there was a commitment to drop all of these divisive and silly discipline proceedings and to work together sensibly. Do I now seriously have to be forced to issue writs against those who defamed me simply because I have acted correctly to help restore order to the party and they feel that their egos have been bruised?

Remember, I am only responding to attacks: do not blame anyone - party treasurer, party secretary, regional committees, individual NEC members, whoever - who return fire with fire in order to protect their reputations and standings, which are under fire by a careful campaign of smears and lies.

Again, I am only reporting what GLW has apparently been told and the results of my own advice, taken following receipt of the GLW e-mail outlining the plans to find me guilty of a disciplinary offence which lawyers have made clear to me is not actually a disciplinary matter anyway

- GLW seems to learn earlier than the rest of us what is happening, and he does claim to our members in Wales that he is on 'the inner circle' of our leadership, and his predictions have been right about this matter and many others so far. In that sense, I suspect that his e-mails are becoming quite useful, and I have lifted my three-year bar on receiving his missives as they enable me to know what is happening and what is being planned.
Kind regards
Damian

posted by Martin |5:58 PM