UKIP Uncovered

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

Monday, October 20, 2003

Rejection of Appeal by NE Regional Committee Officers

The following is the text of the appeal rejection:-

Quote

United Kingdom Independence Party
(Bogner Regis and Littlehampton Division) October 1st 2003

Dear Michael,

APPEAL AGAINST THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF (the three officers of the UKIP NE Regional Committee).

1. Further to my letter of August 6th, the appeal committee met on September 8th and a written account of its findings was submitted to the party secretary on September 11th. Unfortunately, I had wrongly assumed that the findings would be officially communicated to you by the party secretary. My apologies therefore for your not having been informed much earlier of the outcome of the appeal.

2. The appeal committee consisted of myself, Gregg Beaman (NEC), John Harvey (Disciplinary Committee) and Jack Crosbee (Disciplinary Committee).

3. The three grounds for appeal were as follows:
a) the disciplinary panel’s decision was wrong
b) the composition of the panel was unfair and wrong; there should not be any
employees of the party on the panel.
c) the punishment was entirely in appropriate, given the circumstances
surrounding this case and in particular the conduct of Mr Troy as confirmed
by the report of the party treasurer.

The appeal committee considered each of these in detail.

4. The appeals committee found as follows:
a) The disciplinary panel’s decision was sound. The appellants had undeniably
committed the offence in the complaint against them. Appeal dismissed.
b) The composition of the disciplinary panel was fair and in strict accordance
with party rules. Disciplinary complaints and disciplinary hearing panels must
be (and were) selected from the remaining 10 members of the disciplinary
committee elected at the party’s annual conference. There are no party
employees on this committee though three members are contracted for
services to the party MEPs. Only one of these, Jill Clark, sat on the
disciplinary hearing which was unanimous in its decision and unduly
influenced by her views.
c) The appellants’ suspension from the regional committee was an appropriate
penalty for the original offence and subsequent publicity bringing the party
into disrepute. Internal personality clashes and rivalries do not justify
regional committee members refusing to comply with national internal
election policy or publicly bringing the party into disrepute.

5. The Appeal panel therefore dismissed the appeal. However, the Panel felt that a spirit of reconciliation and local democracy should prevail. Therefore, if either of the remaining appellants gives sufficient undertakings on future conduct, he should be allowed to stand in any future regional election, provided there are sufficient candidates to hold a full postal ballot run by head office. In the event of election by this popular vote, the candidate’s suspension would be lifted. However, this provision would not apply to any election with insufficient candidates to warrant a full postal ballot. “Sufficient undertakings” would involve a signed agreement to:

a) comply with national rules and guidelines on all internal elections.
b) apply all national policies and procedures within the region on matters within the
regional competence.
c) co-operate with all members of the regional committee irrespective of personal
rivalries and dislikes.
A breach of these principles would re-activate the suspension.
These findings were unanimous.

Again my apologies for the delay caused by misunderstanding. Hopefully, you and the leadership will be able to work out some constructive path for the future.

Yours sincerely,

G. T. Stride

Unquote

posted by Martin |11:18 AM