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

Sunday, November 30, 2003 

UKIP Donations

The following are the most recent donations listed on the Electoral Commission website as reported by the United Kingdom Independence Party.

We suggest anybody knowing these individuals or those who control the companies concerned might wish to advise these misguided but well meaning donors just what kind of party UKIP has now become.

The donors are:-

South West AU
Langham Industries Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: 1491878 Bingham's Melcombe
£ 5,000.00

Plymouth & District AU
Mrs Sheila Butler
status: Individual

£ 2,000.00

Head office
Alan Bown (Margate) Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: 1492600 Archway House
Archway Road
CT11 9EN
£ 10,000.00

Head office
Alan Bown (Margate) Ltd
status: Company
company reg no: 1492600 Archway House
Archway Road
CT11 9EN
£ 5,000.00

Stafford AU
The Earl of Bradford
status: Individual

£ 1,330.00

Monies raised are now largely being directed to attracting new innocent members through national press campaigns, with questionable legality as questioned in the posting immediately below.

posted by Martin |8:52 AM

Saturday, November 29, 2003 

UKIP's Daily Telegraph Advertisement

Barbara Booker yesterday raised the following grave questions concerning the present methods and legality of UKIP's fundraising campaign:

I see that, unlike UKIP's previous ads in the Daily Mail, the one in today's Telegraph is not attributed to a sponsor. Who then is paying for it? We know from the party treasurer's e-mail that the SE regional committee refuses to take responsibility for Ashford, and although this operation has apparently been running since June it does not appear to be registered with the Electoral Commission as a separate accounting unit. That only leaves the party's head office to make reports to the Commission as required by the PPERA.

Does this mean the treasurer's concerns about Ashford's use of national data, and the non-provision of accounts by Nigel Farage, have now been satisfied? Has the NEC received the written agreement about indemnifying the party from losses or other liabilities that Mr
de Roeck said was important? And most important of all, can Daily Telegraph readers who respond to the ad be assured that their donations and membership subscriptions will go to the UK Independence Party as the ad implies, rather than to 'UKIP South East Region'?

It's odd that if these contentious issues have indeed been happily resolved, no-one has thought to mention it. It would make such a pleasant change from reading about party expulsions, legal action and banned e-mails!

The internet forum from which we took this posting has had nothing in the way of a reply posted by any responsible party official.

We suggest still-remaining party members should insist on answers to these serious questions from the Party Leader, Chairman or any NEC Member.

posted by Martin |8:42 AM

Friday, November 28, 2003 

An Open Letter to UKIP's Landlord

We have received a copy of an open letter addressed to the UKIP NEC Member who arranged UKIP's present Head Office facilities:

I have a few questions over your involvement in the decision (illegal) to move UKIP HQ to Birmingham.

1.Did your company arrange the license at Broadwick Street? I'm told that it did! I also understand that you sought to frighten NEC members by implying that the facilities at Bridgeman House could be denied to the Party by the end of the year. Why did you do this? As I understand it the ' licence ' you arranged, doesn't expire until March next year??

2. So, as you created that licence why haven't you indemnified the party against any such

3.How do you know that UKIP will be barricaded out of the office anyway?

4.Please explain how this move will aid the Party to fight the EU elections?

We will post the reply when and if received.

posted by Martin |9:07 AM

Thursday, November 27, 2003 

UKIP Dissected

The following is a posting from an internet discussion group devoted to fighting the EU:

As a new subscriber to Eurofaq I fail to understand why so much space is devoted to the affairs of the United Kingdom Independence Party. It may have been a good idea to set it up a decade ago, but today it is simply politically irrelevant. No one votes for it; the media ignore it; and it has nothing to say about British political affairs. Indeed, apart from its obsession with re-electing its obviously low-grade MEPs, it merely indulges its other obsession, which is for NEC members to sue or threaten to sue one another with monotonous regularity. And what a bunch they are! Their grasp of finance and their organisational skills are at a level below even those of Brussels. If they really wanted to get their act together for 2004 they would surcharge their incompetent and autocratic chairman for his unauthorised overspend of £60,000 at the Scottish and Welsh elections and force their idiot MEPs to contribute most of their inflated salaries to the party. In fact all candidates in the Euro-elections should be forced to sign a declaration stating that if elected they would donate at least half their salaries to the party.

But why even bother about this political freak-show? May I suggest that you simply stop mentioning it and in this way pay due tribute to the politically brain-dead?

I for one will search the net for a discussion forum where European issues can be discussed intelligently.

posted by Martin |5:39 PM

Exposing the Facts

Some question whether exchanges such as those regarding the proposed move of UKIP's Head Office to Birmingham should be publicly available on a blog such as this.

In the early days of my disagreements with those ostensibly in charge of the incredible mess that is what purports to be a political 'force', called the UK Independence Party, I too had some doubts.

On 4th May 2003 a proposal was therefore made to David Lott and Nigel Farage that addressed these concerns. Had such proposals been accepted the present crisis would by now have passed and this blog would have long since ceased to appear.

A review of the blog archives since that date will show how necessary those proposed reforms really were, both way back then in the spring and even more so today.

The introduction to the detailed proposals set out in the form of a "HEADS OF AGREEMENT" which listed numerous detailed reforms and appointment of an investigatory panel stated the following:

"I have given much careful thought to what you said regarding the good of the party. At the present moment the Blog UKIP Uncovered is only known to UKIP Party Members and it would seem unlikely that its contents would become available to a wider audience outside the party, let alone to the media, unless a particular party member deliberately chose to disclose the web address.

You may recall that I stated that the objective of the Blog was to aid in the withdrawal of Britain from the EU by forcing a thorough clean-up of the rot that has been allowed to develop at the centre of the party, followed by a root and branch reform of the party procedures that have enabled this situation to develop.

I have therefore prepared a Heads of Agreement covering the main areas that I believe need urgent attention and laid out my ideas as to how they might be tackled. With the following put into effect the concerns raised within the Blog will have been largely corrected and it could therefore be removed".

Ignoring this offer has led to this blog now receiving sometimes more than 150 hits per day and still steadily growing.

posted by Martin |12:58 PM

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 

Birmingham Re-location Latest Letters

The following are two self-explanatory letters on the proposed move of Head Office from London to Birmingham from the Party Vice-Chairman, Damian Hockney, first to all UKIP Branch Chairmen, followed by the referenced letter to Chairman Lott.


Dear Branch Chairman

I am writing to you to attach a copy of my letter to Party Chairman David Lott of 26th November 2003 about irregularities and failure to consult over the attempted move of the party's Head Office to the estate agents' offices of the party's Deputy Leader. As you will see, no information at all has been provided to the NEC, the NEC was pushed into the move in a very questionable manner and it highly questionable to base our offices in the premises of an NEC member. None of us know the full nature of the deal and how much we will be paying and when. A lease or licence is a serious matter and selling the idea on the basis of some unspecified rent-free period does not alter the importance of dealing with the matter properly now. The party is open once more to legal challenge in the irresponsible manner in whichthe move has been planned.

Along with others, I have located excellent value-for-money offices in London (in Westminster and in the West End), and make clear in my letter to the Party Chairman that if the Deputy Leader is genuinely prepared to make a contribution to new offices, then he can do so in offices which are genuinely independent, and that I will be happy to match his generosity as it will assist the party.

Due to another unsound NEC decision, I am able to e-mail this to you as a branch chairman, but may not e-mail it to the Party Chairman himself or others on the NEC as it was agreed that "important information must not be communicated through e-mail between members of the NEC".

I urge you to read my letter to David Lott and to contact me with any queries you may have.

Kind regards

Damian Hockney
Vice Chairman, UK Independence Party
and Chairman of UKIP Kensington & Chelsea



The referenced letter to David Lott follows:-



David Lott Esq
Party Chairman
UK Independence Party 25th November 2003
54 Broadwick St

Dear David


I am writing to you about the very serious issues which have arisen in the wake of the recent secretly planned move of the party¹s head office.

At the 10th November meeting of the party's National Executive Committee, there was a surprise motion to quickly move the party's head office out of London to an office within the estate agents' offices of the party's Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass. No written proposal was given to the NEC and the verbal details provided were sketchy. No mention was made of the impact on existing staff, volunteers, meetings in London or stock of merchandise, among other things.

I myself knew nothing about this proposal, the agenda for the meeting contained no reference to it at all (and was in any event only received by myself and other members on the morning of the meeting itself) and a large number of other members of the NEC, and indeed the General Secretary, have also made it clear that they knew nothing about this plan. Those charged in September with looking for offices, Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass and Party Secretary Derek Clark, have clearly failed to do what was required - to locate a series of alternatives, in order for the NEC to discuss these.


Further, members of the NEC were pushed into believing that the party might be barricaded out of its offices if the party did not make an immediate decision. The statement about barricading us out of our offices was made by NEC member ****: he made this claim twice when proposing the move to Birmingham. It was **** own company, ----, which granted the licence of those current offices to the party lasting until March 2004.

If it is true that we are to be barricaded out of our own offices, as he claims, then he needs to answer some serious questions as he was responsible for arranging the license.


This situation over the party's current offices in itself proves the lack of wisdom of being dependent upon an NEC member to provide office space on a "deal". If an NEC member grants a licence to the party and then announces to the party's NEC that it is likely to be barricaded out of those offices before the end of the term he has granted, stampeding them into another unsuitable deal, then it proves the need for independent stand-alone offices
taken up by the party which are dependent upon no one individual's grace and goodwill.

Mike Nattrass's estate agents' offices do not therefore offer the solution.

No details or costs are known to the NEC. As you know, when I initially asked for the deal on paper at the NEC I was refused. Nothing - not a scrap of paper - was available at the NEC. After heated discussion, including an initial refusal to supply anything in writing, it was finally agreed that - figures will be provided on costs and benefits' (Minute 4c).

I must say I am not surprised that over two weeks later, not a single piece of paperwork has yet been provided to the NEC about this intended move.


No terms, no conditions. No details of rent, no details of rent free period. No draft licence, No costings of the move. Nothing. This is irresponsible, and is against the normal and lawful operation of an unincorporated body where members of the management body the NEC have been not given due and proper information. I am sorry to say I also have firm evidence that we have also been purposely misled. Indeed, the fact that such a move was planned in
secret, with no information given to many members of the management body, and in spite of the fact that meetings of the NEC had taken place where this could have been considered, makes it against the lawful operation of such a body.

Much was made of a "rent free period" being offered, but rent free periods are negotiated as a matter of course in many office situations. In any event, there is no certainty as to what this rent free period is: as you remember, Mike Nattrass changed it during the course of the meeting. This is highly irregular. We do not know whether the offices are suitable, whether
Mike Nattrass has tried to let them already, why they are vacant, or indeed what is the liability for the rates.

This move was presented as a cost-saving exercise, but that is simply misleading and untrue. Any savings made in a specific aspect of such a move - not in any event specified or costed at the meeting - are going to be offset completely by other costs which include:


1 There will be massively increased costs in paying the travel and occasional accommodation for staff who are currently in place - this will be at least £10,000 per year. You cannot simply hope that you can just discard the existing staff like old toys. Their rail travel will have to be paid, as will overnight accommodation in many circumstances where they have to work
late. And any proposed move has to factor in the relocation costs of existing staff. This particular matter could run into tens of thousands of pounds. No plan as to employment of existing staff has been disclosed


2 Alternatively, there will be grounds for claims for constructive dismissal, as it has become clear that one of the aims of the move is for some NEC members to take control of the administrative functions and finances of the party and to get rid of those who operate the party HQ in a genuinely impartial manner according to the party constitution. There is a
documented history of specious and unsubstantiated complaints by yourself, the Party Secretary Derek Clarke and others against certain officials, and you have an explosive and very expensive situation waiting to blow up in this continuing and divisive campaign against party officers, just at the time we need to concentrate on the European Elections campaign. I remind you of your e-mail to regional organisers in August, not copied to the General
Secretary, soliciting complaints against the head office staff. It is unlikely that the party will win such legal action if taken against it, and the costs in any event will run into tens of thousands of pounds. In light of its record on employment matters, I have no confidence in the party leadership to handle this matter, or in its cavalier attitude towards the obligations that all reasonable employers must have towards their staff.

In addition, no provision has been made for the cost of recruiting and training new staff who will inevitably not be as efficient as existing staff.


3 Because this planned move has not been properly considered by the NEC, and no paperwork has been presented, members of the NEC could stand accused of making reckless decisions and open themselves to legal actions. Proper consideration is needed, including costed alternatives.


4 At present, roughly 50 per cent of the work at Head Office is done by volunteers, and a well-trained capable base of them has been established. No hint has been given of the names and details of those who could take the place of these valuable party members in Birmingham. To ignore the necessity and value of this existing resource of about 25 flexible people and the history of its development will mean that the party will have to pay more
money, and very soon, for more full time paid employees and for the cost of recruiting and training them.


5 Against both common practice and employment laws, the staff have never been consulted of the move, just informed after the event. Do you seriously think this is the correct way to treat loyal hardworking and valuable staff? Would you like this treatment to be given to yourself?


6 Administrative chaos will come in many ways, but is typified by the following incident. It became clear almost immediately after the NEC on 10th November that it would not be easy to run the merchandising operation from Birmingham, and pressure for an office in London to run this operation was immediately made within 24 hours of the decision. This is a typical example of the law of unintended consequences arising from secrecy and lack of consultation. It will lead to greater costs, lower efficiency and dislocation between functions which currently run smoothly.


I am therefore writing to you to make clear that the NEC must review this decision, and those who wish to continue along this course must indemnify the party against any employment claims, and all financial losses.

On the occasion when you, the Party Leader Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, Party Secretary Derek Clark and others acted wrongly over the Party Treasurer, I myself paid the legal bills to restore order to the party and I generously did not ask others, even those responsible, to contribute. I will not do that on this occasion and I will not accept the Party paying the
bills either. It is time that those who are breaking our rules, and indeed the law, take responsibility for their actions.


In conjunction with others, I have recently placed the need for party offices on the commercial market in London, and we have located, very quickly, suitable offices in the heart of Westminster, in Whitehall, London SW1, at the centre of where government operates. The price of them is similar to what we are currently paying - £13,000 per year - and the
landlords will put in place partitions etc as part of the deal.

These however are not the only offices available. There are other larger ones we have located, many offices are available in the West End at £10 per sq ft because of the lowering demand in the wake of the unfortunate Congestion Charge, and these offices all have the benefit of being independent. They have no financial connection with an NEC member, and the party can take up a lease and deal with it in a professional manner. All are available for occupation before the end of the year.

If the Deputy Leader is genuinely in generous mood and wishes to make a 'kind offer' then maybe he can offer a contribution towards the annual rent of a truly independent office, based at the heart of government, on a no-strings basis. Indeed if he does, I will match his offer.

Any proposed savings in rent concerned are tiny in comparison with, for example, the £60,000 overspend on the Scottish and Welsh elections which you personally authorised outside of your remit, without the knowledge of the NEC, and which is a key reason for our current financial difficulties.


It is also outrageous that you should send me a fax effectively telling me not to tell the truth to party members on this matter, and threatening me with yet more discipline proceedings for telling the truth concerning the ultra vires action of the NEC. Unfortunately your attempt to hide the facts by passing a resolution telling NEC members not to communicate by e-mail has been widely recognised for what it is - an attempt to hide facts, deny information, and to make unaccountable decisions. As you know, the party has been made a laughing stock - right across the internet - by this resolution, with members and others asking if UKIP has reverted to quill pens yet, and whether it is planned to confiscate all members' computers as a condition for joining the party or standing for the NEC.


In all of this, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding by yourself and the others I have mentioned of the party constitution and rules and how the executive body of an unincorporated association must act with due care and not recklessly. It was clear at the time in May that you found it difficult to understand how offensive and against the rules it was when you attempted to discipline the Party Treasurer for providing the facts to
NEC members about the Scottish and Welsh overspend. Not only was he entitled to provide this information when asked, but he was legally obliged to do so as well. For him to have acted on your orders and denied the information to the NEC would have resulted in him breaking the law. Do you think it is right that the Party Treasurer should have been threatened with his position for providing details of serious financial problems to members of the NEC who themselves are financially personally liable?

You and others genuinely appear not to understand the gravity of the situation. If we are trying to establish a political higher ground based upon the legitimacy of democracy, it is not a good start if our leading officials break our own rules, or indeed the law.

You must now take the following action:


You will withdraw this unconstitutional move, which is not based upon properly written analysis and costings, immediately institute proper consultation widely within the party, including the office staff, make clear that you will not attempt to remove the party offices and records to the offices of another NEC member and undertake not to oppose the securing of
the best value accommodation in London.


You will confirm that you will personally indemnify the party against the legal consequences of the move, including all financial losses and possible legal costs in dismissing staff and of any further legal actions required to restore order and legality to the party.

Yours sincerely

Damian Hockney

posted by Martin |7:40 PM

Friday, November 21, 2003 

Lott's Reply to Batten

As we posted the 'open' letter from Gerard Batten to David Lott on the blog several days ago, we herewith post the reply for the benefit of interested party members:

From David Lott Party Chairman


Gerard Batten (with copies to NEC members only)
16 November 2003

Dear Gerard

I was saddened to receive your open letter dated 13 November concerning the move of the Party Head Office to Birmingham, not least because I received it by email from Rob McWhirter who had been sent it by Damian Hockney at 11.47 on 14th November.

Let me quote the joint letter from the Regional Chairmen that I read to the NEC we deplore the way that discussions within the NEC appear to be randomly available for dissemination amongst email lists, both friendly and hostile. May I remind you that we agreed to comply with this request and desist from using the email for important NEC matters. You have deliberately ignored that agreement and advertised internal NEC discussions. I now understand that Mr Andrew Edwards is now disseminating this message widely on the internet. I have yet to receive your letter in physical form.

As Chairman I am bound to implement the NEC's decisions arrived at by democratic vote. In this case a vote was taken 10 in favour and 5 against moving to Birmingham. Those that publicly oppose measures approved by members of the NEC are likely to fall foul of para 7.16 of the Constitution. This is for good reason, Gerard, because it is through the process of democratic decision , that we have chosen as a party to govern ourselves. Individual NEC members, however strongly they may feel, have no right to impose alternative proposals on the Party.

Then poor presentation of the accounts meant that central funds were losing nearly £11,000 per month without NEC members realising it. Determined action was taken to stem this by closing telesales and moving Head Office to a rents and rates free very much larger location for at least a year andperhaps nearly six years, together with improving the manner in which the accounts are presented. Both these matters have now been gripped and dealt with.

You seem to have forgotten your responsibility as a lead candidate and an NEC member to abide by the decisions of your colleagues. I am aware that fellow NEC members along with the Regional Chairmen do not wish to see any further comment on this subject spread across the internet.

Yours sincerely

David Lott (signed)
David Lott Party Chairman

posted by Martin |12:05 PM

Wednesday, November 19, 2003 

One Terrible Theory on the Toleration of Troy

In addition to a barrage of childish nuisance e-mails from Peter Troy and an abusive message from his one-time partner, Diane Ellis, questioning my sanity, (presumably a reaction to my having pointed out her link with Greg Lance-Watkins, which is available for all to see on the internet from this link HERE); I also yesterday received this interesting theory by one time EDD Consultant and UKIP Adviser Dr Richard North:-

You ask why is Troy tolerated. You might ask why is he tolerated in spite of your attacks on him. You might even consider whether it is possible that he is tolerated because of your attacks on him. On that basis, the support for him might reflect people's views of you rather than of him. The more you attack him, therefore, the stronger might his support become.

Now this is an interesting thought. Partly because we have been informed that Dr North is most noted for the quality of his research, we have given it some consideration. Regrettably it cannot hold water. In fact even a casual look at the facts proves it to be ridiculous and hardly researched - let alone carefully considered and weighed at all.

As made clear yesterday and many times before, Troy had started causing major problems in the North, mainly as an accomplice to his good friend Dr North years before I had even joined UKIP or ever heard of Troy. On my second visit to the North East I was given a very large stuffed dossier that took many hours to read. It detailed the many disruptive activities spread right across the North of England, perpetrated by Dr North and Peter Troy, as subsequently unearthed in the Graham Webster-Gardiner report.

Dr North resigned over the issue but was later re-instated. Judging from his response of yesterday, his past close involvement with UKIP's MEPs in Brussels might go some way to explaining their total lack of effectiveness.

posted by Martin |7:36 AM

Tuesday, November 18, 2003 

Why Is Troy Tolerated?

Evidence abounds as to the incompetence, malevolence and now downright stupidity of Peter Troy.

In fact such evidence has existed for years! Has been notified to the powers that be within the party; been detailed and documented; been incorporated into one if not more disciplinary complaints; made the subject of a high-powered internal inquiry, causing his supposed dismissal; has resulted in him being accused and found guilty of vote rigging by the Party Treasurer; providing misinformation to the police on another UKIP member; gained adverse local press attention for recruitment from the BNP, and now national notoriety for non-payment of a huge accumulation of parking fines. Incredibly, we could still go on and on......

But still he remains. Among the high profile figures who have protected him are Jeffrey Titford, Nigel Farage, Dr Richard North, Mike Nattrass, David Lott, Roger Knapman, Derek Clark and Michael Harvey. Why?

It is perfectly clear he enjoys what started as high level patronage, but must now rank mostly as protection. Only recently was he dispatched to Estonia - on whose authority and at whose cost? And Why? Most who meet him remain unimpressed!

The first disciplinary complaint was brought against him by the entire Yorkshire and Humber Regional Committee on 11th January 2001. This, which was brought after Troy had been banned from the NW Region and had already virtually destroyed the UKIP Party Organisation in the North East Region (a situation he has managed to maintain to this day rendering the second most eurosceptic English region practically unwinnable next June).

These events which became known as 'Troygate' in the North of England vindicated the Regional Committees, following the inquiry by NEC Member Graham Webster-Gardiner. Far from the party ridding itself of those who had been found at fault, particularly Peter Troy and his friend Dr Richard North, they continued as before.

Troy's one-time partner, Diane Ellis, who was involved in the events leading to these 2001 disputes, subsequently materialised as assisting the now disgraced Greg Lance-Watkins of Chepstow. Another successful saboteur of the anti-EU movement within Britain.

Other known associates of Greg Lance-Watkins are, of course, Nigel Farage, David Lott and Dr Richard North.

We put it to the membership of UKIP. Can your party's leadership really have any serious interest in fighting the encroachments of the EU when it allows the likes of Peter Troy such a high profile and privileged position within the party.

As George W Bush and Tony Blair visit Sedgefield this week, we suggest the entire party think long and hard regarding the type of man they allow to represent them in that constituency.

UKIP can go nowhere while it contains the likes of Troy!

posted by Martin |9:03 AM

Monday, November 17, 2003 

Justice and Honour

Following our quotes yesterday from the Sunday Telegraph we received the following extraordinary communication from Mr Troy, which we quote in full:

I recommend that you adopt the normal journalistic practice of seeking comments
from the subject of your stories prior to their publication/postings. Not only is that fair it also makes for better reporting.

I believe in fighting for justice. What Mr Cole do you believe in ?
Peter Troy

Following some unpleasantness earlier in the year, we advised Mr Troy that we would no longer reply to his communications. Had this not been the case we would have responded as follows:

Mr Troy,

I merely quoted from the Sunday Telegraph. I suggest you direct your complaint to Christopher Booker and the Sunday Telegraph. It was, after all, he who highlighted your shameful reluctance to pay your debts in a timely manner.

Suggesting comments be gathered when re-posting items already on the internet is clearly an absurdity. Kylie Minogue would have time for nothing else.

I had a long exchange with a friend of yours yesterday, as you may know, and at no point was he able to offer any rational or convincing explanation for your actions. All were entirely irrelevant as to why such large fines had been allowed to accrue and been left unpaid. This was the sole point yesterday's posting sought to make.

Your idea of justice seems to consist of parking when and where you choose and avoiding the consequences. Honour, a necessary companion to justice, demands that debts be duly paid.

Following your e-mail, I know better than to assume that you will seek my comments before posting future remarks about me on internet fora to which I have no access?

If there is any excuse for your having accumulated such fines over such a period that such collection methods were necessary, they will be posted here. Those proffered throughout yesterday do not merit consideration and I believe would merely serve to embarass both yourself, and your friend who put them forward, if openly posted here.

posted by Martin |9:02 AM

Sunday, November 16, 2003 

Troy's Car Seizure

Part of the early controversies surrounding UKIP's MEP Candidature Lists for the North East region for next years European Parliamentary elections centred around whether it was desirable to field a discharged bankrupt. The party leaders decided it would be no hindrance and matters proceeded.

Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph column this morning, demonstrates such controversial matters continue for UKIP's Branch Chairman in the Prime Minister's Sedgefield Constituency, Peter Troy:

When two men claiming to be bailiffs arrived at Peter Troy's farmhouse near Darlington at 8.40 one morning, to seize his car in payment for unpaid parking fines, he did not realise that he was the latest victim of a nationwide scandal. The visitors clamped his car, waved an official-looking piece of paper and demanded his keys.

Mr Troy called the police to stop the removal of a vehicle vital to his business (as demonstrated by his insurance papers), but when the police arrived, they supported the seizure. If it had not been for the intervention of a helpful neighbour who loaned him the money to pay the £295 fines plus a £219 fee for the "bailiffs", the car would have been removed.

Mr Troy was shaken by what had happened, and decided to look into its legal justification. What he found astonished him. Section 54 of the Magistrates Courts Rules expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing vehicles used in the course of employment.

Furthermore, section 78 (7) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 states that any person who attempts to seize goods in payment of parking fines who is not "a certificated bailiff" (and anyone "authorising him") is committing an offence of trespass.

The two men who turned up at Mr Troy's home to seize his car, an act in itself illegal, were not "certificated bailiffs" but described themselves as "authorised personnel" of TNC, a company which is a corporate member of the Certificated Bailiffs Association, now known as the Enforcement Services Association.

posted by Martin |9:07 AM

To 'Hell in a Handbasket'

Christina Speight informs us of the recent experiences of a fellow ex-UKIP member:

'Yesterday a man called Patrick Lawrence from "UKIP Head Office" rang to try and get a thoroughly disillusioned ex-member to rejoin. He announced that the leader was a Mr Knapman but didn't know he was a failed Tory MP.

Membership has now - he said - reached "4 figures" or "more than 20,000" [no A level maths! These boys in UKIP chuck out any old figure that comes to hand. ]

Damian Hockey is apparently in charge of the London Office and is "very charismatic" as he will be glad to know! :-)

Mr Lawrence was a bit vague about his office co-workers and had never heard of Farage. The thoroughly disillusioned ex-member filled him in on that one.

Just thought everyone should know! As Gerard Batten pointed out yesterday the party has a 'cash-flow problem' but what they are doing is selling multiple year subs to pay off the debts. What's the party going to fund the 'General Election' out of, with no more subs coming in?

The letter referred to from Gerrard Batten, UKIP NEC Member and UKIP's Lead MEP Candidate in London, is immediately beneath this post or can be linked from here.

posted by Martin |8:48 AM

Saturday, November 15, 2003 

UKIP's Birmingham Move

A member of UKIP's NEC, who normally maintains a low profile in the ongoing disputes within that Committee, has written an open letter to party members regarding the leadership's proposed move of the party's Head Office to Birmingham:


Letter from NEC member and London lead candidate Gerard Batten to party
Chairman David Lott
14th November 2003

Dear David,

Re: Head Office move from London to Birmingham.
Copies to All NEC Members & an Open Letter to All Party Members.

I am writing to you following the decision of the NEC last Monday 11th November to relocate the Head Office from London to Birmingham. Since you have already written to all Branch Chairman on this subject, and since by the very nature the decision is an open one, I do not feel constrained by any consideration of confidentiality on the matter. I am copying this letter to all NEC members, but I also make it an open letter to all party members should any recipient wish to pass it on.

I strongly opposed the decision to move the Party's HQ from London to Birmingham and voted against it. This decision was not forewarned in the NEC Agenda but was sprung on the NEC under the subject of 'Cutting costs - Head Office & elsewhere'. This vitally important decision was made without any written submission to the NEC on the cost savings weighed against the implications of such a decision, financial or otherwise. The decision was taken purely on the basis that by closing the London office £17,000 per annum could be saved.

I agree that it is vital to reduce costs during what I am sure is a temporary cash flow shortage. You will of course recall that the current financial problems of the Party are due in most part to your own unauthorised overspending during the Welsh & Scottish elections in May. But while it is important to rectify that situation as soon as possible the effect of closing the London office will do untold damage to the well
being of the Party. I can cite the following reasons why:

Party HQ has always been in a central London location since its foundation in 1993. It easily accessible to those who live in London, and to those who travel to London.

Considerable knowledge and expertise has been built up over the years by the HQ employees and volunteers and none of these people are likely to want to relocate or travel to Birmingham. The Party will therefore have to start again from scratch in its most basic administrative functions.

No thought was given to asking the HQ employees and volunteers if they
would be willing to go to Birmingham to train the new staff during a changeover period. And if there were, what would be the associated costs in duplicated wages, travel and overnight accommodation? The costs of moving HQ contents were not stated at the NEC meeting. The Party will need to have all new telephone numbers in Birmingham unless it intends to pay for some form of call diversion or out of area lines. Again no costs were quoted for this but I can tell you they will not be inconsiderable.

Michael Harvey the Party General Secretary will now be required to travel
to Birmingham for some part of the week. Do you expect him to pay for his travel and overnight stays out of his salary or will he Party reimburse him? If they Party is going to reimburse him what size is the budget allowed for this?

All of the costs required for this move should have been calculated and
put before the NEC. It might then have been apparent that a considerable dent would have been made in the supposed £17,000 per annum saving; especially so since the free office space being provided is only for a period of one year. There are no equivalent savings in following years. A more sensible solution would have been to find alternative office space in London at the most cost effective price.

I am sorry to say that this decision was arrived at for reasons that have nothing to do with genuine cost savings. It is transparently obvious to me, and I think to many others, that it has been done in order to it make as difficult as possible for Michael Harvey to continue in his role of General Secretary. But why should the Party Leadership want to do this? Michael showed remarkable courage and judgement after the September NEC meeting when he did the job of the Party Leader, the Party Chairman and the Party Secretary for them by keeping the Party on a constitutional and legal basis when he pointed out the unconstitutional and illegal nature of their initiative to remove the Party Treasurer from office, and by his actions caused the Treasurer to be re-instated and the NEC to retract their ludicrous decision.

This absurd decision can only be seen as a form of retaliation on Michael as a result of his actions to save the Party Leadership from the consequence of their own foolish decision over the Treasurer. The Party activists were in full support of the Party Treasurer's reinstatement, and of Michael Harvey's actions in the matter, as they demonstrated at the meeting in London on 20th September. I would not be surprised to find that they will take a similar dim view of this latest fiasco.

I therefore hope the Party Leadership will not implement this decision
until alternative accommodation in London can be found, and then a decision
based on a proper consideration of the real costs can be made at the next NEC meeting in December. I would urge those NEC members who vote for the motion to reconsider and to contact you to do as I suggest.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Batten

posted by Martin |8:19 AM

Friday, November 14, 2003 

European Foundation

Christina Speight has pointed out the following regarding the new location of the above organisation:

Well If 62 Brompton Road is described as being in the "outskirts of London" then somebody should tell Mohammed Fayed to move Harrods. The address is right opposite the most expensive boutique street in London -Beauchamp Place!

They've stopped wasting money on being in the ridiculous location of Pall Mall (must have cost a fortune! - if it was not donated) and gone somewhere more sensible and if it's on a short lease, so what? (Moving a small outfit again is not a major problem)

We had also stated that Bill Cash had been axed from the Shadow Cabinet, having been Shadow Attorney General under IDS, but now not mentioned - Christina states:

Cash was NOT axed ... He was offered a job but refused in order to campaign independently. Basically he has a private vision of a looser European body like EFTA was, and without the 'core' Franco German axis ...Britain would be the most prominent country.

posted by Martin |11:57 AM

Further Failures

The disintegration of UK Eurorealism continues before our eyes.

UKIP this week announced the closure of their London Head Office at year end with the ensuing rumoured redundancies of both full-time officials, the Party Treasurer and General Secretary and relocation to the back-offices of a Birmingham Estate Agency owned by the Party's Deputy Leader.

According to this month's edition of The Sprout, another anti-EU organisation the "European Foundation" is in difficulties. Run by Bill Cash, who launched a referendum campaign in Blackpool on 8th October, he is no longer campaigning for Britain's EU withdrawal, and his organisation is likewise low on funds :

"Is it a coincidence that Cash's enthusiasm for his high-priced campaign coincides with the ailing fortunes of his European Foundation? Now down to three young, under-paid staff, it has moved out of its prestige headquarters opposite St James' Palace in London's fashionable West End to a room in a condemned building in the outskirts of London. If nothing else, a referendum campaign, would give it a massive cash injection.

But. whether he gets the money or not, of one thing we can all be assured, Bill Cash will never campaign for Britain's withdrawal from the EU, and will continue to use his position as the Tories' senior law advisor to make sure that no-one in an official position in the Tory Party does so either. (Mag. went to press before Cash's axing by Howard - ed.)

On balance, therefore, Cash may prove to be the Commission's most powerful secret weapon, all of which may explain why Dr Richard North, (see Sprout Sept and October 2003) who recently joined the Foundation from the UK Independence Party, now no longer seems to be working for Cash.

In UKIP, the belief exists and has been put to me, that the reason for Dr North, no longer being at the Foundation has some connection with the Doctor's known association with the disgraced Greg Lance-Watkins. As an acknowledged friend of Peter Troy, (read following post) and former close associate of Nigel Farage, these four supposed stalwarts of the movement resisting the EU's advance, seem to have been very closely involved in the present disintegration of the once active and effective movement working towards Britain's EU withdrawal.

posted by Martin |9:32 AM

Thursday, November 13, 2003 


Information reaching UKIPuncovered reveals that Peter Troy, the disgraced former UKIP M.E.P. candidate for the 2004 Euro elections, is a Police informer.

Despite being found guilty of several irregularities in the recruitment of UKIP members, Troy remains UKIP's Branch Chairman of Sedgefield. He was found by Party Treasurer John de Roeck earlier this year to have paid for new members out of his own pocket to boost his chances of becoming a UKIP M.E.P. candidate. He resigned as M.E.P. candidate when the full details of his activities became known, but remains a prominent UKIP official and prospective UKIP M.E.P. candidate for Scotland.

Having considerable experience of the strange world Peter Troy seems to inhabit, we report on this matter in the knowledge that it could be one of the elaborate charades this individual sometimes chooses to act out and we urge caution to those reading the account below to treat what appears as the facts with a certain wariness.

UKIPuncovered has obtained the following information:

* That Peter Troy is in regular contact with at least one named Detective Sergeant in the P7 (Intelligence) divison of Cleveland Police
* In this capacity he has used his position to supply the Police with information about at least one member of UKIP, some of it inaccurate and potentialy libellous
* He meets with the Police, apparenty on a regular basis, is treated to lunch with them and e-mails them home with reports
* In one e-mail we are aware of, he wrote to his Police contact (verbatim):
"More detail [about named UKIP member] on request. Very many thanks for lunch last Wednesday"

One very serious question that arises from this and other information in
this e-mail is this: What business is it of Cleveland Police, who one woud
have thought were busy enough trying to prevent and solve crimes in the
area, to try and elicit this sort of information from anyone, let alone a
UKIP member? Another question is: Why is a very senior UKIP member
co-operating with the Police in revealing details, true or untrue, about a
fellow Party member - one who stood at the last General Election for UKIP
and obtained well over 1,000 votes for the Party?

The role of Troy becomes of even more concern when it is known that he is
very close to Nigel Farage M.E.P., the effective Leader of UKIP for many
years. Peter Troy was installed as the paid Regional Organiser for UKIP
covering the North East, North West and Yorkshire Regions three years ago.
There was sustained opposition to his appointment in all three regions, yet
oppressive disciplinary action was taken against those who opposed him and
none was taken against Troy despite his deceitful conduct in paying for
people to become members without telling them - in the weeks immediately
before there was to be a crucial members' vote on who would be UKIP's lead
candidate in the Euro elections.

We must also mention Troy's suspected links with the British National Party.
It will be remembered that Peter Troy recruited one Trevor Agnew to become a
UKIP candidate, only for it to become known shortly afterwards that Agnew
was a longstanding member of the local BNP Branch. This caused UKIP major
embarassment in April this year.

Although we cannot go into detail, suffice it to say that there is material
in the e-mail which we are aware of to give rise to a suspicion that Troy
continues to have significant links with the BNP. This impression is
reinforced by a recent written statement made by Trevor Anew. Agnew wrote:
"We have pictures of many UKIP members at BNP events or with BNP members,
including Troy with one Paul Thompson. Thompson is a long-standing BNP
activist with a conviction for football-related violence."

Again there is an intriguing connection with Nigel Farage. News of Farage
being photographed with two prominent members of the BNP emerged just before
the Euro elections in 1999 and may have lost UKIP tens of thousands of
potential votes.

We hasten to add that we have not at this stage seen the original e-mail,
containing as it apparently does many untruths which could be the subject of
further action.

The question remains as to why UKIP allows Peter Troy to continue his
manipulations within the Party month after month, causing much disrepute,
but without any sign of disciplinary action or reproof against him.

If this report is well-founded, or is anything other than another of Peter
Troy's infantile ploys, surely it is the final chance to boot him from the

posted by Martin |1:56 PM

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 

Birmingham by way of Beachy Head?

Interestingly Birmingham gets a mention in G.K. Chesterton's poem The Secret People which also contains these lines:

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not
quite forget.
For we are the people of England, that never
have spoken yet.

More comments on the proposed UKIP Headquarters move from internet fora:

There might be a case for transferring UKIP headquarters to a location in the eurosceptic south-west, say a tourist resort like Torquay or Bournemouth, where thousands of visitors would pass by its offices. ...... But, an office block in the industrial Birmingham suburbs? Maybe UKIP has indeed lost its sense of direction

P.S. Michael Nattrass has been surprisingly close to many of the controversial decisions in UKIP. He has endorsed the heavy-handed disciplinary action taken by Michael Harvey and Derek Clark, often by insulting those being disciplined. It was I believe in Nattrass's warehouses that Nigel Farage organised the pirate copying of the BBC video film in which Richard North was heard to speak of 'raggy-a***d dagos*. I am pretty sure it was a Nattrass sidekick that copied the tapes

The Chairman's Statement has been further dissected as follows:

1.The letter (the UKIP Press Officer - ed.) circulated says, "You may be aware that the party's lease on its head office at Bridgeman House, Broadwick Street, London W1 is due
to expire on the 31st December".

THE TRUTH - Lease does not expire at end of December. Expires end of March.

2. The letter says, "With this in mind, the NEC decided yesterday that that lease would not be renewed, but that the head office should move".

THE TRUTH - UKIP could renew it anyway. The whole building is being redeveloped. The plan was to find new offices - in London.

3. The letter says, " ...the necessary space in central London would prove prohibitively expensive".

THE TRUTH - Necessary space would not be prohibitively expensive. Already, two members of the NEC have found good space at a good deal. Remember, rents have fallen enormously in central London because of the congestion charge etc.

4. The letter says, "...head office will move to a larger yet less expensive headquarters in Birmingham.

THE TRUTH - No-one even looked for a new office in central London. Derek Lott and (another NEC member - ed.) - did not do what they were asked (see point 3 above). Why?????

5. The letter says, "Next year is a crucial year for UKIP, with the European elections offering UKIP the chance to substantially increase the number of European seats it holds". This move will allow us to concentrate on fighting these elections successfully, .."

THE TRUTH - a sudden move of HQ which results in the loss of experienced HQ staff will not help the fight for EU election success. Neither will this move promote unity within the NEC! Therefore the move will be the reverse of what is claimed!

You must ask yourself why this deceit is being attempted! With so many untruths and distortions in one short letter, you can be certain that something is very wrong indeed!

The original statement not so far reproduced on the blog was as follows:-

You may be aware that the party's lease on its head office at Bridgeman House, Broadwick Street, London W1 is due to expire on the 31st December. With this in mind, the NEC decided yesterday that that lease would not be renewed, but that the head office should move. With the party growing at a phenomenal rate, the necessary space in central London would prove prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the NEC agreed that Head Office would move out of London. As a result, from the 1st January 2004, the party's head office will move to a new 1500 sq ft office in Birmingham.

David Lott, UKIP Chairman, said, "The growth of the party has been astounding over the past 6 months, and we expect that growth to accelerate as we approach the European elections in June. As a consequence, the NEC has decided that the head office will move to a larger yet less expensive headquarters in Birmingham.

"The move to a more central location will make party hq more accessible to our growing number of members in the north of England, Scotland and Wales, whilst saving the party money compared with the cost of maintaining a large central office in London.

"Next year is a crucial year for UKIP, with the European elections offering UKIP the chance to substantially increase the number of European seats it holds. This move will allow us to concentrate on fighting these elections successfully, and the reduction in cost will allow us divert more resources to conducting a successful campaign."

posted by Martin |2:24 PM

UKIP's Deputy Leader and New Landlord

A disingenuous Press Release was issued by UKIP's Party Chairman overnight, in effect claiming that due to increasing membership numbers the party could no longer afford to locate itself in London. Once again with David Lott, all Logic is turned on its head - we have had the Lott Law from Wales: the more campaign money spent the less votes gained. Now we have Lott's Law of Diminishing Income: the more the members the less the cash for rent.

Don't believe me! Herewith the words from the statement:

"With the party growing at a phenomenal rate, the necessary space in central London would prove prohibitively expensive.

The Party's Deputy Leader and new Landlord has also been the topic of overnight debate following this announcement. Party members should be reminded of his close involvement in the theft of copyright of the BBC programme that Nigel Farage breached Trading Standards Law to market.

Nattrass's involvement was only touched upon in our earlier report, but there have been internet exchanges on this matter within the last month in which he clearly admits both the financing and making of the videos in Birmingham.

Given the tendency of some within UKIP's Leadership to skirt if not, as in this case, cross the borders of the law, not to mention all the more recent suspicions such as those hanging over the Ashford operation, it would seem to be a curious decision by those NEC members who called the Emergency NEC meeting last week and expressed a desire to effect essential reforms. Proper controls would seem much harder to maintain with day to day activities centred in Birmingham.

UKIP will become an even more tightly controlled, secretive and non-accountable party than it has been to date. It appears the reformers have been routed.

posted by Martin |8:45 AM

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 

UKIP NEC bans the Internet

Stray items from yesterday's NEC come our way Nothing on any of the crucially deferred Emergency NEC Motions, however, but quoted below is one sign of the ruling cabal's attempt to avoid accountability and stifle crucial information flows regarding their 'modus operandi'.

Hi, here's another incredulous tit bit from the Walter Mitty world inhabited by David Lott, UKIP Chairman! It's back to the dark ages for internal communications within the NEC!!!!

"In future members of the NEC must not communicate with the rest of the NEC by e-mail on any matter of importance."

Can they be serious about this? The simple answer is yes!

Yesterday, when one NEC member asked about this, in disbelief, he was told that NEC members should send everything by fax!!! For heavens sake! The very idea of taking a piece of paper out of a computer and repeatedly feeding it back through the fax machine makes it a 20 year step back in time.

But why is this happening? The reason is that E-mails circulating around the Internet, and between UKIP members, have been so effective in causing said members to question the actions of the Cabal. Therefore they think the problem lies with e-mails (neither Nigel and Roger use them of course, Roger doesn't even have a computer at home). Stop 'E' communications and no further troubles for them! Wishful thinking! Put simply, it's an attempt (by people with little understanding of modern electronic communications) to slow down the supply of information, a modern equivalent of killing the messenger. It would be funny if it wasn't so damned tragic. Canute and waves come to mind!

It really is like something out of the ark - what next? Quill pens for all communications? Carrier pigeons maybe? Will UKIP describe Birmingham on its new headed paper (printed on ye olde parchment of course) as being in the County of Warwickshire?

You seriously could not make this up!

posted by Martin |8:26 PM

More on UKIP's Relocation

The following is an item on the above topic, taken from an internet discussion group with one point of view regarding the proposed move and its implications:

the UKIP NEC has voted to move its head office into the backrooms of an estate agents in Birmingham. The building is owned by, the Party Deputy Leader, Mike Nattrass.

I contend that this is both an extraordinary and unsound move, opening the party to constructive dismissal claims from those employees who have been under attack from the leadership since the spring and who will not be able to easily move with the party without payment of relocation expenses. This is a real kick in the teeth for dedicated Party workers such as Michael Harvey (& the other HQ staff)! But, remember, Michael Harvey, was one of those who sounded the alarm over the failed attempt to remove the Party Treasurer from office! The intended replacement, if I'm not mistaken, was a man from, the Midlands!!!! A move of HQ to the Midlands will punish Michael Harvey - with the loss of his employment, and probably preclude JdeR from remaining as Treasurer into the bargain. At one swoop, any danger of the, Treasurer, and, others, getting to the bottom of the highly questionable activities in, Ashford, Kent, will be removed! Good news for those who wanted JdeR and his supporters out of the way. But very bad news for the image of the Party!

As far as I'm aware, no attempts were made (by those charged with the task) to search for offices in London, which is the natural home for the Head Office of a major political party. It is also a move which will financially benefit the party's deputy leader and breaks all the unwritten rules in organisations where senior members might be in a position to earn money from the party for providing offices or services. The claim that there is a rent free period at the outset is no more than one might get from any commercial office provider at a time or in a place where the commercial conditions apply.

The NEC was ambushed with this move, which also financially benefits another member of the NEC who has a financial gain in getting UKIP out of the existing offices. He is a former director of a company which had a lease on the whole building, and was agitating for some time for UKIP to leave the building because of a dispute which involved his own interest.
Yet another example of how you should not be dependent upon individuals - any individual at all - who appears to be offering you a "good deal". The move was laughably presented under cutting costs on the agenda of the NEC (the only item!).

But when you add everything up - which those proposing it tried to avoid doing at the NEC - then it is going to probably cost more. It was a surreal decision, and at one stage there was actually an attempt to stop NEC members from having a written proposal at all. Now, one has been promised - but long after an un-costed decision had been made!

Michael Harvey, will certainly have a clear case for constructive dismissal, given the recent history of HQ. Yet, it seems that the Party hierarchy is hell bent on another round of costly litigation. They won't be able to rely on JdeR to pick up the bill for this one! And, I trust that, Damian Hockney, won't provide a safety net either! The result of this will be even more financial problems for UKIP!!!!! Problems it needs like the proverbial hole in the head!

I trust that someone is already seeking alternative offices within London so that the intended move, (which in any case,has little to do cost cutting, and a lot to do with settling scores) can be thwarted!

posted by Martin |8:17 PM

UKIP to move to Birmingham!

We have been waiting to make a post today, in anticipation of getting some news regarding the many very serious items that were on the agenda of yesterday'd NEC meeting.

Rather than anything on those matters, all we have gathered is that UKIP's NEC has apparently agreed to move its Head Office from London to the 'backrooms of an estate agents in Birmingham' in a building owned by the Deputy Party Leader Mike Nattrass.

More on this and other matters regarding the multiple crises within the party, will be posted as they become available.

posted by Martin |4:58 PM

Monday, November 10, 2003 

UKIP and EU Withdrawal

Better out? is the Headline to this morning's Leading Article in the Daily Telegraph. It describes a move by the House of Lords to investigate the benefits/drawbacks of Britain's EU membership.

What better background could there be for today's meeting of the National Executive Committee of the UK Independence Party, which will consider the grave matters deferred from last week's Emergency meeting. All those motions focus on the outrageous, unethical and totally improper behaviour of a few individuals who have been running the party in such a way as to bring it into the utmost disrepute. They are Nigel Farage, David Lott, Roger Knapman and Derek Clark.

Details of their activities can be found fully described throughout the pages of this blog. Not one has been denied by any of those involved. Others have been sucked into this web of deceit, lies and dirty dealings, but the four named above are the prime movers.

The eurorealist cause, as it pushes its agenda to the centre stage of the British political stage, cannot any longer afford to have the principal party advocating Britain's withdrawal from the EU marginalised by the increasingly outrageous activities of these four men.

UKIP's membership has been tolerant almost beyond belief, but the time for a proper accounting is today!.

posted by Martin |8:06 AM

Sunday, November 09, 2003 

Eurorealism's Fifth Columnist

Greg Lance-Watkins has again this week been mounting his sickening personal and lying attacks at various and disparate members of Britain's anti-EU movement. Christina Speight last night hit back with this well stated and timely riposte.

This pomposity and self-righteousness is positively sick-making. I am sorry to see M.B. showing some respect for him. He's utterly despicable and, as "Notes from the Borderland" in its current issue says of him, his advocacy of murder is "a superb way to sully the eurosceptic movement and ensure anti-imperial campaigners suffer state anti-terrorist surveillance". It quotes Stuart Coster's statement that he 'disrupts, divides, discredits' and
adds "The ultimate beneficiaries are obvious".

As for being ethical there is precious little probity in riding a coach and horses through the Data Protection Act, in naming and shaming the "victim" of child abuse, in waving bullets around in an inflamatory way and accusing a whole range of people of paedophilia.

He keeps claiming that the S. Telegraph report of his advocacy of murder was a misquote but in which case why has the paper not publicly apologised or retracted it or apologised.

In his latest assault on all and sundry Lance-Watkins chooses to promote a new book by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North. These two gentlemen, unlike several still in UKIP, do not have the excuse of stupidity to justify their continuing association with a man such as this. I cannot imagine anything more likely to damage the sales' potential of the book.

posted by Martin |8:56 AM

Saturday, November 08, 2003 

Test your Politics

Where do your views fall within the political spectrum. Get away from UKIP scandals for a weekend break and try this entertaining test.

Are your politics Far Left/Extreme Right/ Authoritarian/Libertarian find out from this link to The Political Compass.

posted by Martin |5:38 PM

The UKIP Disciplinary Panel

One of the main items carried over from the deferred Emergency NEC meeting to this Monday is the matter of the Disciplinary Committee.

Matters covered in detail in this blog, where the disciplinary panel have acted clearly outside the constitution and without regard for the laws of the land, let alone any norms of natural justice, are:

Disregarding Tony Bennett's Disciplinary Complaint against Nigel Farage and others in the matter of the suspension of the Northern Regional Committees.

Suspending the Northern Committees rather than treating the alleged misdemeanours as disciplinary matters.

Disqualification as a candidate of Martin Cole as an MEP Candidate.

The Mishandling or non-hearing of the Disqualification Appeal of the above candidate.

The rejection of the Complaint and Appeal by Michael Cassidy.

The upholding of the complaint and appeal of the three officers of the NE Regional Committee.

The Complaint against Andrew Edwards.

There may be others I have overlooked. The potential full consequences of these serious items being left uncorrected are clear from the recent successful High Court action of Nikki Sinclaire.

The seriousness of the matters and potential liabilities for UKIP have at least been fully appreciated by its Vice-Chairman, whose recent warning we now reproduce below.

In my own case, I would again point out that I expect a full apology for the slur cast upon my reputation for the wrongful disqualification and the lies that were spread, not least by the party leader Roger Knapman. As I was scrupulous in advisng the NEC members of the details of the lies and misrepresentations being spread about me during last March and April, they too should, not least out of any shred of decency they might still possess, join fully in the party's apology that they well know I have been expecting for many months.

This is the warning given by the Vice Chairman regarding the Disciplinary Panel :-

I forgot to mention that another item on the Emergency NEC agenda (now moved to Monday) is indeed the Discipline Committee and the matter of Andrew Edwards.

It is clear that the Party Secretary broke the rules in operating this case, as indeed he indicated to me he was planning to do in another case, and this type of thing needs to be stopped. Therefore there is a motion on the agenda to overturn that decision (any court would overturn it and award costs to the person against whom the discipline decision was made).

As I have been saying for over six months, if decisions are made unilaterally by individuals (however well-intentioned, whatever position they have in the party) against our rules, constitution or indeed the law, it is open for anyone to challenge those decisions and actions in court. As we grow and have more impact, we need to be more professional in our decision making, not arbitrary and unadvised. In light of the Sinclaire decision - in which the judge mentioned our discipline procedure and a number of important indications - this is urgent.

It's important not to blame the messenger who brings the bad news, even if it is understandable.

It is open to anyone against whom an arbitrary or flawed decision has been made to take legal action against any member of the Discipline Panel and the Party Secretary if they believe their reputation and standing has been damaged by a flawed or faulty decision. The judge was scathing about the impact of using employees in discipline cases, as I have been saying for a year...are we going to continue as a party to ignore such a matter in spite
of being given many warnings? I intend that we will not.
(my emphasis - ed.)

I have already written to members of the Discipline Panel, following the failure of the Party Secretary to do so, informing them that they may not be covered by the legal indemnity which it is claimed, in the rules, they have.

I have advised them, before involvement in more decisions which may be flawed, to take advice.

The matter of using party employees leaves UKIP particularly exposed in my case and that of the suspension of the NE Regional Committee officers.

The present financial manipulations by Farage and apparently David Lott are quite appalling. But the unsavoury stink from the activities of Derek Clark and his disciplinary panels, are if anything just as atrocious.

posted by Martin |7:54 AM

Friday, November 07, 2003 

A Battle of Princip(les) als

The war of words continues at the head of UKIP. Below is part of a riposte fired back by the party's Vice-Chairman against the ludicrous charge that there is presently too much openness in the party:

Take the matter of the Party Treasurer. I made quite clear at the NEC that Nigel, David, Roger, Derek et al were breaking the law in interpreting the resolution as an excuse to get rid of the Party Treasurer, and they went ahead anyway, without advice, without a heed - I therefore had to get my lawyers involved to stop the madness, which I did. The Party Secretary, supposedly there to protect us, sat mute and impassive as if he had been hit by the down express. If you are seriously saying I was wrong to restore order, we are arguing from different standpoints. I believe in complete transparency and accountability and I am sorry I will not just go along with things for a quiet life. Had I not taken such action, then the
party would have been operating illegally and liable to closure, even if just temporarily. What price then any amount of canvassing and fundraising? In that situation, who is doing the 'frustrating' and who is doing the 'co-operating'? I believe that I was doing the co-operating - protecting the party - and that the leadership were doing the frustrating.
It's a version of the old "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

If matters had been handled on a proper basis in the NEC, the EEC and the disciplinary panel, the party could be moving forward at this crtical moment for the country, instead of being torn apart from within, its top echelons and its traumas paraded on the websites of its opponents.

Had there indeed been any element of decency or fair dealing from the party's leadership, then the writer of this blog, who wholeheartedly endorses the ideals for which UKIP was supposed to stand would have been voluntarily devoting his time and energy on a daily basis to the cause of fighting the EU, rather than trying to impose reform on UKIP itself via the internet.

Meantime the almost universally acknowledged 'nasty piece of work' in Chepstow again hits out at all and sundry, spreading more lies and disinformation, particularly on this occasion, this blog, . The latest an attempt to pretend the NEC resolution of UKIP's NEC withdrawing any links with this 'inciter to murder' was not passed.

He then continues with more totally untrue claims regarding myself and the Tory Party - all entirely a product of his imagination.

Greg Lance-Watkins and David Lott, a suitable pair!

posted by Martin |8:48 AM

Thursday, November 06, 2003 

As UKIP Now Appears

Sadly the gross incompetence of the present UKIP Leadership, particularly, Farage, Knapman, Lott and Clarke with contributory groundwork from Nattrass and Titford has led to this report to appear on the front page of the BNP web site:-


UKIP in disarray

5th November 2003


The remaining elements within UKIP have spoken with some of our members
about their embarrassment at the antics of UKIP's 2004 London Mayoral
candidate on television. Former boxing promoter Frank Maloney appeared on
the Frank Skinner show on Saturday evening, dressed in a Union Flag suit. He
was challenged by Skinner about his political ambitions.

FS - "I understand you are a candidate for London mayor".
FM - "That's right - June 2004".
FS - "Which party are you representing?"
FM - "The United Kingdom Independence Party".
FS - "What's that?"
FM - "They kind of want Britain to be run by Westminster not Europe"
FS - "Has your campaign started?".
FM - "Yeah - I've spoken to quite a lot of people".

While it is not surprising Skinner himself hasn't heard of UKIP it was
unsettling for some UKIPers to listen to Frank referring to the Party as
"they" rather than "we". Could it be that UKIP as merely using Frank Maloney
as a source of dosh for running what will undoubtedly be a lost cause.

Emergency meeting

Not content with embarrassing themselves on TV watched by several million,
the party seems to be ripping itself apart following discontent about how
the Party is being run. Allegations of financial irregularities have been
made and tonight's Emergency General Meeting taking place in St. James'
Square in London has seen some outpourings of concern bordering on animosity
regarding the failure of the Party to manage its accounts and report the
situation transparently to its members.

Among the many resolutions to be called tonight is one which "calls upon the
Finance Committee to produce a report with recommendations before making any
determination for resolution. It is noted that candidates' deposits for the
European Elections 2004 should be placed either into party funds, or in a
genuine third party account outside the party altogether. Additionally that
the terms on which such deposits are made and held (and may be returned)
should be clarified."

This comes on the heel of serious allegations by the Party Chairman and
Nigel Farage MEP that "central funds are the subject of an internal enquiry"
and threats to call in the police. The implications in these widely
disseminated letters and e-mails has been that there is serious wrong-doing
being investigated, all of which is unknown to the NEC.

In recent months, items which UKIP's ruling NEC members have attempted to
get onto NEC meeting agendas have either been ignored or not placed on the
agenda. Apart from being against the accepted rules of meetings, this
situation will create the need for constant Emergency NEC meetings to
discuss issues which are being ignored. The NEC resolves to note in the
minutes the general understanding of the rules regarding submission and
incorporation of items for inclusion in the agenda.

It will something of a struggle for the UKIP leadership to maintain the
disparate and very unhappy membership of the party until the June elections.

posted by Martin |9:07 AM

Wednesday, November 05, 2003 

Farage's Demand for MEP Deposits

We quote below the letter from Nigel Farage to UKIP's MEPs mentioned in Monday's post regarding the Emergency NEC Meeting that had been scheduled for this afternoon:-

24th September 03

Dear Candidate

I am writing to bring you up to date with decisions taken at the European Elections Committee
meeting on Friday, 12 September.

Heather Conyngham was appointed National Campaign Coordinator. A logical development of this appointment was that Heather should take over as Secretary for the European Elections Committee with immediate effect. A unanimous vote of thanks was passed for all the hard work Michael has undertaken for the Committee to date.

The Committee agreed that candidates' £500 deposits should be collected centrally. (These monies will be banked in a separate ring-fenced account). Head Office will then take on the responsibility of lodging the deposits on behalf of all candidates when the date of the election is announced. In order to confirm your candidacy, therefore, please ensure that your individual cheques (clearly marked 'election deposit' on reverse) are sent to Head Office by October 31st, for the attention of Heather Conyngham.

These deposits will be returned to you after the election on a pro-rata basis. (They are saveable at 2 ½% and at the last Euro-election the only region where deposits were lost was Scotland - This time we aim to save them all).

It was heartening to hear at the Committee that most of you have already started fund-raising. I can't emphasise enough how important this is. Onwards and upwards!

Yours aye
Nigel Farage
Chairman, Euro-Election Committee

This letter can be seen to be worrying, arriving as it did so far in advance of any possible need for the money to be submitted to the Electoral Commission. Especially when bearing in mind all the known financial commitments the party was already struggling to meet such as the Dick Morris Consultancy Fees and the huge overspend remaining from the May elections as a result of Chairman Lott's usual incompetence and mismanagement.

A chaser was then sent on 29th October, strangely, in view of the earlier letter advising that Michael Harvey had been replaced as Euro- Elections Committee Secretary by Heather Conyngham, this e-mail was circulated by the now ex-Secretary and copied to a different Euro MEP:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Harvey"
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Subject: UKIP Candidate deposits - Reminder
To: UKIP Prospective Euro-election Candidates whose deposits remain outstanding
From: Michael Harvey
Dear All,
I attach a copy of Nigel's letter dated 24th September regarding payment of deposits into the separate ring-fenced account. I would be grateful if you could remit asap in accordance with Nigel's request.

Please disregard this reminder if you have posted your payment within the last few days - an unofficial postal strike in Central London has disrupted deliveries.

Now had I still been an MEP candidate, rather than just another victim of the totally corrupted and discredited Disciplinary Panel (more on that later Messrs Clarke and Wood), then I would have been hugely suspicious of such a demand.

My first question would have been Why now so soon? Many more would have followed, especially once news of the Nikki Sinclaire High Court case outcome had broken, again upon which difficult topic, more later!

posted by Martin |6:05 PM

UKIP's Chairman and Greg Lance-Watkins

The first of our title is David Lott, whose unfamiliarity with the truth and propensity to dabble in all kinds of duplicity and underhand manoeuverings, was first blogged many months ago in our start-up days. The latter, rarely absent figure from the fringes of UKIP's shadier episodes, became recently notorious for his suggestion that British patriots might choose to emulate the activities of the still unknown murderer of Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh.

After much delay and prevarification, while other more responsible, receptive, respectable and politically astute euro-sceptic organisations, who themselves might have had some former connection with this high-profile, supposed euro-sceptic, made their outrage clear and public, UKIP lengthily prevaricated, in spite of the well-known close links of its highest-profile MEP Nigel Farage with Lance-Watkins and other high level contacts suspected.

Eventually a resolution was agreed by the NEC to the effect that there should be no further contacts between the party and Lance-Watkins.

Amazingly, UKIP's Chairman David Lott has now been found in breach of that ruling, not only that, but he has been discovered having a telephone conversation with the man from the party's own Head Office. The following is an extract from an e-mail that was circulating on internet fora last evening, being just part of a longer complaint, which we understand comes from a senior longstanding party member about the activities of Chairman Lott:

Greg Lance Watkins: On speaking to the office staff, I was astonished to hear that you were in telephone communication last week with Greg Lance Watkins on your visit to Head Office, despite the recent NEC resolution on contact with him. Regardless of that, what would anyone make of the Chairman of the UKIP in telephone contact with a man who spoke warmly in favour of the attack on Anna Lindh, as well as spewing out vile personal untrue attacks on people in and out of UKIP?
Obviously this makes the investigation into leaks with Greg Lance Watkins more urgent and more complicated and your own judgement and position, therefore, must now be considered.

This blog has been calling for the resignation of Chairman Lott for months. It is the absolute minimum and essential first step if UKIP is ever to be salvaged!

posted by Martin |7:51 AM

Tuesday, November 04, 2003 

Emergency NEC Meeting Deferred

Tomorrow's meeting is reportedly cancelled, following Chairman Lott's agreeing to include all items on the agenda for the regular monthly NEC Meeting planned for next Monday.

posted by Martin |9:42 PM

MEP Deposits

One item on the Emergency N.E.C. agenda is the question of the five hundred pound deposits to be paid by UKIP's prospective MEP Candidates.

It seems many are balking at handing over five hundred pounds in addition to the one hundred already submitted on making their application. Blog readers will be hardly surprised!

The state of UKIP accounts and unseemly fighting over who gets control of the still remaining income are both disgraceful.

What does it say about the prospective MEPs however. Here we have a group of people, supposedly all worthy and respectable individuals, dedicated to the aim of removing their country from the control of the EU, not trusting the party in which they plan to ask voters to place their faith with their deposit money shortly to be lodged with the Electoral Commission.

The sales methods being used from Ashford have to me had the whiff of fraud since first I began to learn the details. But suspecting those one, three or five year memberships being hard-sold over the phone might seem to have no value is almost impossible to prove. Especially while the pretence of those running the party to be acting against the EU could be maintained. While there was hope the party would still be there in the future, one could not claim that a membership subsription for 2004 and beyond, in spite of having been already spent, might not at some future point be inevitably completely worthless.

How can such a pretence be maintained today, however, when those in the vanguard of the party and at the forefront of its electoral efforts over the next twelve months lack the trust to even hand over their deposits for onward lodging with the Electoral Commission. How can these same MEP Candidates justify to themselves the fact that ordinary members of the public are being sucked in by slick newspaper advertising to part with their hard-earned cash for the cause of a party that they themselves won't trust to honestly use for a short period of time.

Such is the United Kingdom Independence Party of today!

The list of MEP Candidates is below. Not all are necessarily so distrustful of the leadership that they have not paid. Some may indeed have done so:


It would be gratifying to see that the above leading lights of the UK Independence Party, (which appears to include the entire NEC), now showing such concern about the security of their MEP Candidate deposits, so that the matter is a main topic of tomorrow's scheduled Emergency NEC meeting DEMONSTRATED similar concern regarding the subscriptions of new members daily being drummed up by the Ashford Telesales Campaign!

posted by Martin |10:39 AM

Eurosceptic Betrayals

Reading yesterday's posting regarding the upcoming Emergency NEC meeting, one cannot help but be struck by the huge distance the leaders of UKIP seem to have travelled away from the ideals of the cause for which they are supposed to be fighting.

How far apart is the public image from the private reality? Well in the case of the Party Leader, Roger Knapman, we could not ask for a better illustration than that provided yesterday and an item in this month's edition of the 'Oxford Student' Magazine.

This link will take you to the article titled 'The European Question is introduced as follows:

Former Tory minister, once whip for William Hague, and now leader of the UK Independence Party, Roger Knapman is perfectly placed to present the case for British Euro-sceptics. Patrick Foster and Zoe Flood caught up with him before his speech to European Affairs Society last week.

Now consider that article against the reality presented in this excerpt from yesterday's post:

A member of the NEC tried to raise one item which had been censored off the agenda, and distributed a paper on it (just the party's finances, you know, nothing important!!!!) and the Party Leader himself ostentatiously tore it up in front of the rest of the NEC. Such juvenile behaviour makes a total mockery of the rules & regulations of the Party. For the Party Leader to do this beggars belief!

Throughout the present crisis engulfing UKIP, Knapman, has never once been seen to try to show a lead or take control. Remember, he himself was appointed to his position, just as the Tories are about to arrange for the annointment of Michael Howard! These present day Conservatives and ex-Conservatives have no place for democracy it is clear.

When I first discovered the membership padding and other irregularities in the electoral process for MEP candidates in the North East, before my own resulting disqualification and the unconstitutional suspension of the North East Regional Committee, and complained of such to Knapman, he attempted to laugh it off as a simple matter of 'dead Grandmothers'. Such is the calibre of "Former Tory minister, and whip for William Hague".

Roger Knapman, busily destroying the eruorealist cause as it once flourished within the United Kingdom Independence Party. For more on his one time Conservative party colleagues, click this "Link" to read this morning's post.

posted by Martin |8:43 AM

Monday, November 03, 2003 

Emergency NEC Meeting

For the benefit of members we set out in full below the agenda for Wednesday's Emergency NEC Meeting which has been circulated on another internet fora.

It was forwarded with some preceding explanatory comments which we also post here as they provide more insight into the depths of behaviour to which certain of UKIP's Leaders have fallen:-

There is to be an Emergency NEC meeting this coming Wednesday (Agenda at bottom of page). It may well be the last chance UKIP has of dealing with the massive problems currently faced by the Party!

But why? The reason for this emergency meeting is a very unwelcome recent development - several NEC members have tried to have things put onto the agenda of NEC meetings, but, they have frequently been censored off by David Lott. As anyone can understand, this is very serious situation, as it stops the NEC from being able to discuss things along the lines of the

Here's just one graphic example that took place at the least meeting. A member of the NEC tried to raise one item which had been censored off the agenda, and distributed a paper on it (just the party's finances, you know, nothing important!!!!) and the Party Leader himself ostentatiously tore it up in front of the rest of the NEC. Such juvenile behaviour makes a total
mockery of the rules & regulations of the Party. For the Party Leader to do this beggars belief!

Surely, the NEC has a legal right and obligation to discuss anything properly notified which is of concern. At meetings, when anyone brings up these important things,David Lott, Roger Knapman, et al, respond by saying "We haven't got time to discuss this...euro elections in 200 days etc etc"...

IMPORTANT NOTE: that time scale didn't stop them spending two hours attacking one person at the September meeting ( the Party Treasurer ) and another two hours at the July meeting doing the same to the Party Vice Chairman!

The Agenda for this Emergency meeting of the NEC is set out below.

East India Club, St James's Square, London SW1

This Emergency NEC has been called by the NEC members below because of urgent matters which affect the running of the party and which cannot wait until the scheduled NEC of Monday 10th November 2003. The items are based upon:

a) Implications for the Constitution and Rulebook, and composition of the NEC, of the judgement in Sinclaire v UK Independence Party, delivered on 29th October 2003.

b) The fact that attempts to place items on two previous agendas of scheduled NEC meetings have been denied and that there is a need to discuss these items.

c). Serious allegations by the Party Chairman and Nigel Farage MEP that "central funds are the subject of an internal enquiry" and threats to call in the police. The implications in these widely disseminated letters and e-mails has been that there is serious wrong-doing being investigated, all of which is unknown to the NEC.


1 The composition of the NEC in the light of the judge's ruling in the case of Sinclaire v UK Independence Party and a resolution as to whether the party intends to appeal the decision.

2 Constitutional and Rulebook changes, in light of the above judgement, required for the forthcoming elections to the National Executive Committee and a resolution to put these in hand immediately. The most immediately affected sections are those relating to internal elections.

3 Instructions to solicitors on Nikki Sinclaire's further litigation.

4 Treatment of candidates' deposits for the European Elections and clarification of the nature of the ring-fenced account.


The NEC calls upon the Finance Committee to produce a report with recommendations before making any determination for resolution. It is noted that candidates' deposits for the European Elections 2004 should be placed either into party funds, or in a genuine third party account outside the party altogether. Additionally that the terms on which such deposits are
made and held (and may be returned) should be clarified.

5 Clarification of the status of the "internal enquiry" into central funds announced in Nigel Farage's letter to NEC and others of 28th October, in light of the fact that no such enquiry has been ordered by the NEC and of the Party Chairman's statement on 27th October 2003 to the Party Treasurer of his intention to call the police and/or issue an injunction against him.

6 The Discipline Committee

Serious concerns have been raised about the validity of some recent discipline hearings. In the face of threats of legal action, the Party Secretary has had to back down from his plans to stage a discipline hearing against a member at a time when that member had already indicated he was on holiday. The **** decision was reached through a completely flawed process which ignored the Discipline rules.


The findings of the **** Discipline Case be set aside because they failed to follow the Discipline Rules.

7 The Ashford office was claimed to be part of the South East Regional Committee but it is understood that this is not the case. The financial responsibility for Ashford therefore falls within the remit of the Party Treasurer who has not received full co-operation to enable him to satisfy legal requirements. The NEC notes that accounts for Ashford promised for the last NEC meeting were not presented and also that figures regarding the Daily Mail promotion were promised within 10 to 15 days of Conference.


The NEC requires the Ashford office to give full disclosure of financial records and documents to the Party Treasurer.


Now that financial reporting for Ashford is the responsibility of the Central Office, the NEC requires immediate profit and loss statements and accounts for its operations to date, and monthly accounts thereafter, and notes that Ashford must operate using acceptable accounting practices and be financially accountable to the NEC.

8 Clarification of what NEC members have to do to get items on the agenda for NEC meetings

In recent months, items which NEC members have attempted to get onto NEC meeting agendas have either been ignored or not placed on the agenda. Apart from being against the accepted rules of meetings, this situation will create the need for constant Emergency NEC meetings to discuss issues which are being ignored. The NEC resolves to note in the minutes the general understanding of the rules regarding submission and incorporation of items
for inclusion in the agenda.

posted by Martin |3:47 PM
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
contact us
my other blogs
nigel farage
landmark links
fired treasurer
glw incitement
glw & farage
a complaint
a neutered nec
graham booth
derek clark
mark croucher
michael harvey
roger knapman
mike nattrass
buy my book
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.