UKIP Uncovered

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

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Crisis Update

We quote in full, the latest update from Andrew Edwards, regarding the developing Party problems:-

Quote
Hi, I'm enclosing a copy of a long letter (that I've just received from a very concerned party member) that has been sent to Branch chairman by, NEC member, Damian Hockney. This letter gives a very clear picture of the problems currently ripping the Party asunder! Apologies to, Damian, for any embarrassment my posting this letter may cause, but, its contents deserves a wider Party audience than just the Party chairmen! Also it may help focus the minds of those who have accused me of peddling half truths!

Obviously, since this letter was posted a few developments have taken place - the dismissal of HQ staff & the closure of the London Office. The lack of any information as to the legalities surrounding the office move remain unaltered.

Andy E.

Dear Fellow Branch Chairman and European Elections Candidate

In the early hours of this morning, the Party Secretary Derek Clark, Ashford telesales manager John Moran and another party member broke into Head Office and changed the locks as part of the plan to move the party HQ to offices which the leadership knows may lack planning permission for use.

What was worse was that the party manhandled a member of staff out of the office and the police had to be called. This a very serious matter and is one more example of the lawless and dangerous way in which the leadership of the party is behaving.

Last Monday's NEC was heated and difficult, and after the event some of us on all sides of the problems agreed the need to put difficulties behind us, to try again to discuss among ourselves the issues which are causing such contention and to attempt to resolve them privately. This is why I have said little publicly during the past week. I know that the desire to deal honourably is genuine on the part of some people, but a number of developments oblige me to write to you again. Not least of these is the untrue content of the branch chairmen's newsletter which you may just have received, and the failure by the party leadership to respond at all to clear allegations that the party may possibly now break the law by illegally occupying an office in an old fireplace factory without planning consent.

What is worse, I have learned that the leadership has made this all into a public statement, and featured this untruthful information to everyone in and out of the party, on the public section of the party website in the press section. This is something I would never do, having confined all my communications to yourselves, the branch chairmen and the candidates.
Indeed, it has been the essence of the leadership criticism of me keeping you informed that the information I have sent to you as party officials may find its way into the hands of those who are not our friends. The latest actions of the leadership guarantee that the information about their law-breaking and of the actions of those like myself who are trying to restore order will find its way openly into the hands of unsympathetic parties.

I apologise for this e-mail being quite long, but I wish to make sure that you have the facts on record.

LEADERSHIP REFUSAL TO TAKE ADVICE FOLLOWING NEWS THAT NEW OFFICE BREAKS
PLANNING LAWS

I can do no better on the office move than put before you (below) the General Secretary Michael Harvey's wise and thorough letter to the Party Chairman. So serious is the content of this, and so enormous the failure to investigate the matter properly by the party leadership, that it is possibly the highest dereliction of duty of care and attention to the party that I have ever seen by a group of officials. It is not so much that mistakes can be made - anyone can make these and tolerance must be exercised about this - but that there is no consultation and a refusal to act or comment on the serious matters raised due to a blind determination to go ahead at all costs. For his efforts to resolve this important matter,
the party leadership are planning to get rid of the the General Secretary and replace him with someone who will simply do what they tell him. I have been told this by one of their number who believe that this action is wrong. This of course is indeed wrong, as the General Secretary's role is to assist the party through difficult matters in a professional role, not be an innocent low-grade patsy who simply acts on instructions.

MEMO FROM GEN SEC MICHAEL HARVEY TO PARTY SECRETARY DEREK CLARK AND PARTY
CHAIRMAN DAVID LOTT

URGENT

To: Derek Clark, Party Secretary

David Lott, Party Chairman

From Michael Harvey, General Secretary

Re: Proposed Head Office Move

Date: 15th December 2003, faxed at 10.10am.

I trust that you have taken proper legal advice (independent of Mike Nattrass) prior to taking on any legal obligation re: the lease on part of 123 New John Street, Birmingham B6 4LD. There are always potential pitfalls in any property transaction which need to be fully considered. If no legal advice has been taken, I strongly advise that you rectify this
immediately and certainly before signing a lease. I also strongly advise that no Party funds are disbursed (except, of course for the legal advice) until all outstanding queries are resolved.

The following lawyers in Birmingham specialising in property matters have been recommended:

Community Law Partnership - tel 0121-685 8595 (independent practice in
B2)Wragge & Co, Colmore Row - tel 0121-233 1000 (bigger B'ham law firm)

Several important questions have been raised by NEC members since our visit to the site last Monday, none of which have yet been answered. These include:

1) Does the site have the necessary planning consent for use as
offices? If so, please quote the Birmingham City Council Consent Number.

2) Does the site comply with Health & Safety regulations and does it have a
fire certificate?

3) What is the Party's liability for rates, both during the rent free
period and thereafter?

4) What other costs will the Party have to meet, both during the rent free
period and thereafter (eg. buildings insurance, light and heat, repairs and
renewals, service charge (if any) etc. etc.)?

5) Have the Party's insurers approved the site for the purpose of our
employer's and public liability cover?

6) Is the Party guaranteed security of tenure for the entire duration of
the lease?

7) Do permissions need to be secured from the landlord and, if so, has this
been done?

Other important issues not directly related to the lease are:

8) Who is responsible for hiring and training staff in Birmingham?

9) Who is responsible for supervising and training volunteers?

10) Who is responsible for organising the removal of Head Office equipment?

11) What is happening to the merchandise operation?

12) Will the Party have a separate postal address and post box, or will it share 123 New John Street with others? If the latter, who will have access to the Party's mail?

13) How much is it proposed to spend on the telephone system, who will own the system and is it portable?

Finally, the A4 sheet of costings promised to the NEC at its November meeting is still awaited. Time is now very short so I advise that you circulate the written legal advice on 1-7 and confirmation of arrangements for 8-13 to all NEC members within 48 hours. Any problems must be resolved before the lease is signed and before any time and money is spent on relocation.

It will also show that the leadership has exercised responsibility in its conduct of the Party's business, and that there is no question of negligence that could result in personal liability.

-end of Michael Harvey's memo to the Party Chairman -

David Lott, Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, Mike Nattrass and Derek Clark have been placed on notice that Birmingham City Council planning department claim that there is no planning consent for the party to have offices at Mike Nattrass's estate agents building, and these party officials have failed for a whole week to respond. Derek Clark now claims that whatever the situation, whatever laws we might break, we are moving into these offices come what may "because to do otherwise would be seen to be weakness and giving in to Damian Hockney". It is clearly felt by the leadership that, because complying with the law vindicates the stand of those who have recently had to restore legality to the party on other issues over the past four weeks, that even the law must not now be allowed to prove this point.

Hence the fear of taking legal advice, just in case it proves the allegations. This is the height of absurdity, and is going to lead the party into chaos.

And knowing this need to deal carefully with the bruised egos, this is indeed why I dealt with them for a whole week privately, to try and ensure that we could achieve an end to this without it appearing that one argument had 'won' or 'lost'. I even wrote and offered to take a complete back seat on the argument and to say that I would accept the Birmingham move if adopted properly, and to say nothing about this matter if they quietly resolved it and took me up on my offer to help fund a London office with no strings attached if Birmingham did indeed prove to a non-starter.

To accidentally break the law is one thing, but to plan to do so simply through spite and bruised ego is quite another and I call upon all those who plan to break the law, and those who support those who plan to do so, to resign now or offer the party indemnity if they go ahead.

Mike Nattrass is now claiming that planning consent is not necessary, but repeatedly refuses to get the matter confirmed by lawyers, or to write to the party with a planning consent number, and has written personal and emotive criticisms of anyone who has attempted to establish the legality of the situation. The building is a tatty interwar building designed as a fireplace factory, with very low grade accommodation and clearly dangerous
concrete and iron beams and height restrictions. Mike conveniently ignores the fact the the City Council planning department which covers his area has stated that there is no planning permission, that it is required if we want our offices there and that it would be unlikely to be granted. If the leadership believe that the planners are wrong in what they say (and of
course they could be), then why not pick up the telephone or drop a line to the planners - I have given the leadership all the names concerned. But no.

The only response is somewhat intemperate letters accusing those like myself of being bitchy or beingtroublemakers.

The latest is that Tony Stone, an otherwise decent NEC member, has been deputed by the leadership as part of their attack on those who wish to restore order, to call NEC members and try and get them to censure another NEC member who sent a private communication to fellow NEC members pointing out the legal pitfalls of what we are doing. The e-mail has gone no further than the NEC, has been clearly contained within and is vitally important as
the NEC member in question has considerable experience in property. Tony is being used by the leadership to censor the inconvenient communications of another NEC member, while allowing Mike Nattrass to send out unpleasant personal attacks at the behest of the leadership.

DANGEROUS LOW BEAMS

The beams of the building are so low and cross the office floor, it is questionable whether we would be able to get that planning permission, even in the unlikely event that it might be considered. Birmingham works towards a unitary plan and is not happy about carving offices out the commercial stock within the city, and its planning department communications have made clear that it would be very unlikely to allow the party to have its offices there, even had we taken the sensible precaution of applying. We cannot simply break the law with impunity, operating our head office as a hole in the wall operation, hidden from sight because it may be functioning illegally. And if we are not breaking the law, why are the senior party officials refusing to take advice and failing to protect the party, leaving it to others who they attack for doing so?

In the spirit agreed last Tuesday, I did not tell anyone except the most senior party officials what Birmingham City Council had communicated to me. I made clear what had been discovered, and the seriousness was acknowledged. A good start I felt...then no action was taken, in direct contravention to the understanding that had been achieved.

The leadership were most anxious that I should not continue to inform you of these problems, and I agreed that I would first attempt to resolve such issues with them privately first. They were deeply concerned at the loss of support they had experienced over this and at the fact that almost a third of branch chairmen had communicated their concerns about the leadership repeatedly breaking the law. This is why they have knowingly made a false
statement in the branch chairmen's newsletter which they have broadcast to the whole world on an internet site, available to anyone, about my e-mails to you being 'misleading'. Indeed, I wish that the content was not true, but it is their attempts to cover-up and obfuscate in the face of facts which is misleading. My e-mails have contained the inconvenient truth.

The only response of any substance to me after the initial acknowledgement was an unnecessary and abusive e-mail from Mike Nattrass on an internet site which I attach below. As you will note, it is to a third party who is questioning the office and it threatens legal action against him. It uses abuse in place of reasoned argument, and it concentrates on diverting attention from the real matters in hand onto 'display boards visible by
passing motorists' and whether in fact Mike is an Estate Agent.

E-MAIL FROM MIKE NATTRASS ON AN INTERNET SITE TO A THIRD PARTY of 13th
December 2003

"In your twisted report ,of what you were presumably told that the NEC discussed ,you failed to mention that Damian had his title VICE CHAIRMAN" removed by the Leader. The other Vice Chairmen remain unchanged.

Was this because Damian omitted to advise you of this fact?

LIKE A LITTLE GIRL, HE LIKES TO DROP OUT THESE FACTS ON THE INTERNET, THEN SMILE TO EVERYONE ON THE NEC AND PROMISE THAT HE/SHE WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN AND ASK THAT NO ONE STARTS ANY MORE CIRCULARS (except himself naturally) This little girl has however
a very bitchy nature and I want to discuss this with you under oath in Court.

The offices which in your report are "at the back of an Estate Agent" actually have a 12 Feet x 6 feet display window facing the ring road at Dartmouth Circus which can be illuminated to show off our UKIP signs and wares for the benefit of passing drivers ( presumably the Estate agent trades from the pavement).

Did Damian advise you of these incorrect facts and will he be paying for your case? We are all still looking for the" Estate Agent" perhaps you can help by coming here,showing me what you mean and discussing this very serious issue which is of your making.

Did you inspect any of the LONDON offices proposed by your friend Damian or hear how we laughed when it was suggested that we should pay £14,000 per annum for a smelly little 500sq ft on a FOURTH FLOOR in a London back street( this being one quarter of the space
available to UKIP here) The details of how we could "do it up" were not discussed.

The firm I shall be using in the case against you are Hills solicitors of Manchester and the Barrister will ,I hope, be expensive.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU AND YOUR FRIEND.

MIKE NATTRASS
DEPUTY LEADER

- e-mail from Mike Nattrass ends -

I am sure none of you would condone such abusive language from one colleagues about another on the NEC. I appreciate that Mike is keen to rent the office to the party, and that it would be useful for his business if the party were to pay the rates on 1,800 sq ft of space which he is currently liable for. This cost was recently sprung on us and will not been
quantified until after we move in, as well as his new 5,000 pound telephone system which would have been unnecessary in the new London office. However, Mike needs to grasp that if we are paying money over to him or paying monies to another party like the local rates which he would normally have to pay himself, then we need answers and we need accountability.

So far, the budget for Birmingham just to move the equipment (4,000 pounds) and to install Mike Nattrass's unnecessary new telephone system (5,000 pounds) is not far short of the whole annual London office rental. The last move within London two years ago cost less than 900 pounds, and there was (and is) no need for Mike's new 5,000 pound telephone system which he wants to charge us for in his building. We have enough telephones. If we need to save 12,000 pounds a year on a free office, then why are we paying out 5,000 pounds to Mike for telephones that the party workers and employees say are unnecessary?

And why have the NEC not been told about the costings for this move, or seen quotes? Why 4,000 pounds when it was previously 900 pounds? This move is not about cost saving, or it would never have happened. When the costs are finally arrived at, this move to Birmingham would be devastatingly expensive to the party if achieved. All to gain control and to get rid of those officials like the General Secretary and Party Treasurer who have acted dispassionately, questioned the leadership's actions and stopped them breaking the law.

In the last week, Mike Nattrass has refused to supply a planning consent number as challenged to me by Birmingham City Council, and has failed to answer any of the questions put to him. In an aspect of supreme irony, Birmingham City Council somehow believes that I am masterminding this move into these illegal premises and is asking me for proof that I may occupy them.

Can you seriously imagine what would happen if a political rival discovered half way through the campaign next spring that we were in illegal occupation of our national HQ? That they informed the planning department and we were given 28 days to leave? This is not some fanciful scenario drawn from a novel. It is a possibility read over the telephone to me by
the Birmingham lawyers and the planning department officials, people with whom our leadership are refusing to deal with or notify the party's governing body about. So absurd is this that my offer to them to pay the lawyers' fees for a Birmingham planning lawyer to confirm or deny the findings and place the party on a safe footing was rejected, so I now have to take the advice myself. This is why I am writing to you again.

I am asking you to contact the Party Leader to ask him on what legal basis the party is moving into the factory premises in Birmingham, and to confirm that he personally will underwrite any damages to the party which emerge. I ask you also, irrespective of your views on Birmingham as a base for our head office, to ask the party leader to get legal advice before plunging us into another crisis as he did over his attempt to illegally sack the Party Treasurer ten weeks ago. On that occasion I picked up the legal bill to restore order to the party as he has recently confessed. Mike Nattrass has now actually put in writing that if the offices are somehow not legal, then we can always quickly move to other premises in Birmingham, which itself is alarming and an indication of the chaos and hole-in-the-wall administration we might face.

As I have said, I myself am taking legal advice urgently for the party, even though I am writing to you from out of the country. I apologise in advance for the fact that my e-mail facilities here have caused a few problems, so if you reply to me at all, please copy me at
damian_hockney@hotmail.com

I am also asking you to note that I am currently putting in place a way of ensuring that this state of affairs is resolved quickly and in a manner which will not interfere with our campaigning for the European Elections, and that this is a time to stand firm behind what we believe in, and not be put off the cause simply because of the actions of a few who are causing damage.

LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN OF SACKINGS AND INTIMIDATIONS CONTINUES

There is also now a refusal to see reason, striking out at anyone who disagrees, trying to get individuals put through the discipline process, sacking employees whose branches have the temerity to write advising caution. I have now heard that the leadership will shortly try to illegally sack the General Secretary or attempt to make him redundant. Those who are
doing this are all receiving either monies out of the party or are subsidised to some degree by MEP monies.

In my view, those like the Party Chairman who get money out of the party or out of MEPs for doing the bidding of a few should declare these monies when they support plans which are clearly unsupportable and damaging. The same applies to those who make a living out of things like party merchandise. These people are possibly unhappy to rock the boat and they wish to keep their earnings from the party so will do as they are told by those who
might possibly cut off their earnings if they do not. The example to them which they are all now quoting is the London regional organiser whose branch committee wrote questioning the Birmingham move. He was sacked - or purportedly sacked - by one of the MEPs without reference to the London Region Committee because his branch spoke out. As has become typical, the MEP botched the sacking and has opened himself to both legal action and
further costs as well as public humiliation for himself and for us.

MY VICE CHAIRMANSHIP

As you may have read in the recent branch chairmen newsletter, which was placed by the leadership on a public website in contravention of all their claims to want to do things privately, I am no longer Vice Chairman. The unfortunate and untrue way in which it has been aired in the newsletter makes Roger Knapman look venal and petty, and is not the truth about what happened.

At last Monday's NEC, Roger claimed that he had been at an interview with John Sopel on a programme called Hard Talk, and had been embarrassed by the fact that half the interview was allegedly about "Damian Hockney, and the problems over the legalities of the office move". For that reason, he claimed, he was removing my vice chairmanship. I questioned the reason and asked to see a copy of the tape as I do not believe the story. I am still
awaiting the promised tape and I challenge him to produce the proof.

But as it happens, there is no need for the party leader to fabricate a story, if that is what indeed he felt he had to do: the vice chairmanship is in the gift of the leader and it is perfectly in order for him to remove it from anybody as he sees fit. Whether it is wise or politically sound is another matter, and it would have been better for him to have discussed the matter quietly with me and for us to come to a joint understanding. I made
clear I was happy to jointly agree that I would no longer be vice chairman in view of our recent misunderstandings but this is now being spun in a very unsound way. I additionally made clear at the meeting that I was surprised he had not already asked for my resignation as vice chairman.

One final thing I ask you to consider. Whilst my communications to you are clearly critical, they draw attention to specific and defined problems: I am sure you will agree that I at least bring to you an outline of the gravity of the situation as I see it and I attempt a solution. But I am never abusive or personal. I ask you to consider the nature of the
information (or the complete lack of it) provided in response to my arguments by people like Mike Nattrass and the leadership confidante Greg Lance-Watkins. It is almost always personal and vicious in a manner which I have never descended to and never will - descriptions like "bitchy girl" to describe me by Mike Nattrass and by the leadership confidante Greg Lance-Watkins, who you may remember recently called the murder of a
political opponent in Sweden "the act of a patriot". This is not the sort of person our leadership should be welcoming into its open arms as a close confidante. The leadership should be involving its fellow NEC members in the decision making process, not someone being investigated by the police who has praised the murder of a political opponent. I call upon David Lott, Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage to cease their regular communication with Greg Lance-Watkins, and to stop giving him information on NEC meetings
which he can then place in the public arena.

In the next day or two, I hope that this matter will be resolved satisfactorily, but it should never have happened in this way. The leadership must be accountable, it must stop behaving like a group of insecure petty tin-pot tyrants in pre-war Roumania, and it must not take illegal decisions and then stick to them out of weakness and pettiness, wanting to prove that it is always right.

I repeat my call upon those who have embarked upon this dangerous and costly course of action to stop immediately and to indemnify the party against the mounting costs which they are incurring in their pursuit of complete control of the party.

We none of us are always right all the time and they are leading us on to very dangerous ground. At a time when small and challenging parties throughout the West are being attacked by new regulations and strict adherence to laws that no-one thought mattered, this is not the time to behave as if we were in the Wild West. I have never opposed a duly adopted NEC decision in public, simply because large numbers of decisions are now being taken illegally and in contempt of the membership, the constitution and the rules. We must obey our constitution, however imperfect, obey the laws of the land and accept that we cannot always do things secretly and behind closed doors. Locking out staff, manhandling them onto the street, acting in this Wild West fashion is not the way to proceed and I shall write to you again very soon when I have full advice and have consulted other NEC members. If we fail to honour the principles I outline above, then we will fail with our most important objectives as well.

I shall write to you again within the next few days having consulted widelyand once I have received the relevant advice, and would appreciate anyviews that you may have.
Damian Hockney
Unquote

posted by Martin | 6:51 PM

This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

www Ukip Uncovered