UKIP Uncovered

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

Friday, May 30, 2003

Links to earlier posts

A problem being experienced by many blogs at the moment is archive files going walkabout. We thus provide these links which hopefully might still work in their absence. If not, patience and the Refresh button is all the further help we can offer. We are doing our best to keep the normal archives available...please bear with us.

First reports of infiltration of UKIP in Darlington

Comment and Follow-up to the Report

More from 'The Northern Echo'

NE Committee Letter Protesting Suspension 16th April 2003

Some Background on Nigel Farage 13th April 2003

Some background on Roger Knapman 21st April 2003

What are UKIP Leadership doing to prepare for Giscard? 23rd April 2003

Fraternal Greetings to UKIP from BNP Bristol 26th April 2003

The facts on the pirated videos

The Monday Club 27th April 2003

Suspended North East Committees letter to its members (9/04/03) 27th April 2003

Tories describe Farage's demand for a Million "Blackmail" 27th April 2003

Abattoirs at the Crab and Lobster 30th April 2003

Suggestions to get UKIP some Westminster Members 30th April 2003

Resignation letter of NE Candidate W. Chrystal ( 25/04/03) 30th April 2003

The facts on the case of the pirated video tapes 1st May 2003

Farage's Stolen Computers and the electoral consequences 4th May 2003

Deeds speak Louder than words

Why isn't UKIP the Telegraph's "cup of tea"?

How to use the Blog 7th May 2004

Disqualified Candidate launches Appeal 10th May 2003

Making Waves in the NE, the success of NEARA 11th May 2003

One Way forward for UKIP...or what might have been..11th May 2003

Our moment arrives ....(But where's the money?) 12th May 2003

North East Region MEP Selection Fiasco 26th May 2003

Cole's Appeal against Disqualification Rejected 27th May 2003

Legal Exchanges regarding the disbandment of the Regional Committees 28th May 2003

FSB new member gets UKIP Membership from the blue, 28thMay 2003

'The Northern Echo" returns to the story 28th May 2003

Cole and Rollings react to latest newspaper story 29th May 2003

Telegraph reports on Dick Morris & UKIP with background details on Bill Clinton’s pollster. 29th May 2003

The links to ouside sources on this Blog are coloured burnt orange, click on them and hopefully they will be problem free. If not please let us know.

After the heavyweight tone of many of this weeks posts and with the weekend ahead, we are planning a lighter look at the party with a feature gathering together some of the choicer quotes from UKIP's present Chairman, not least because we hold this great hope that from next Tuesday the provisional title of the piece The World according to Chairman Lott will no longer be applicable.

posted by Martin |8:36 PM

Thursday, May 29, 2003

UKIP Image further marred

In today's Daily Telegraph LondonSpy the following report appears:-

UKIP pins its hopes on former Clinton spin doctor

Now that the war in Iraq has ended, America's major political players are taking an ever closer interest in international politics.

Take Dick Morris, who, as chief strategist, masterminded Bill Clinton's election victory in 1996. Spy can reveal that the former spin doctor - once dubbed "the second most powerful man in the White House" - will spend Saturday and Sunday in negotiations with the UK Independence Party, with a view to running its campaign for next year's European elections.

"Morris believes that Britain's continued membership of the EU poses a fundamental threat to the English-speaking world," says a senior UKIP source. "He has expressed a serious interest in UKIP's philosophy, and we now want to sign him up for the election campaign. The only question is whether we'll be able to afford him."

If nothing else, Morris should at least liven up UKIP cocktail parties. A colourful character - he was once caught entertaining a prostitute in a Washington hotel - he turned against Clinton after the 1996 election, and has since become one of his former boss's sternest critics.

On Europe, he recently wrote (in this column): "The political lesson of the war in Iraq is that the people of America and Britain have far more in common with one another than do the British people with the French or the Germans."

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said yesterday: "We are having meetings in London at the weekend with Mr Morris, but it's early days yet."

There is so much known about Morris and readily available on the internet that no serious political party would have anything to do with him nor should any individual with any thought for their reputation even touch him with a twenty foot barge pole while wearing asbestos gloves. Trust Nigel Farage to be involved.

On 14th May Reuters reported that Morris was the sixth largest delinquent taxpayers in the US state of Connecticut owing USD 257,624 in income tax. Morris is apparently these days employed as a commentator for Fox News Channel and a columnist for the New York Post, a far cry from his heady days at the White House and the centre of politics.

The best brief reference source we know on Morris is a small book by Christopher Hitchins, 'No one left to lie to (The triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton) published in the UK by Verso of 6, Mead Street, London W1V 3HR.

A quote from the book's jacket:

'Triangulation' is the art of dividing the mid-point between an elite intent on maintaining privilege and an electorate that stubbornly insists on taking its place at the table……

…Hitchens points out that the real coup d’etat was executed by a Democratic president who took every remnant of New Deal liberalism in his party and tore it into shreds. In this he was assisted by finance from Miami Cuban mobsters and advice from his only friend and closest consultant, Dick Morris, a conservative Republican.

The book is littered with references to Morris of which a few below are a sample:-

Page 15

..it is hard to recall any other White House which has had to maintain a quasi-governmental or para-state division devoted exclusively to the bullying and defamation of women….Even Cinton’s best friend, the notably unfastidious Dick Morris, once told CNBC:
“Under Betty Wright’s supervision in the 1992 Clinton campaign, there was an entire operation funded with USD 100,000 of campaign money, which included federal matching funds, to hire private detectives to go into the personal lives of women who are alleged to have had sex with Bill Clinton. To develop compromising material--blackmailing information, basically--to coerce them into signing affidavits they did not have sex with Bill Clinton.

Page 26

He also failed to account for Dick Morris -- the sole human being to whom the mendacious president at once confided the truth….

…The choice of Mr Morris as confidante was suggestive, even significant. A cousin of Jules Feiffer and the late Roy Cohn (the Cohn genes were obviously dominant), Mr Morris served for a long time as Bill Clinton’s pimp. He and Mr Clinton shared some pretty foul evenings together, bloating and sating themselves at public expense while consigning the poor and defenceless to yet more misery…..

…Mr Morris’s most valued gift to the president was his invention, perhaps I should say “coinage” of the lucrative business of “ triangulation”

Page 34

In his awful USD 2.5 million Random House turkey, artlessly entitled Behind the Oval Office Dick Morris moans all the way to the till. “Triangulation” he writes, is much misunderstood. It is not merely splitting the difference between left and right.” This accurate objection -- we are talking about a three card monte and not an even split -- must be read in the context of its preceding sentence: “Polls are not the instrument of the mob, they offer the prospect of leadership wedded to a finely-calibrated measure of opinion.”

Page 85

… “Its not much of a riposte, at this point, for Clinton’s people to say that the unfashionable nobody had some right-wing friends. However shady they were, they didn’t fall to the standard of Dick Morris”

It is worth doing a Google search on “Roy Cohn” to fully understand that particular point made by Hitchens

For a small picture of Morris and an explanation of “Triangulation” by its coiner as it supposedly relates to Chirac and Blair use the link below:

Dick Morris on Blair and Chirac

WHAT CAN UKIP's LEADERS BE THINKING ! letting the party's name be associated with probably the most renowned political manipulator in the entire western world? Surely this time the NEC will bring those responsible to account! Monday 2nd June Last Chance Saloon?

posted by Martin |6:39 PM

Reactions to Yesterday's Northen Echo Article

Martin Cole has asked that we make clear to our readers that he considers himself completely vindicated by the inquiry that resulted in Peter Troy's resignation, although he is unhappy that there seems to be an attempt being made to suppress the outcome of that investigation and ignore other glaring questions the results raise.

Mr Cole adds that his resignation or disagreements with others in the party were not a question as to whether or not there had been BNP infiltration of the UKIP, as alleged in the above newspaper, but were rather caused by the absolute refusal of all at the top of the party to investigate the matter even when clear evidence of problems existed.

Mr Cole further believes that the initial investigation referred to in the article either never took place or was a feeble imitation of the real thing. No evidence of it having taken place, its membership or that it was even planned was ever given to Mr Cole.

It was not until the postal ballot for MEP candidates had been almost concluded, following an acrimonious NEC meeting on 12th May, that the Party Treasurer was instructed to investigate matters. This led to the absurd compromise of Peter Troy resigning his candidature "for the sake of party unity" while retaining his other party positions, all of which being thrashed out over some days during which the UKIP EU Electoral web page showed the North East result as subject to a recount.

Michael Rollings, Chairman of UKIP's disbanded North East Regional Committee had the following comments to make regarding the situation on joint FSB/UKIP membership recruitment :-

"Can anyone in the Leadership explain why it was sufficient for Mr Troy to resign "in the interests of Party unity" when the S.J. Walker letter points clearly to him as an FSB (Federation of Small Businesses') recruiter, that he was clearly signing people up to both organisations, although unbeknown to them!!?

Why was he not" disqualified" as a Candidate and kicked out of the Party ?

Perhaps there is a clue in David Lotts recent letter to the Members of the North East Region. The clue is that David Lott does not recognise that the Committee was right to oppose Troy's Candidature and has been fully vindicated. However the courtesy to admit he was wrong and apologise to its Members and retract....."

Mr Rollings has some further points regarding that letter which we will supply when a copy can be obtained.

posted by Martin |9:03 AM

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

The Northern Echo 28th May 2003
Having been writing of the above newspaer already today, we were surprised to learn that after reporting little on UKIP for several weeks, that paper has now returned to the subject with the following report quoted in full:-

Candidate for Europe withdraws as party feud escalates
by Chris Lloyd

A CANDIDATE for the 2004 European elections in the North-East has withdrawn - despite winning his party's bitter nomination battle.

Peter Troy won the chance to be the UK Independence Party's (Ukip) lead candidate in the elections, but stood down in the name of party unity. He is the second Ukip candidate to withdraw.

Last month, businessman Martin Cole, who lives in Switzerland, withdrew in an increasingly acrimonious feud within the regional party about alleged infiltration by British National Party members. An internal party investigation found that the claims were "groundless".

Last night Mr Troy, chairman of the party's Sedgefield branch, said: "I won by a small margin, but it is right for me to withdraw because it has been a fairly contentious contest and this is the only way for the party to unite so it can get on with its campaign.

"There was a personality clash and there was a danger the party could become polarised and no one wants that.

"I am still going to be very active within the party and the region."

But Michael Rollings, chairman of the party's North-East regional committee, which was suspended by the London headquarters, said: "There are still some outstanding issues surrounding a meteoric rise in membership in the region prior to the ballot. This rise may have been down to telephone canvassing or it may have been because of irregularities."

Ukip, which wants Britain to withdraw from the European Union, is hopeful of winning a seat in the North-East in 2004. If boundaries are unchanged, the region will return four MEPs to Brussels. Given historic voting patterns, three are likely to be Labour with the fourth being a fight between Conservative, LibDem and Ukip.

The four Ukip candidates who are standing are: John Pearson, a retired Northumberland farmer who was educated at Barnard Castle School; Charlotte Bull, a supply teacher who lives in Darlington; Tony Scholefield, an economist from London, and Cambridgeshire businessman Ian Gillman.

To read the article from the paper please use the link below:-
Candidate for Europe withdraws as party feud escalates

The first indication that something was amiss with the UK Independence Party membership recruitment practises came from an article in this Darlington's daily newspaper in its edition of 23rd March this year headlined Right-wingers target town in coming local elections.

This led to BNP member Mr Trevor Agnew writing to the newspaper on 2nd April to claim 'I received a (UKIP)membership card out of the blue and I certainly did not pay for it. Read some of the earlier comment from the following link to the first post on this Blog, alternatively read on to the immediately following pertinent article where the same link is repeated.
Northen Echo Items

posted by Martin |4:59 PM

UK Independence Party North East Membership Irregularities

Although it is now over two months since the UKIP Party Head Office staff were first alerted to potential membership list anomalies in the North East region of the party they continue to try and shrug the matter off as if it were unimportant. Having yesterday disallowed the appeal against Martin Cole's disqualification as an MEP candidate, it now seems an apt time to reveal some of the evidence available as to the extent of these irregularities. This evidence is, of course, well known in the upper reaches of UKIP.

Among those receiving unsolicited and unpaid UK Independence Party membership cards, were new North East area recruits to the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). One such Mr S.J. Walker of SJW Steel Erection County Durham signed a statement on the 4th April that he applied to join the FSB and not UKIP. He nevertheless received a UKIP membership card through the post and appeared as a new recruit in UKIP membership lists. He has now agreed to this fact being made known on this Blog.

Mr Walker is not alone in this situation having applied to join an organisation protecting the interests of small businessmen and finding himself suddenly a member of a political party. Followers of this Blog will recognise the similarities with the claims made by Mr Trevor Agnew in his letter to The Northern Echo on the 2nd April. Such claims were discounted by the UKIP senior hierarchy on the grounds of Mr Agnew's BNP affiliation, on what basis one wonders are they now ignoring Mr Walker's statement?

The original articles can be obtained from the archives for Monday, 14th April or from this link First Northern Echo Articles

posted by Martin |4:19 PM

The illegality of the disbandment of the Yorkshire and North East Regional Committees

On the 15th April 2003 a solicitors letter was sent to the UK Independence Party Leader, Chairman and Secretary pointing out the legal case as to why the disbandment of the two Northern UKIP Regional Committees was considered neither legal nor constitutional. In view of the amount of time that has now passed without any sign of sensible resolution; it now seems necessary to detail the matter for visitors to this Blogspot.

Quote

Solicitor's letter 15th April 2003.

Dear Sirs,

We are instructed that you have purported to disband those two Committees for reasons which are not fully clear at this moment in time.

We are instructed to advise you that we consider that disbandment to be both unlawful and unconstitutional.

We say that for a number of reasons.

Firstly if the conduct of either Committee is in question then that should be a disciplinary matter and should be referred to the Discipline Panel
under the provision of Rule 15.1 of the Party Constitution as amended in January 2001. No such referral has taken place.

Secondly if this is not a disciplinary matter then any such dispute should be resolved by an independent committee or panel. This has not happened.

Thirdly the Committees have not been given any opportunity to put their case before any meeting or any panel and therefore their case has simply not been heard.

Fourthly there has been no investigation of any alleged complaints. We have had the benefit of seeing an e-mail from ****** to ###### (the Party Secretary) with #####'s responses dated the 31 August 2002 and the 3 September 2002 respectively. ******* considered that Rule 1.3 was too draconian indicating that there was no mechanism for a Regional Committee to make representations or to appeal to any independent body. #####'s response was to this effect "should it ever happen there would be an investigation in which the Regional C or Branch C would have their say." That has not happened.

Finally we are instructed to suggest that the leadership is acting in bad faith in the way that it has handled this matter and the way that it has
treated a properly elected Committee. Indeed we are instructed that attempts are being made to set up successor Committees without any elections which must be unconstitutional and against the spirit of the Party.

Please note that although we refer to the above matters, we reserve the right to raise others if necessary.

We are therefore writing to you to suggest that you should immediately set aside this purported disbandment and establish a means of resolving this dispute which would allow at the very least the hearing of objections and representations from the Committees.

If you agree to that course of action please confirm by return and please write to all appropriate Committees and members of the Party indicating that this is to be done to prevent any further misunderstanding.

Finally for the avoidance of any doubt, if it is the case that it is alleged that our Client Committees have broken any of the Party?s rules then will you please specify the particular rules in questions and outline each and every alleged breach.

You will appreciate that this is a matter of great concern to the Committees as it must be to the Party as a whole and therefore we would be grateful if you could respond to matters raised in this letter as soon as possible to prevent matters escalating further.

Unquote

The Party Secretary's Reply

UKIP Party Secretarry's reply dated 24th April 2003

In further reply to your letter of April 15th 2003 I can now comment on your various points. To assist you I enclose copies of the Party Constitution, Regional Committee (RC) Rules, the Euro Election Committee (EEC) Rules, Selection Process for MEP Candidates and other material.

The Regional Committees of the North East and of Yorkshire & Humberside are now disbanded. The reasons given below are known to the members of these former committees.

Relevant background/EEC decisions

At first meeting of the EEC, Feb 15th 2002, it was decided to establish the final MEP list in each region by a postal ballot of members.

At the EEC meeting of August 30th 2002, with Mr ****** present, the document, “The Selection Process for MEP Candidates” was circulated and accepted. This document makes it clear that only those candidates who have been approved by the Party’s national interviewing panel may be considered by the regions. At the same time it laid down that regional committees can not un-approve any candidate, their function is to produce a short list from among those approved MEP candidates who have nominated that region as either first or second choice, giving all candidates equal consideration.

It is also stated that the short list numbers are to be the number of MEP seats (n) in a region plus three. The postal vote then establishes a merit order of 1-n, plus 1st, 2nd & 3rd reserve.

At the EEC meeting of Feb 7th 2003 motion was passed, “... regional committees which do not need to short list (shall) not be permitted to disqualify approved candidates on the national list”. This was approved nem com.

North East Regional Committee. At the EEC meeting of April 26th 2002, the North East Chairman opposed the decision for final MEP candidate selection by postal voting. He was supported by the Yorks rep only and the original decision about postal voting was duly endorsed.

On March 8th 2003 the N. East RC held a committee meeting and, in a telephone conversation with the Party Chairman later that day, their then Chairman said that the N. East committee had decided not to accept postal voting; they would make alternative arrangements. The Party Chairman gave until 6.00 pm the following day to rescind. This was forthcoming, verbally, but the three principal committee officers then mailed an undated letter (copy encl) to those members who had attended the candidates hustings, also held on March 8th, asking them to express a written view as to who their number one candidate should be.

This was held to be a retraction of the verbal undertaking of March 8th and to be an attempt to circumvent and obstruct the postal vote of members. The committee was then suspended pending an enquiry.

An attempt to resolve the issue was made on March 17th when ++++++, the General Secretary and Returning Officer for the MEP list elections, with myself, travelled to Middlesborough to meet the N. East committee to discuss the issue. Their next hustings had been arranged for that evening, 7.30 pm, and we invited them to meet us at 5.30 pm at the same venue. Only one committee member turned up, although several committee members did attend the hustings.+++++ and myself attempted to speak to them after the hustings when those present repeated their objection to postal voting. It proved to be an unproductive meeting.

Yorkshire & the Humber Yorkshire has seven MEP seats so that their required short list is ten.

On or about Monday March 10th the Yorkshire secretary called me to enquire about the number of candidates on his regional list. After consulting the Returning Officer I was able to inform him that there were exactly ten, the required number. This was disputed, Yorkshire insisted that they had 13.

It transpired that they were counting two candidates who had Yorkshire as their second choice, but who had withdrawn having found themselves on the short list for their first choice region. There was also a misunderstanding on all sides with a certain David xxxxxx (Yorkshire) being confused with a David yyyyyy (East Midlands). Both were believed to be putting their names forward but neither filled in the necessary form, and neither could have done so for they joined the Party in 2003, after the closing date for receipt of MEP applications, which was Nov 30th last.

The Yorkshire RC have refused to accept this situation, insisting on short listing and reducing their list to less than ten by rejecting three nationally approved candidates. They had tried to reject one of the latter by resolution at the EEC meeting of Dec 6th 2002 but were defeated. The committee was suspended pending an enquiry.

Investigations and/or Consultations

The above account indicates to you that attempts have been made to resolve these situation but they have been met with refusals to accept the rules for establishing the MEP candidate lists. In the first place these two RCs were suspended after consulting the members of the EEC. Investigations into these suspensions were conducted by the NEC.

On Friday March 21st 2003 there was an Emergency NEC meeting, attended by all but two members. The Yorkshire Chairman was present, being an NEC member in her own right, and she received support from two or three of the NEC members present. This meeting endorsed the suspension of the two Rcs, but provided a mechanism whereby they could be reinstated.

It was decided to ask all these committee members to sign a document (copy enclosed) whereby they would accept the rules for the adoption of the MEP candidate lists and agree to support legitimate candidates. The NEC would have reinstated these two Rcs on Monday, April 7th, had their signed agreements been returned by noon that day. I have to inform you that the only responses were three from the N.East and two from Yorkshire, with the Yorkshire Chairman sending a refusal to do so.

April 7th was the date of the next regular NEC meeting whan a report of the situation was given. After further prolonged discussion the NEC decided that there was no option but to disband the North East RC and the Yorkshire RC, with effect from that date.

A meeting of the EEC on Friday, April 11th, also endorsed the action. The disbandment of the two Rcs has therefore been agreedf to by their peers. (See below).

Following the disbandments, communications purporting to be from the Regional Committees have been mailed to Party members in these two regions. This is an unauthorised use of the Party Data Base, whereby holding names and addresses of members is covered by the Data Protection Act. These former committees have now committed an offence under the Act.

It follows that these former committee members must surrender these data bases, monies and any other relevant material to those legitimate Party Officers who request them. Use of regional, or branch, UK Independence Party funds to settle any accounts not incurred before suspension would be unauthorised.

Further Points

The Party constitution came into force following an approving postal vote of members in 1998, likewise amended January 2001. It requires all members to accept the constitution and Party rules. It establishes the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) which formulates rules and constitutional changes. It describes the NEC as the highest management committee, empowered to authorise the establishment of other groups of members. See 7.6, that the NEC is elected by the whole Party, likewise the Party Leader, 8.3

Among the rules instituted are those for regional committees. Please see 1.3, that the NEC may disband Rcs. The Rcs were set up in their current format last autumn when committee members received copies of the rules. No RC member has made any formal complaint about the rules, except Mr ******.

The EEC was set up in January 2002 and formed its own rules, which were scrutinised by the SOC and approved by the NEC. Please see rule 3, voting membership. The NEC Political Committee is four members, but there are eleven regions, giving the chairmen of the later much the greatest weight of vote between them.

It is then, quite simply, that most members of two Regional Committees have been attempting to depart from the rules which they themselves helped to make. In doing so they are failing to support the constitution and it is they who have acted in bad faith. Their attempted disregard for the rules came in the stages immediately prior to the postal vote, threatening to ruin fifteen months of work and careful planning.

Action was therefore taken as a matter of urgency to protect the integrity of our Euro Election Campaign. The other nine Regional Committees are all working enthusiastically within the rules. The leadership have a responsibility to the Party for protecting the Euro campaign, 2004, which they do not intend to neglect.

Yours sincerely,

Solicitor's Reply of 2 May 2003

Quote

Dear Mr #####

I thank you for your letter of the 24 April 2003 in response to mine of the 15th and now confirm I have my Clients instructions.

I am instructed that the Selection Process for MEP Candidates’ document was circulated during the August 2002 meeting of the EEC. It was neither discussed nor accepted by the EEC. The minutes for that meeting at paragraph 7 state: ‘Reports from $$$$$ circulated. Thoughts on these to be sent to$$$$$ in next two weeks’. In fact, the submissions were to be forwarded to $$$$$$ via ++++, and indeed they were. The fact that the minutes record that the regions were asked to comment on this very long draft report is clear evidence that the report had not been accepted.

The report is not even referred to in the subsequent EEC minutes.

It is patently untrue that this report was EEC policy.

However, it is recorded in the EEC minutes of April 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(b) that: ‘the proposed numbers for short-lists are a maximum figure’. This was in response to the situation which has caused the present crisis being anticipated. This was an agreed EEC decision and has never been rescinded.

The contents of the $$$$ draft report are therefore not binding and it is untrue that the Yorkshire region must have 10 candidates.

The relevance of the reference to the February 2003 meeting is unclear. Neither the North East (NE) nor Yorkshire regional committees have tried to disqualify candidates on the national list. What the NE and Yorkshire regional committees expect is to be able to interview and short-list their candidates as other regions have done and as per the EEC timetable.

North East & Yorkshire

Yorkshire did not need 10 candidates (this is dealt with above).

The Yorkshire secretary did not enquire about the number of candidates from you, on Monday 10th March or at any other time. You did not work at Head Office (HO) and you are not the returning officer. There was therefore no reason why such enquires would be directed to you. Furthermore, you were a candidate yourself and therefore not someone who should have been involved in the candidacy of others.

13 people did apply to be candidates in Yorkshire.

The Yorkshire region had concluded its interviews by the 10th March, bar one who was interviewed the following day.

David xxxxxx did apply to be a candidate. He applied at the same time as David zzzzzz following a meeting at the offices of ----- on the 3rd December 2002. He told **** that he had sent off his application form to HO. ****** spoke to ++++ at HO and was told by ++++ that an application form had been received from David xxxxx on the same day as one from David zzzz. At the subsequent EEC meeting on the 6th December 2002, ++++ distributed lists of the applicants to each region. The list for Yorkshire includes the name of David yyyy. At that time ***** did not know the correct spelling of David xxxx’s name and so there was no reason to raise any query.

There was no ambiguity regarding this. There was some considerable argument on the EEC regarding candidates who had not yet got their applications to HO. In Yorkshire, &&&&& had not done so, and he was treated differently from David xxxx (see the amended December minutes). ++++ was very clear that HO had received application forms from David xxxx and David zzzz, but not from &&&&. This is clearly recorded at paragraph 6 of the amended December 2002 EEC minutes.

You allege that ‘neither filled in the necessary form’. Clearly, this cannot be true. If neither yyyyy or xxxx had applied, then why did the name ‘yyyy’ appear on the Yorkshire list?

The closing date for nominations was extended due to the meeting with ---- on the 3rd December 2002. This was why David xxxx put in his application after the 30th November deadline, which had been extended without publication. For David yyyy to also apply to be a candidate for the Yorkshire region where he does not live, after the original 30th November deadline, and just happen to coincide his application for the same day as that of David zzzzz, and instead of David xxxx (who either was less than clear to **** or had his application lost in the post) is so fantastic a coincidence that it is not worthy of serious consideration.

It is untrue that the Yorkshire region tried to reject one of the applicants at the December 2002 EEC meeting. A letter, dated 16th February 2003 and headed ‘FOR THE RECORD’, was sent to ++++ about the minutes for the December meeting stating:-

“Regarding the latest set of EEC minutes for the 7th February and the revisions of the previous minutes, I would wish to place the comments on record.

My request that I be minuted regarding ^^^^^ ruling himself out is not as you have written it. What I said was that ^^^^ had made extremely derogatory comments against the Yorkshire region and the other proposed candidates to an important UKIP backer, and that by so doing he had ruled himself out as a candidate. I then asked that I be minuted upon this point.

The logic of this should be obvious. If ^^^^ is so contemptuous of the Yorkshire activists (many of whom he has never met or spoken to), and is prepared to risk alienating potential backers by involving them in his schemes, then he is clearly unsuitable to work as part of a team during the election campaign, and would be a disastrous MEP if he managed to secure that position.

Given the similar situation in the general election campaign in 2001 regarding ~~~~ and the total disaster of the so-called northern regional office which was responsible for the election addresses, then anyone who similarly wishes to impose ^^^^ on Yorkshire in any capacity is doing so with the full knowledge of the inevitable consequences. Such a person cannot be claiming to be acting in UKIP’s best interests’.

Investigations and/or Consultations

You allege that the Yorkshire Regional Committee ‘was suspended pending an enquiry’. They are unaware of anything taking place which could be called an enquiry, nor have they been informed of the findings of any such purported enquiry.

They are aware that !!!! has been ringing up some committee members
and threatening them with expulsion.

You were told before your visit to the North East on the 17 March 2003 that the Regional Chairman was abroad and that the other committee members would be unable to attend a meeting at 5.30 p.m.

The EEC has not been designated the power to suspend regional committees, and has no more power to suspend regional committees than has the conference steering committee.

The NEC meeting of the 21st March was not properly constituted. That meeting did not endorse the purported suspension by the EEC of the NE and Yorkshire regional committees.

The NEC did not decide to ask the two committees to sign any document. The terms of the document are not as set out by you, and you admitted that it was the non-signature of these documents which was the reason for the disbandment of the two regional committees.

The opinions of the EEC are irrelevant.

At no stage in this have the two regional committees been given any opportunity to defend themselves, nor do you allege that they have. They have been the victims of an orchestrated witch-hunt.

To say that the NEC had ‘no option but to disband’ the committees is clearly a nonsense.

The Yorkshire Regional Committee is registered itself under the Data Protection Act and has its own records. They are able to communicate with local UKIP members without your permission.

Further Points

I have to say that my Clients are surprised to see you citing the constitution and rules when my Clients consider that you have yourself broken those rules. The NEC is itself bound by the constitution and is not above it. The two Regional Committees have not ‘been attempting to depart from the rules’. It is the leadership who have ignored the rules.

I am now asked to bring various matters to you attention, effectively being a report on the actions which give rise to complaints against ????, //// and yourself (the Respondents)

1. The respondents broke the EEC rules relating to the selection of candidates in Yorkshire, in that three candidates (David yyyy, wwww and qqqq) were alleged by you (after the purported suspension of the two regional committees by the EEC) in a telephone conversation with **** to have withdrawn their candidacies for Yorkshire. This was alleged to have happened as a result of conversations between the candidates and you prior to the short-listing process in Yorkshire, and was kept secret from the Yorkshire Regional Committee. Also David xxxx, another candidate, told **** (after the emergency NEC meeting) that ???? had telephoned him and told him that there was an irregularity with his candidacy and that he should step down, which David xxxx agreed to do - again this was kept secret from the Yorkshire Regional Committee. These were clear instances of interference in the candidate selection process in Yorkshire by persons who were candidates themselves, which is against the EEC dictum that candidate selection should not involve other candidates. This was further an abuse of power and unwarranted interference by the leadership.

2. The respondents ignored the EEC appeal procedure, particularly as set out in the minutes of the 6th December 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(e), and did not give the defendant regions any proper notice of the complaints against them, or any opportunity to defend themselves.

3. The respondents ignored the EEC decision, set out in the minutes of the 26th April 2002 at paragraph 2(b)(a) that the EEC would only overrule a regional committee ‘in extremis’. The respondents initiated and pushed the EEC into overruling the NE and Yorkshire regions without good cause or reason and as a first resort by means of an untruthful e-mail and a selective telephone ring round by ????.

4. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC to exceed its authority by trying to suspend the NE and Yorkshire regional committees. The EEC had not been designated this authority by the NEC as required by paragraph 1.3 of the Regional Committee Rules, as set out in the Party Rule Book. 1.3 states:

‘The NEC or designated subcommittee of the NEC will at their discretion from time to time review the powers, purposes, make-up and usefulness of any Regional Committee and vary or amend such powers, purposes and make-up or disband any Regional Committee in entirety according to circumstances’.

5. The respondents acted in breach of 6.1 of the Regional Committee Rules, as set out in the Party Rule Book. They intervened in the internal affairs of the NE and Yorkshire regional committees as a first resort and to prevent those committees resolving their difficulties themselves and/or to cause difficulties whereas otherwise none would exist. 6.1 states:

‘All difficulties arising on any Regional Committee which cannot be internally resolved shall be referred to the NEC or designated subcommittee of the NEC for resolution’.

6. The respondents broke the undertaking given by you as to one of the procedures for disbanding a regional committee, by not giving either the NE or Yorkshire regional committees any opportunity to respond to the allegations being made against them. You set out the procedure thus:

‘Should it (disbandment) ever happen there would be an investigation in which the Regional C or Branch C would have their say.’

7. The respondents broke 15.1 of the Party Constitution relating to discipline. It is clearly set out that the Discipline Panel is responsible for breaches of discipline and that the members of the NEC are strictly barred from being involved in this matter. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to set up shop as the Discipline Panel and act as prosecution, judge and jury in suspending/disbanding the NE and Yorkshire Regional Committees.

8. The respondents broke paragraph 1.1 of the Discipline rules as set out in the Party Rule Book. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to set up shop as the Discipline Panel and act, without any investigation, as prosecution, judge and jury in suspending/disbanding the NE and Yorkshire Regional Committees. Paragraph 1.1 states:

‘The Discipline Panel shall be responsible for investigating all matters that may result in the removal from office of an elected official of the Party or prospective candidate or the expulsion or suspension of a Party member from membership’.

9. The respondents broke paragraph 1.1 of the Discipline rules as set out in the Party Rule Book. The respondents induced and encouraged the EEC and NEC to eject from office roughly 20 elected Party officials and one candidate, cccc, had his candidacy terminated.

10. The respondents broke paragraph 7.14 of the Party constitution in that they induced and encouraged the NEC to call and proceed with an emergency meeting at less than 24 hours notice without setting out the motions to be debated.

11. The respondents have throughout acted in bad faith with a view to imposing their own favourite candidates on the NE and Yorkshire regions which is not a proper use of their position in the Party. By so doing, they have severely damaged the standing and effectiveness of UKIP in the NE and Yorkshire regions, if not the country as a whole.

So far as your letter generally is concerned it appears to me that you do not answer the question as to why, if the conduct of the two Regional Committees was a disciplinary matter, was not the matter referred to the Discipline Committee.

Nor do you answer why, if it was not a disciplinary matter, was there no hearing or enquiry by an independent panel.

You also do not explain why the two Regional Committees were never given any opportunity to put their case.

In particular, you do not explain why the procedure which you set out in your e-mail dated the 3rd September 2002 to **** was not followed. Likewise the EEC appeals procedure.

You also ignore the request that the purported disbandment be set aside, and I am disappointed that you do not offer any indication of a genuine willingness to end this dispute. My Clients are surprised at this and are surprised that you prefer to continue to misrepresent the rules and the facts rather than make a genuine attempt to resolve this dispute amicably. You must understand from the detailed nature of this response that my Clients are not prepared to accept what has happened and if a way forward cannot be determined for the resolution of this dispute then legal proceedings are going to be issued commencing with injunction proceedings to set aside the disbandment.

My Clients also instruct me to the effect that the current Postal Ballot is being conducted irregularly and insist that this be put on hold pending the resolution of the main dispute.

I therefore ask for your urgent responses and your proposals for the resolution of this dispute within the next seven days. Failing receiving a response from you or a response which will resolve the matter those proceedings will be inevitable.

I await to hear from you accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Unquote

The case seems as strong and as clear as it could be that the disbandment of the Northern Committees was neither legal nor constitutional.

It would appear that unless immediate reinstatement of the two committees is not made at next Monday's NEC meeting the wheels of justice will begin to slowly grind. As the party leadership is now discovering, with its past charman having to explain to the High Court the events surrounding the disqualification of a candidate in an earlier year NEC election, even fancy titles do not provide legal immunity.

The timing of an eventual hearing in about a year or so from now could well not be more disastrous for the electoral prospects of the party in either the 2004 European Parliamentary elections or the more important next General Election, particularly as some of those involved now also already figure as MEP Candidates. What a target to give to our opponents and what a disaster for those seeking Britain's EU withdrawal!

posted by Martin |8:49 AM

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Cole's Appeal against Disqualification Rejected

By mobile phone we have just been informed that Martin Cole's appeal against disqualification as a Candidate for MEP in UKIP's North East region has been rejected without a hearing. Acting Disciplinary Panel Chairman Malcolm Wood, UKIP employee and co-ordinator for the SW Region, so advised the rejected candidate by e-mail, no explanation was given nor had the respondent been advised that a panel had been appointed, let alone the names of its members.

Further details together with excerpts from his appeal submission will be posted when possible. Details regarding the party inquiry on postal ballot vote-rigging and the legal case against the Northern Regional Committee disbandments, as promised last week, are expected to be avilable on this Blog imminently.

posted by Martin |7:03 PM

Monday, May 26, 2003

North East Region MEP Candidate Selection Fiasco

Updated 4th July, 2003 to add a link to The Northern Echo article of 28th May,2003 titled
Candidate for Europe withdraws as party feud escalates

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/archive/2003/05/28/A8b3l4.newsby.html">Candidate for North East withdraws as party feud escalates.

A visit to the UKIP web site pages on the upcoming european parliamentary elections shows that of the five candidates who attended the final hustings meeting only two now remain North East Candidates

The three missing names are Bill Chrystal, Martin Cole and Peter Troy.

Bill Chrystal resigned both as a candidate and from the party in complete disgust at events in the North East and his letter of resignation to the party leader Roger Knapman dated 25th April has already been quoted in full on these pages, part of that letter stated:-

"The trouble seems to be centred around Peter Troy and his cohorts. I have already written about this, and indeed for some reason have only had one official reply which did not even answer my questions, and one phone call from one supposed senior official asking me to pour oil on troubled waters. .......It would seem to me that your party leaders are afraid of him, and we that were the NE are not worthy of your attention except when it suits, but as usual in your organisation as in others you don't have the bottle to sort it but alter your rules to suit yourselves."

Martin Cole was disqualified as a candidate following his criticising the activities of Peter Troy and the refusal of the UKIP party leadership to institute an inquiry into apparent irregularities regarding new membership numbers and recruitment procedures. Such an inquiry was eventually undertaken, presumably partly as a result of the pressure exerted from this Blog but also by the wider membership concern.

It is understood that this long delayed inquiry did indeed reveal the very irregularities complained of and that consequently Peter Troy after several days of apparent poll recounts having topped the poll for the North East was nevertheless prevailed upon to resign his candidature for the sake of party unity. It is understood he nevertheless continues in his capacity as Chairman of the Sedgefield UKIP Branch.

It remains unclear how the electoral irregularities uncovered could have been used to boost the vote of any of the NE candidates without the assistance of somebody else within the party. This aspect was apparently not considered worthy of investigation, according to a report from one close to the inquiries.

The appeal against Martin Cole's disqualification has to date apparently remained unanswered although it is clear that the concerns he raised have been proved to have been real. It is hard to understand how the results for the North East can be considered valid while this anomaly continues! Meantime, however, a party discipilinary complaint against this former candidate, made by a close associate of Peter Troy, has reportedly been set for an early hearing. Further proof, if any were needed, that those wishing to avoid any serious party reform remain firmly in control of UKIP.

Is the NE the only region affected by doubts over the candidate selection procedures? It seems extraordinary that the situation in London is still shown on the UKIP web site as being subject to a recount so long after the closing of the poll.

Reports of a senior resignation from the party's North West region also give rise to further doubts as to whether the party's National Executive Committee will have the courage or strength to halt UKIP's plunge towards disgrace and irrelevance.

posted by Martin |4:11 AM

Tuesday, May 20, 2003

Normal Service to be Resumed next Weekend

Contributors to this Blog are experiencing internet access difficulties which are expected to be resolved by the weekend.

Among items we will shortly be reporting on are the resignation of one more North East MEP candidate, the Solicitor's case against the Northern Committee's suspensions and facts on the postal ballot irregularities in the North East.

Watch This Blog

posted by Martin |2:42 PM

Monday, May 12, 2003

Our Moment Arrives but....

Following the splendid anti-EU coverage provided by Simon Heffer and the Daily Mail in the last few days, we now have the Daily Telegraph proclaiming the following in its leader today:-

Europe: the wolf is here
(Filed: 12/05/2003)

This is it: the moment that we have repeatedly been told would never come about. The EU is about to transform itself, de jure and de facto, into a single state. The European Convention, which has been meeting this past year under the chairmanship of the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, will issue its final text in June. That draft will be adopted by the EU's leaders next year, and a new polity will be born.

We realise that we are making a huge claim. Some readers may think we are being alarmist. If we are honest, Euro-sceptics have occasionally been a little too ready to decry each new Brussels initiative as a mortal blow to Britain's independence. Like the boy who cried "wolf!", they may have damaged their credibility. But the point of that story is that the wolf does eventually turn up, and that is the moment we have reached now.

To read the whole editorial click this linkTelegraph Leader The wolf is here

What an opportunity for UKIP, the moment of take-off could be here. Just as predicted by disqualified MEP candidate Martin Cole in his speech at Neville Hall, Newcastle on 28th January, 2003
Quote
We thus have not much more than two and a half years to prepare for the greatest electoral turnaround in the country’s history, but nothing less will do. Never have our freedoms and traditions been so much under threat. The Convention chaired by French ex-President Valery Giscard d’Estaing will report this summer and the lie that the EU is not becoming an undemocratic and potentially totalitarian giant super-State will be finally nailed, thus providing the essential ammunition which UKIP has till now been lacking in our election campaigns.
Unquote

Chairman Lott who attended that meeting and received an advance copy of the speech, was sufficiently aware of this section as he was heard to use the same expression "the lie will be finally nailed" himself. So what preparations have been made by the party to maximise new members as a result of this well forecast boost in publicity for our cause? The answer predictably and regrettably is of course NONE.

In fact the situation is even worse than that, for not only have no plans been made, it appears that even if we rushed into action immediately there are no funds for leaflets. In reply to a request for a nationally co-ordinated leaflet to be made available to benefit from the Daily Mail article Chairman Lott has advised over the weekend :-

This is very difficult to do quickly especially as we are a bit short of funds after the various elections

Having hocked our future with three year memberships we have nothing with which to sieze the moment! Incredible!

Can the situation in which the party now finds itself really be ascribed to plain and simple gross incompetence, or is it a case, as seems to some increasingly likely, that the leaders of UKIP are actually actively engaged in a strategy to undermine the anti-EU forces which are now on the rise in the country at large?

What motivates the leadership of UKIP and now another question must arise How long can UKIP members tolerate their continuing in office?

posted by Martin |9:09 AM

Sunday, May 11, 2003

One way forward for UKIP

The Summary of a paper under the above title, sent to Mr Mike Nattrass , Chairman of UKIP, on 12th September 2002 ended as follows:-

"World, European and British events appear to be combining in a unique combination to allow sweeping political change to become not only necessary but essential. The UKIP now has a major role to play in UK national and european affairs. All seems possible.

"Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year,
Our father's title runs.
Make we likewise their sacrifice,
Defrauding not our sons."

from 'The Heritage' by Rudyard Kipling

Eight months later, how hollow those words now seem, how ridiculous now appear the great plans that the paper outlined, how narrow the minds and small the vision of those to whom it was addressed.

posted by Martin |8:58 PM

Making Waves in the North East

The following is an excerpt from the Christopher Booker column in today's edition of the Sunday Telegraph. Beneath a headline proclaiming 'Another blow to Prescott's pride' it reports the discomfort of NEA Chairman, Tony Flynn, following the finding by NE District Auditor, David Jennings, that not only central government money but also ratepayer's funds may not legally be used for campaigning for an elected assembly:-

Quote
Neil Herron, campaign director of North-East Against A Regional Assembly (Neara) had formally complained that this breached the Local Government Act.....

Already two QCs, one acting for Mr Herron's own council, Sunderland, have advised that public money cannot lawfully be used for such purposes. Now the district auditor has upheld Mr Herron's complaint, putting the assembly in a very tight spot. Last year, Mr Prescott's local government minister, Nick Raynsford, advised that the NEA could not use central government money to promote an elected assembly. Now, it seems, the door has been slammed on the rest of the assembly's income, that derived from ratepayers.....

Round one has definitely gone to Mr Herron and his growing band of supporters. Watch this space.
Unquote

Read the full Column Christopher Booker

While across the country dedicated UKIP workers have been pointlessly following the UKIP leadership on hopelessly lost causes, those in the North East, despite the incredible distractions of improper committee suspension, nonsensical disciplinary complaints, and vindictive villification by senior party officials, have nevertheless achieved a major success with Neara and Neil Herron in progressing the anti-EU cause.

This achievement is all the more remarkable when considering UKIP leadership deliberately tried to sabotage Neara's activities by financing and supporting a rival operation, set up supposedly to fight the North East Assembly in Hartlepool, but run by their usual favoured placeman and therefore totally ineffective either in winning Hartlepool council seats or undermining the growing achievements of Neara. What does motivate the leadership of UKIP?

posted by Martin |10:36 AM

Saturday, May 10, 2003

Disqualified UKIP MEP Candidate Launches Appeal

The candidate disqualified by the party apparatchiks for inconveniently pointing out adverse press comment being drawn by the party in the North East region where he had been requested to run, has now launched his appeal against his disqualification. Details can not, of course, be provided here as matters must proceed with the deepest secrecy as is the norm for everything that happens at the heart of the party. Cynics may argue that the result has already been predetermined given the decision by the powers that be to proceed with the postal ballot regardless of the fact that an appeal might be launched.

The last two paragraphs of the appeal, that do not bear on the substance of the matter (if indeed there is any), should be quoted here as they bear so directly on the topic of this debate:-

Quote
It is my opinion that my disqualification serves mainly to stain the reputation of UKIP and if it is allowed to stand, will live to tarnish the reputation of the Party throughout the forthcoming European Parliamentary campaign.

I await with interest news of the manner in which this appeal will be handled, in the faint hope that somewhere at the centre of the party, there might exist one or two individuals with some sense of what it means to act correctly, with decency and even perhaps some sense of honour.
Unquote

posted by Martin |10:27 AM

Wednesday, May 07, 2003

Using The Blog

We have received a query about items being removed from this Blog. Nothing is gone.

If you are seeking a particular past item, it will either be available further down the page and can be found by scrolling down with the mouse with the bar at the right-hand side. Alternatively it might be found, if fairly old, in one of the archive files, click on the appropriate date from the Archive file list and that week's posts will de displayed.

All the entries in Orange Print take you to an outside link or file. Thus the "How we are seen" link on the right will take you to the "Britain In Europe" article about UKIP, and the one above is to UKIP's Home Page. We would welcome suggestions for other links, we started with one to EDD but it did not seem very informative. (N.B. We have added a link to the Millennium Blitkrieg Homepage, this novel which correctly forecast the growing strains between the EU and USA is a fast moving thriller that can be ordered through UKIP. Visit the site and read the first few pages to whet the appetite.)

Hope this helps.

posted by Martin |7:32 AM

Tuesday, May 06, 2003

The Daily Telegraph

The above newspaper often disparagingly referred to as The Daily Torygraph because of its close affinity to the Conservative Party,
alongside a picture of a somewhat cross-eyed looking IDS, reports today:-

"Iain Duncan Smith will break the Tory silence on Europe today by mapping out an alternative vision of the European Union that would give national parliaments greater powers to say no to Brussels.

The Conservatives are about to publish a major policy document detailing a series of EU reforms which will be included in the party's next manifesto."

Tories reveal vision of 'flexible EU'

Whether or not the title of the piece is intended to be tongue in cheek or not, I don't know, a flexible EU with 25 members seems as probable as Saddam Hussein being the first democratically elected President of Iraq, but nevertheless the article continues in serious vein to describe a set of proposals that clearly indicate one more defeat for the euro-sceptics still hanging on within the party. We must wait for the IDS speech and full proposals to be published before being certain, but every indication seems to show that the country is ever more desperately in need of a reformed and re-invigorated UKIP (shame our leaders seem intent on preventing this happening).

We must act now to prevent further damaging comments directed against our party, such as this below which appeared in a Daily Telegraph editorial covering our campaign against BBC Licence Fees towards the end of last year:-

"The campaign is being co-ordinated by the UK Independence Party, which might not be everyone's political cup of tea".

Now whatever could they have meant by that?

DT Editorial Disdain 8/11/02

posted by Martin |11:51 AM

Fine Words on Democracy

”The U.K. Independence Party is committed to the principle of democracy at all levels. We believe that the current disenchantment with politics and the political process is the inevitable result of years of centralization of powers, leaving the electorate almost completely detached from the political process.”

The above quotation is taken directly from the local election results page on the UKIP Website, see link below:-

UKIP Local Election Results Page

More sterling words on the dream of democracy, this time, amazingly enough (in view of current events resulting in the undemocratic supension of the two regional committees and disqualification of a candidate for pointing to evdence of anti-democratic shenanigans)) from the letter heading of the Party Secretary.

UKIP Campaigning to restore democracy and accountability to our Parliament in Westminster

and in our Party?

posted by Martin |7:38 AM

Sunday, May 04, 2003

Reselecting UKIP's Sitting MEPS

We have previously explored the desirabilty of letting our sitting MEPs take lead position in their regions for the June 2004 elections.
(See the post below or on the archive for 30th April, 2003 Should UKIP's MEPs Stand Again?)

Complicating the issue for the upcoming elections are the question marks already hanging over the activities of Nigel Farage as described elsewhere, compounded by the doubts he himself raised when his computer records were stolen, "Whether this was a routine burglary or whether there was a more sinister motive is impossible to tell. The office is very isolated."

Sombre thoughts indeed, especially when considered against the controversy Farage seems to regularly court and the unnecessary enemies he chooses to make. What items from his hard drive might be dripped to the press during the course of the coming European Parliamentary elections, and how much better if UKIP were prepared for them beforehand.....Do they involve our MEPs or other UKIP members, as well as the Prince of Wales and Gordon Brown, as quoted in the article? Read what the Daily Telegraph had to say from the link below:-

Burglars take Computer Records from Farage Office

posted by Martin |8:28 PM

Thursday, May 01, 2003

Video Tape Copyright Infringement by Nigel Farage

On 4 September 2000 local trading standards officers raided UKIP’s South East branch offices in Redhill, seizing four illegal video copies of a BBC TV documentary "The Enemy Within" about Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP for the South East Region, which were in breach of copyright.

Britain in Europe Account

Mosaic Productions reprint of an article by Peter Shore in the Daily Telegraph
1st June 2000, sets the background as to why Nigel Farage might have felt dismayed at the non-appearance of the BBC episode of ‘Desperately Seeking Eutopia’ with his contribution.

Peter Shore Article

Mosaic Films followed this report a few days later with another, this time concluded as follows:-

Article by Christopher Booker
The Sunday Telegraph, June 4 2000

All content © Mosaic Films

An early indication that Mosaic Films took their copyright property rights very seriously!

Christopher Booker Article

On the 16th August 2000 the following item appeared in the London Evening Standard:-

“Some bad news for Nigel Farage, Euro MP for the UK Independence Party, who is the subject of a forthcoming BBC documentary due for broadcasting next month on the sparsely viewed BBC Knowledge channel.
The Beeb is furious to discover a video of the programme given to Farage by the makers is being copied and sold through the Party’s “Sovereignty” newsletter, with UKIP doing a roaring trade at five pounds a piece. The programme which includes footage of Farage’s assistant Dr Richard North describing our Spanish neighbours as: “Rag-arsed dagos,” is described by UKIP as: “A perfect tool for converting the sceptical, and perfect for showing at branch meetings.”
Not for long. The Beeb is already flexing its legal muscles. “This is a breach of copyright which won’t be tolerated,” a spokesman tells me.”

Jeffrey Titford had written a long letter of many complaints to the BBC on the 7th August 2000, ie a few days before this item appeared in the Standard, among which was the question as to why invitations to Farage to appear on Question Time had been withdrawn. The breach of copyright could, perhaps have been a contributory factor!

Jeffrey Titford's Complaint to the BBC

What was the background to Farage’s actions, did he innocently flirt with a breach of copyright, or did he recklessly risk all to have his programme reach a wider organisation? Here the internet search engines reveal little, so we have been forced to make inquiries elsewhere.

Curiously at a UKIP NEC meeting on the 24th May 2000, a motion was put forward by Nigel Farage that any NEC member who fell foul of the law should have their legal expenses paid by the party. One present recalls that failing to gather majority support the proposer then lost his temper and stormed from the meeting.

Shortly after this the then Party Secretary learned that Nigel Farage planned to copy and sell a video tape and following enquiries learned the intent was to sell the box including the free tape inside, presumably a poor attempt to circumvent the law.

On 31st July 2000, Adam Alexander of Mosaic Films had faxed Nigel Farage confirming his company had worldwide rights to Eutopia - The Enemy Within.

On 9th August 2000 this same gentleman, Joint Managing Director of Mosaic, faxed Farage again advising:-

Quote
It has been brought to my attention that the UKIP, through a reference in Sovereignty magazine, is offering for sale copies of the film we made about you for the BBC series ‘Eutopia -The Enemy Within‘.

At no time has Mosaic given you the right to sell this programme. With reference to my fax to you of 31st July 2000, Mosaic holds the distribution rights and any exploitation of the material through video sales can only be through and with the express agreement of Mosaic Films.

Any attempts by you to make copies of and or sell the programme will be a breach of copyright, and to this end I must insist you refrain from making any sales until such time as a sales agreement has been made between us. Please advise me of any sales you may have already made.

I can confirm that under the terms of the agreement Mosaic has with the BBC the video cannot be sold until after the first transmission by the BBC, which is scheduled for sometime soon after 15th September 2000.
Unquote

This fax was copied to two people within the BBC and another Mosaic employee.

It could hardly have been clearer.

A letter of apology was sent to Mosaic Films signed on behalf of Nigel Farage by Stan Oram and believed to have been sent on 15th August 2000.

On 24th August, following an advert for the video appearing in the Independence (UKIP‘s Members Newsletter), the party secretary wrote to all NEC members advising the activity was illegal and that he would not work to defend the action which was bringing the Party into disrepute and that additionally he would oppose the use of party funds being used to meet costs that might be incurred.

Extraordinarily on 24th August the party leader Jeffrey Titford wrote to the party secretary regarding his warning stating: “ The facts are that Nigel has permission to reproduce the video, this was given by Mosaic who made the programme. I have seen this letter.”

On the same day Farage sent an angry riposte to all NEC members which he had the foresight to banner headline “NOT FOR CIRCULATION” for it is difficult to reconcile its contents with the facts as they now appear.

On 25th August, Adam Alexander of Mosaic Films was again faxing Farage, this time with a clear warning that the Surrey Trading Standards Office were on the case and demanding that the pirated videos be sent to Gloucestershire to arrive by 30th August 2000.

On 30th August the other joint managing director of Mosaic films wrote to the UKIP Party Secretary with details of the correspondence between Farage and his colleague and insisted that no pirated copies be sold.

On 4th September 2000 the party received a letter from the Surrey County Council Trading Standards office confirming that on 24th August they had purchased a pirated video and that on 1st September they had visited the Redhill Southeast branch office and seized further copies and related documentation.

On 4th September 2000 a statement was put out by the party leader Jeffrey Titford, which in light of the now revealed facts, seems so extraordinary that it can only be quoted in full:-

UKIP & The Video ‘The Enemy Within’- A statement by Jeffrey Titford MEP, Leader, UK Independence Party

The BBC has spent a great deal of licence payers’ money producing a film series about the European Union. For reasons about which we can only speculate, the BBC has shown no inclination to screen on its terrestrial channels an episode that featured the UK Independence Party, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs went to great lengths to co-operate in the film’s production.

As a result, Nigel Farage MEP took a personal initiative to obtain copies of the film with a view to selling it to UKIP members in order to raise badly needed funds for the South East region. It subsequently transpired that distribution of the film to Party members would not be possible until it has been screened on a BBC subscription channel.

More recently, a Trading Standards Officer resorted to what amounted to deception in order to obtain a copy of the video and so prove that a technical offence has been committed. As a result, the videos have been returned to their source, where they will remain pending clarification.
Nigel accepts that he acted somewhat precipitously - though with the best intention of making the film available to a wider audience. I am also satisfied that no personal gain was either intended or realised. Any further enquiries or approaches on the matter, from whatever party involved, will be referred to the UKIP South East regional office.

This unfortunate matter would never have come about if the BBC properly fulfilled its Charter obligations in regard to balanced reporting. Also, I wholly deprecate the duplicitous tactics of Trading Standards at a time when their officers are terrorising small traders with an unlawful interpretation of Weights and Measures legislation, and turning a blind eye to the sale of thousands of illegal car number plates emblazoned with the infamous EU ring of stars.

Signed Jeffrey Titford London 4 September 2000

On 8th September 2000 Mosaic Films confirmed to the UKIP Party Secretary that at no time had they given Nigel Farage either verbal or written permission to sell the tapes. That same day the Party Secretary tendered his resignation, hardly surprising in view of the events detailed above, but even less so when put against the fact that throughout this period he had also been fending off a possible prosecution by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the removal of the UKIP database, in which strangely enough Nigel Farage’s name had also been involved.

We are conscious that this parade of facts on an internet site could rob those involved of the right to reply. WE WILL POST ANY REPLIES OR REFUTATIONS ANYONE MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE POST MIGHT CARE TO MAKE. Such should be sent to ukipuncovered@hotmail.com The e-mail link that was available on this site will be restored for such purposes as soon as possible. Other comments or advice are similarly always welcomed.

posted by Martin |12:33 AM

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

www Ukip Uncovered