UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?
www
Ukip Uncovered
<table border='0' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='468' height='82'><tr><td><A HREF='http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/redirect-home/ukipuncovered-21' target=_blank><img src="http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/G/02/associates/recommends/default_468x82.gif" width=468 height=82 border="0" access=regular></a></td></tr></table>
Thursday, July 31, 2003
One Year On
One year ago today I became a member of UKIP. Much has happened in the intervening twelve months. Because of UKIP I was able to become acquainted with some of the most sincere and genuinely committed individuals it has yet been my privilege to know.
On the other hand I have come across dealings, which even after a long career dealing with peoples of many nations and travelling far and wide, I could hardly have imagined taking place in the shadiest of Kasbahs or the farthest reach from so-called civilisation. Subterfuge and deceipt undertaken for gain is an everyday occurrence that can be planned for and countered, the same qualities when brought in to play for no possible benefit but almost certain loss for all involved, can only be caused by the grossest of stupidity or deepest of treachery.
What motivates the leadership of the UK Independence Party? Well with a year under my belt I confess to still being unsure. Perhaps tomorrow, when Judith Longman is still expected to attend a Disciplinary Hearing to defend herself against a ludicrous charge of Ballot Rigging, will prove a defining moment, or at least a step towards our learning the real truth.
In any event Maggie and I send Judith, our best wishes in facing the farce being perpetrated against her tomorrow. Also on this peculiar anniversary our compliments to all those UKIP and ex-UKIP stalwarts still taking the fight to the enemy in whatever guise its servants may choose to appear.
posted by Martin |
11:13 AM
Party Employees, EU Dependency and Membership Numbers
It has been pointed out that our list of UKIP employees
UKIP Salary Expenses and the way ahead
included Peter Troy as Regional Organiser for the North East. The party deny that he is a paid employee so we will remove him from the list. Notwithstanding such removal we believe that if any of the financial arrangements for the North East as explained by Chairman David Lott at the Regional Committee meeting in Neville Hall Newcastle on 28th January of this year continue in force, then the party nevertheless remains with financial commitments in that area while being correctly able to claim having no employees. (Enjoyment of such word games possibly going some way to explaining their attraction towards Dick Morris)
We have also been given the names of four other head office employees and are trying to establish which are full or part time and will issue a corrected list as soon as possible.
As has been pointed out to us another important factor in comparing past and present obligations is the fact that we now have three rather than two MEPs. Unless the tele-marketing campaign has staunched the membership number decline so that lists are once again growing and necessarily very rapidly, this makes UKIP even more dependent upon the EU in proportional terms.
Will the tele-marketing campaign be able to compensate for the substantial membership losses that are likely to take place if tomorrow's Disciplinary Complaint against Judith Longman is manipulated in the same manner as in other recent such cases? How many of the 1537 members who voted for Judith in the NEC elections will remain beyond tomorrow, indeed how many have already left?
The haemorrhage of members cannot indefinitely be matched by depending on ever growing numbers of innocents coming to the slaughter. When the wider public learns the true nature of the personalities now controlling and advising UKIP, subscription renewals will surely almost completely dry up. Not forgetting, of course, the impact of the Five Year subscription renewal programme which, if it was as successful as reports suggest, can only hugely impact subsription receipts in the near future.
We will update the party employee list as soon as possible, and thank those who have offered their help and suggestions.
posted by Martin |
7:27 AM
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Judith Longman Disciplinary Complaint for 1st August 2003
The
UKIP NEC Election Results
showed that Judith Longman polled 1537 votes and thus won a three year term of office in this years party election.
This was a spectacular result putting her in fifth place in the poll right behind the two high profile MEP candidates, and the present and immediately past chairmen.
The following is a part of an appeal from a party member sent last week to two senior party members and still apparently being ignored:-
The charge - rigging of the recent postal ballot in Yorkshire. To quote an infamous American tennis player, " You cannot be serious"! Mrs Longman is one of the most honest people it's ever been my good fortune to know! Her strong spiritual and moral standards/beliefs simply would not allow her to rig anything! The very idea is preposterous, and you must both know it in your heart of hearts!
Earlier postings on this blog vividly highlight the arbitrary and improper manner in which the disciplinary system is being used to run roughshod over the party's constitution and rules.
Since June of 1999 the National Executive Committee of UKIP has consistently shown itself unwilling to rein in the excesses of one of its members. A report written by an NEC member as long ago as May 2000, which has come our way and appears genuine, although we are cross-checking various facts and references, itemises from a) to k) the problems caused the party over just one of several incidents occurring at that time.
Next year the voters in the South East of England will have their chance to express their views on the extraordinary antics, over the past few years, of one of their MEPs, well publicised as they all are and instantly available on the internet, we can be sure UKIP's opponents will be ensuring they are all fully aired before the SE constituents.
If the NEC continue to shirk their clear responsibilities for the welfare of the party
and
the euro-sceptic cause, by allowing the disciplinary complaint against Judith Longman to proceed, they will, most assuredly, be condemning the whole of UKIP to the same electoral oblivion, which can be all that realistically the future now holds in store for Nigel Farage.
After all, it seems practically certain the NEC knows more about the real truth of what has been going on than even we now do. They should, therefore, have no alternative but to act. But still there is no statement from the Party Leader, nothing from the Press Officer, no answers or persuasive arguments as to the logic or justification for their actions put out across the various internet fora, or other communication means within the Party's control. Why not?
posted by Martin |
4:29 PM
Disciplinary Hearings
The following is an extract from an exchange of views on an internet discussion group called
eurorealist
that took place Thursday 24th July, on the topic of last week's UKIP NEC meeting:-
The NEC further condemned the use of party employees, such as Nigel Farage's PA on the discipline panel. The consensus was that
'it made the party look like we were running a kangaroo court'
Words that could have come straight from the pages of this blog and which we heartily applaud.
But what is the NEC doing to back-up such simple statements?
Once more it appears the answer is nothing.
One Disciplinary Panel on which we know Jill Clark, the Personal Assistant to Nigel Farage definitely sat was that which prohibited from office for a period of eighteen months the already suspended committee officers of the North East Regional Committee. Others on that same panel were
Denis Brookes
and Derek Clark who should have already suspended himself under the party rules as then being subject to a separate ongoing disciplinary complaint, as can be re-read in our
post of 10th July
Amazingly, in spite of this admission it would appear that no action can be expected from any party officials to redress the admitted mishandling of this case, so we must now address an appeal to Denis Brookes, on whom we have obtained the following details from the programme of the Scarborough party conference at which he spoke;-
Denis Brookes
joined UKIP (3) years ago and has established himself as a leading Party activist. Within two years, starting from nothing, he formed all the constituency associations in Shropshire and was chairman of two of them. In 1999 he was invited to join the West Midlands Regional Committee and has been an active member ever since. He stood as a parliamentary candidate for UKIP at the General Election and was instrumental in recruiting the other four candidates needed in Shropshire. He is also Press Officer for UKIP Shropshire and has had over 150 articles, letters and pictures published in the count's newspapers.
After receiving unstinting support from Shropshire activists, he was elected with a large majority to serve as a councillor on Market Drayton Town Council in June (last) year
...the resume continues to describe his council duties.
This hardly seems the description of a person who would enjoy having his activities descibed by his own Party's National Executive Committee as being a member, in another instance possibly even the Chairman, of a Kangaroo Court.
We would like to ask Mr Brookes for his comments regarding his feelings on these recent hearings and would particularly like to ask him directly what steps he is now planning to take to correct what has been established by the NEC as a clear miscarriage of justice. We would therefore be grateful if any reader who might have the e-mail contact details for UKIP's Shropshire Press Spokesman or other contact address to drop us an e-mail
posted by Martin |
3:14 PM
NEC Member Disciplinary Hearing
We are informed that the NEC meeting held last week came to an agreement over the situation regarding the suspended Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee which would have ended the Disciplinary Proceedings against that Committee's elected officers and abandonment of the previously threatened legal proceedings.
NEC member Nigel Farage is reported to have not been in attendance for these NEC discussions. The next day the party is understood to have reneged on the agreement reached and the disciplinary action is apparently scheduled to proceed with a hearing on the 1st August.
It has appeared increasingly obvious over the past few months that the NEC is incapable of maintaining proper control over how UKIP is run. If the widely circulated rumours set out above have any element of truth, then it seems quite clear the party is under the sole control of Nigel Farage. Other rumours given wide circulation on internet discussion fora have added further credence to such ideas and the lack of evidence of any role being played by titular party leader Roger Knapman in the recent disputes seems further evidence that this might be the case.
None of these events are without precedent within UKIP as this 1999 article
UKIP in turmoil as leader is ousted
from
The Guardian
makes clear.
How long will it be now be before similar headlines appear in the Euro-federalist press, once more rejoicing in the plight of the euro-sceptic's supposed leading organisation?
The silence from the NEC is now becoming deafening!
posted by Martin |
7:10 AM
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
UKIP Salary Expenses and the way ahead
Those perhaps perusing the UKIP accounts for last year, following our previous post, might be interested in this further information on the paid party employees and the resulting estimated payroll costs. As of the year 2000 paid employees were as follows:-
1. Nicole Sinclaire by NEC HQ Office
2. Tony Bennett by J Titford JT office
3. Roni Turner by J Titford Secry JT/TB
4. G Franklyn-Ryan by N Farage press officer for NF
5. Stan Oram by N Farage NF office
6. Richard North by EDD * Reports. advisory research Brussels
7. Heather Conyngham by:EDD * Secretary UKIP work in EDD
8. Chris Jones by EDD * UKIP Press relations
9. Peter Troy by EDD * Regional organiser
10.James Carver by EDD * part time regional organiser
We are pretty reliably informed that the total salary cost for these ten individuals was Pounds 239,000.
The list of names presently receiving party salaries has now grown to seventeen as follows:-
1. Steve Harris regional organiser SE
2. David Samuel-Camps political assistant to NF
3. Jill Clark personal assistant to NF
4. Malcolm wood regional organiser SW
5. John Kelly political assistant to GB
6. Tom Wise regional organiser Eastern
7. Stuart Gulleford political assistant to JT
8. Jim Carver regional organiser Wales
9. L.L. Antoine Head Office (3 Other 'regular' head office staff listed in Scarborough Conference Programme).***
10. Gerry Kelley regional organiser NW
11. Paul Gilbert regional organiser WM
12. Heather Bennett regional organiser London
13. Richard North EDD research director
14. Ditte Staun EDD assistant, Brussels
15. Mark Croucher EDD press officer
16. Dick Morris political consultant
17. Michael Harvey UKIP general secretary
*** (Item 9 was edited 2nd August 2003, previously read Peter Troy NE Regional Organiser who is not an employee)
There may well be some others.
Assuming zero increases for inflation for the past three years and that the seven newcomers receive the average remuneration of the original ten (highly unlikely, in our view, with the presence of Michael Harvey and Dick Morris) then the annual payroll costs would now be running at pounds 406,300
Considering those figures are salary rather than payroll costs the decision to take on Dick Morris looks even more unfundable, especially as Head Office Party Income for the last year is shown as only pounds 193,731 on a twelve months basis, a period during which it would appear from a search on the Electoral Commissions Party Donations database seems to show UKIP as receiving zero donations above the declarable two hundred pound limit.
Wage and salary costs for last year are shown in the published accounts as pounds 40,409 highlighting as well as anything could how much all the MEPs and employees of UKIP are almost absolutely dependent on payments from the EU, from which they are supposed to be working to withdraw.
If any of these names are incorrect, please let us know and we will make the necessary changes. If there are other accounting units within UKIP whose accounts are published by the Electoral Commission we would be grateful for the references so that extra and more exact data can be provided. Any other corrections or details are also welcome.
The EU, it seems sometimes almost without exception, is shown to corrupt everyone and everything with which it comes into contact, proof enough if any more were needed is the present skullduggery continuing at the top of the party next to be probably witnessed with the contrived removal from the NEC of Judith Longman on 1st August. Only the ordinary membership can now stop this happening
by making their voices heard
.
The people now running the party must be brought to realise that it is their present attitude and actions that are most likely to separate them from their positions of power and the attendant perks. Reform of UKIP today might leave some hope for June 2004.
Continuing down the present path can only bring EP electoral defeat and further damage to the anti-EU cause.
posted by Martin |
3:27 PM
Electoral Commission Publishes Major Parties' Accounts
The Electoral Commission yesterday published the 2002 accounts for the
Ten Major UK Parties
for the year ended 31st December 2002.
Among those are Sinn Fein, the Co-operative Party and the Social and Democratic Labour Party. Are there others out there who find it more than a little strange that UKIP which likes to refer to itself as the country's fourth largest, and most recently
rapidly growing
party is not included in the list!
UKIP's accounts have been available since May 2003, with those of other smaller parties such as A Bee C, the Brentford and Ongar Independent Party, Chingwell Residents etc. etc. For those who have not already done so, but now wish to read them, the accounts can be downloaded from this link in pdf format
UKIP 2002 Accounts
The print version runs to 15 pages.
posted by Martin |
12:42 PM
Monday, July 28, 2003
BNP and UKIP
On Saturday 26th April we quoted the following from the Home Page of the Bristol British National Party website in a post regarding possible
BNP Infiltration
of UKIP.
Quote
The Committee of the Bristol & Western Counties Region send fraternal greetings to their UKIP colleagues in the SW and their sincere best wishes for success at the polls on May 1st.
If the last three months have proved anything
(our italics)- it has proved that co-operation, rather than competition, pays dividends. The decison to avoid competion in the selection of local authority seats in the SW has meant that the potential “nightmare” of both BNP and UKIP candidates contesting the same seats (particularly in the Taunton and Torbay areas) on basically the same political platforms has largely been avoided - clearly a sound decision benefiting both parties.
In addition UKIP’s adoption of a more robust stance on the asylum seeker issue, bringing the party into line with BNP policy (even down, it has to be said, to the adoption of our “It’s a matter of Space and not Race” slogan) is to be applauded.
We look forward to further co-operation with UKIP during the year ahead.
Unquote
On 22nd July 2003 a message along the following lines was circulated to certain UKIP party members:-
Dear members and supporters.
Recently I received an E-mail from a Mr..M…. regarding the letters,
European elections and news pages on the www.bristolbnp.org.uk web
site.
The content of which I have checked all sources, to my utter astonishment are true.
There is nothing more to add on the subject as from this point on I
will be withdrawing all support for the party
This was circulated and commented upon by Tom Wise Regional Organiser of UKIP’s Eastern operations as follows:-
From: "ukipeast"
date: Tue Jul 22, 2003
Subject: infiltration by the BNP
This is the second attempt by the BNP to infiltrate / influence / incite disaffection within UKIP.
Be aware!
Tom Wise
my reply to the initial recipients...
To everyone, except the original sender.
This is an attempt to destabilise UKIP. IGNORE IT
If you wish, phone me on 01245 2-----
Tom Wise
Also on 22nd July another denial (almost three months after the Party Chairman had first been informed of this matter) was circulated by UKIP Bristol Branch Chairman Simon Muir:-
UKIP HAS NO LINKS WHATSOEVER WITH BRISTOL BNP
=============================================
This statement is a rebuttal of some of the rumours and
allegations currently in circulation.
In the last General Election, one of the UKIP Bristol
candidates was Mrs. Dianne Carr (Bristol N.W.). Some months
after the election she decided to join the BNP. As far as I
am aware she did not discuss this with anyone in UKIP
locally, and the first time I heard about it was through
local press reports, followed by a BNP mailshot.
Nobody has spoken to Mrs. Carr in any local official UKIP
capacity since that time, and I have not spoken to her at
all, nor communicated in any way whatsoever - neither
directly nor through any intermediary. I believe her decision
was regrettable, since she was a formidable campaigner for
UKIP, but it was taken and we must move on.
During the local elections, the Bristol UKIP branch decided
not to stand candidates. This was for a number of reasons,
principally lack of resources. The decision was taken, in
consultation, by the officers of the Bristol branch.
The decision was a purely pragmatic one. At no time was the
subject of the BNP even discussed. NO AGREEMENTS NOR PACTS
WERE MADE WITH THE BNP. In fact, no contact whatsoever has
been initiated by either UKIP or the BNP, as far as I am
aware. With two possible exceptions (Mrs. Carr and one
other), again, as far as I am aware, I have never met Bristol
members of the BNP, and certainly never had any contacts with
any of their officers in any official capacity. Neither have
any of the Bristol UKIP committee.
I was not surprised to see allegations of 'electoral pacts'
being circulated - we have many enemies, not least the BNP -
but I was saddened that Bristol's name was being used.
This message is a categorical denial that anything of the
sort has ever happened, nor been contemplated by UKIP in
Bristol. The local UKIP membership form has a prominent,
explicit reference to the non-racist aspects of the Party
constitution, so any local new members are made fully aware
of UKIP's stance before they join.
SIMON MUIR,
UKIP Bristol Branch Chairman
Henleaze, Bristol 22/7/2003
Overall we find the wording of this denial more interesting for what it does not say than for what it does. The references to Mrs Diane Carr seem irrelevant. We are prepared to accept the statement made by Mr Muir, particularly
This message is a categorical denial that anything of the sort has ever happened, nor been contemplated by UKIP in Bristol
at its face value, particularly with the earlier doubled caveats
as far as I am aware
and the use of the word "nor" without "neither" adds doubt, in this writer's mind, to the firmness of the statement.
Nevertheless bearing in mind the driving urge by UKIP to run candidates, wherever possible, elsewhere in the local and Welsh Assembly elections and the substantial sums apparently squandered in those campaigns, we find the explanation of Bristol's lack of candidates less than compelling.
The implication of a pact from a careful reading of
the BNP web page
is that any such agreement would have surely have been made, if not at a national level then at least the SW Regional level, necessarily involving the standing or non-standing of each party's candidates in certain agreed areas. A denial of involvement by the Bristol Branch Chairman is thus very likely to be true, as the probability is that he would deliberately have been left in the dark. Neither would he have had any say over electoral candidates in Torbay nor Taunton.
The BNP statement which remains officially undenied and unexplained by any senior UKIP Party Official was:-
The decison to avoid competion in the selection of local authority seats in the SW has meant that the potential “nightmare” of both BNP and UKIP candidates contesting the same seats (particularly in the Taunton and Torbay areas) on basically the same political platforms has largely been avoided - clearly a sound decision benefiting both parties.
Any denial, to carry even the slightest weight, must be made by the UKIP Party Chairman, David Lott, (who initially re-acted so hysterically to the Bristol BNP posting that considerable credence was lent to their version of events) and the Party leader, Roger Knapman, whose mysteriously described visit to Sedgefield Racecourse, was arranged by Peter Troy whose activities first brought to light these most recent rumours of BNP infiltration, as reported in
The Northern Echo
all of which articles are available in the April file archives of this blog.
The fact that reports of BNP infiltration of UKIP from Torbay to Taunton to Darlington still remain unanswered by the UKIP National leadership must surely remain the principal concern for all party members. The Bristol Chairman's Statement only serves to make such fears more, rather than less, real.
posted by Martin |
3:28 PM
Sunday, July 27, 2003
...and
answer came there none!
Well a big fat zero, as expected and received, was all the reply we got to our questions to Michael Harvey regarding the farce UKIP chooses to call its MEP candidate selection process for the June 2004 EP elections.
Amongst the plethora of actual e-mails arriving in our absence were many carrying yet more news of the UKIP leaderships increasingly obvious attempts to promote Britain's total coalescence within the EU (or perhaps. looking at it from a charitable viewpoint, simply clinging to their present EU perks) comes news that the totally discredited
Disciplinary Committee
is once more to enter the fray in destroying and subverting the best elements of the party, this time reportedly with Judith Longman in their sights on 1st August, 2003 with the laughable charge (particularly with the Treasurer's Report of real ballot rigging remaining unanswered) of some form of impropriety related to the very same MEP candidate selection situation. How many paid officials will sit on that panel, we wonder and will their names be ever revealed?
Other items that have been raised in our absence, a return to the Bristol BNP infiltration allegations, Dick Morris and the implications of statements by various party officials as to the level, means and source of his funds, more Harvey threats and ultimatums etc., etc.
In view of the dynamics of the rapidly changing political situation within the EU, New Labour, the Tories and of course the UK Independence Party we hope to quickly return to regular, and where appropriate, more frequent up-dates of this blog starting from tomorrow.
If any UKIP Party member has received anything in the way of a reply to the questions posed Michael Harvey in the post below, please let us know and we will post them as appropriate.
posted by Martin |
8:52 PM
Friday, July 18, 2003
Some questions for M Harvey Returning Officer
Michael Harvey has made the following statement on an e-mail discussion group Eurofaq:-
It is important that the integrity of any election process is not in doubt, so I am happy to answer any questions on- or off-list (other thanfrom the usual anti-UKIP time-wasters).
Regards,
Michael
(Returning Officer for the UKIP Candidate selection ballot)
As the remark regarding anti-UKIP time-wasters was directed at myself I do not feel able to repeat all the many questions I have been asking for months on this blog.
However if any members of good standing read these and wish to incorporate any of the questions below, to those they
might have in their own minds, please feel free to re-draft and adapt them as you wish and submit them to UKIP's General Party Secretary.
We will be happy to post the replies on this blogspot following our return from a short vacation.
Questions for Michael Harvey as Returning Officer for the MEP Candidate
Selection Procedures October 2002 to May 2003
1. Who appointed Harvey as Returning Officer and to whom did he report?
2. What authority did he obtain to extend the first candidate application deadline, what subsequent extensions were granted and under what authority?
3. Why, how often and with what authority did he permit prospective MEP candidates to be interviewed by other prospective candidates?
4. How many candidates did he allow to be included on regional lists without interview, who were they and what were the circumstances?
5.How many approved candidates did he as returning officer arbitrarily exclude from the regional lists of their first or second choice regions?
6. How many successful candidates remain on the candidate list of more than one region and what steps are being taken to rectify this situation?
7.Why as Returning Officer did he permit, when at the Middlesborough hustings, a prospective female MEP candidate to be hectored and brow-beaten over a policy opinion, on which she held views with which many agreed, by a former Party Chairman and a MEP candidate certainly in another region and at the time of the hustings possibly also in the North East. Why at that same meeting did he allow another prospective MEP candidate, the Party Secretary, contrary to the rules, to actively participate and try to direct the course of those hustings. Why as Returning Officer did he not discipline, reprimand or disqualify these senior party officers, but nevertheless MEP candidates for the clear breaches of the electoral rules?
8. Why did he keep the candidate list in the North East from the Regional Committee, even before their illegal suspension, and only disclose the names of certain candidates at the very last moment and too late for them to attend the hustings meetings.
9. Why did he allow the postal ballot to proceed in the South West when he had been informed of (if not, as alleged by Chairman Lott, being personally responsible for) clear rule and procedure breaches that would incontrovertibly throw any result into contention.
10. Why did he allow the postal ballot in the North East to proceed when there was an appeal against a candidate disqualification outstanding and pending throughout the balloting period and vote count?
11. Having been alerted to false membership applications being submitted and membership cards issued, what steps did he take to ensure that ballot papers would only be issued to bona fides members at their home addresses.
12. Having been notified of a huge and totally abnormal surge in membership applications in the NE in January and February of this year (some 35 percent) what steps did he take to protect the integrity of the ballot, such as applying a 31st October 2002 cut off date for members eligible to vote?
(As previously applied)
13. Having been alerted to such manipulation in the North East, what steps did he take to ensure this might not be an isolated incident?
14. What provisions did he undertake to ensure that ballot papers issued to unknowing members were not being diverted, forged and returned to the city firm he had appointed for the receipt of the ballots?
15. Who was the independent witness who accompanied Harvey to collect the ballots?
16. Why did it take several days to recount 230 ballots from the North East as Harvey has stated, why was the London recount obviously with a greater number of votes similarly excessively delayed?
17. Why after the Party Treasurer had found the leading candidate in the North East ballot guilty of membership fraud, was he allowed to merely resign his candidature for the North East and then be approved as a candidate for Scotland and continue in his other party functions?
18. What precedent is there for utilisation of accommodation addresses for the receipt of completed ballots. If this was the first time such were used what was the justification for this new procedure and what problems caused a reversion to normal practise for the recent poll on the rule changes?
19. Does Michael Harvey concur with the view of Party Leader Roger Knapman that the Peter Troy ?dead grandmother? surge in membership within the southern portion of the NE Region was not a matter of serious concern for the Party.
20. Does Michael Harvey not now accept that the situation as described in question 19 above, should at least have been a matter of serious concern as regards to the proper running of the MEP candidate election, and that in retrospect, particularly bearing in mind the press comment on BNP infiltration connotations, a full, urgent and vigorous inquiry should have been launched, if not by other senior party figures then at least by himself as Returning Officer?
21. Why were candidates prohibited from circulating personal details and biographies even at Hustings meeting. Please quote in full the electoral rule under which he enforced that provision?
22. Does Mr Harvey not understand that the generally accepted role of a returning officer is to ensure the electoral rules are upheld so that the most competent or at any rate popular candidates are elected. It is clear from all the questions raised above that M. Harvey appears to have seen his role as ensuring either that certain preferred candidates won through.
posted by Martin |
5:43 AM
From North England
What has been happening to UKIP in the areas of North England whose Regional Committees were so unjustly and arbitrarily suspended?
We hear that an attempt to resolve the dispute about the disbandment of the regional committees was initially agreed by the UKIP leadership, then reneged on.
The Yorkshire regional committee and the candidates agreed for the matter to go to arbitration (We do not have the exact wording of a letter read out to the NEC, but the contents are available). Nigel Farage said that he would not stand in the way of this, and said he was pleased that a deal had been brokered.
In the event, Michael Harvey the General Party Secretary produced disciplinary complaints against Judith Longman the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Chairman and that Committee's secretary Michael Cassidy. In the latter's words the leadership reneged on their previous undertaking. This ongoing and damaging dispute continues, with the charade of further Disciplinary hearings under the 'Rule Ignoring' Chairmanship of Derek Clark (see side panel) and his paid henchman.
A Yorkshire committee spokesman said yesterday "It is important that people understand that it is the leadership who are
perpetuating this dispute and not us".
To highlight the absurdity of the present situation yesterday evening there was a public meeting in Harrogate attended by Roger Knapman and David Lott. There has been virtually no publicity for this, not even amongst UKIP members. Also there is a similar public meeting this evening in the North East in Hartlepool the publicity and arrangements for which have been undertaken by the disgraced Peter Troy with efforts seeming to have been made to keep knowledge of the event secret from the long term activists still working hard to oppose regionalisation across the length and breadth of the North East.
The Yorkshire regional committee has received letters of support from branches covering all but 3 of the region's 56 constituencies. The 3 which did not put in letters of support were all neighbouring constituencies in North Yorkshire. The middle constituency was Harrogate.
Rather than the Yorkshire dispute having been settled, we now have the spectacle of the Party Leader and Party Chairman sneaking about Yorkshire and the North East, trying to avoid the activists, and trying to grub up anti-regional committee support.
Meantime as Yorkshire member points out "We now have lying, spiteful, mickey-mouse disciplinary complaints being processed" against those who remain as the popularly acknowledged, (properly elected but improperly suspended) continuing widely supported Yorkshire Regional UKIP leadership.
Is this any way to win the elections in 2004?
posted by Martin |
5:21 AM
Thursday, July 17, 2003
What is an "anti-UKIP Time Waster" as defined by MH
This suggestion from regular correspondent to this blog, Christopher Cooke:-
I note MH's latest comments. The immediate thought that comes to mind is how is an "Anti-UKIP Time-Waster" to be known or defined. I would guess it would be by the questions he asks and whether UKIP officials are prepared to answer them or not!!
posted by Martin |
5:50 PM
More of Harvey
Michael Harvey has responded as follows:-
For the record, I disqualified Mr Cole from the election on 9th April. He is now claiming that he resigned via the pages of a regional newspaper on 7th April. If that were true his formal appeal against disqualification, sent to the Party Secretary by Special Delivery from Switzerland exactly one month later, would seem rather a pointless effort.
If Harvey cannot see the difference between resigning with honour when one finds that one has inadvertently entered a den of thieves, and accepting the implication of fault accruing to a disqualification are quite different matters than he is an even more egotistical and blinkered than even he, up to now has appeared.
The disqualification appeal was a farce which remains to be resolved. The appointment of a paid party official who had already been on public record on the subject in hand was a disgrace. The continuing refusal to provide the names of the other members of the panel is a continuing stain on the reputation of all party members, who seem largely apathetic in the face of this growing scandal.
Fighting to maintain a stainless reputation that has been built over forty years of increasingly high level business appointments on both sides of the Atlantic is not a matter of 'Sour Grapes'. If Michael Harvey cannot understand such a simple point, many of his own actions suddenly become explicable.
Harvey has also posted a pathetic attempt to justify the use of an accomodation address for receipt of the postal ballots, and claims an independent witness accompanyed him to collect the envelopes. A full list of questions for this incompetent Returning Officer is under preparation and circulation among members for eventual submission in a non-time-wasting manner.
posted by Martin |
10:12 AM
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Michael Harvey responds
In accordance with our commitment to openness and free speech we reproduce below the full, complete and unedited reply posted by Michael Harvey to our
first post of today
which was kindly reproduced on the e-mail discussion group
eurofaq
from where this response was also obtained.
Mr Cole's sad attempts to "uncover" UKIP are becoming even more threadbare than yours, -------. All candidates were invited to attend the count, and those that did, along with representatives of several of the regional committees, were completely satisfied with the conduct of the election. By this time, of course, Mr Cole had long since been disqualified, which may explain his sour grapes.
No-one other than Mr Cole has expressed any concern about the fairness of the election process. He cannot even come up with any specific allegation, relying instead on innuendo and weasel words. For instance, to imply that there is something suspicious in using a commercial box number for ballot papers is plain silly. If ballot papers had been returned direct to Head Office, he might have had a valid point...
It is important that the integrity of any election process is not in doubt, so I am happy to answer any questions on- or off-list (other than from the usual anti-UKIP time-wasters).
Regards,
Michael
Two points are immediately clear:-
1. The main objective in securing the integrity of a secret ballot is ensuring the non-interference at any stage with the ballot box or whatever other recptacle is used for the receipt of the ballot papers. If this is an accomodation address with an outside company how can that integrity have possibly been maintained. Jimmy Carter and the entire membership of the Electoral Reform Society could have witnessed the arrival of the ballots at UKIP Head Office, the fact that they were delivered from a third party unsupervised commercial mail handling operator raised my suspicions when the point was made to me by a party member.
2. Michael Harvey still does not get it, and by now, therefore I guess he never will. Martin Cole resigned his candidature by public announcement to one of the leading daily newspapers in the North East region where he was standing as a candidate with the following statement:-
"The latest relevations of the party's connections with the BNP, and unpaid membership cards descending from the blue, have led me to announce that I will be unwilling to continue my UKIP MEP candidacy without a complete change of the leadership of the party."
How could Cole have continued to pursue his candidacy having made such a statement. Had he tried to continue he would have quickly become a laughing stock at the very outset of the campaign. Had General Secretary Harvey have used his noddle for once and kept a low profile, Martin Cole who apparently always presented a threat to the preferred candidates of the ruling cabal (hence the strange manipulations to keep Cole from the South West regional list) would have quietly disappeared from the scene. After all even he could not have envisioned a 'complete change of UKIP leadership' ahead of the postal ballots. (As then NEC member Mike Nattrass is said to have remarked - he would have needed to have lost his marbles to believe in such a possibility).
As he resigned of his own free will HOW COULD HIS PRESENT ACTIVITIES BE ASCRIBED TO SOUR GRAPES?
No it was Harvey's and Lott's complete mishandling of the matter, by then disqualifying an already stood-down candidate, that highlighted their incompetence and directly led to the exposure of all the other irregularities.
That quick reaction to Michael Harvey's reply must suffice for the moment. As a source that is no doubt considered anti-UKIP and time-wasting, it is probably an even greater waste of our own time listing all the numerous outstanding queries that have been put to the General Secretary over the past few months. As we will, however, be assembling and collating these various postings for incorporation into Michael Harvey's own section of the side panel (as promised earlier today, when other matters seemed less pressing), we will summarise, repeat and list such earlier queries on this blog later. Hopefully any pro-UKIP non-time-wasting party members, among our readership, can then relay our questions direct to their General Secretary. No doubt to be ignored as is usual along with all those others down the months and not least those of yesterday and the day before, put direct to the still Party Chairman David Lott.
posted by Martin |
12:35 PM
Suspended NE Chairman Speaks OUT
We quote below a contribution by Michael Rollings to an internet e-mail discussion group
new-ind-uk
run by Andrew Edwards. This group is not restricted to UKIP members but is open to all who share the objective of regaining British sovereignty. Applications to join this growing and increasingly engaged forum, should be addressed to: andrew.edwards1@blueyonder.co.uk
Michael Rollings is the suspended chairman of the UKIP North East Regional Committee and his comments make sombre reading for any UKIP members, and perhaps especially those of us who might have recently resigned! (I feel suitably admonished, Michael!)
Re: Millennium Blitzkrieg
M Rollings
Dear Andrew
I am in possession of the novel by Martin Cole, having acquired these by contributing to UKIP funds. I have read the book and recommend it (not for the puritan, but not as much titillation as obtained in many Daily newspapers these days!). However it is a necessary part of the plot and makes for an excellent holiday read and more seriously is a useful means to the end of alerting waverers to the suppression of freedoms and insidious creeping bureaucracy of the EU, with a number of "foresights" some of which has in fact happened since the novel was written.
On behalf of SENATE (Seminal Education North, Awareness of the EU), successor of UKIP in the North East, we are marketing it not for its cover price of 13.95 dollars, but only £5, including P&P. Persons purchasing can APPLY to be informed of SENATE events, the first of which is scheduled for August 22nd in Newcastle, when Timothy Kirkhope MEP, a member of the Giscard D'Estaing Committee on the Convention for Europe, will be addressing a Meeting to be held in Neville Hall, Newcastle. Judith Wallace has the details.
The UKIP Committee doesn't readily dissolve in weak water. Its Officers were elected by Members in the North East, and until they wish us to go, we stay. The Party is the property of its Members not others who have usurped the power for their own ends.
It may make an interesting chapter in Martin Cole's next book. Consider this....." The EU Parliament are offended by the British Cabinet, because they object to, lets say, the behaviour of a rogue President of the EU and also the criminal activities of some of the Commissioners. The EU response is not to sort out the malign elements but to "dissolve, without a hearing "the democratically elected British Government . They then invite the British people to elect another Government!?" Fat chance we would swallow that?
The treatment meted out in this little scenario parallels exactly the treatment meted out to the NE Committee. Conclusion : The behaviour of UKIP leadership parallels that of the EU. Get rid of problem people like Marthe Andreasson, Bernard Connolly and others. Leave the problems in place and re-appoint those responsible for the debacles. Anyone who thinks there is a skin deep malaise within UKIP which can be sorted out by cosily chatting around a table is in cuckoo land. Look at the history of UKIP, it veers from one management crisis to another to the extent that the clique within the NEC is fighting or threatening its own NEC Members.
The waves of rebellion are lapping at Mr Lott's and Mr Farage's feet, and their willing acolytes, who refuse to recognise that the problem isn't with the Party (we're all volunteers for goodness sake!) but with themselves. The quicker the Party Members recognise these control freaks for what they are, the better chance the Party may give itself in the EU Elections.
The problems within UKIP all have one root. The list of those who have resigned--- (a mistake in my estimation as you play into the hands of those who presume to control, and weaken opposition to their grip on power)-- is long and distinguished to the extent that "not the UKIP Party", like "not the Turner Prize" has more credibility.
The root is the mismanagement of Party Members and some of the Staff or inadequate selection processes. It begs the question as to whether this is done deliberately to contain the opposition to the EU. One has just to look at the Party's overall record in holding on to Members let alone recruiting. It has almost as many who have left the Party as it enjoys current Membership. Sir James Goldsmith could attract more people to a Rally than UKIP has Members. He knew how to inspire and lead, it is all the more sad he is not around to still give Leadership to this noblest of causes. UKIP prefers the style of being run by a central bureaucracy that claims all power and decision making to itself. If challenged the CABAL threaten or bully. Where have we heard that before?
Great orators should inspire and let others who can manage, manage. Hitler lost the war by taking power away from his Generals and failing to trust them .
The Party's strength will be in its growing Membership and ability to influence the debate. It has been going nearly 10 years, I believe, and its profile is no more than the Green Party and less active than Greenpeace.
It needs strong inspired Leadership. Ask where all those that were the Referendum Party have gone. The issue hasn't gone away but many of them have.
To quote your own tag line
The world is a dangerous place to live
Not because of the people who are evil
But because of those who don't do
anything about it.
Here, here. So when are those who know the evil ones going to pluck up courage to do something about them. But be prepared to be threatened, bullied or discriminated against. That is how the current Leadership of UKIP does things.
Michael Rollings
posted by Martin |
11:23 AM
What Legitamacy for UKIP's Candidate MEP's
When the party finally authorised its Treasurer to undertake an inquiry into the false membership applications and subsription payments orchestrated by Peter Troy in the North East, one area not covered, as mentioned in our post
North East Region MEP Candidate Selection Fiasco
towards the end of May, was as stated as follows:-
"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"
.
A further aspect of that same question would obviously be, if somebody in Head Office were to get the extra ballot papers, which presumably should have gone to the new unwitting members, how could they find their way into the necessary ballot box without suspicion subsequently falling on any such Head Office staff member or whichever culprit might possibly be involved.
The answer to that conundrum now seems to be coming to light. The ballot papers for MEP candidates were returned not to Head Office, but to a City of London Accomodation Address company specialising in providing the kind of services often associated with those seeking a veil over their true identities or activities. The services offered by the firm selected by UKIP to handle its sensitive ballot papers, apparently on the grounds it lacked the resources to handle the volume of mail, can be visited by this link to their website
Citibox
Given the serious doubts raised here and elsewhere regarding the activities and decisions taken by the ballot returning officer Michael Harvey, huge questions hang over the way in which this whole electoral process was run. This cannot help but raise doubts as to the legitimacy of the success of all UKIP lead candidates in every region.
To make consideration of these matters easier, we will during the course of today, include a separate box for the posts on this blog relating to UKIP's General Party Secretary and Returning Officer in the recent MEP candidate elections, Michael Harvey.
posted by Martin |
8:18 AM
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Accepting Contradictory Truths
The title of this post implies a nonsense. Events happen as they occur. If two observers witness an event and subsequently provide conflicting accounts of what happened, one of them is mistaken and therefore wrong.
In the matter of the copyright infringement of the videotapes of the BBC programme 'Desperately seeking eutopia - The enemy within', as covered in detail in our post found from this link
Video Tape Copyright Infringement by Nigel Farage dated 1st May 2003
, it was clear that either Jeffrey Titford's version of events was true and Nigel Farage's was not, or the reverse was the case. The circumstances as described in that post, make it almost certain that both these two senior and most publicised party members cannot both be telling the truth. Either Titford was shown a letter that Mosaic Films vehemently insist they never wrote,
or he was not
. Let me quote from that blog :-
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.
If this is true, where did the letter come from and where is it today?
The voting public seem unwilling to live with this kind of paradox. UKIP party members who appear so unconcerned, must surely soon be brought to face the electoral reality of these kinds of actions by their representatives.
Now UKIP is facing another such contradiction. Yesterday we published, a statement made by the Party Chairman David Lott, which frankly we find extraordinary. As our post raised certain important questions we e-mailed a copy of that post to Mr Lott with a copy to the Party Treasurer. So far no reply has been received.
We are doing our own survey of donors' contributions to UKIP over the past few calendar quarters and from a first look it appears that since the large sums received during the last General Election campaign in the second quarter of 2001, nothing further was received other than twenty-seven thousand and ninety nine pounds in the fourth quarter of 2001 (of which twenty-five thousand was a donation from one Lady) until the first quarter of this year when seven thousand pounds donated to the party by two separate companies.
A correspondent to this blog points out that Mr Lott's statement has a touch of the "Comic Ali" about it, a similarity we have noted in earlier Chairman Lott statements. More significantly he states
Mr Lott's believability would increase, if only, when rubbishing the amounts Mr Morris is rumoured to be getting, he provided the true information. Political parties should be particularly concerned about openness as regards where money goes"
. A statement with which we thoroughly concur.
As stated at the end of the blog on the Video Tapes:-
"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
We will again send a copy of this latest blog to the Party Chairman, with a copy to the Treasurer who has already been quoted on this blog as seeking openness. Answers are urgently needed, if what the Chairman has stated and now circulated widely throughout the party, namely that Dick Morris' expenses (PLEASE DEFINE!) are being met by donors for that express purpose:-
Who are they and how much have they donated to date?
Have they committed to maintain that level of donation throughout the period of Morris' contract?
If the figures provide in our post of 11th July
The Morris Fees
are as wildly incorrect as David Lott claims, what are the true figures? After all if the costs are to be met by donors, as Lott now claims, these figures will eventually appear on the Electoral Commission web site linked herewith, and in the apparent complete absence of other regular contributions they will, to say the least, be hard to miss!
The Electoral Commission web-site with the search engine giving access to party donations is available from this link:-
Party Donations
posted by Martin |
8:33 AM
Monday, July 14, 2003
Paying for Dick Morris
The UKIP Party Chairman David Lott has now entered the debate regarding how the party is paying for Dick Morris. Contrary to the statement made by the Party's official press spokesman and reported
here
it would seem the costs of Morris are not in fact coming from Party Funds but from donors. We quote the remarks reportedly made by Chairman Lott as disclosed on one of the internet fora to which he refers:-
Dear All,
David Lott has asked me to forward the following statement which you may find useful in answering members' queries about Dick Morris.
Regards,
******
Scurrilous e-mails about fees paid by UKIP to our new Political Advisor, Dick Morris, have been appearing on anti-UKIP websites and e-mail chat circuits. Sadly, two UKIP members have assisted in propagating these false rumours.
If you receive any queries from members about this matter you can reassure them that the figures mentioned are
pure fiction
. Furthermore, funding for Dick Morris's monthly expenses is coming direct from generous donors, not from members' subscriptions nor from the EDD/European Parliament.
Now no doubt we'll have the usual suspects casting doubt on the veracity of that statement above.
UKIP uncovered is no doubt considered one of the "usual suspects" by Chairman Lott, but we will not presume to argue over his statement as it can be easily verified. Donations over two hundred pounds to a political party during a year have to be declared to the Electoral Commission for the information of the
public
. Even at the reduced fees cited by the Chairman it would take an awful lot of small donors to meet the costs of Mr Morris for two days a week for a year and while one or two foolhardy individuals might be found who are sufficiently ill-informed to part with their cash for the employment of such a man, it seems unlikely there would be many.
It is of course highly possible that David Lott has been learning the weasle language perfected by Morris' erstwhile boss Bill Clinton (who in my mind will always be remembered for the classic "It all depends what your definition of 'is' is"). If so he might be implying that Morris' monthly expenses do not include his fees, perhaps he would like to break cover once again and clarify that point! Perhaps he would like to get his press officer to rescind his previous announcement at the same time.
As can be seen from this link to the page regarding regulation of donors on the
Electoral Commission
web site, it is the responsibility of the party to supply donor details. We suggest party members contact the Party Treasurer for the necessary details.
posted by Martin |
10:13 AM
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Derek Clark earns his Box
No! as far as we know he is not playing cricket this weekend. The box we refer to is that on the side bar to the right, where we have assembled some of the blogs that refer to the UKIP Party Secretary who is also the heavily overburdened Chairman (even when suspended) of the Disciplinary Committee (the main and essential tool of administration within today's UK Independence Party).
posted by Martin |
7:10 PM
The Party Treasurer's Inquiry
It would appear that we are not alone in wondering what is happening to the report of the inquiry that found ballot winning MEP North East candidate Peter Troy guilty of submitting false membership applications and paying for their subscriptions.
An ordinary member raised the matter with Mr de Roeck earlier this week asking:-
"Subject: Re: McTROY
Hi John,
Ive been watching the web and the antics of the above playing childish jokes on whether he has resigned or not.
I have read your report on him which I assume is true .
There has been trouble up north ! And people have been disciplined. So John, how come he is still in the party as well as being a candidate for Scotland.........
"
To which he received the following reply"-
"From: John de Roeck
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:34 PM
Hi ...,
My report is certainly true. No one is disputing any of the contents. Incidentally I value truth above political expediency, which does not lead to my popularity.
It is up to the Party Secretary, Returning Officer or NEC to decide on any further course of action.
I recommend you direct your enquires to the Party Secretary, Derek Clark, about the Scottish Election and other matters, as these are outside my area of responsibility.
Kind regards,
John de Roeck
Some of the conclusions of the report referred to were quoted in
The Northern Echo
the daily morning newspaper published in Darlington. The link to the archived article is still not available, and the link we provided on the date of publication 3rd July expired the following day. In view of the interest generated by that article and the number of requests received for a reference, we repeat it here in full:-
Officials ousted in party wrangle
by Chris LLoyd
THE North East branch of the United Kingdom Independence Party was in disarray this week following the disciplining of three of its leading officers.
The latest twist in a bitter internal war comes after the resignation of three candidates who had hoped to be standing in the region in next year's European elections.
At the heart of the turmoil is an investigation into apparent membership irregularities in the North-East branch.
The three officials who have been banned from holding office for 18 months are Michael Rollings of Ponteland, Northumberland, the chairman of the committee overseeing next year's European election campaign; Martin Rouse of Burnopfield, the committee treasurer; and Judith Wallace of Whitley Bay, the secretary.
Mr Rollings said: " The discipline has been carried out in an unconstitutional manner and on a false premise."
The disarray within the North-East comes at a terrible time for Euro-sceptics because they would be expected to oppose regional government, which is seen as part of a hidden European agenda, and the new EU constitution.
The turmoil stems from 60 new members joining the branch since January, many of them recruited by Sedgefield branch chairman Peter Troy, who was hoping to be elected as one of the party's candidates in the 2004 Euro elections.
As the Northern Echo reported in March, one of those who received a membership card card was British National Party activist Trevor Agnew of Darlington. Mr Agnew, an unsuccessful BNP candidate in the May local elections in Darlington, had been expelled from Ukip in 1999 because of his links with the extremist BNP.
He said he was not aware that he had applied to rejoin Ukip until a membership card had arrived in the post "out of the blue".
Martin Cole a businessman living in Switzerland who was with Mr Troy on the Euro-shortlist, demanded an investigation into Mr Agnew's membership and then resigned his candidature.
William Chrystal, a farmer from Wingate, also withdrew from the shortlist.
The North-East election committee which included Mr Rollings, Mr Rouse and Mrs Wallace, who supported Mr Cole's calls for an investigation, was then suspended following a procedural complaint from Mr Troy.
An investigation by Ukip's national treasurer, John de Roeck, began as the 230 North-East members voted to choose their four candidates from the five names on the shortened shortlist.
The ballot closed on May14, but the results were not announced to May19, due to a recount.
Mr Troy won by a slim majority, but immediately announced his withdrawal in the interests of "party unity".
On May 30, Mr de Roeck finished his investigation and concluded: "Several new members have received membership without making payment themselves to the party. Of these new members, some had no knowledge they were to receive membership, and of these new members, some were paid for by Mr Troy directly while others have not been paid for at all."
Mr de Roeck concluded that Mr Troy had paid Mr Agnew's membership fees.
Mr Troy told The Northern Echo: "I have recruited lots of people to the party and make no apologies for doing so. I have recruited 60 people and have received only four complaints from people who have fallen out with me."
He said he was now hoping to become a Ukip candidate in Scotland.
Mr Rollings said: "It is astonishing that he should still be in the party let alone a candidate in Scotland."
The article ends with that statement, which as can be seen from the exchanges at the beginning of this post, continues to hang in the air.
As Mr de Roeck says in his e-mail; questions on this situation should be addressed to the Party Secretary Derek Clark, the Returning Officer Michael Harvey or members of UKIP's NEC.
posted by Martin |
8:16 AM
Friday, July 11, 2003
The Dick Morris Fee
A communication to an e-mail discussion group has overnight answered the question regarding what Dick Morris is being paid by UKIP:-
"Dear all,
I'm surprised that there should be any mystery about Dick Morris's fee as I have established this from three separate sources within the Party. He is on a retainer whereby he works *2 days a week* for the Party for a fee of £40,000 a year. His contract is for one year.
It works out at a fee of over £400 a day i.e. equivalent to an annual salary of £100,000.
The money comes from a combination of Party members' subscriptions and EDD/European Parliament funds."
Thank heavens UKIP's leaders were able to negotiate a reduction from
Morris's
normal stipend.
Now we know the answer to the question "How Much?" we are still left to wonder "Why?" and also "What is his exact role?"
Is it true that he is now the Party's Official Spokesman as seems to be the perception among some, and how long can that continue, given his obvious ignorance of British politics as displayed on BBC2 last evening?
The BBC does nothing that is not in the interests of pursuing its own wildly EU federalist agenda. The extent of the coverage it is now providing Dick Morris can only be as it agrees with our own assessment, namely that this association will eventually prove extremely costly to the Euro-realist cause.
As the writer quoted above, who uncovered the facts behind Morris's fees, went on to tellingly point out
How can an American even be allowed to give the appearance of acting as Official Spokesman for
Britain's
UK Independence Party?
We predicted that Morris's appointment would result in the party's reputation being stained and severely damaged. now it would appear we are also to become a laughing stock too, as Morris's ignorance of our country is regularly paraded before the captive, license-bound audience of the BBC.
posted by Martin |
8:35 AM
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Derek Clark Breaks yet more Rules
Article 1.5 of the UK Independence Party Rule Book on 'Discipline' clearly states the following:-
"If a member of the Discipline Panel is the subject of a complaint, that member shall be suspended from the panel during the investigation into the complaint."
On 8th May, 2003 a long, detailed and extensively backed up complaint was lodged against Derek Clark (among nearly all others involved in the day to day running of the party) The complaint surrounded events that had taken place in the North East and Yorkshire and Humberside regions. Derek Clark's action of handing the Chairmanship of that panel to
Denis Brookes
is proof positive of his acknowledgement that he was involved.
At that moment he should have suspended himself from the Discipline Panel (The Panel as is clear from the entire Article 1 is all the members, not just those considering an individual complaint).
Rather than following this proper and legal course Derek Clark chose to continue as Chairman of the panels in considering and upholding the complaint brought by disgraced party placeman and voting and membership manipulator Peter Troy (who maintains his party post in the North East and is now an approved MEP candidate for Scotland,
watch for a membership surge among the sheep herds of the Highlands!)
. Party Secretary Clark is
ALSO
reported to have
BEEN
handling the disciplinary complaint against the very popular Yorkshire and Humberside Chairwoman and NEC member Judith Longman?
The response to the 8th May complaint, according to my sources was not delivered until the very early days of July. Derek Clark was therefore suspended from the Disciplinary Panel under Party Rules Article 1.5 of the Discipline Procedure from 8th May 2003 until early July 2003, any decisions made by any panels on which he sat during that period, are therefore clearly
invalid
.
The North East Regional Committee should, AS A MATTER OF PRIORITY, immediately have their suspensions from holding office lifted and ideally their Regional Committee re-instated.
Those still within the Party have the obligation to ensure that this is now speedily accomplished. (If you do not object to a well intentioned outsider from so suggesting).
posted by Martin |
11:44 AM
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Estimating the cost of Morris!
We do not mean by this headline, the inevitable electoral disaster that will befall all UKIP's MEP candidates in next summer's European Parliamentary elections; that point has been made repeatedly and loudly enough already!
Today we want to talk about the money!
Following much interchange on an e-mail group generally referred to as
eurofaq
the following admission has been squeezed from Mark Croucher, UKIP's
Official Press Spokesman
In reply to these challenges:
Quote
Contributor 1
Who is providing the money to pay him? Is this a UKIP appointment, an MEP appointment, or an EDD appointment?B---
Contributor 2
you won't get this info from Mark. He wouldn't dare give it!!!! AE
The following reply was given:
Why not? Its a party appointment.
Best etc
Mark
Mark Croucher
National Press Officer
U.K. Independence Party
Unquote
There we have it then. A party, supposedly dedicated to fighting the incursion of the EU into all our nation's affairs, unable to afford to print a few pamphlets to alert the general public of the huge dangers from VGdE's democracy destroying constitutional proposals, can suddenly afford to hire this notorious character.
Dick Morris
.
Hard facts as to what it might be costing UKIP, (or whoever is backing them in this apparent devious attempt to destroy the British euro-sceptic Euro-election drive) are of course difficult if not impossible to obtain. Some financial facts are known:-
Quote
Pollster Dick Morris Owes Connecticut $257,624
Wed May 14,12:00 PM ET
' NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dick Morris, the former pollster in Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s White House who resigned over a sex scandal, is one of the top tax delinquents in Connecticut, according to the state's revenue department.
Morris, who is a commentator for Fox News Channel and a columnist for the New York Post, owes $257,624 in income tax, making him No. 6 among the state's top 100 delinquent taxpayers, the department said.
Connecticut's Department of Revenue Services posted the list of those "deficient in excess of 90 days as of April 1" on its Web site.
Unquote
It seems to us that:-
An individual who runs up a tax bill of that size must have had some earlier huge income to incur such a liability.
An individual prepared to offer his services for reduced fees would seem to be unlikely to concurrently be in a severe tax arrears situation.
An individual prepared to offer his services at reduced fees, with a past reputation such as that of Dick Morris, would first have had to undergo a "Road to Damascus' style conversion, which I have not seen claimed or reported.
An individual prepared to offer his services for reduced fees would have to undergo some kind of lifestyle change. If Dick Morris is capable of making such a change one is left to wonder why he did not do so before spending all the money that incurred the tax liability. After all every normal person knows that taxes come as surely as the dawn. How could a pollster, particularly one whose main claim to fame is his prescience, (excluding the scandals of the Clinton years that will forever stain his name), not have foreseen and planned accordingly.
It is possible, of course, that the reason for Morris's sudden presence on Britain's shores is the tax bill itself and his inability to pay. I have no idea what they do to tax delinquents in Connecticut but I imagine it does not compare favourably with the high life of the White House years as described in Christopher Hitchins' book on Clinton 'No One Left To Lie To', in which Dick Morris gets such unflattering and frequent mention.
It is possible the tax liability was mainly incurred as a result of Morris's book; what Hitchens calls ".. his awful USD 2.5 million Random House turkey", thus making it difficlt to relate such taxes directly to normally earned fee income, but that does not counter any of the points we make above.
Has anybody at the higher levels of UKIP even bothered to read the Hitchens book, which I first highlighted on this Blog on 29th May?. Similarly has any such person bothered to check with any US sources regarding the character and reputation of this man? It seems not; which once again confirms the obvious and deepening suspicions that those at the top of UKIP appear intent on irretrievably damaging all anti-EU forces with the UK.
If they wish to prove this is not the case, urgent actions, one of which should be dumping Dick Morris, are essential.
posted by Martin |
11:29 AM
Estimating the cost of Morris!
We do not mean by this headline, the inevitable electoral disaster that will befall all UKIP's MEP candidates in next summers European Parliamentary elections, that point has been made repeatedly and loudly enough already!
Today we want to talk about the money!
Following much interchange on an e-mail group generally referred to as
eurofaq
the following admission has been squeezed from Mark Croucher, UKIP's
Official Press Spokesman
In reply to this challenge
you won't get this info from Mark. He wouldn't dare give it!!!! AE
The following reply was given
Why not? Its a party appointment.
Best etc
Mark
Mark Croucher
National Press Officer
U.K. Independence Party
There we have it then. A party, supposedly dedicated to fighting the incursion of the EU into all our natio's affairs, unable to be able to afford to print a few pamphlets to alerting the general public to the huge dangers (clearly foreseen as coming) from VGdE's democracy destroying constitutional proposals, can suddenly afford to hire this notorious character
Dick Morris
.
Hard facts as to what it might be costing UKIP, (or whoever is backing them in this desperate attempt to destroy the British euro-sceptic Euro-election drive) are of course difficult if not impossible to obtain. Some financial facts are known:-
Quote
Pollster Dick Morris Owes Connecticut $257,624
Wed May 14,12:00 PM ET
' NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dick Morris, the former pollster in Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s White House who resigned over a sex scandal, is one of the top tax delinquents in Connecticut, according to the state's revenue department.
Morris, who is a commentator for Fox News Channel and a columnist for the New York Post, owes $257,624 in income tax, making him No. 6 among the state's top 100 delinquent taxpayers, the department said.
Connecticut's Department of Revenue Services posted the list of those "deficient in excess of 90 days as of April 1" on its Web site.
Unquote
It seems to us that:-
An individual who runs up a tax bill of that size must have had some earlier huge income to incur such a liability.
An individual prepared to offer his services for reduced fees would seem to be unlikely to concurrently be in a severe tax arrears situation.
An individual prepared to offer his services at reduced fees, with a past reputation such as that of Dick Morris, would first have had to undergo a 'Road to Damascus' style conversion, which I have not seen claimed or reported.
An individual prepared to offer his services for reduced fees would have to implement some kind of lifestyle change. If Dick Morris ia capable of making such a change one is left to wonder why he did not do so before spending all the money that incurred the tax liability. After all every normal person knows that taxes come as surely as the dawn. How could a pollster particularly one whose main claim to fame is his prescience, (excluding the scandals of the Clinton years that will forever stain his name), not have foreseen and planned accordingly.
It is possible, of course, that the reason for Morris's sudden presence on Britain's shores is the tax bill itself and his inability to pay. I have no idea what they do to tax delinquents in Connecticut but I imagine it does not compare favourably with the high life of the White House years as described in Christopher Hitchins' book on Clinton 'No one left to lie to' in which Dick Morris gets such unflattering mention.
It is possible the tax liability was mainly incurred as a result of Morris's book, what Hitchens calls ".. his awful USD 2.5 million Random House turkey" thus making it difficlt to relate such taxes directly to normally earned fee income, but that does not counter any of the points made above.
Has anybody at the higher levels of UKIP even bothered to read the Hitchens book, which I first highlighted on this Blog on 29th May?. Similarly has any such person bothered to check with any US sources regarding the character and reputation of this man. It seems not which once again confirms the obvious and deepening suspicions that those in UKIP appear intent on irretrievably damaging all anti-EU forces with the UK.
If they wish to prove this is not the case urgent actions, one of which should be dumping Dick Morris, are essential.
posted by Martin |
11:13 AM
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Titford on Dick Morris
Read
Jeffrey Titford's
woefully ill-informed views on
Dick Morris
, from his June newsletter.
In the section headed "CLINTON’S MAN JOINS THE TEAM" come the following gems:-
"I have been impressed by his fresh perspective on our situation"
" .....he is coming on board for much lower fees than he could have commanded elsewhere"
"He will be a major asset."
"Just in case any of you are worrying about the Clinton connection......I think we can assume they are no longer buddies!"
Well that's alright then!!!!!............, before leaving Jeffrey's cheerful missive I just have to quote this statement from his report on the recent MEP candidate elections
"The Party should also be congratulated for holding a genuinely democratic ballot, in contrast with most of our political opponents, who don’t bother "
.
A genuinely democratic ballot
which included, false membership applications, unwitting candidate recruitment, clear breaches of the party rules, exclusion of candidates, suspension of two regional committees, wrongful candidate disqualification and running of the ballot while an appeal was pending with the candidate excluded, press reports of far right infiltration. barracking of candidates at hustings by party officials, NEC resignations, deliberate disregard of disciplinary complaints, padding of disciplinary panels with placemen and paid officials, refusal to disclose disciplinary panel membership, five day recounts for ballots with small hundreds of votes etc.etc, need we go on all of this is detailed and described within this Blog.
It seems the only answer posed to the question in our title is that the present leadership of UKIP is determined on the electoral neutering of the anti-European movement within Great Britain, any other explanation simply does not appear to fit the growing body of facts.
Neither sheer incompetence (one of our earliest theories) nor complete naivety could explain the recruitment of Dick Morris. The claim of a reduced fee also beggars belief, this man does not run on small change. Do not forget it was only a few weeks ago the Party Chairman advised that following the disastrous mismanagement of the Welsh regional assembly? campaign, where the budget was reported as having been overspent by 300 per cent, there were insufficient funds to print leaflets arguing the case against VdGE's Constitution. Now we have apparently been able to hire the world's most expensive and degraded pollster.
posted by Martin |
9:54 AM
Brownies
Entering "UK Independence Party" into the search engine for Google UK News this morning brings this item on the Brownies:-
"Brownies reach out across the Atlantic
Bucks Free Press,
UK
- 20 hours ago
... 2nd Flackwell Heath Brownies in a special
independence party
... Meek, brownie leader,
said: "With July 4th Independence ... a Brownie Owl Brooch or a girl guiding UK ..."
It is only when one gets to the fifth item that anything relevant to UKIP appears and that only an item in the Liverpool Echo of 30th June, 2003.
Enough said?
posted by Martin |
7:08 AM
Monday, July 07, 2003
UKIP Guildford Election Launch
Billed as a potential big deal by the UKIP powers that be, featuring Sir Patrick Moore, Fishermen's hero Mick Mahon, London Mayorial candidate Frank Maloney and not quite finally by
unelected Party Leader
Roger Knapman deliberately programmed to be upstaged by the 'real' UKIP Leader Nigel Farage and of course not forgetting the new star of UKIP's firmament, Dick Morris.
The publicity gained in today's UK morning press apparently
ZERO
.
A search undertaken on Google UK News search engine comes up with the key words "UK Independence Guildford"
this
total irrelevance, a report of a question in parliament by a Guildford MP which apparently combined with a mention of the UK and Independence.
Deleting Guildford from the search line and substituting with the word 'Party' a fresh article is for once revealed amongst the stale coverage of UKIP's mayorial candidate.
Redwood in anti-EU Rally
. The article states:-
The MP will share a platform with hardliners from the UK Independence Party in September.
The rally referred to is, we believe, to be held in Bath, and the UKIP "Hardliners?"... we hear Damian Hockney is certainly one.
posted by Martin |
8:34 AM
Sunday, July 06, 2003
The Disciplinary Panel in Full?
There is something about the British that makes them believe in, and think they have a right to receive, ‘Fair Play’
Perhaps this is one of the reasons so many in our nation are so vehemently opposed to the European Union as it is presently constituted.
This sense of ‘ fair play’ is probably particularly strongly felt amongst those of us who joined UKIP. Our outrage against the erosion of our centuries old rights and freedoms is what compels many of us to devote much time and effort to working towards British withdrawal from the non-democratic conglomerstate now almost completely formed and matured.
I believe it is thanks to these beliefs amongst so many UKIP members that we have so quickly been able to piece together the facts behind recent actions of the Party’s disciplinary panel.
As we suspected the question of ‘
fair play
’ does not arise.
Normally we would seek several independent verifications before naming individuals on the blog. We are almost positive that the names and positions of those that follow are correct, but if anybody is incorrectly included or listed, please let us know and we will issue a correction and apology if necessary.
Remaining UKIP Disciplinary Members from Scarborough Appointees after three reported resignations:-
Denis Brookes Acting Chairman, NE Committee Suspensions
Derek Clark Chairman, Party Secretary, Named in complaint 8/5/03
Jill Clark P/A to Nigel Farage Listed on staff of UKIP SE Office
Jack Crosbee
John Harvey Editor Independence News Listed within UKIP SE Office
David Johnson Appears to be a Roger Knapman gofer in the SW
Gerry Kelly Regional Organiser, attends European Election Committee
Andrew Moffat Youth National Front member ( as listed Britain in Europe web site)
Chris Pratt Named in Documents attached to Complaint 8/05/03
Malcolm Wood Regional Organiser, attends European Election Committee
How could six, let alone seven, impartial panel members be drawn from the above list which was supposedly considering improper actions by the European Elections Committee (chaired by Nigel Farage and attended by the Regional Organisers) and other party officers.
The known Disciplinary Members who formed the panel that sat in judgement on the (already Farage suspended) volunteer Members of the NE Regional Committee were:-
Derek Clarke Chairman , in our opinion a party to the events
Denis Brookes see above
Jill Clark How can the
Personal Assistant
to the
CAUSE
of the problem be impartial?
D Johnson See above
A Moffatt See above
The above members handed down an 18 month suspension of office on the basis of complaints made by Peter Troy who had already been forced to stand down from his candidature following an inquiry carried out by the Party Treasurer, only some of which conclusions have so far appeared in the press!
Only in the last half an hour have we learnt that the panel above were provided a complete copy of Mr de Roeck's enquiry findings!
Not a lot is known about M. Cole’s Disqualification Appeal panel and further information would be welcomed.
Malcolm Wood Acting Chairman, see also Above
Three or four others from the existing members listed above who rejected the clear facts that the disqualification was neither necessary nor justified.
Two or Three others who possibly resigned for this or other reasons their names remain presently unknown.
We will, of course, return to all the disturbing questions raised by the existence of this non-representative group of placemen (and woman) at the very heart of the party.
Neither will the outrageous disregard of Tony Bennett’s disciplinary complaint, raised in our post earlier today, be left forgotten for yet more weeks as seems to have been the case since mid-March.
posted by Martin |
9:21 PM
Disciplinary Complaints Ignored
Equally important as the question of the background and party positions of those comprising the disciplinary panels of UKIP is the question of whether complaints are handled properly and in accordance with the party constitution and rules.
As highlighted in yesterday's posting, disciplinary panel Chairman and Party Secretary Derek Clark, clearly feels the rules an inconvenience, if not an irrelevance. In refusing to designate an alternative chairman for the complaint of which he was one of the subjects, Clark was clearly in breach of Rule 2.2.
Now we have further evidence of even more extraordinary manipulation of the handling,
in this case non-handling
, of complaints.
On 14th March of this year Tony Bennett in an e-mail to a couple of dozen or so party members, advised that he had referred the matter of the
Solicitor's letters
sent to the NE and Yorkshire Committee members, to the disciplinary Chairman.
Mr Bennett stated in that e-mail that the decision to send those letters, paid for from UKIP member's subscriptions to the Party and not authorised by the NEC at the time, was outrageous.
Any having had any dealings with Mr Bennett must know that if a complaint was lodged by him, it would have been certain to have been done correctly in every detail. Yet Mr Bennett in the final paragraph of his e-mail states the following:-
I referred the matter of the Solicitors' letters of the 14th March to the Discipline Committee, using the correct procedure. However, Derek Clark, Secretary to the Party, *failed* to follow the laid down disciplinary procedure in the Party Constitution by failing to even tell the Discipline Committee that a complaint had been made.
What is the point of a Disciplinary Procedure if Derek Clark becomes the sole arbiter of what is or is not to go forward for consideration? What validity do the verdicts reached on all the other complaints against volunteer party members now have;
particularly those lodged after 14th March, 2003
which should not yet even have been heard!
posted by Martin |
11:21 AM
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Disciplinary Panel Member Denis Brookes
While still a member of UKIP Martin Cole assisted in the preparation of (and considered becoming a party to) a detailed, well researched and amply supported Disciplinary Complaint against almost the entire senior leadership of UKIP.
Contrary to paragraph 2.2 of the Party rules, Derek Clark, who was named in the complaint, refused to provide the name of an alternative, non-involved Chairperson to conduct the inquiry and after extensive delays the documentation had to be forwarded directly to him. This complaint was posted to Derek Clark on 8th May, 2003 and forwarded to Clark’s appointed acting Chairman Denis Brookes for action on 12th May, 2003.
Among the many matters detailed the one involving myself was Paragraph 21 of that complaint which included the following:-
Martin Cole, who complained about the recruitment of a BNP member, was disqualified from being a candidate, when the person responsible for this, namely Peter Troy, was allowed to continue his candidacy and even investigate a situation for which he was responsible.
We understand that the complainant received a response from Denis Brookes last week to the effect that all members (believed to be six) had found none of the many and detailed complaints were substantive and that no hearing would be held.
Apparently on the very same day as this astonishing response was received an article in
The Northern Echo
quoted a section of a report on an inquiry held by the Party Treasurer at the time of the MEP candidate ballot count which stated the following:-
Several new members have received membership without making payment themselves to the party. Of these new members, some had no knowledge they were to receive membership, and of these new members, some were paid for by Mr Troy directly while others have not been for at all
Mr de Roeck concluded that Mr Troy had paid Mr Agnew's membership fees.
Mr
Agnew
was, of course, the BNP candidate recruited by Troy.
Is it remotely conceivable that all six members of the disciplinary panel were unaware of the facts of Mr de Roeck’s findings against Peter Troy?
Considering the disciplinary panel started at twelve members after the Scarborough Conference and we are reliably informed three have since resigned; it is hard to believe there now remain six members capable of impartiality considering the broad sweep of the original complaint.
Denis Brookes also sat on the disciplinary panel that found against the suspended NE Regional Committee officers, although this time under the Chairmanship of Derek Clark. How does that panel reconcile its findings with the published facts of John de Roeck's inquiry, which surely had to be known by the Party Secretary prior to his panel reaching their bizarre verdict in that blatant miscarriage of justice.
Denis Brookes, or for that matter any of the other panel members, is invited to e-mail us with any defence he might be prepared to offer. We will print it without amendment upon receipt.
What are the National Executive Committee of UKIP doing to protect the reputation of the main euro-sceptic party as it hurtles towards almost certain electoral disaster? If the programme for Guildford tomorrow is any guide, nothing at all, as
Dick Morris
is set to appear and further soil the party’s already tattered image.
Meantime we hear today that Peter Troy is now an approved MEP candidate for UKIP in Scotland. The blatant double standards of the people at the head of UKIP never ceases to astound.
posted by Martin |
6:03 PM
The North East fight against Regional Assemblies
"You pay for a Ferrari and get a Reliant Robin" is the title of this piece by
Neil Herron
that first appeared in
The Northern Echo
on 25th June. We had been intending to provide a link ever since then but were only reminded by the arrival of the letter published in the previous post.
We had highlighted the fine work being undertaken in the North East by many UKIP members in a post on 11th May titled
Making Waves in the North East
posted by Martin |
12:21 PM
Regional Assemblies
We also received this further letter published in Derby Evening Telegraph 4/7/03 from Edward Spalton:-
East Midlands Constitutional Convention
Hopcroft
Sutton Lane
Etwall
Derbys
DE65 6LQ
Sir,
On one of his visits to this country from his home in Brussels, Nick Clegg calls for an elected Regional Assembly for the East Midlands. He urges us to "catch up" with the North East and other regions where referenda are to be
called.
He may be interested to know of an opinion poll being carried out by "Northumberland Today". As of 24 June public opinion there was one hundred percent against the imposition of regional government.
What he is asking us to "catch up" with is a long laid, EU-inspired scheme which has two aims - firstly to distract people from the powerlessness of their national parliament against the unelected EU Commission in Brussels and secondly to divide the country into EU provinces which will look increasingly to Brussels for grants. These grants are nothing more than a return of some of our own money with EU strings attached (after deductions for bureaucracy and fraud)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was complicit in this planned destruction of local democracy as long ago as 1971 (although the papers did not become public until 2001). Their paper (Ref FCO 30/1048 as Mr Clegg probably knows) states "The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within member states and effective Community regional and social policies will be essential". Please note that the so-called "democratic processes" are intended for the purpose of enforcing "Community" (i.e. EU) policies.
Mr. Clegg is also sticking to the following recommendation from the same paper "After entry (to the EU) there would be a major responsibility on Her Majesty's Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.." This is the reason why so many advocates of Regional Government deny that the project is designed to force us into the EU mould - but it plainly is.
From his high position as a former EU civil servant, Nick Clegg obviously believes that he knows what is best for us natives and that we should not worry our clod-hopping minds with the intentions of our lords and masters in Brussels.
Yours faithfully
Edward Spalton
Director-Derbyshire
East Midlands Constitutional Convention
posted by Martin |
10:08 AM
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit
Here
.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
archives
04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003
05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009
11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009
12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010
01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010
02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010
03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010
04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010
05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010
08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010
09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010
10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010
11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010
01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011
04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011
05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011
07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011
10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011
12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012
03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012
06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012
11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012
12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013
02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013
03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013
05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013
01/01/2017 - 02/01/2017
contact us
my other blogs
IRONIES TOO
Ironies
Teetering Tories
The Strasbourg Cesspit
In French 'L'UE L'A EU'
nigel farage
Biography
Ballot Box Blackmail
Dr North's Resignation
E-mail Revealed
"Extortion Attempt?"
Farage Flouts NEC
NEC in Thrall of
Open letter CSpeight
Stolen Computer
Suspends Committees
Video Copyright
With Deavin of BNP
landmark links
Accepting Contradictory Truths
Ballot Box Blackmail
Appeal to the NEC
GLW drft to NF
Cole's Resignation
Dick Morris
Disciplined NE Committee
Disqualification Appeal
GLW Incites Murder
NE Candidates'Fiasco
NE's UKIP Today"
Non-Stop Betrayal
Peter Troy Resigns
Preparing for Future
Suspended Committees
Teignbridge Tragedy
Trevor Agnew
Treasurer's Inquiry
UKIP's Thug Image
W.Chrystal Resignation
Winding Trail
Yorks&NE Disciplne Complaint
fired treasurer
Dismissal Report
MHarvey Memo
Treasureless
Re-instatement
Joint Statement
Report on Troy
Solicitor's Ltr
glw incitement
STelgrph FrontPage
Pravda Finality
Sets back Anti-EU
UKIPUnc Attack
Joint Statement
booker/jamieson
The Election Busting Letter E-mailed by GL-W to Farage in Brussels
glw & farage
Allies/Enemies
Database Letter
NF NEC mole for GLW?
Hockney's Expose
Truth Emerges
Joint Statement
a complaint
Complaint in Full
Re-Visited 1
Re-Visited 2
Re-Visited 3
Re-visited 4
a neutered nec
Appeal for Action
Chairman David Lott
Election Results
Farage's Folderol
Members CVs
graham booth
Biography
Clanger & Sabotage?
COSMOS Cuckooland
Express&Echo
Maiden Speech
MEP Performance
derek clark
Story of Troy & Agnew
Contradictory Letter Head
Disciplinary Complaints?
Ignoring Complaints
Rule Breaking
Chuck out Rule Book
Suspended but Chair
mark croucher
No Press Release!
Martinek-Disgrace
Denials Continue
Lots more Lies?
Support from Muir
UKIP's Press Officer
michael harvey
Ignoring the Appeal
Walls have Ears
A Reasonable OR ELSE
Memo on JdeR
Resignation Misrepresentation
Cole's Resignation
Role as Returning Officer
roger knapman
Biography
Righter than right
Guardian letter re BNP
mike nattrass
Past Treachery?
Debating Points
These Tides
links
About MillenniumBlitzkrieg
BBC Bias
EU FactsFigures&Phantasies
Free Nations
Britain and the EU
UKIP London Assembly
New Ind UK
Notes from the Borderland
Truth about Europe
blogs
Blog Search
EU Referendum
Ironies
Samizdata
The Strasbourg Cesspit
press
Corriere della Sera
Economist
EUobserver
Guardian
IHT
Le Figaro
Northern Echo
Spectator
Telegraph
Washington Times
broadcasters
BBC
CNN
Deutsche Welle
Fox
Sky
google
UK News
UK Search
News International
SearCH
buy my book
Read About the Book
Order the Book for a Fiver.
Proceeds go to the fight against Regional Assemblies
technorati
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.
