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

Sunday, August 31, 2003 

In Defence of the Blog

In reaction to e-mailed criticisms on certain internet fora to which we do not belong and which were not e-mailed to 'ukipuncovered' (see previous post below), we received many supportive comments, most also forwarded to the group "new-ind-uk".

Two of these are reproduced below with their author's permission:

From Mr Christopher Cooke Independent Councillor Tamworth, (Past UKIP NEC Member, Past UKIP West Midlands Organiser and UKIP National Conference Organiser - Truth about Europe Campaign)

Dear all,

Personally I can't see anything not to trust about C. Speight's (see note below) & M. Cole's criticism of UKIP's NEC, some members and some past and present issues affecting the running of the party. In fact their contributions have been so open, forthright and detailed that, agree or not, it does deserve a certain respect.

Perhaps those within UKIP who try consistently to hide these issues (rather than address them) are the ones that should not be trusted one inch.

From Mr Edward Spalton (past Chairman UKIP Derby and South Derbyshire)

I agree with Chris on this. I (eventually) left UKIP about six months after he and Christina did and for the same reasons. I had hung on thinking "things can only get better". They did not. It is a great credit to the Northern rebels that they stood their ground and, in effect, won by exposing the great corruption at the centre of the party. By the time they did so, there was a rule book to appeal to, which was then totally ignored by the leadership which has come to be called "the Cabal".

I and others felt we could work to better effect disassociated from the corruption and thuggery of UKIP. This, and the previous "form" of UKIP's MEPs and leaders is so well known to the mdia as to ensure a well-deserved drubbing in the run up to the EP elections. That is a great pity for the vast majority of UKIP rank and file who are throughly decent people. Those who are not on the internet probably know very little of what has been done in their name. I know others who continue at local level and deliberately avert their gaze from what has happened and is happening because they are devoted to the cause and can see no other way. That is short-sighted because they will end up being tarred with the same brush and be discredited politically.

For three years now UKIP has been a dog in the manger, preventing any effective, politically respectable force for national independence from emerging. Either the behaviour of the cabal is so wilfully destructive because of ineptitude and malice or it is guided (as Norman Tebbit said), by forces not unconnected with the security services. It really does not matter which. Either way is a disaster.

I have never made these points in the press or media because I know that the vast majority of UKIP members are decent and well intentioned. I will work with anybody of that sort in our country's cause. But there does come a time when you have to say to those who are informed - how much longer are you prepared to support something which is so discredited and so easily (and
rightly) discreditable by factual reports?


Note: Christina Speight (Editor EU Facts, Figures and Phantasies) has also robustly defended this blog and supported our aims on many other fora. (Christina has been invited to make a guest posting on this blog, which we hope to publish shortly).

posted by Martin |6:07 PM

Saturday, August 30, 2003 

Internet Challenges

Over the past day or so some personal attacks have been made against this blog and its principal author Martin Cole. In the first half of July we were subject to similar (even more) offensive challenges by the same individual(s).

We strive to stick to the facts on this site, whenever possible avoiding personalisation. This blog seeks to objectively analyse the deep malaise at the heart of what is supposed to be the leading force in Britain's fight to recoup the sovereignty lost to the EU. Notwithstanding that aim, however, where this involves the senior leadership of the party some personalisation is regrettably sometimes inevitable.

The comments regarding Peter Troy solely relate to proven events surrounding his activities, as clearly and independently verified. We have nothing to either add to such remarks nor has any error of fact been pointed out for which we might feel the need to aplogise.

posted by Martin |9:52 PM

Intelligence Infiltration

We came across this article by Michael Malkin which puts a different slant on the matter of possible infiltration of UKIP MI6 and UK Independence Party. It is worth reading in full although many might be wary of its origins having first appeared in Weekly Worker 386, it nevertheless puts forward a well argued case. These are some brief excerpts:-

Thus, in Tebbit’s scenario, the UKIP, despite its avowed anti-Europeanism and its determination to foster British withdrawal from the EU, is - consciously or unconsciously - being covertly manipulated into serving the interests of its political enemies. The putative objective of MI6’s involvement in the ‘conspiracy’ is to facilitate Britain’s early entry into European monetary union and thence into a European superstate............................

“Mr X” provided Tebbit with the names of two men whom he “believed” to have “links” with MI6. When Tebbit challenged one of them directly about the allegation, “Denial came there none - only an angry retort that I should be ashamed of myself for asking such a question.” Tebbit, by stating that the “agents” involved “claim to have retired years ago”, leads us to believe that the opposite may be true and that they are still “on the active list”. His talk of a conspiracy is purportedly “given a boost” by the fact that “during the 1997 election both individuals worked for Jimmy Goldsmith’s Referendum Party”, before moving into the UKIP.

After the 1997 election both men joined the UKIP: “One is still there. I understand the other resigned his post some three months ago, having lost the confidence of some of his colleagues.” Tebbit concedes that, “There is nothing illegal or improper in former intelligence officers joining political parties as staff members or to seek election. There are former agents in both houses of parliament.” But “to find two in such small organisations as the Referendum Party or UKIP is somewhat against the odds”. Hence, he calls for an official enquiry.

posted by Martin |12:50 PM

Friday, August 29, 2003 

Parliament's Members' Interests Committe and J. Browne

We have now unearthed an authoritative reference source for the events which led to MP John Browne being described as disgraced by "Britain in Europe".

A paper by Robert Kaye titled A Life-Cycle for Watchdogs prepared for ESCR Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science and is available in pdf format from this link Robert Kaye.

The relevant section on the inquiries into John Browne can be found on pages 9-11. Most relevant excerpts follow:-

......the resulting inquiry involved five sessions of evidence taking and thirteen deliberative meetings, each running to around three hours or more.
Journalist David Leigh, who had been pursuing Browne in the Observer, alleged that Browne had:

1. failed to register a substantial shareholding a company marketing his own services;
2. when speaking in the House on satellite and cable broadcasting, failed to declare interests in companies which would benefit.
3. failed to register an interest from an offshore trust of which he was the main discretionary beneficiary;
4. failed to register a number of payments from foreign sources, in particular a payment of $88,000 from the Saudi Arabian central bank [SAMA];
5. failed to register an interest in a firm of consultants whilst lobbying ministers on behalf of its clients 42 .

it remained for the individual MP to judge the relevance of an interest . So an MP like Brown could justify his inactions:
In making my own declaration, I reasoned as follows … Would any domestic or overseas payment influence my parliamentary actions or conduct? […] My answer is ‘No’. Therefore the payments were not declared .

Essentially, where there was doubt, Browne gave himself the benefit of it, and given the closerelationship between his financial interests and his parliamentary activity, he seems to have been excessively generous in doing so. Even the Committee found that Browne’s parliamentary actions were influenced by outside interests.

Cumulatively, the Committee examined nine separate aspects of Leigh’s complaint, and added one of its own. It firmly rejected four of these; firmly upheld three; and failed to make a specific finding on three. Of these final three, it recommended that Browne should now disclose the interest in two cases, and found “some substance” in a third.

The Committee made the following recommendation to the full House of Commons :-

“your Committee recommends that the House should decide at an early date what action it proposes to take in the light of the serious nature of those of our findings which uphold the complaints against Mr. Browne”.

In such a manner did Mr John Browne become disgraced. Such would not deter Nigel Farage from becoming his strongest supporter within UKIP, hailing him as an ex-MP and therefore a valuable acquisition and pushing him towards the Falmouth Constituency, cosidered as one of the most attractive potential gains for UKIP.

Even in the early months of this year the pressure to force this surely and clearly unelectable failed politician onto reluctant UKIP constituencies has been maintained. Just when will the everyday UKIP membership wake up to the dreadful things going on in their name, and the supposed cause of opposing the EU.

posted by Martin |7:11 PM

Disgraced MP John Browne (continued)

An almost sympathetic account of the fall from grace of the above associate of Nigel Farage can be read by going to this link titled Mark Hollingsworth who was the journalist who exposed Browne's business dealings that the House of Commons found as not having been properly registered. A reasonably full description of the events leading to Browne's deselection can be found there. We hope to obtain a better account of the actual business dealings that caused this fall from grace, as the account from the source above implies they were of a minor nature which is contrary to other non-corroborated reports we have received which would seem to better gel with the apparent abandonment of Browne by his Conservative colleagues.

John Ernest Douglas de la Valette Browne stood as an Independent candidate in the 1994 European Parliamentary elections for the Wight and Hampshire Constituency losing to the Tory but gaining 6.69 per cent of the vote. Browne subsequently stood in the 2001 General Election for UKIP in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency doing far less well.

Our first posting on Nigel Farage, on 18th April Who are these Leaders of UKIP?, quoted his biography as stating that he had been employed by Refco Overseas Ltd since 1994.

Nigel Farage was shown, after that date, as the Director of a British Registered Company "Farage Futures Ltd" 8 Manor road, Chatham, Kent. Interestingly in the context of the strange inter-relationships at work within UKIP this has been the home address of Craig Mackinlay, one-time UKIP Deputy Leader who Farage backed in the Leadership campaign against Michael Holmes. The Company Secretary of Farage Futures Limited from June 1996 was a Barbara Stevens following the resignation of Grainne Clare Farage.

It appears FFL was taken over by Refco Overseas Ltd London and that it is in that acquisition the business affairs of John Browne and Nigel Farage appear to have had some confluence, though whether or not that was the first such association we cannot yet be sure.

Initial inquiries seem to indicate that Farage's championing of Browne for a UKIP MEP candidature whether in London, the North West, or indeed it would appear anywhere else, were far from being a dispassionate act of political incompetence, but yet another, possibly even the most extreme, example of sheer and outrageously blatant cronyism.

posted by Martin |7:33 AM

Thursday, August 28, 2003 

John Browne (disgraced former Conservative MP, 1979-92)

The above is another candidate MEP that we are told Farage, through the abuse of his position as Chairman of UKIP's Euro-Elections Committee, tried to foist upon unwilling regions earlier this year. London reportedly by strong resistance from various Branch Chairmen successfully resisted and consequently we understand, Farage then tried to impose his will on the North West region. Could this have been one of the reasons for the resignation from the NEC of Lesley Brown, one of only two members of that body about whom this reporter has never heard a critical word?

We understand that Nigel Farage had in the past some form of business connections with Mr Browne. Farage's business arrangements following his departure from the two scandal-ridden organisations, Drexel Burnham Lambert and Credit Lyonnais are far from clear.

It seems to us important to establish that these recent attempts to foist such a candidate on different UKIP EP Regional Constituencies had absolutely no connection whatsoever with any personal friendship or past business associations. Particularly when such a person is someone who Britain in Europe described, as quoted in this post's title, 'the disgraced former Conservative MP',

We would appreciate it if any among our growing and increasingly communicative readership could e-mail us with any facts they might have on such matters, including but not limited to the reasons for John Browne's disgrace and the history and present staus of Farage's commodity brokerage business, which we have had trouble tracing through Companies House.

We will, of course, be conducting our own research and hopefully be thus able to shortly publish a report showing nothing suspicious whatsoever in the relationship or business affairs of these two men and that Farage's reported determination to have Browne as a UKIP MEP candidate was yet another example of his complete and utter political naivety.

posted by Martin |9:05 AM

Wednesday, August 27, 2003 

Knapman and Lott to brave the North East

Two of the characters largely responsible for the mismanagement and finagling of the MEP candidate selection for next year's European Parliamentary elections have apparently summoned up the courage to head for the North East, one of two regions whose local committees remain suspended due to the manipulations and unconstitutional actions of Nigel Farage and the doormat NEC.

They are the rarely seen or heard from Party Leader, Roger Knapman, and the often heard from, but rarely straightforward Party Chairman David Lott. The time and place are as follows according to an announcement we have received. As this particular notice was not issued via Peter Troy, in so far as we can tell, we have no reason to doubt its veracity. We suggest confirmation be obtained from John Pearson, the only attendee named for the meeting whose truthfulness we have no reason to doubt.



All activists, ordinary members and friends are encouraged to attend this important event following the launch of our historically important, 2004 European Election Campaign

Guest Speakers

Mr Roger Knapman Mr David Lott
Party Leader Party Chairman
Mr John Pearson
MEP Candidate

Tuesday 9th September 2003 - 7.30 pm

Holiday Inn - Washington (Just off Washington exit on the A1)

We urge UKIP members from the North East to go along and ask for the facts from Knapman and Lott, particularly regarding Trevor Agnew and his BNP connections, the Treasurer's Inquiry which showed Sedgefield Branch Chairman and MEP candidate Peter Troy guilty of issuing unsolicited membership cards but no follow-up action taken, the wrongful disqualification of Cole and the disgraceful treatment of the North East Regional Committee etc, etc., etc

A full list of updated and suitable topics to put to these two devious individuals will be posted nearer the meeting's date.

posted by Martin |6:54 PM

Relative MEP Mendacity

In an earlier post regarding the unhealthy control Nigel Farage exerts over the NEC on 2nd August titled UKIP's NEC in thrall to Farage I ended by stating that of all the extraordinary and shady events in which Farage had landed the party, the worst in my view, had been the attempt to extort money from the Tories for agreeing to stand down certain candidates and I quoted this passage from an article on the subject regarding ethics by Free Traders want to be bought off

“They want us to call the dogs off,” says Nigel Farage, MEP and party spokesman. “For the UKIP to convince its constituency associations and candidates to stand down will only be possible if there is something in it for us. £1 million would be a good start.”

In yesterday's commentary on the whole matter, taking into account the new information available as a result of The Times reports of 2nd March 2001, it appeared that authorisation for this matter had been obtained by Farage from party leader Titford, and that consequently both men should be held equally culpable for the disgrace which the party has subsequently incurred.

While a mountain of evidence exists regarding the conduct and practices of Farage, however, Jeffrey Titford's errors have mainly been those of ommission rather than commission and are apparently confined to the matter referred to above and one other specific incident, namely, the shady business of the Video Tape copyright infringement

In his public attack on the BBC by open letter to Greg Dyke dated 7th August 2000 Titford's assault seemed sure-footed. and within acceptable bounds. That could not, however, in our view continue to be said by early September.

As we quoted in our original post, the party leader, Jeffrey Titford, on 24th August wrote to the party secretary regarding a warning he had received 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.”

We have had sight of the exchange of resignation letters between then Party Secretary, Bryan Smalley and the Party Leader, Jeffrey Titford. We had expected that in view of our frequently raising the matter of the breach of Trading Standards Laws, Jeffrey Titford might have come forward to set the record straight and discontinue his shielding of Farage's activities. That has not been the case so we will now provide our view based on this further information.

In his resignation letter dated 1st September 2000, to Titford, Smalley states:-

" I was disappointed to receive your response saying that you had seen the letter giving Nigel Farage permission to sell copies of the video. It is clear this letter doesn't exist. I was also disappointed to read in Nigel's memo dated 24th August that you and Mike Nattrass supported Nigel in this video piracy.

I have done everything in my power to support you as the elected Leader and so I find it particularly hurtful that you preferred to support someone who consistently demonstrates that he has no regard for the law or the truth"

The reply from Titford dated 2nd September 2000 included the following: "The fax transmission from Adam Alexander that you sent me, although dated 9th August, I was not aware of until yesterday. This is not an excuse for trusting Nigel but sometimes it is necessary to accept a colleagues word."

Against that background it is worth re-reading Titford's public statement on the incident made two days later on 4th September 2000:-

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

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

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

More recently, a Trading Standards Officer resorted to what amounted to deception in order to obtain a copy of the video and so prove that a technical offence has been committed. As a result, the videos have been returned to their source, where they will remain pending clarification.

Nigel accepts that he acted somewhat precipitously - though with the best intention of making the film available to a wider audience. I am also satisfied that no personal gain was either intended or realised. Any further enquiries or approaches on the matter, from whatever party involved, will be referred to the UKIP South East regional office.

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

Signed Jeffrey Titford London 4 September 2000

Given all these exchanges and statements, it is evident that Titford from the earliest days of his leadership, if not even before, was not able to fully control his companion MEP and supposed party junior. It must be in this light that we consider his supposed authorisation for Farage to enter into the negotiations for the one to two million pounds to be paid by the Tories. Money Lord Tebbitt described as "Ballot Box Blackmail".

We have little additional material on which to comment regarding Jeffrey Titford. We still believe he would be mistaken to run for re-election next June, given his record in this parliamentary term and previous lack of firm party leadership. In looking at the terrible state of UKIP today and the dire consequences for the British Eurorealist cause it would be tempting to heap much of the blame on Jeffrey Titford's shoulders, and we came close to so doing in our post of yesterday. It is abundantly clear from all the information that has come our way since starting this blog, that Titford is a mere bit player in the real cast of villains which is headed by Farage and continues down through Lott, Knapman, Harvey, and others with far to go before reaching the probably well-intentioned but misguided ex-Party Leader.

As stated in our original posting on the Video Tape matter we will happily correct any errors of fact, and or post any statement those involved may wish to make.

posted by Martin |7:55 AM

Tuesday, August 26, 2003 

Comment on 'Ballot Box Blackmail'

A great amount of information regarding the attempt to obtain one to two million pounds from the Tories for not running UKIP candidates in certain constituencies at the last general election has been posted on this blog in a somewhat scattered manner.

It would seem worthwhile pulling some of this together and perhaps drawing some conclusions and levelling the blame. First, however, more background this time with thanks to the editor of EU Facts, Figures and Phantasies, Christina Speight, for this valuable trophy from a trawl of her files:-

TEBBIT SPEAKS HIS MIND ‘Ballot Box Blackmail’

'I find it astonishing that the United Kingdom Independence Party should be working so hard to help New Labour win the next Election, dump the pound and take us further into a Euro Republic. Its leader [sic], Nigel Farage, wants £1 million (for a start) to call off his candidates fighting strongly Euro-sceptic Tories and concentrate on hard-core Euro fanatics instead. In Teignbridge the UKIP threatens to run a candidate against Eurosceptic Tory Patrick Nicholls whose majority over the Euro fanatic Liberal Democrat Party's candidate is only 281 votes. The idea that UKIP, which polled 1,600 votes in 1997, could find well over 20,000 more next time to win is absurd.

But their candidate could take enough votes to give the seat to the Lib-Dems. I am surprised the UKIP has not asked Mr. Blair, Mr. Kennedy and the European Commission for money. After all, they will be the beneficiaries of the UKIP's campaign against Tory (and Labour) Eurosceptics'. {Mail on Sunday 4/2/01}

The Mail on Sunday thus joined with the Daily Telegraph in heaping the blame on Nigel Farage. The Times in its reporting, and possibly for reasons of its own, divided the blame between Lord Pearson, Lord Neidpath, Jeffrey Titford and Nigel Farage.

In its two articles of 2nd March 2001 it describes how the plan was conceived on the Scottish moors where the two aristocrats were hunting deer in September 2000. The scheme was finessed that December in London and was conveyed by telephone call to Nigel Farage who according to The Times‘ reporter Andrew Pierce ‘telephoned Jeffrey Titford, a fellow MEP and party leader. He deputed Mr Farage to negotiate because he had known Lord Pearson for years through membership of organisations such as the Bruges Group.’

According to that reporter the list of MPs to not face UKIP competition was discussed on the telephone, together with the money on 15th December by Farage and Lord Pearson. A list of MPs 'devised by UKIP' was subsequently faxed to Lord Pearson for his approval. In our view UKIP'S GOOSE WAS THEN COOKED and the reputation of the then entirety of their MEP representation was totally sunk! News leaked out in the 'Commons tea rooms' and the plan was, inevitably and so sensibly squashed, by the Conservative Party Leadership.

Could this have been a cleverly contrived plan to neutralise UKIP as an electoral threat in the following election? That certainly seems to have been the result whether intended or not.

How is it that the two UKIP MEP’s, who allowed the reputation of the Party to be thus so totally soiled, are still in senior positions in the party to this very day, and in the case of Nigel Farage still wreaking untold havoc upon its organisation, structure and morale. Preparations should have immediately begun to seek high profile and upright replacements for their constituencies in the 2004 EP elections, with as low a profile as possible for the two publicly shamed MEPs in the interim.

In reality in these two regions UKIP actually proposes running these individuals as their lead candidates in the European Parliamentary elections next June. Can those in charge of the party not appreciate the absolute abhorrence ordinary voters and party members must feel at this disgusting scam to put cash ahead of principle. Do they need to see it everywhere expressed during next years Euro-elections campaign and subsequently demonstrated in the absence of UKIP votes in the ballot boxes across the country?

Why, when the scheme had so clearly failed, did Titford and Farage force events to the ludicrous extreme of then actually fielding candidates against the likes of John Redwood, Patrick Nicholls etc. The clear fact is that these two men, as demonstrated in the Video Copyright case are not only lacking in scruples and political nous, they must also be bereft of any plain, down to earth, good old-fashioned common sense! This plain fact cannot possibly be concealed during a hotly contested election campaign. UKIP had the proof in both the general election and the two local election campaigns that followed. But still the MEPs cling on to their power and a pretence of stature, destroying the eurorealist cause in the process.

But why, oh why!, did (and does?) the ever subservient and ineffectual NEC go along with this suicidal policy?

posted by Martin |11:30 AM

MEP Candidates Attendance at Hustings

Considering the exchange between Dr North and Michael Cassidy regarding presenting oneself for interview and ensuring ones presence at hustings, the contrast between Dr North and myself is dramatic.

I made three trips to the North East, all from Switzerland, the first in January (only to be lied to by UKIP's Party Chairman) at short notice with a nightmare return journey spending 24 hours stuck at Luton in a snow storm and finally flying from Gatwick at great expense arriving 48 hours behind schedule. In March my wife and I spent considerable time in the constituency which we travelled throughout ensuring that I attended both hustings spread ten days apart and incurring substantial hotel and car hire costs.

I was then disqualified for pointing out the truth, now confirmed by the Treasurer's Inquiry, regarding the events that were taking place in the constituency and the leadership's acquiescence to them.

Surely Dr North could have travelled once from Bradford to Wakefield, even if a one day car hire had been involved. Wasn't he even then, that committeed?

posted by Martin |8:16 AM

Yorkshire's Reply

Michael Cassidy replies to Dr North as follows:-

Re: Blogspot 'Yorkshire MEP Candidate Interviews'

Richard North was offered several dates for an interview, all of which he alleged were inconvenient for him. The choice of location for an interview was Wakefield city centre and this was very easily accessible by public transport. He did complain that 'getting places could prove very difficult and time-consuming'.

It is true that Richard North contested the need for an interview: 'In this case the purpose of the regional interviews is to trim down the list to manageable proportions'. Our stance was that interviews were not subject to a candidate's approval, the rules set out that there would be regional interviews, the other regions had regional interviews, common sense dictated that there should be regional interviews, and we had every reason to believe that Richard North's hostility to the Yorkshire regional activists was so extreme that an interview was most definitely necessary. This is without taking into account the persistent reports that he was in contact with the Conservative Party.

Richard North's defection to the Conservative Party merely confirms that the Yorkshire Regional Committee were right in insisting on interviewing potential MEP candidates. It is far better that Richard North defected now than after he had been elected as a UKIP MEP.

Michael Cassidy
Yorkshire Regional Committee

posted by Martin |6:33 AM

Monday, August 25, 2003 

Yorkshire MEP Candidate Interviews

We have received the following from Dr Richard North regarding our earlier post from Michael Cassidy

Regarding Mr Cassidy's "post" asserting that I "refused to be interviewed" by the Yorkshire committee for selection to the MAP list, to my certain recollection, I was asked to present myself for an interview by Mrs Longman (by e-mail) at very short notice, days before I was due to go to Strasbourg and therefore very busy preparing, and at a time when my car was in the garage for repairs.

I advised Mrs Longman of the position (again by e-mail), pointing out that her choice of location for the interview was very difficult to access by public transport, and asking her to clarify whether, in fact, an interview was strictly necessary in view of the number of MEP applicants I understood there to be.

To this e-mail, I did not receive a response and the next communication was from Mrs Longman telling me that I had not been selected for the Yorkshire list. Therefore, I did not refuse to be interviewed and was in fact rejected without an interview.

I hope this clarifies the matter and if Mr Cassidy believes the facts to be otherwise, he might care to furnish the evidence, as all my communications with the region were by e-mail.

Richard North

posted by Martin |9:20 PM

The Sales Drive continues

While UKIP's EDD consultant departs for the Tories amidst some acrimony, its two longest-standing MEPs face growing questions over their role in trying to extract large sums of monies from their political opponents by agreeing not to run candidates against them, huge questions remain over far-right infiltration of the party at its highest levels and resultant widescale cover-ups, unanswered accusations of internal electoral malpractise with guilty parties allowed to continue in their party posts, rigged disciplinary hearings and non-hearings, suspended volunteer committees and goodness knows what next........

Amidst all this, the party telephone membership sales campaign continues!

Isn't there some kind of restriction on misrepresentation of products being sold over the telephone in the UK? I always thought there was. How are they really selling UKIP, you can bet your life its not the real product displayed on these pages! Here is a clue from one missed sale, posted this afternoon on an internet e-mail discussion forum.

This afternoon a very pleasant young chap, who said his name was George, phoned me up to tell me that I had expressed an interest in UKIP and to ask me if I would like to join. I gave him a very condensed resmume of the reasons why I had left. He then asked me if I would like to give a donation!

With the hundreds of thousands of pounds of salaries, paid to UKIP from the EU, it should have been possible to give this recruiter a properly classified list of prospects.

I mention this because one local UKIP office holder phoned me up to ask if the rumour was correct that I was rejoining UKIP. Much as I respect the local volunteers of UKIP (who are the salt of the earth), what I know about the leadership from three years ago and from right up to date on persuade me differently.

Pity we haven't a greater readership among the public at large. Every genuinely concerned voter conned into joining UKIP is one less likely recruit for any political party genuinely concerned about the encroachments of the EU upon our democracy. Those who know the facts should be pushing for resolution of this ongoing fiasco. Especially those with the power and responsibility to act, namely, the members of the NEC!

posted by Martin |8:30 PM

Implications of Dr North's Resignation

The following is an e-mail circulated by Michael Cassidy, Secretary of one of the two, still suspended, UKIP Regional Committees.

24 August 2003

Re: Richard North's defection to the Conservative Party

The news that North has defected to the Tories has come as no surprise to the Yorkshire Regional Committee. We had heard that he had been in contact with them back in March this year. North was specifically asked about this at the Hull hustings meeting when he denied it.

We have no knowledge of why Nigel Farage was intending to sack North, as North alleges.

This defection is further vindication of the Yorkshire Regional Committee's stance that North had ruled himself out as an EU candidate by his refusal to be interviewed. We always knew that he was not fit to be an MEP. This reinforces the need for regional committees. UKIP cannot simply hand over regional management to employees, which is what some are continuing to press for and what is now being forced on Yorkshire against the wishes of the local activists.

This defection further calls into question the judgement of those who purportedly suspended/disbanded the Yorkshire Regional Committee in order to guarantee North and his associates places on the candidates list, against the wishes of the democratically elected and accountable regional committee. The national interviews are clearly insufficient to assess the suitability of potential candidates.

UKIP has been plunged into a prolonged civil war in an attempt to further the political ambitions of someone with a flimsy commitment to the Party and the cause. The Tories will never take the UK out of the EU.

We also note the circular ostensibly put out by Peter Troy (a very close North associate) regarding free trade. Romano Prodi has already stated that any country which does not ratify the new constitution will have eemed to have left the EU and will be offered a free trade arrangement. This is not something which UKIP should be making a meal about. Nor should such subversive e-mails be circulated as being bona fide UKIP.

The political manoeuvring of North and his associates has consumed the NE and Yorkshire regions since as far back as 2000. There is now the opportunity for a fresh start, if only the leadership and the NEC have the gumption to seize it.

The NE and Yorkshire regional committees should be formally reinstated forthwith. (Our emphasis ed.)

Michael Cassidy
Yorkshire Regional Committee

posted by Martin |7:20 AM

Sunday, August 24, 2003 

More history of Nigel Farage MEP

We have received the following from Christina Speight Editor of EU Facts, Figures and Phantasies


Richard North in his resignation has made it quite clear that Nigel Farage was more responsible than anyone. To show that I am not being wise after the event these are two comments I made at the time that the cabal hi-jacked the party


Open Letter to Nigel Farage 26/1/00

"The rest of the Holmes camp can go hang - but the movement needs you"

This must be quite the nastiest accolade I have ever received and after what I said to you in my letter of 30 December unbelievably crass. The idea of 'Loyalty' is clearly a concept alien to you. I have never been in any "Holmes camp". I have throughout fought for the rights of the members to be in control of the party. The fact that that stance has led me to support
Michael Holmes is purely because you and the Nine have tried to take the members rights away while Michael Holmes supported them.

You possibly could not hear what I said about you last Saturday through the noise of your rentamob so I repeat it here...(it may not be exact but this is the gist):

One of Michael's main detractors is Nigel Farage, the party chairman, whom Michael himself appointed and who in front of the AGM publicly and emotionally declared that he would agree to be chairman saying "If Michael will have me, I will back him" But , without having first had the decency to resign as chairman, he has launched a public attack on his own Leader. How dishonourable can you get? This man also told one of the members, here today, that "of course we all know that (so-and-so from the NEC) was in weekly contact with Alan Sked. He also told another member that only 500 people in the party matter; the rest don't count! This same chairman has consistently sat on the fence and seriously delayed the settlement of all these troubles by devious tactics and thus caused the matter to drag on. The chairman may be an excellent speaker but after this, it is hard to trust his judgment or indeed trust the man himself.

It is not enough to have a big voice and a quick wit. You also need brain to go with it and some integrity. All this business of the quotes (by one reporter who copied it to PA) seem to me to be regrettable - if true -(I may check with Bill later) but utter nit-picking compared with the enormity of what you've done - your indiscretions (see the quote from my speech); your ability to make a cock-up and provide the raw material for 'leaks' and then blame Michael; your involvement with Deavin (which I am beginning to believe to be more sinister than you've admitted); your lunch with Gorman which I had heard about the same day; your insincerity (in pretending to be helping while dancing to the tune played by the Nine); your personal involvement in business and other matters with two of the Nine; your double-dealing, backstabbing, disloyalty and treachery.

And now you have the gall to suggest I should come with you down that path. I reject such a dishonourable proposal with contumely but I reserve the right to make it public.


AND a letter to subscribers to Facts, Figures & Phantasies about the same time:
"One of the party's MEPs, Nigel Farage, topped the poll for the NEC. Members voted for him presumably because he has the ability to speak well and project our case. But I find it intolerable that they should have ignored his indiscretions ; his ability to make a cock-up and provide the raw material for 'leaks' and then blame others for them; his lack of judgment regarding the lunch with Gorman, who has now been disciplined by the House of Commons; his refusal to do anything publicly to deal with serious allegations made about his association with right-wing extremists; his double-dealing, backstabbing, disloyalty and treachery."


Other material continues to arrive, thus making it certain that this will be a topic to which we will feel compelled to return.

posted by Martin |2:07 PM

EDD Resignation follow-up

Further to our post of 22nd August regarding the resignation of Dr North from the Group EDD, the following extra detail is now being widely circulated with the blame laid squarely at the door of Nigel Farage, UKIP's increasingly controversial MEP:

"As to my resignation, it was a question of jumping before I was pushed. The ever-gallant Nigel Farage MEP went to Brussels on Thursday to demand of my boss, Jens-Peter Bonde, that I was sacked forthwith.

I learned the next day when JPB's secretary-general rung up to say that she had been instructed to "fire" me. I chose to resign rather than be sacked, although I had in any even been planning to resign on 1 September, so all it did was bring it forward a couple of weeks.

However, it is instructive that Farage did not even have the balls - or the courtesy - even to ring me up and tell me personally that he was having me fired. He left it for a functionary to tell me."

Further information regarding this controversial MEP has appeared in other fora, and we are seeking the Author's permission to reproduce it here.

posted by Martin |10:09 AM

Saturday, August 23, 2003 

Cole’s Disqualification (continued)

In the course of my attempts to alert what I imagined was an honourably intentioned UKIP National Executive Committee to the major malpractices which it was clear were being undertaken by MEP candidate Peter Troy in the North East region this e-mail exchange occurred between Party Chairman David Lott, Party Vice-Chairman Mike Nattrass and myself :-

The last was received from Chairman Lott on 28th March 2003 and was later to be quoted as the first official warning as to my possible disqualification in spite of appearing as no more than a mild rebuke delivered to both Nattrass and myself:-

Can we please put a stop to these widely circulated emails. I do not think that you will resolve these issues on the internet maybe a phone call and a chat would be a good idea. I must remind you Martin that round robin emails that criticise fellow candidates are strictly forbidden. It is time to leave it to the voters.

The following was the exchange to which this e-mail referred:-

Dear Mr Nattrass,

Reference your e-mail below

You say "I note your comments but the fact is that all the NEC require is fair play. Allowing a candidate to take part once approved is fair play."

As I explained to David Lott earlier today, I was an approved candidate who had made my application before the original 31st October 2002 deadline (not the extended end-November one that apparently applies elsewhere).

My first choice area was South West England, second choice North East England, that I changed at the Party's request in the absence of other candidates for the North East.

On 29th January 2003, I was told by the Party Chairman that I could not then be considered for the South West region, although the hustings meetings had not then begun.

On 24th March 2003 I learnt two candidates who made the North East their second choice, but did not attend the Hustings, will now be considered for the postal ballot.

I also now learn that you were also an approved candidate for the North East, a fact not previously revealed. Were you and the others approved candidates on 21st November 2002, at the time of my meeting with Michael Harvey and Damian Hockney? If so were they aware of this fact?

Do you consider the above "Fair Play"?

*****************Section discussing bankruptcy implications deleted************

You ask:-
Why anyone would think that he (Peter Troy ed.) had any special link to the secretary or those responsible for selection I do not know, as they are there to see fair play and have no vote.

What other rational explanation can there be for not only recent events regarding the suspension of the North East Regional Committee, an earlier such suspension involving Troy (later withdrawn) and the attempt by the two Party Secretaries to slur all five candidates with the possibility of their having been bankrupt.

***************Further bankruptcy point deleted***************************

How would you have liked to be accused at a public meeting of having been bankrupt? What would you have felt if an attempt was made to prevent you defending yourself from such a charge, by spurious rule manipulation which supposedly exist to aid the party members to select the best qualified candidate?

Indeed at this point I must ask what has any of this got to do with an honest effort to find the best candidates to procure Britain's withdrawal from the EU?

Towards the end of your e-mail you make the following points about the new members:-

"Troy you say is joining new members. That is what we should all be doing. He has also started new branches. If what you say is correct these members will see what a shady character he is and vote elsewhere."

One such new member is apparently Trevor Agnew (as advised by Derek Clark). Agnew had previously been known as a BNP member and asked to leave the party by Mr Brown and Mr Rouse. It is inconceivable to me that his re-recruitment was unknown to Peter Troy and in my opinion is not unconnected to the expected postal ballot.

Why has a list of the recent 16 per cent surge in Members in Troy's area not been notified to the Regional Committee with full details of the new members names. This event occurred before the suspension, and had proper procedures been followed the adverse press coverage regarding BNP could have been avoided.

I am afraid your reply to my original e-mail makes me even more concerned for the welfare of the party than I had earlier been. Signed Martin Cole

posted by Martin |9:47 AM

Friday, August 22, 2003 

The Times

We have paid for and read with incredulity the articles that appeared in The Times newspaper mentioned by Barbara Booker in the preceding post. They throw much greater light on the plot, apparently co-ordinated by Nigel Farage, to extort money from the Tories at the time of the last General Election.

Unhappily Times Newspapers being an organisation more concerned with the collection of money than the dissemination of the truth, prohibits us from reproducing the relevant articles on this blog, or even from making more than one print copy of its contents.

Those wishing to become better acquainted with the facts of this matter must therefore pay their own dues to the vast Murdoch media empire, quoting these references:-

Edition 5L FRI 02 MAR 2001, Page 1
Tory peer offered anti-EU party Pounds 2m to drop candidates

Edition 5L FRI 02 MAR 2001, Page 6
How Euro-plot was born among the heather

posted by Martin |8:41 PM

Further exchanges regarding Teignbridge

Following our post of this morning on the above topic, this message was posted on by Christina Speight Editor of EU Facts, Figures and Phantasies

Note that Lord Exmouth WANTED not to oppose staunch eurosceptic Patrick Nicholls but UKIP HQ has no principles and decided to wreck a eurosceptic's chance of election. Britain lost!

To which, the following reply was posted by another regular UKIP Uncovered correspondent, Barbara Booker

Subject: [eurofaq] Re: Lack of principle ?

Well, here's a funny thing! The Times, 2/3/01, quoted from a confidential report to the UKIP executive by Nigel Farage, detailing
his discussions with Lord Pearson of Rannoch over the possibility of UKIP candidates standing down in favour of eurosceptic
Conservatives (for up to £2 million). It is claimed that Nigel Farage said to Lord Pearson:

"Ours is an entirely democratic party. I cannot order the constituency parties to stand or not to stand"

Who was lying? Nigel Farage to Lord Pearson, the UKIP leadership to Lord Exmouth, or Lord Exmouth to UKIP Uncovered?

All good questions to be added to the growing mountain of similar ones the UKIP leadership continues to ignore!

posted by Martin |5:32 PM

EDD Resignation

The following resignation letter, which is self-explanatory has just been posted on various internet discussion fora.


Mr Jens-Peter Bonde MEP
Group EDD
European Parliament
Rue Weirtz
Brussels 1047

22 August 2003

Dear Mr Bonde,

I am writing formally to advise you that, from 1 September 2003, I am tendering my resignation from the Group EDD, and therefore from my post in the European Parliament. My termination of employment will take effect from 1 December 2003, following the customary three-month notice period.

In so writing, I have to say that it has been a pleasure working with you and that you retain my greatest respect and admiration for the way you conduct the Group.

However, a situation has arisen with the national Party (UKIP), where its conduct has fallen so far short of anything that could reasonably be tolerated that I felt obliged to resign as a member. Having done so, it is clear that my position in the European Parliament is no longer tenable.

It is with great regret that I have taken this step and will always remember my time in the Group with the greatest affection. I would be obliged if you would convey my regards and thanks to the other members and staff, and particularly Klo.

Yours sincerely,
Richard North (Dr)

We, of course, are unsurprised by this particular reference: "However, a situation has arisen with the national Party (UKIP), where its conduct has fallen so far short of anything that could reasonably be tolerated that I felt obliged to resign as a member."

posted by Martin |4:43 PM

Teignbridge 2001

We have received the following reply to the query we raised with Viscount Exmouth, UKIP's candidate for the Teignbridge constituency in the last General Election.

'In reply to your query, perhaps I should point out that candidates stand for election representing the views of their chosen party and should not be influenced by those of specific individuals.

In June 2001 I stood for the UK Independence Party, in the Teignbridge Constituency, which opposed the Tory doctrine of never withdrawing from the European Union. In so doing I challenged my good friend Tory Eurocseptic Patrick Nicholls, not because of his personal political views but because of his parties stance on Europe, which requires no further explanation.

It is worth noting, I suggested to the leadership that I withdraw giving Patrick Nicholls a better chance and thus obtaining much PR for the Party. The suggestion was rejected.'

The full post on this topic dated 18th August 2003 can be found by scrolling down or
by clicking here.

posted by Martin |7:55 AM

Thursday, August 21, 2003 

The Yorkshire and North East Complaint Revisited 4

The Euro-Election Committee having acted so arbitrarily and outside of its powers and authority, apparently at any and every whim of its Chairman Nigel Farage, as described in Complaint Revisited 3 it was clear that an urgent meeting of the NEC was immediately needed to add some legitimacy to Farage's actions. The ruling cabal at this point must have determined that their actions had been so far beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour that a full NEC meeting would leave them exposed to censure and even defeat.

A hurried and illegal meeting was therefore called for 21st March, rushing to rubber stamp Farage's actions in the EEC before a full and properly constituted meeting of the NEC, that others were already arranging for 24th March, could be held to bring them to account. In the words of the Complaint:-

3. The NEC did not overrule the EEC even though the NEC knew that its subcommittee was exceeding its authority and acting in breach of its own rules, as set out above.

4. The NEC conducted an emergency meeting on the 21 March 2003 which was not properly constituted. The notice given was less than 24 hours and there was no motion contained in the notice, contrary to paragraph 7.14 of the constitution. The unconstitutional meeting was proceeded with in preference to a properly constituted one planned for the 24 March.

We now further understand that one of the five NEC members giving the notice of such already unconstitutional meeting was Party Treasurer, John de Roeck an ex officio member of the NEC who according to our sources was solely entitled to attend NEC meetings in a non-voting capacity as was stipulated at the time of his appointment as Party Treasurer, in late May 2000.

Mr de Roeck may wish to correct our understanding of this matter, or otherwise explain how he came to have his name added to the e-mail calling the emergency meeting which we are informed was transmitted at 3:31 PM on March 20, 2003 for a meeting at 3:00 PM the next day further proof positive of its unconstitutionality. We will publish his comments in full.

Of course this is not the first time UKIP's NEC have acted illegally. Some of those present today were also involved in continuing in office having overlooked the detail of seeking re-election. They were so advised by their legal counsel and fellow NEC member a QC who has subsequently died and is therefore regrettably unable to tell us which, if any, of today's existing NEC he would include in the term 'evil men' which he is reported to us as having used in one of his last e-mails to a now ex-UKIP member.

How these dirty dealings have been allowed to rumble on. For how much longer we must ask?

posted by Martin |2:45 PM

Wednesday, August 20, 2003 

Government's EU Web Site

On the basis that it is always as well to know as much as possible about what your adversaries are up to there follows a link to the British Government's new web site covering the European Union. Britain and the EU

We will also place a permanent link on our side bar, close to that other invaluable reference source 'Britain in Europe'

posted by Martin |8:28 AM

Tuesday, August 19, 2003 

Martin Cole's 1st April Warning to the NEC

In describing the events that led up to the disqualification of Martin Cole (the writer of this blog) as an MEP candidate for UKIP some fairly detailed back-up is unhappily essential. There were many e-mails exchanged which can be quoted as relevant, but one critical item was that which he sent to all the UKIP NEC, for whom he had an e-mail address, on Ist April 2003, summarising his concerns regarding the BNP and UKIP connections in the North East and his particular doubts over the activities of fellow candidate, Peter Troy, all of which have since been found, by an internal party inquiry, to have been fully justified.

BNP and UKIP Connections

On Saturday 22nd March, 2003 an article appeared in "The Northern Echo” Darlington’s daily newspaper under the following banner headline:-


By Liz Lamb

Along with a general description of plans by the BNP to run several candidate’s in the upcoming local council elections it made the following statement:-

Last night Trevor Agnew, a former UK Independence Party candidate in the town, said he was considering standing for the British National Party.

The Northern Echo understands that if Mr Agnew, of Davison Road, Darlington plans to stand, he will campaign for the North Road ward.

He said: "I am toying with the idea but nothing has been decided yet.

"I certainly will be supporting the Tyne and Wear drive for both the BNP and the UK Independence Party.

"The North Road ward has a tradition of protest voting. There is a good chance you could open that up.

"I am quite busy at the moment so I am not sure if I am going to stand. It will be decided at the weekend but nothing is confirmed.”

Mr Agnew last stood in May 1999 as the UK Independence party candidate for the Harrowgate Hill ward.

The full article can be obtained by clicking the attached link:-
Right-wingers target town

I wrote a reply to the newspaper concerned as follows:-

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:26:24 +0200
From: "M.T. Cole"
Subject: Racialist Politics
Dear Sir,
I am writing regarding the report in your edition of 22nd March 2003 by Liz Lamb, which stated a Mr Trevor Agnew of Darlington was considering tanding as a candidate for both UKIP and BNP in the upcoming council elections.
The United Kingdom Independence Party, for whom I hope to be a North East candidate in the European Parliamentary elections planned for June 2004, is a strictly non-racist party which has no association whatsoever with the BNP.
I have checked with UKIP's regional committee's secretary who has no record of Mr Agnew presently being a UKIP member. It would be no more possible for a candidate to stand as both UKIP and BNP than it would to have a Councillor elected for both Labour and the Conservatives. I have also requested clarification of Mr Agnew's party status from our London Head Office
from whom I expect a reply this week.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Cole.
Prospective MEP UKIP candidate for the North East Region)

I copied this letter to UKIP Party Secretary Michael Harvey who replied with the following:-

From: "Michael Harvey"
Subject: FW: Racialist Politics
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:37:44 -0000
Thanks for this. I will check on Mr Agnew first thing tomorrow. As an addendum to your letter it may be worth adding that all UKIP
Candidates and Party Officers are required to sign a declaration which includes the following:
"I have never engaged in or advocated or condoned racist, violent, criminal or anti-democratic activity nor have I ever been a member of or had any links with any such organisation or group, association with which the National Executive Committee [of UKIP] considers is liable to bring the Party into disrepute."
The BNP falls into this category, so any person with any links with the BNP would most certainly not be welcome in UKIP.

It would appear from the above letter that Trevor Agnew was a complete unknown to UKIP. This was absolutely not the case!

As long ago as 1999 he had been asked to leave the party when NE Regional Chairman Rodney Atkinson was alerted to his BNP membership by the Tyne and Wear Anti- Fascist Association. See the extract from their 1999 Chair’s Report:-

Darlington: in Darlington, there was an attempt to revive the BNP branch in the autumn of 1999. Convicted football hooligan Paul Thompson, who has been active as a fascist for the best part of a decade, was put forward as the dupe who would run the Post Office box

THE ORIGINAL E-MAIL CARRIED A PICTURE HERE of Paul Thompson (right) and Trevor Agnew (centre) march ahead of former BNP boss John Tyndall

Another Darlington fascist, Trevor Agnew, has also raised his head over the past year. In the May local elections he stood as a UK Independence Party candidate. When TWAFA pointed out his murky past he was duly kicked out of the party. Lately, he has been writing to the Northern Echo complaining about the presence of refugees. At one point, Trevor was a member of the Green Party in Darlington.

Tyne and Wear Anti Fascist Association Chairs Report 1999 (Scroll down the page to Darlington)

Nor is this all: for this same Trevor Agnew had made another application to UKIP London Head Office around the time of the last election, but North East Regional Committee members in Newcastle got wind of this and warned London off.

Why then was Agnew again applying for UKIP membership and making the following incredible statement:-


These words come from a resident of and voter in Darlington. Why then does he talk about the Tyne and Wear which with the Tees defines the divide that so characterises the region?

Only one explanation is possible: the only time a Darlington voter can possibly give joint consideration to the Tyne and Wear is in an election combining these areas, namely, a European Parliamentary election.

But why join UKIP now? Agnew could remain in BNP and happily use his vote for an apparent UKIP candidate whom he knows is a closet BNP supporter, without ever having to declare himself.

I surmise there is only one answer to this question, which is of course that the "drive" to further the interests of BNP and UKIP was threatened by my candidature, as Peter Troy began to contemplate the prospect of defeat in fair and open hustings and a postal ballot contest. In his own drive for support in that critical ballot he found himself forced to recruit from BNP.

How could the "drive" to further the interests of BNP and UKIP be damaged at this particular time? Only by the defeat of a UKIP MEP candidate who is secretly pledged to further BNP's interests. In my view there are two main candidates who appear to have good reason to believe they might get poll position in the North East Region, myself and Peter Troy. Of we two it is absurd to believe that I could have recruited Agnew or any of the other 27 new members, that have suddenly taken up UKIP Party Membership from the south end of the region.

Troy in whose interests Agnew could only have been re-recruited is clearly now in breach of the UKIP candidate declaration which states:-
Quote nor have I ever been a member of or had any links with any such organisation or group, association with which the National Executive Committee [of UKIP] considers is likely to bring the party into disrepute Unquote
As Michael Harvey said to me in the e-mail I previously quoted "The BNP falls into this category, so any person with any links with the BNP would most certainly not be welcome in UKIP"!!!!!!!!!

Peter Troy therefore must be required to withdraw his candidature for consideration as European MEP for the Party, and resign his UKIP membership, as his links to BNP are clear.

Some might consider this harsh but let me remind the members of the National Executive exactly what it is that the BNP represents. The following are extracts from two FAQ’s on BNP’s website:-


I will quote just two of the obnoxious and scientifically inaccurate statements available from the link above:-


Q: When you talk about being "British" what do you mean?
A: We mean the bonds of culture, race, identity and roots of the native British peoples of the British Isles. We have lived in these islands near on 40,000 years! We were made by these islands, and these islands are our home. When we in the BNP talk about being British, we talk about the native peoples who have lived in these islands since before the Stone Age, and the relatively small numbers of peoples of almost identical stock, such as the Saxons, Vikings and Normans, and the Irish, who have come here and assimilated.

Q: Why are you against mixed-raced relationships?
A: We are against mixed-raced relationships because we believe that all species and races of life on this planet are beautiful and must be preserved. When whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed. And, of course, the same is true of the non-white side. We want generations that spring from us to be the same as us, look like us, and be moved by the same things as us. We feel that to preserve the rich tapestry of mankind, we must preserve ethnic differences, not ‘mish-mash’ them together.

When I joined UKIP I was of the clear understanding the Party was strictly non-racist.
In my recent speech at Newcastle University I made a major point of defending British Multiculturalism, which in light of this present situation now appears somewhat of a nonsense. An extract of what I said, which seemed very well received by the students, (and indeed Neil Herron and I resoundingly defeated the motion) follows:-

Motion “Should Britain Further Integrate with Europe?”

(Extract from Cole's speech regarding muliculturalism)

"Who can be against Integration? I mean it stands to reason, does it not, that to be against integration must make one in favour of Segregation, supporting such concepts as Apartheid and lets face it, perhaps even risk being accused of Racism!
But yes, you’ve guessed it; I am against this integration. Here I stand, shamelessly before you tonight to do just that. I oppose further integration of this country into the European Union and what is more I do so partly in the name of British multi-culturalism.
"Let me explain my reasons: Europe while in the process of extending its borders, is defining its character on the basis of a common European heritage and seems to me to be seeking to unite its peoples by the fostering of antagonism towards outsiders. The EU is in danger of creating a new menace of intolerance in what can only be described as EU supra-nationalism. Like nationalism, yet even more dangerous because of its vast sweep.
Britain with its long history as a maritime trading nation, has links, ties and friendships on each of the six populated continents of the world. In this auditorium tonight I would wager we could find those with friends or relatives from right across the globe.
In recent years I have visited five of those six continents and I can vouch that those ties are real and strong. I have met many different peoples some of whom are proud to trace their links back to these islands. While back in the UK I have shared dining tables with fellow countrymen and women whose own roots can be traced from Hong Kong to Trinidad and Fiji to Singapore. Why are we now being asked to sacrifice all this and integrate with the navel-gazing and culturally self-obsessed peoples of mainland Europe?
"I have also lived in Europe, it has some fantastic countries and wonderful people. But learning foreign languages and experiencing new cultures is a challenge and joy wherever that country may be on the globe. And that surely is the point often overlooked in the debate, Europe has no monopoly on either wonderful countries nor friendly people.
"To me the problem is this. Europe in pursuing a common identity or role, seems to seek to exclude, searching for common threads of heritage solely related to its own region and defining itself by what it is not, unlike we British who are unafraid to rank ourselves by what we are and not mainly from where we came."

Unhappily disposing of the problem of Peter Troy will solve nothing. For other deep problems still remain. A few of the immediate questions are those surrounding the strategy adopted by Head Office staff in London.

No further action seems to have been taken on Monday 24th March as promised by Michael Harvey, Head Office only moved when I sent my round robin e-mail to all members of the UKIP National Executive and other concerned UKIP members on the following Tuesday 25th March, 2003 20:17 “North East Regional Committee and Wider UKIP Problems”. Derek Clark’s explanation of the steps taken did not arrive until late Wednesday afternoon.

Some of the other major queries that now arise:-
“Why were the names of the 28 new members recruited in the southern half of the NE region not advised to the Regional Committee’s secretary as normal procedure would require?”

The suggestion that the suspension of the North East and Yorkshire and Humberside Committees, might have been the cause cannot hold water as the North East’s secretary had already received a congratulatory e-mail in respect of the surge in membership before the 8th March meeting which triggered Troy’s panic approach to London and resulted in the sordid episode of the suspension and solicitor’s letters.

“Why was no action taken to expel Agnew or seek his resignation until after my e-mail to all the National Executive, especially considering Michael Harvey’s Sunday assurance that steps would be taken the following day?”

There are many other serious questions remaining. I will continue to search for answers so that the National Executive can have as many of the facts as is possible ahead of their next Committee meeting which I understand is scheduled for 11th April.
I believe Britain deserves a non-racist anti-EU political party and following recent events I am unconvinced that this is currently available.

Two days after sending this I received a warning of disqualification which itself followed soon after. All the circumstance of my candidature will be fully detailed as time permits. Meantime the nub of the matter is clear from the above. Given the speech I made to the Newcastle students, and the lack of response to my concerns from London Head Office, my later declaration of not continuing my candidature without a complete change of UKIP's Leadership was even then becoming inevitable.

posted by Martin |1:24 PM

Money Talks

The following report from the Midlands indicates UKIP's troubles have now clearly reached that part of the world as well. Whether the symptoms have spread down from the North or up from the South West is of course at this stage hard to determine.

This was the wording of the advice we received:-

I understand that the three UKIP members running the anti regionalisation campaign in the W Midlands have pulled out and let a lot of people down because the Gestapo running the party insist they concentrate on the EU elections.

In other words elected MEP's bring in money.

The question to be asked is of course what do they actually do towards getting Britain out of Europe, and the answer to that as can be seen by the performance of UKIP's three present MEPs is absolutely nothing!


posted by Martin |9:58 AM

Monday, August 18, 2003 

The Teignbridge Constituency General Election Campaign 2001

In the 1997 General Election, Teignbridge, a constituency lying in what is generally acknowledged to be one of the most beautiful parts of the country, and of particular importance to this writer as it filled my daily morning view throughout most of my formative years, was the scene of what seems to have been a particulary unsavoury event in what now increasingly appears to have been UKIP's steady shift, knowingly or otherwise, to becoming a force for promoting the integration of Britain within the European Union.

In 1997 this traditionally safe Conservative seat was held by its sitting MP Patrick Nicholls by the narrowest of margins only 281 seats. It would appear from published material on the history of this MP that he could hardly have been considered insufficiently anti-European for UKIP's tastes, even when compared to some of their own more outspoken members, having at one time been forced to resign as the Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party in December 1994 after comments he made attacking Germans as “warmongers” and the French as "collaborators”.

This fact was highlighted in a report in the Daily Telegraph on 17th February 2001 stating that the Tories are bitter that the UKIP is running candidates in the general election against eurosceptics and continues:-

Patrick Nicholls, the only Tory calling for British withdrawal from the EU, is being challenged by UKIP's Viscount Exmouth the article then refers to the wafer-thin majority of 281 in Teignbridge.

It would appear, from the earlier part of the paper's report, that UKIP's two MEPs were not relishing having adopted this position having been cold-shouldered on the plane to Strasbourg when 'none of the Tory MEPs would talk to them, and eye contact was studiously avoided at the Members' Bar'. (Is Nigel Farage in as complete and absolute control of the party as he likes to imply, this snippet makes us wonder? Or did the two MEPs realise they had monumentally gaffed and that by then, they lacked the courage to pull back?)

The full results of both the 1997 and 2001 general elections can be found by following this link to the BBC News Vote 2001 Results Service.

As all now well know the result was a complete disaster for all opposed to the further integration of their country into the European Union, and one that was not unhappily unique to Devon. The victor in Teignbridge was a candidate from the most Euro-federalist party within the United Kingdom, the Liberal Democrats, and it is their MP, a Mr Richard Younger-Ross from Surrey, who ousted the locally born Mr Nicholls and now connives in last week's looting of the local seas by French fishermen, while their West Country counterparts are compelled to toss their own catches into once British waters from whence they were caught (see our weekend postings on Ironies for details).

It would have appeared that Patrick Nicholls would have been an ideal candidate as a UKIP MP. Staunchly patriotic, on record as having never been prepared to give up the pound BBC On The Record - Broadcast: 11.03.01:-

PATRICK NICHOLLS MP: "As far as the single currency is concerned I shall say what I said last time which is that I personally wouldn't vote to go into a single currency in any circumstances whatsoever."

The question that must now be urgently answered is whether those who contrived the UKIP policy, that resulted in this defeat of the one MP openly proposing British withdrawal from Europe, were motivated by the money or by the desire to deliberately sabotage and weaken the anti-EU forces within the UK. Both alternatives are equally despicable of course, but how loyal members of UKIP are now to best act can surely be only be determined by the truth coming out? Is there any other reason for this insanity. If any in UKIP can put forward a case we will happily publish it here on the blog, and thereafter rip it apart.

Readers wishing to be reminded of the cash for candidates matter can go via this link goes to one of our early posts on Nigel Farage's extortion attempt from the Conservative Party as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 30th January 2001

Had the incidents such as that in Teignbridge and other constituencies during the last general election been unique then, conceivably, money could be seen as perhaps the main motivating force, and indeed it could have been argued that the money could then have been more effectively used in the anti-EU cause. That did not happen however and our candidates continued to run against known and respected Eurosceptic Tories even when there could have been no doubt regarding their non-federalist credentials, for example: John Redwood, Richard Bacon and Paul Goodman. (The latter two also quoted on the BBC Live report linked above).

The squandering of resources in the recent Welsh Assembly elections particularly, but also the attempt to cover the country in the local council elections had to dilute the effectiveness of the party's campaign, and argues that the accumulation of money is not the cause of the problem, albeit leaving open the question of whether the joy of spending it might not play a role.

Even more significantly for myself, and speaking entirely personally, the events of my own disqualification as an MEP candidate, prepared to devote a year of my time at my own expense to furthering the anti-EU cause by campaigning for UKIP in the NE or SW of the country, with my concurrent donation of cash and almost a thousand copies of my novel, seemed only to fill the party with horror and the kind of panic counter-measures that have now been revealed in these pages. My own case weakens the argument that money has been a determining factor in UKIP actions, as will become clear when the facts of my disqualification are fully revealed. What is left? Only deliberate sabotage of the anti-EU cause seems to remain to meet all the facts now becoming known.

A regular correspondent has recently taken to labelling the UK Independence Party EUKIP. I have yet to inquire what that might exactly represent, but I have one suggestion: European/United Kingdom Integration Party, it certainly seems to better describe all their recent disastrous (for their members) policies.

posted by Martin |1:10 PM

Infiltration Update

We have been told that the Peterborough item from which we quoted regarding UKIP's short serving Press Officer, Chris Jones, appeared in the edition of 30th September 2000.

We are also told that the following item was published in The Daily Telegraph on 24th May 2001:-

"Last night Nigel Farage, a UKIP MEP and a candidate in Bexhill, said the party could 'have been infiltrated by all sorts of people' in the past, but added:'Our antennae has been attuned to all of this" He confirmed however that a memo had been sent out by Chris Jones, a former UKIP Press Officer, to supporters claiming that the party had been infiltrated".

We have been unable to find internet links for either of these items. The only firm conclusion we are able to reach at present on all this is that Press Officers seem to pose continuing problems for the party.

posted by Martin |12:17 PM

Sunday, August 17, 2003 

Handling adverse publicity or The UKIP Image

The following is part of a statement put out by the National Press Officer of the U.K. Independence Party, Mark Croucher on 13th August 2003.

****, perhaps we should follow your example and become good examples for UKIP by slandering party officials, the leadership, the NEC, the General Secretary and perhaps some of the membership too, suggest unproven impropriety in the preparation of the accounts and the conduct of internal elections, and all in a public forum for good measure? Perhaps we could suggest that paid party workers have been bribed and corrupted by the EU too? Would that help? Oh, lets not forget your ‘model’ north east committee, who smeared an innocent volunteer in the press to support their absurd assertions; perhaps we could do some of that as well, just to salvage our reputations?

Contrary to what readers might at first think, the above diatribe was not directed at UKIP Uncovered but rather at one of their own party stalwarts and hard-working volunteers; it having been posted on a yahoo discussion group, a transcript of which has now come our way, as these things do.

What an extraordinary statement for the Press Officer of a political party to make! We can be absolutely certain he intended it as an official party statement as it is signed as bold as brass with his name and title above the full party name.

I do not know what the reaction of the still suspended Chairman of the North East Regional Committee will be, when he returns from vacation tonight, to read the totally untrue and in my view libellous statement regarding an “innocent volunteer” being smeared, nor the Party Treasurer for that matter who found the man guilty as charged in a party organised independent inquiry. Is the UKIP Press Officer calling the Party Treasurer a LIAR?

A void in this blog, so far, has been a full account of the writer’s despicably handled disqualification from MEP candidature (others had greater and more urgent wrongs to be aired) . We will be correcting that omission with great relish, in the near future and none will be left in any doubt as to who were the guilty parties in the North East during the early part of this year. We have all the facts, and first-rate, first-hand records of who said what, to whom and when. There will be no supposition in this disgusting tale of deceit, dirty double-dealing and downright degradation.

The truth will be laid bare!

For UKIP whose very status as a euro-sceptic party has rightly been thrown into doubt, other even more serious matters will be raised when we examine in detail the events surrounding what took place in the Teignmouth Parliamentary Constituency at the last General Election. If they are to mount any kind of defence against that disgraceful incident, they might first perhaps consider the employment of a Press Officer who, if he has not yet managed to pick up the meaning of ‘sang froid’ on one of his frequent Brussels visits, at least has learnt that straying too far from well known facts has potential pitfalls.

posted by Martin |4:36 PM

Who told Tebbit?

Following on from yesterday’s post regarding Norman Tebbit’s writings about possible infiltration of UKIP by intelligence agencies, the following quotes from a newspaper clipping might provide a clue as to where such reports might have begun.

The apparent cause of The Spectator article was a conversation Tebbit had with a disgruntled former paid employee of UKIP according to the reports.

Unlike today, when paid UKIP (or EDD) employees have appeared in almost every corner of the country, disgruntled one-time party employees were I assume few and far between at the time of the last General Election. Even fewer would be those who would be likely to have the ear of Lord Tebbit. One such and therefore a possibility as the source was noted in the Peterborough column of The Daily Telegraph, where after a disparaging opening paragraph Just one year after garnering three seats in the European Parliament elections, the UK Independence Party looks in serious danger of disintegration it was reported that former Labour press chief, Chris Jones had left as the party had been unable to pay his wages or equip his office.

“It is difficult to tell whether this is incompetence or deliberate on UKIP’s part” Jones says. “ Not bothering to pay people may be normal behaviour in their lunatic world, but there is a wife and two kids in mine and this is just not OK.

“There are a lot of suspicions that prominent people in the party are not what they seem to be.”

I have been unable to determine a date when that item was first published, but it would appear to have been in the second half of the year 2000 so could tie in with the later media reports. We do accept that this is the purest speculation and could be well wide of the mark in assuming any connection between Chris Jones and the Tebbit accusations. It would be interesting to be able to pose the question however!

The last quote from the Peterbrough column, this time, the source identified only as a veteran Euro-sceptic “They hate each other, don’t have any money and don’t understand politics. UKIP isn’t long for this world.”

Wide of the mark? Perhaps. But, in the view of many, only really wildly wrong about the money.

posted by Martin |1:26 PM

Saturday, August 16, 2003 

UKIP and the Secret Services?

Look at UKIP in any kind of depth at all, and it becomes clear why, when Norman Tebbit wrote that the party could be infiltrated by the secret services, the general attitude of many in the party was reportedly not one of complete surprise. In a report 'Tebbit secret agent claim', the following is quoted by the BBC:-

Lord Tebbit told the BBC: "A chap came to me and said the UK Independence Party has been infiltrated by the British intelligence services and then he gave me two names of people.

"From various ways I came to the conclusion that I was absolutely and completely certain that these people, although they had left the service and the Foreign Office some years earlier, in fact had been intelligence agents."

Lord Tebbit said he had contacted one of the men who had denied the allegation when it was put to him.

Tony Stone present UKIP NEC member quoted in an election article in the Daily Telegraph at the time said "Politics is a dirty game and anything is possible" .

The original article by Lord Tebbit appeared in The Spectator where interestingly enough the Cover Story of this week's edition returns to the same theme, How Labour has subverted British Intelligence which would seem to add more credibility to the suspicions voiced by Norman Tebbit, in my view one of the more astute politicians of recent years.

Up to this point I have tended to find somewhat unbelievable the idea that it could be members of Britain's MI6 that were directing the apparently incompetent activities of the UKIP leadership in order to undermine the euro-realist movement. The article in the Spectator adds some extra credence to the theory but not yet sufficient to convince me.

It would be interesting to know the identities of the two men Tebbit implies were involved. Up to this point I had understood one of the supposed infiltrators was a woman. Information anybody please?

posted by Martin |9:40 AM

Friday, August 15, 2003 

Look Back in Anguish

None of the problems recounted over these many pages are of course new, as we were reminded by the arrival in the post of a leaflet from the past yesterday. Just as the problems within UKIP seem unchanged so can their source be traced back to one individual, Nigel Farage MEP.

We quote directly the first few paragraphs of the leaflet first circulated early in the year 2000. Headed by the UKIP Logo, it begins:-



We tried but.....

We have had enough

Dear friends,


Now a new party leader has been elected. Jeffrey Titford won by only 15 votes the narrowest of margins, from Rodney Atkinson (who we felt would at least have given UKIP a fighting chance). We are convinced that this election result condemns UKIP to the far right. Mr Titford was supported by Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage may have a strident speaking style which UKIP’s more aggressive members seem to admire but his actions politically have been disastrous for UKIP. He has been instrumental in deposing UKIP’s past leaders and attacks potential leaders. As UKIP Party Chairman his inaction and poor judgement allowed the extended leadership crisis, a lack of proper party procedures, bad decision making, a continuing lethargy within UKIP and botched attempts at high level defections to UKIP.

While Mr Farage holds important positions in UKIP his well publicised links to the British National Party will keep sabotaging the efforts of other UKIP members.


The long leaflet continues by covering the many other areas where UKIP faced potential problems, many of which remain to this day. The significant point to us, this morning, is that it identifies in the opening paragraphs the main culprit for UKIP's past, and from recent posts on these pages all too clearly present and ongoing, problems as being mainly due to one man, namely, Nigel Farage MEP. It predicts Jeffrey Titford as UKIP leader would be as a marionette dancing to the tune of its political puppet masters, and while one such it mentions was not long to remain in his post, its prediction as to the role of Nigel Farage appears spot-on, as quickly evidenced shortly after in the contradictory versions of the truth provided by the two MEPs in the Video Tape Copyright case.

Others named in the leaflet, some of whom are still upon the scene and thus continue to be liable to charges of complicity in allowing this electorally disastrous situation to fester, recur and poison the anti-EU cause within the UK. The vast amount of funds as disclosed as emanating from the EU coffers has been squandered and the money collected from new members anxious to join the fight against the EU is frittered away in ways the party accounts clearly fail to explain. The anti-EU cause within the UK has been effectively neutered and stymied by one individual who is allowed to continue his schemes year after year courtesy of the fear, indifference or some other factor that totally weakens the resolve of the only body that has the power to put matters to rights, namely, the National Executive Committee of UKIP

Seventeen senior and perceptive ex-party members put their name to this leaflet and stated that a further 200 UKIP members wanted to be associated with their statement. THEY HAVE BEEN LOST TO UKIP ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS OF SIMILAR CALIBRE.

Meanwhile the simple remedy of removing NIGEL FARAGE from any further party office or influence is endlessly ignored!

posted by Martin |6:45 AM

Thursday, August 14, 2003 

The Yorkshire and NE Complaint Revisited 3

We continue burrowing behind the events of the Northern Committee's suspensions that led to the present crisis within the party. Earlier posts on this subject are linked Part One and here for Part Two

In considering the past and present situation within UKIP it has sometimes been necessary to quote and utilise material that normally we would not consider it reasonable to place into a public forum. However, when sensitive material arrives, extremely pertinent to the abuses of clearly defined party procedures that are then under consideration, such caution can no longer be justified. The e-mail we quote in this post has previously been partly quoted within the body of the Yorkshire and North East Complaint to the Disciplinary Panel by Michael Cassidy which was chaired by Denis Brookes in view of Party Secretary Derek Clark being named as a party to the complain.

We have asked Mr Brookes for an explanation as to why the complaint was so arbitrarily rejected without any kind of hearing, particularly in view of the substantial documentation clearly confirming its merit, but received no reply.

As the procedures of the party that should be aimed at ensuring good practise amongst both party members and their leaders have so clearly completely failed, there now remains no other court than that of public opinion for any justice to be salvaged from these events. We therefore will continue to back up our discussions of this matter with whatever documentation that might come to hand, while re-assuring those who are helping to bring the facts to light, that where we know their identities (not always the case) they will not be revealed.

When the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee rejected three candidates from further consideration as prospective MEP candidates for their region in the June 2004 elections, the pretence that the UKIP’s Euro-Elections Committee was anything other than a charade and vehicle for its Chairman, Nigel Farage MEP, to camouflage his attempts to influence who would stand and where, was immediately blown clean out of the water.

How Denis Brookes and the other Disciplinary Committee members, considering the Michael Cassidy Complaint, could have determined that anything like a fair procedure then followed beggars belief when the full content of the e-mail Farage so promptly fired off via the General Secretary, to all EEC voting and non-voting members is considered, as it now can be below:-

The original e-mail is in italics while Ukip Uncovered comments can be noted here and there in bold letters although substantive comment follows.

As you are all aware, the rules governing candidate approval, short-listing and ranking were drawn up by the European Elections Committee. All aspects of this process were discussed in detail and agreed by vote.

Unfortunately, the North East, and Yorkshire and Humberside representatives opposed virtually every stage at these meetings However, as nine other regions approved the plan, democracy won the day. Despite this democratic mandate, the Chairman of Yorkshire and Humberside has, yesterday, written to Candidate 1 informing him that he has been deselected as a Candidate For the European elections.

After healthy debate procedures were agreed. There was no deselection of any candidate. These three failed to make it onto the Yorkshire short list.

Key considerations:

1. Candidate 1. (name removed ed.) is an approved candidate on the UKIP national list.

2. Yorkshire and Humberside were not over-quota on candidates and therefore short-listing was not necessary.

This is disputed by Yorkshire who had 13 candidates for 7 seats. The NE never received a full candidate list from Head Office

This is an act of open defiance against the agreed position of the EEC and NEC. Under the procedures that we agreed, candidates who were not short-listed had the to right to appeal against such a judgement. I have received an appeal from Candidate 1, though technically it must be questionable whether he needs to as no short-listing was required.

It was a short-listing procedure that was involved and carried out strictly in accordance with agreed procedures as minuted

Can you please vote Yes or No to the appeal by Candidate 1, Yes if you want to see his candidacy reinstated and No if you wish to support the Yorkshire committee decision.

Based upon what?

Furthermore, two more candidates, Candidate 2 and Candidate 3 (names removed ed.), have Also been rejected. Candidate 2 is a fairly recent member of UKIP but I Was Absolutely delighted when he joined us as he is Director of the …………... In political terms, his candidacy is very valuable to us.

Candidate 3 is a long-standing member of UKIP.

I enclose

a. letter from Judith Longman.
b. appeal from Candidate 2.

Could you please vote on Candidate 2's appeal: Yes, or No, as before.

Candidate 3 has not lodged an appeal, but it would seem appropriate for the Committee to rule at the same time on his de-selection by the Y & H; committee, so please vote Yes or No to the proposal that Candidate 3 be re-instated to the Y & H list.

Again forming a view from no appeal documents and without a chance for the Committee to explain its reasoning

In the past, UKIP has been subject to two rounds of bitter internal fighting. These previous breaks of Party discipline have done UKIP more damage than anything else. I believe that this situation has the potential to cause us great damage unless Party discipline is reinforced.

Posts now under preparation will clearly illustrate that almost without exception past difficulties within the party have almost invariably been caused by just this kind of high-handed action by Nigel Farage.

Moreover, these internal disputes waste many hours of our time that could be better spent on other matters.

Therefore, I propose:

1. Suspend, with immediate effect, the Yorkshire and Humberside Committee.

2. Conduct the hustings meetings from head office.

3. Write to all current Yorkshire members informing them of Our decision and the reasons why.

4. Forbid the Chairman and Committee in Yorkshire from Communicating with our members until/unless they are reinstated.
Copy all of this correspondence, plus your votes, to all NEC members.

I ask you to vote Yes or No to these proposals.

I would also like to tell you that the Party Leader and Party Chairman have been fully informed of my action and endorse them 100 percent.

Yours faithfully,
Nigel Farage.

So much for what happened. Now let us see what should have happened.

The Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee had thirteen candidates. The party in its Draft Outline of Candidate Selection Procedure, which as far as can be determined never obtained final agreement suggested for regions with seven MEP seats a reasonable short list size for the hustings would be 12 candidates. Yorkshire had sought clarification that this was a maximum number. With 13 candidates short listing was therefore required, although from the wording of the minutes of the 7th February EEC meeting stated in paragraph 2 (b) (e) :-

“Candidates rejected at the short listing stage who wish to do so shall be required to make a formal appeal in writing stating the grounds for the appeal. The short-listing committee will be required to report to the EEC stating its reasons for not short-listing the appellant. The EEC will hear the appeal. If upheld it may not be necessary to remove another candidate from the short-list as there is a degree of flexibility in numbers. There will be a deadline for an appeal to avoid disrupting the timetable.”

….it can be seen that provisions had indeed been made for short-listing.

Given that such a procedure had been so recently agreed and minuted there is no rational explanation for any of the contents of the e-mail quoted in full above and sent out by the Committee’s chairman.
Indeed his actions become ever more incomprehensible, when it is noted he attempts to overrule the non-short listing of Candidate 3, who has not even appeared to be sufficiently concerned by matters as to launch a written appeal. The list of attachments in fact only itemises a written appeal as having been included from Candidate 2.

Evermore astoundingly he appears to make no attempt to provide the reasons why the Yorkshire Regional Committee had decided not to include these three candidates in their list. We have seen many explanations (one in particular in considerable detail running to several pages and forty-five separate paragraphs, covering their experiences of just one of their rejected candidates).

How were the voting members expected to decide whether or not the appeals were justified? Indeed in the case of Candidate 3, such would have been impossible as no appeal was lodged. It seems clear that the EEC had allowed itself to become a rubber stamping facility for whatever Nigel Farage might decide.

As to the other measures the Chairman proposes numbered from 1 to 4 and including an extraordinary attempt to restrict the right of the Committee members to further free speech. Note also how he tries to add credence and legitimacy to his angry threats by throwing in the name of the Party Leader and Chairman. Where did the NEC figure in his reckoning at this stage, the only committee with the rights to propose some of the actions he was suggesting and what was the part for the Disciplinary Panel on some of whose areas of competence he appeared to be trampling?

We do not know the result of the e-mail vote this presumably hastily sent and ill-considered communication evoked; but in view of subsequent events it appears these schemes were approved, in spite of being so far beyond any possible legitimacy, let alone within any reasonable bounds of behaviour.

We have previously thrown doubts on the calibre and lack of independence of the individuals who make up UKIP’s Disciplinary Panel. We must now query the judgement and integrity of those voting members of the Euro-Elections Committee who let their Chairman act so cavalierly and subjugated what natural instincts for justice they might once have possessed by voting in support of these actions. At least somebody has sought to make amends for this, or possibly it was a member who voted against these proposals (if there were any such) who bravely facilitated a copy of this e-mail finding its way to UKIP Uncovered

posted by Martin |5:52 PM
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
contact us
my other blogs
nigel farage
landmark links
fired treasurer
glw incitement
glw & farage
a complaint
a neutered nec
graham booth
derek clark
mark croucher
michael harvey
roger knapman
mike nattrass
buy my book
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.