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


Friday, October 31, 2003 

Tories finished as Anti-EU Factor

Following the interview with Kenneth Clarke on the 'World at One' reported on Ironies and the official announcement that John Redwood will not challenge Michael Howard the British Conservative Party is completely finished as a consideration in resisting further encroachments from the EU.

The reform of the UK Independence Party which has been the obsession of this blog over many months, partly in the fear that the hope offered by the policies and statements of Iain Duncan Smith might indeed be the false dawn they have now proved, will now move into an even higher gear.

posted by Martin |1:31 PM
 

Lost Court Proceedings

Looking at the outcome of the huge High Court set-back UKIP suffered this week it would be easy to assume it was yet another controversial event involving the incident prone Party Treasurer John de Roeck, who as Acting Returning Officer was the individual named in the action.

The "decision" to illegally disallow the election of Nikki Sinclaire to the NEC and wrongly deprive her of her place, was taken, we are told, as could only be expected, by Nigel Farage and Jeffrey Titford.

It will be useful for the more recent members of the NEC to now have an independently minded member among their number who was working at the centre of the party during so many of its formative dirty dealings. Michael Harvey, now the Party General Secretary, one assumes must be far from ecstatic as will those NEC members involved in the break-in of the London Head Office, the non-constitutional EGM, the rigged Atkinson/Titford Leadership election, the missing membership data base, the theft of the BBC video copyright, the use of party funds in personal legal disputes, questionable accounts, the dismissals of press officers, the matters uncovered in the Brian Webster Gardiner report, etc, etc.

Reading the list it becomes pretty clear why past leader Jeffrey Titford, who was involved in some of those matters and of course, Nigel Farage, whose name would seem to be involved in the majority of those affairs might, given their tendency to skirt with the fringes of the law, have been perfectly prepared to invent a reason for denying Ms Sinclaire the NEC place to which the voting entitled her, on an entirely spurious basis which seems to have been what happened.

Another UKIP Returning Officer recently disqualified an MEP candidate on equally spurious grounds and with similar disregard for constitutional procedures. Will those who instructed Michael Harvey in that matter now learn a lesson and issue instructions for the disqualification to be withdrawn and an apology issued?



posted by Martin |8:33 AM


Thursday, October 30, 2003 

Conservative Leadership

Michael Howard as portrayed in the press this morning would be telegenically incapable of winning an election. I was recently at an anti-EU rally in Bath where John Redwood appeared fighting fit and ready to take the real battle forward.

All Eurorealists are urged to make John Redwood know of their strong support for his candidature.

His e-mail address is redwoodj@parliament.uk

posted by Martin |12:43 PM


Wednesday, October 29, 2003 

High Court Action

We have received the following:-

Quote

Dear all,

Many of you will know that I have been/am in legal dispute with the party I
earnestly support,namely UKIP. At the center of this case was my
disqualification from the NEC after I was elected with over 57% of the vote
in 2001 by Party Treasurer. John de Roeck who was ACTING(!!) R/O.

I am pleased to announce that the High Court has given the following
declarations.

1. That the rule that disqualified me was ultra virus
2. That JdR acted(!!) beyond his powers in disqualifying me.
3. That I should be reinstated to the NEC with immediate effect.

Also I was given costs.

It was with a very heavy heart that I undertook action against the party I
am so committed to. I sought at every opportunity to seek an amicable
solution to the dispute but was met by a brick wall at every attempt.

Other issues are still outstanding. I hope that all matters can be settled
without further need of litigation. I am holding out an olive branch to the
party that the above can be reached.

I am tired of fighting like minded people and would rather direct my
energies at euro-sceptics.

yours in good faith

Nikki Sinclaire
Unquote

posted by Martin |1:55 PM
 

The IDS Vote

This is the opening paragraph of a contribution by John Redwood to The Independent:-

Another day, another ballot on the Conservative party leadership. The Conservative Party's decision to have a vote on whether Iain Duncan Smith should continue in office is unhelpful for the Opposition. It is not good for the nation, desperate to have a strong alternative to this government. It is bad for politics as a whole, representing all that people most hate about politicians.

Read the whole article by clicking this link

If the Tories again falter today, a purged UKIP will be even more essential!

posted by Martin |8:16 AM


Tuesday, October 28, 2003 

Nigel Farage

During my brief membership of UKIP an NEC member told me at the Scarborough Conference, apparently in all seriousness, that "Nigel Farage is the UK Independence Party". I suspected even then, that if that was indeed the case, then the party had very little future.

Subsequent events have shown that assertion was pretty much fact. Farage has been running the party as if it were his AND as now must be clear to any aware of what has recently been going on - entirely in his own self-interests.

The latest revelations regarding the rogue Ashford office can hardly come as a surprise to readers of this blog, or any aware of the early days of UKIP and therefore the earlier scandals surrounding Farage's name.

The mystery is why he has been allowed to get away with so much for so long?

Since my association with UKIP, the party has been effectively neutered as a campaigning force against the EU, while Farage's abuses and manipulations have dominated all activity.

Incredibly, overnight, an activist involved with Farage in the detail of the Ashford scam, was protesting on an internet discussion group that what had taken place was not crooked.
This unbelievable statement appeared directly above the UKIP Treasurer's e-mail to the NEC which clearly detailed the multiple irregularities.

Remaining UKIP members must coldly examine the facts and get rid of those who have brought their party to this pass. If they do not they and the Eurorealist cause will inevitably and deservedly be tarred with the same brush!

posted by Martin |8:27 AM


Monday, October 27, 2003 

David Lott's words on the Ashford Operation 18/10/03

A reminder of the UKIP Chairman's third attempt at an explanation (all blogged here on 19th October, 2003) of what the Party Treasurer has now uncovered as a totally rogue operation, being run by Nigel Farage who it is plain lied to the NEC. This e-mail quite clearly shows in our view that David Lott had a pretty good idea of just what was being perpetrated. If he did not he should be dismissed for incompetence:-

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:32:55 +0100
From: "david lott"

****,

I will reply for the last time and certainly not to threats or 'charges' that you could not bring yourself to make in public. .....

At the last NEC I took the lead with initially some opposition because telesales in London was draining money from the party. I urged the NEC to vote to close it down. They agreed and it is now closed. I shall recommend that all telesales operations in future are stand alone and that the party is indemnified against loss. Ashford is currently at worst cash neutral but is getting a good return from the advert and with the research being done will produce much more. Much of the return will go to national coffers which will improve the cash flow. (Our emphasis, this statement clearly needs further investigation!)

I helped raise money to get us out of an immediate short term difficulty and am engaged in an exercise with an a properly qualified accountant working with John de Roeck to reach a fuller understanding of the head office financial operation. The figures that we had to work on in the past did not reveal at all clearly where we stood financially. Once that analysis is done the appropriate action will be taken according to well defined priorities.

As I wrote all is under control and in addition being thoroughly analysed but I cannot spell out all the ins and outs of every single aspect of my job which is truly massive and conducted by me with no secretarial support whatsoever.

posted by Martin |6:09 PM
 

Proof Positive

We have received a copy of an e-mail regarding the mishandling of donations and dubious fund-raising practises organised by Nigel Farage MEP concerning a rogue operation in Ashford.

The following explanatory comments preceded the internet posting:-

1. It was minuted several times at NEC meetings that Ashford was a South East operation - so Nigel continually denied the NEC financial info on it.

2. There are only days to get the relevant info out of Nigel on accounts to comply with PPERA - again his propensity for risk taking could cause great harm to UKIP and the wider anti EU cause.

3. It is an especially serious matter, as Ashford is not an official party cost center. It is clearly a rogue operation.

4. As a cost center not connected with the party, it has, of course, no right to party data and therefore Data Protection implications come into play. The party cannot just give its data to Nigel Farage Inc or to anyone else for that matter.

5. What is even more serious is that national data is being used, so this is an unaccountable national operation which has just donated £10,000 to Nigel's South East campaign (on his admission).

The e-mail from the Party Treasurer to the members of the NEC and South East Regional Committee is fairly lengthy but the main points are:-

I am advised that the South East Regional Committee has resolved to disassociate itself from the Ashford Telesales operation at it's committee meeting of Friday,17th October 2003. This has important consequences under the Political Parties Elections and Referendum Act 2.
.....
I have received a copy of the following correspondence from the Treasurer, of the South East Region. "It must be stressed, however, that the Ashford office has been set-up by Nigel and others without any discussion, consultation, approval or acceptance in any official capacity by the SE Region committee to date.
....
The South East Regional Committee has decided to no longer take responsibility for the Ashford telesales operation.

As a consequence I have no option but to carry out my duties as National Treasurer under PPERA, and immediately take on direct responsibility for reporting activities and ensuring compliance of PPERA, of the Ashford telesales operation through Central Office.

After further details as to how the rogue operation is to be brought within proper party and regulatory control, the Treasurer concludes with these points:-

Two further issues of profit sharing and reporting need clarification now that we know that the operation is no longer part of the South East region as follows:

1. Although no written plan of budget of the Ashford operation was
produced to the NEC the NEC was told that **** would underwrite losses for the first three months. We were also told by Nigel Farage that he would underwrite losses personally.

We must establish a clear understanding and agreement for any profits and losses and ownership of the Ashford operation. We need to know if profits are generated from the scheme who exactly will receive the benefit and by the same token if there are losses who will be responsible. We must also agree the profit sharing formulae if the operation is to continue to use national data gathered in the UKIP name rather than just South East data.
We must consider if Central Office should be burdened with liabilities of the Ashford telesales department unless it is also receiving the profits.

If XXXX and Nigel Farage continue to take responsibility for the operation and remain the signatories to the bank account for Ashford telesales, it is important that the Party receives a written agreement from them, in which they agree to indemnify the Party from any losses, consequential losses or other liabilities incurred by the Ashford operation, or give a similar written undertaking acceptable to the NEC. A detail to consider is whether the operation should be converted into a limited company.

2. Accounts from the Ashford telesales operation should also be prepared for the NEC in future on a monthly basis so that we can establish the effectiveness of the operation. As the operation is using data collected nationally from UKIP, we have a duty on the NEC to receive reports and in turn report to membership. This is in addition to the Party Treasurer's responsibility of reporting to the Electoral Commission. In the September NEC meeting Nigel Farage agreed to supply accounts although none as yet have been produced.


Considering the gobbledegook, reproduced on this blog eight days ago, put out by the Party Chairman David Lott in a ludicrous attempt to justify the basis of the Ashford office, we imagine that following these disclosures his resignation is now on its way to the NEC. We trust it will shortly be followed by several others.

UKIP's corruption is now everywhere known!

posted by Martin |3:44 PM
 

Ashford Methods

We have received a copy of the letter being sent out from the Ashford office. In this case it came with a Video and a request for a donation with the requisite form, again for return to the Ashford address.

Making this example even more extraordinary is the fact that the recipient of this letter NEVER responded to the Daily Mail advert....but had once been a UKIP member a long time ago.
It would therefore appear that Ashford are also trying to tap past members for donations to their new and apparently separate operation.

Quote
UK Independence Party
Ashford Office
63 Beaver Road
Ashford
Kent TN23 7SE

Our Ref: TJQ DM61003

16 October 2003

Dear Enquirer,

Following your telephone call to our office in response to our advertisement in the Daily Mail, I have pleasure in sending you a copy of our video “Shockwaves”. Your brochure and additional information will follow in due course.

When you have watched the video, could you please pass it on to a friend or neighbour so we can spread the word further.

Join us and help us! To become a member, simply complete the enclosed application form and return it with your membership fee to our Ashford Office at the above address, or, you can pay for your membership by Credit Card by calling our office free on 0800 0727730. Since we need more funds than membership fees alone provide, anything you can donate over and above that will be greatly appreciated and will help to make our campaigning more effective.

Thank you for the interest you have shown in the UK Independence Party.

Yours sincerely,

Terry Quarterman
UK Independence Party

Unquote

posted by Martin |11:36 AM
 

Supporting IDS

We suggest those wishing to retain a Eurosceptic at the head of the Conservative Party should quickly and instantaneously show their support for IDS by signing the Petition for a Referendum on the EU Constitution at Conservative Central Office, where the numbers signing-up will be immediately seen.

This can be completed in a moment by clicking on this link Support IDS by signing the Conservative Petition from here.

posted by Martin |8:28 AM
 

Queen Anne's Gate forerunner of Ashford

As more and more details become available as to the extraordinary set-up and operations of the Ashford office (of which we hope to provide more information later today), certain similarities appear with an earlier situation, namely, that of the London offices of the EDD in Queen Anne's Gate. This was apparently set up by Dr North with assistance from David Lott. It is apparently an EDD/UKIP office, but seems to mainly accomodate Mark Croucher, who describes himself as UKIP National Press Officer. If indeed he was performing that function why is he not based at UKIP Head Office nearby where he could be on top of all UKIP matters? Alistair Campbell would not have dreamed of being outside Number 10!

Is the fact that UKIP MEPs effectively abandoned the national party some time ago? Is Ashford the endgame rather than the beginning with the split starting in September 2000 with the Queen Anne's Gate decision. Dr North was much more intimately involved with every aspect of the running of the party than many could ever have suspected.

What can be the dark secrets that required the paying of hush money from Jens Peter Bonde's EDD to Richard North as reported in this month's edition of The Sprout which we quote:-

EDD chief embroiled in hush money payment row

Veteran Danish Eurosceptic, Jens-Peter Bonde, infamous as one of the tightest men in the European Parliament, shocked friends and colleagues by his response to 'The Sprout's' article (UKIP's latest policy - September 03). Like a shot fox he was onto his sacked/resigned Director of Research Dr Richard North offering him hush money to keep quiet about goings on in Bonde's Europe of Democracy and Diversities group (EDD) - to which UKIP are attached.


posted by Martin |8:00 AM


Sunday, October 26, 2003 

Destroying our Country

As befits this time of crisis for our democracy and nation, there was much discussion yesterday on various internet groups regarding the best way forward. In the almost total absence of resistance from the main political parties, frustration seemed the order of the day and we have reproduced this contribution which in our view summarises the depth of frustration now being felt among many ordinary British people:-

"But we do need A party to represent our views on EU membership. A party with the courage to state AND MEAN that in power they will repeal ECA 1972 and start again. The Conservative Party, despite all our hopes, is a million miles away from apologising for the past, and starting again by disassociating themselves with the Heaths, Howes, Hurds etc UKIP is being/ has been brought down. Deliberately????

Please, no need to reply quoting IDS, Prague etc. We all have our hopes but that is all they are at present -just hopes.

The fouling of UKIP leaves us without any party representing us. For my part, especially because of the Whip system to toe party lines, I believe as many of us as is possible should stand at the next general election as Independents and act on conviction and conscience. I would rather go on a holiday with the money but if needs be I would be prepared to give the
usual contenders a run locally for their money at the next general election. If only one or two of us could scrape into Parliament, we could be on our feet to roar a Churchillian message.
I am pig sick of our afraid, spineless politicians (with a very few powerless exceptions).
In answer to the questions repeatedly asked months ago about what it means to be English, by God, and Country let us show them."

posted by Martin |9:30 AM


Saturday, October 25, 2003 

The EU Menace Mounts

At least daily this blog attacks and probes at UKIP. Why?

We do it because UKIP is rotten at the top and has become financially dependant upon what it exists to fight. Its leadership is corrupt, incompetent and too often both.

The Leading Article from today's Daily Telegraph starts as follows :-

British opinion is only slowly waking up to what is happening on the Continent. Many commentators persist in writing about a common European defence policy as though it were an aspiration rather than a reality. Yet the EU has already evolved its own military structures, with 150 staff in Brussels. The multi-national Euro-corps has been deployed in Macedonia, and a second EU force is active in the Congo.

Last month in Berlin, Tony Blair dropped his long-standing insistence that the EU chain of command be linked to Nato, provoking American fears that the Western Alliance was finished. Yet British politicians shy away from acknowledging what is going on. When he took over at the Commission, Romano Prodi told a British newspaper: "If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary-Ann." Three years on, many are still in denial.

These developments are due chiefly to Tony Blair, who has reversed four decades of British opposition to European defence integration.

The main British party perceived to represent British interests as a nation state was the Conservatives. Led by a Maastricht rebel they should at this stage of the electoral cycle be poised to sweep back to power on an anti-EU Constitutional and pro-Nato foreign policy knock-out. The same paper's front page in my electronic edition bears this headline:-

Tories in crisis. IDS urged to quit.

These two British political parties, the ones most likely to successfully resist the destruction of their nation by the forces of EU Federalism and Transnational Progressivism are in crisis. Those who wish to believe that this is a coincidence, should think more fully of the odds against.

The newspaper also interviews a Mr Richard Cooper described as a great influence on Blair, who next week publishes a book titled, 'The Breaking of Nations'. The interview can be read from here.

The Editorial continues:-

Like Mr Blair, he makes a fetish of the UN and of treaties, whether on nuclear proliferation, landmines or global warming. The two men see themselves as part of an internationalist tradition that, at its best, is a noble one. Yet it brings problems of its own. Without the nation-state, it is hard to see how governments and other organisations can be properly accountable. A world where well-meaning technocrats made the rules - whether through the UN, the EU, the International Court or whatever - would leave little space for democracy.

On a more practical level, there is a real danger that an EU military capacity advocated by Mr Cooper et al will destroy the Atlantic alliance and put nothing in its place. Those European governments that push hardest for a separate defence identity are often the most reluctant to spend money on men and matériel. The belief that the circle can be squared through joint procurement schemes is a fantasy: such projects tend to be less cost-efficient because of the bureaucracy involved and the need to find something for each country to do (witness the Euro-fighter).

Without America, Europe lacks the capability to project force: it has neither air- nor sea-lift capacity, nor advanced communications satellites, nor modern missile systems. During the Kosovo campaign, Europeans flew only two per cent of all missions. In such circumstances, it is provocative folly to pretend that we can manage without the Americans. They may just take us at our word.

Those opposing what to me appears the nightmare scenario described above, must first find a way to dispose of the corrupt and disruptive forces within their anti-EU midst. The leaders are well known, for the Tories it is their too long tolerated federalists. Within UKIP it is those names that appear again and again throughout this website and are listed once more at the end of this post.

The real battle lies ahead. It is one that I believe the British people will instinctively wish to join as the full truth of the nation's betrayal begins to dawn. The fight is against those like Blair, Cooper and their powerful European fellow-travellers, who in pursuit of some imagined multinational Shangri-la wish to destroy all of the ancient protections built up over centuries to protect our nation state and thereby the individuals within it. They have proved they will lie, dissemble and deceive in pursuit of their aim. They appear to be prepared to stop at nothing to attain their objective except to tell the truth. That fact alone being evidence enough of the unworthiness of their aim.

UKIP will be rendered ineffective against the EU while at least these high profile manipulators remain at the head of the party to soil its name in the coming fight . A party with such people at its head can never expect to gather votes! They are:-

Nigel Farage, David Lott, Mike Nattrass, Roger Knapman, Derek Clark, Peter Troy

If they will not go, then UKIP is a lost cause and its continued existence will continue to sap and damage the anti-EU cause. Party members remaining within will be working against their own objectives. To learn why surf this website. For more on Europe and defence visit Ironies

posted by Martin |8:22 AM


Friday, October 24, 2003 

The Ashford Operation!

This is a copy of an e-mail from UKIP's Vice-Chairman to UKIP's Chairman, first sent last Monday. It raises very serious issues, yet not one member of UKIP's NEC has received any form of response. (Full background is available from a review of last Sunday's posts starting with this Misappropriation of Party Funds?)

QUOTE

Dear David

ASHFORD - YOUR E-MAIL OF 20th OCTOBER 2003

Indeed, London Region will keep the NEC informed of the development of London Region telesales, and will give details at the next NEC.

The difference between the London operation and the Ashford operation is in its status. The London Region operation is exactly that - owned and run by the London Region, using London data. Ashford uses national data, and Nigel has told us on several occasions that the Ashford operation is a South East Regional Committee operation. Indeed, I seconded the motion in June on the matter to ensure that the operation was legal and grounded in a regional committee/cost center. I now understand that this is simply not true and never has been and that Ashford has been operating outside of the South East Regional Committee. If this is the case, it is a very serious matter, once again relating to the party's finances and the legality of both incurring costs, taking in moneys and spending. If Ashford is operating outside agreed financial structures, then it is operating outside of the party's rules and possibly the law.

Can you please supply the answers to the following questions:

1 Can you confirm whether Ashford is or is not a South East Regional Committee operation?

2 If it is not a South East Regional Committee operation, then what is it?

3 If it is not a South East Regional Committee operation, then why were we told in June and in other NEC meetings that it was?

4 We have been told at NECs that the Ashford start-up costs have represented a "serious donation to the party". Within the next few weeks these serious donations must appear on a scheduled return to the Electoral Commission - as they are donations in kind of a value above a certain level, can you confirm which cost center is to make this return? It cannot be Head Office as the minutes confirm that it is a South East Regional Committee responsibility, and Nigel indeed confirmed in the NEC minutes that the NEC had rejected Ashford as a national resource.

I think the point is that, given the fact that Ashford is dealing with national data, the NEC have been promised for some months that we will have financial details of the Ashford operation and have not had any thus far. The promise of details in time for the October NEC in the September minutes was not met. Similarly, we need to know the facts - it did not help that Nigel said, when asked by Judith for Ashford donor details: "I'm not telling you that.", and then refusing to divulge those details under pressure.

And it does not help that when Mark Lester's questioning became a little too close to the mark you simply block his E-mails, as you have admitted today. What on earth sort of response is that to a well-connected member who has helped establish the beginnings of a branch committee structure?

Again, the lack of provision of those details when asked by Judith is not constitutional, and creates a situation where you loosen the collective liability of the NEC and allow the exclusion from liability of every member of the NEC who puts on record that you are breaking the rules and have rendered his or her ability to be involved in the making of financial decisions impossible. The refusal of such information is squarely within that category.

By the way, unlike Nigel's Ashford operation, London Region also acknowledge that if we were to take large numbers of five-year memberships and keep all the first year and half of subsequent years' membership dues, we would bust the party very quickly. We will therefore not be keeping the second to fifth year membership dues and will properly account all of them to Head Office.

Damian

UNQUOTE

posted by Martin |6:03 PM
 

Christina Speight's EGM Speech

Even those attending the 22nd January 2000 meeting would not have heard this speech as the microphone was cut off mid-way through. This now proven to be illegal EGM, contrived by a sacked/rump NEC, led to a rigged election and propelled to power the corrupt cabal that runs UKIP to this very day:

"We are all here today at vast and totally unnecessary expense for one reason only and that reason is that there are people in this party who have refused to recognise the decisions made by ordinary members meeting in the legal supreme body of the party - the AGM. They were condemned by an overwhelming vote of members but have acted as if nothing had happened, and have held the whole party to ransom. They have hindered political action and given comfort to our enemies. They have damaged our finances and have brought dissension between members who previously worked in harmony together. They are the ones who have denied postal or proxy votes for members who are ill, the elderly and those far from London - shame on them!

I have had a number of members call me almost in tears saying they have worked their guts out for the party but are too old to get here today. I also have here in my signed requests from 15 of the members in my branch asking me to cast a proxy vote for them or at least speak for them. That's a total of over 20 votes all backing Michael Holmes who Scholefield has barred from voting. He said about proxy voting 'I do not find any enthusiasm for it'. Who did he ask??

But the motion on which I speak is the most fundamental one today. You are being asked to censure our Leader. However, we also elect a Leader and in 1998 we elected Michael Holmes for 4 years . He is thus the only person in the entire national party properly in office as anything at all! Now we have the ridiculous situation where if we censure him and an election takes place the party will not exist at all! The Media would laugh themselves silly at our expense! As yet there are no signs of anyone else putting themselves forward as leader so could we really be so daft as to vote today for 'AN Other' to lead the party.

Next you should consider the question of the honour - an old fashioned word - of the Party. We have a constitution. Nine people have defied that constitution. We cannot also in this hall defy the constitution ourselves by repudiating the decisions of the AGM because a conspiring few did not like them. That would be dishonourable. However, since accusations will undoubtedly fly, it is also important to look at the record of those who accuse Michael Holmes as well as the charges they level at him.

Firstly, of what does he stand accused that would warrant destroying the party? There is nothing remotely disreputable charged against him; most of the accusations rest on a vague assertion that he is difficult to work with! As anyone who knows our leader is aware, he is a blunt but patriotic person who has been under a concerted attack inside the NEC since the day he was elected, and elected to the fury of the other main candidate and his supporters.

Michael has just won a significant legal battle with the Home Office, at his own expense, on behalf of the party over the shameful way we were treated by the Home Office in publicity for the European Elections. He has won leave to bring this case in front of the courts and The Home Office has a week to enter a defence . What is important about this is that the NEC and Tony Scholefield delayed taking action during the elections themselves when a victory for us in the courts could have affected the outcome. So, Michael's done it on his own.

Michael has recruited to the party people of substance around the country and personally brought to our ranks many of the Referendum Party's most prominent candidates. There is incidentally a real danger (an example of which is our most prominent backer whose letter many of you have seen) that the major contributors to our party will withdraw their support if Michael Holmes is not strongly backed. (I personally know of large donations which would be lost).

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. 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 himself. Another point the same man makes is that you cannot be an MEP and an Officer in the Party. Well, that may be true if you are also as Nigel is, trying to run a business too. But Michael has sold his business and devotes all his time to the party. Others to attack Michael Holmes include a man who is employed in a party position and paid with funds derived from the EU itself, as assistant to one of our MEPs and uses that position to attack his own Leader, not just inside the party but in the courts as well.

No, Michael Holmes has ploughed a lonely furrow with backing only from a few stalwarts on the NEC but opposed and frustrated in everything he tried to do by the implacable hostility of the *Nine* dissidents on the NEC. A less committed man would have thrown in the towel long ago. Why has he not? Because he knew that he had the backing of the vast majority of ordinary members in both the AGM vote and 87% - no less! - in the unofficial ballot. That man is not a quitter and this meeting should solidly back him too.

Remember that in any case, were this meeting itself to be so dishonourable as to censure the Leader, he is unlikely to wish to stand again and he and all our prominent backers would almost certainly be lost. Many would seriously consider if they could be bothered to work further for a party so dishonourable."

Unquote.

posted by Martin |8:32 AM


Thursday, October 23, 2003 

"Dr North and Peter Troy (continued)"

In our report of the morning before last, we discussed the so called "Disappearing Bucket", which contained an evening's collection from party members, together with a subsequent statement from Dr John Whittaker, advising that he had never believed these monies had been 'appropriated for Peter Troy' himself.

Indeed it was clear from Tony Bennett's article that we quoted, that the suggestion was: "it was discovered he had taken it home and used it for his travel expenses!"

Most party members gathering for a meeting and paying for the evening by a contribution into a bucket would bound to feel at the very least dismay, if the visiting salaried (and as I understand it, very unwelcome) Regional Organiser disappears with the lot.

Amazingly enough that is exactly what happened. Not only that, but it was exactly what had been intended to happen by the system set in place by Dr North and Peter Troy modelled, so we are informed, on an expense method developed by David Lott, today's Party Chairman, under whom the entire party's finances are now open to many very serious questions, and by all account in a state of crisis and disorder.

A confidential memorandum from Richard North to Graham Webster-Gardner, dated 28 January 2001, contained Richard North's personal observations on the Yorkshire Region and related matters, and was intended to assist GWG in his investigation. It reads:

"A main sticking point was Mr Troy's working expenses. The payment of £2000 per month was relatively modest and, given the size of the three regions, I agreed it was unreasonable to expect him to finance these out of his payments. Furthermore, I considered such an arrangement would act as a disincentive as, the harder Troy worked, the more it would cost him personally.

Accordingly, I negotiated a scheme based on one devised by David Lott that Troy should also take on the role of fundraiser and should be able to draw off his expenses from monies raised by him. To fund Troy's initial expenses, Mr Titford lent him £1,000 and I did likewise, allowing Troy to draw upon a float of £2,000".

Were one not aware of the activities to which Peter Troy subsequently got himself involved, one could almost find oneself feeling some sympathy for the position in which he was then placed. Not just encouraged, but as a matter of necessity forced to merge party funds with his own, yet somehow keep them fairly and completely separated would be hard enough for many individuals at that level and would require rigid and very formal expense account procedures to have any chance of remaining in order. To compound the confusion, however, the two expense floats being in the form of personal loans from his two superiors, Dr North and Jeffrey Titford, smacks of the grossest of negligence, especially when the same memorandum refers to Peter Troy in the role of "fundraiser."

After considering all these and no doubt many other facts and documents, Graham Webster-Gardiner did come down against both North and Troy, here again we quote from Tony Bennett's newsletter :-

His incisive report revealed that Dr North and Troy had been economical with the truth on a number of matters and vindicated the hard-pressed Yorkshire/Humberside activists. Unsurprisingly Dr North and Troy challenged the findings, with the good Doctor threatening to resign from the Party and go on strike from his part-time UKIP post. Troy meanwhile issued a threatening Solicitors' letter to Jeffrey which caused him additional problems in trying to resolve the 'Yorkshire crisis'

The Yorkshire Crisis? You might well ask! Of that, more to come!

posted by Martin |8:34 AM


Wednesday, October 22, 2003 

Statement from Dr John Whitaker

As is our custom, we will always print comments, proper amendments or justified corrections to our posts when reasonably requested to do so.

In connection with our post of yesterday Dr North and Peter Troy we have been asked to post the following which was addressed to Peter Troy and first appeared on another e-mail list to which we do not have access:-

Dear Peter (copies to your email list)

"I don't remember the detail of our different opinion about the handling of
the collection from the meeting you organised in Leyland, October 2000. I
think, as you say, that we were dismayed that these funds were used to pay
for the meeting

But I confirm that there was never any suggestion that you had appropriated
the funds for yourself. Do quote me on this if you like."

Regards
John Whittaker

It arrived to us with the following extra statement from Troy himself:-

"I am grateful to Dr John Whittaker for his email to me., posted below. I understand that Cole has made some references to me yet again. As always Cole is reliant upon false information. Dr Whittaker confirms that a quote of Tony Bennett which has been posted by Cole on his blogbott web site that accuses me of appropriating members contributions to the party at a meeting, which I organised three years ago, is quite incorrect. When Cole is made aware of Bennett false statement I trust Cole will post a retraction, but somehow I doubt that he will so do."
Peter Troy

We have never knowingly posted any wrong information on the blog and will continue to make corrections when inaccuracies are reported to us. We would welcome comments from any others recalling this incident or other matters arising from the activities of Dr North and Peter Troy in the North of England which we are continuing to research.

We previously asked for information regarding the, till now highly secret, Graham Webster-Gardiner report which supposedly led to calls for Troy's dismissal and a resignation by Dr North, exonerating as it most certainly did the North East Regional Committee after the first occasion on which Troy sought its suspension.

posted by Martin |4:03 PM
 

Party Expulsion

In an attempt to squash internal party democratic debate in the run up to last February's NEC elections, a UKIP party discussion group was suspended for the duration of the campaign. In an attempt to allow interchange to continue Andrew Edwards, then acting Branch Chairman of UKIP Bath started a new and quite separate and independent discussion group.

Following its growing success, the party General Secretary demanded to be allowed to join presumably so that (as on the party group) topics could be monitored and the party's Discipline Panel brought down on those who refused to be silenced on matters he might deem inappropriate. With continuing resignations from the party, Mr Edwards decided that membership of his 'new-ind-uk' should also be open to non-ukip members and the writer of this blog was therefore able to circulate details of his unjustified candidature disqualification and the travesty of justice over the suspension of the North East Regional Committe which continues to this day.

Incredibly Mr Edwards has now been expelled from the party for organising this private internet discussion group, apparently on the grounds that he is bringing the party into disrepute. Thus ignoring the fact that the group is solely open to private citizen volunteer members only!

We should be quite clear about exactly what UKIP is proposing with this ruling. Party members are not just to be controlled and disciplined for what they dare say within party meetings and fora - they are to be prohibited from participating in free and open debate outside the organs of the party or risk expulsion. This is where UKIP, supposedly devoted to the fight against the non-democratic EU, has been led by its present corrupt leadership.

Another weapon they use against party members who prefer to spend their energies taking the fight to the EU are the internet-spread lies of the disgraced 'inciter to murder' Greg Lance-Watkins. In his attacks on all those truly dedicated to fighting against the EU and/or reforming UKIP's corrupted party structures, he proves himself the real friend of the EU he has so often seemed. Latest untruths of last evening, were that the said Andrew Edwards was a regular attendee at Lance-Watkin's 'Hunstman' gatherings, whereas he had been but once, and that this blog writer had once been ejected from the Tory Party which is as absolutely without foundation as was his earlier disgusting libel that my wife and I had once been on a child abuser's register. This is the type of individual David Lott, Derek Clark and Michael Harvey wish to have their name associated with on several popular internet fora, even after the NEC has passed a motion calling for no further association.

Those he attacks are the ones who can now carry themselves with pride. Real fighters against the deep corruption and sordidness at the heart of UKIP, but frequently attacked by Watkins such as, Judith Longman and Damian Hockney. Devoted battlers against the EU for many hours each day, such as Christina Speight and Andrew Edwards. Also many other dedicated UKIP party members attacked by Lance-Watkins in the past, but still, mostly now as ex-members ever battling the EU and its disgraceful and non-democratic proposed Constitution.

posted by Martin |8:41 AM


Tuesday, October 21, 2003 

Yet Another Resignation!

Another hard working volunteer departs in despair! Writing to a recently expelled once dedicated member, the latest victim of the despicable Disciplinary Panel and its rule ignoring Chairman Derek Clark, she writes:-

Quote
Please may I join your club of ex-UKIP members? I have been following the goings on and I'm blessed if I can make out why you have been suspended from the party for a year, or even at all. What are you supposed to have done wrong? One thing I do know, as from today, after the despicable undemocratic way you have been treated, I am an ex-member. I will be writing to the relevant person to resign forthwith. I had already cancelled the bank standing order, giving me until the present sub expires in April to see if the party gets its act together. As you have probably gathered from my previous correspondence, I resigned over the squabbling a few years ago, but was persuaded by xxxxxx to rejoin and become Secretary of a newly formed Leeds Branch in time for the 2001 General Election. We had five constituencies so it was a busy life for a while, especially as I acted as an agent for one of the candidates. The following December we came to live in Wigan, so that was the end of that job. They haven't kept in touch with me, despite my efforts to keep in contact, so I don't know what's happening now. By the weekend I will have resigned for the second time, and also the last as I will not be joining again, no matter what.
Unquote

posted by Martin |3:24 PM
 

Dr North and Peter Troy

Yesterday's posts on the scandalous treatment of the three officials of the North East Regional Committee clearly illustrate the lengths that UKIP's illegitimate leadership will go to accommodate the election rigging Peter Troy. How did Troy contrive to inveigle himself into such a privileged and apparently well protected situation?

As was mentioned in covering the illegitimate EGM, (which our further researches now indicate was not called with the required number of properly elected Branch Chairmen's signatures) it was in January 2000 that we have first had reports of Troy's being a UKIP member. In the newsletter 'On the Grapevine' edited by Tony Bennett, edition of 26th February 2001 we learn that:-

It was also Dr North who supported the appointment of one Peter Troy to be Regional Organiser for UKIP's northern 'regions', North West, North East and Yorkshire/Humberside - and was then responsible for the day-to-day supervision of his work.

Dr North in an internal report dated 28th January: "On behalf of the MEPs - and on their direct request to do so - I interviewed Mr Troy, several times, and negotiated his contract with him..........

The article then continues with this:

DISAPPEARING BUCKET

The appointment was a disaster. Anger was caused in the North West when Peter Troy attended a meeting there and, when a bucket collection was taken for Party funds, it was discovered he'd taken it home and used it for his travel expenses! Not surprisingly the North West Committee called for his dismissal - as long ago as November - but no action was taken, on the good Doctor's advice. By January the entire Regional Committee told Jeffrey Titford they would resign unless Peter Troy was banned from working in the North West. When the Party leadership still declined to act, I took a call in Chelmsford from one of the Committee saying the entire Committee would resign their posts unless they received a letter that day terminating Troy's work in the North West. I had to get Jeffrey on the mobile and get his authority to write that letter, which arrived in the nick of time.

We strive to steer clear of sensationalism and rumour on this blog; but now hear reports that Dr North, in spite of his recent move to the Conservatives, is still attemtping to influence UKIP policies and activities. His close ally, Peter Troy, remains firmly in place. We now publish the story above, which has been known to us for a long time (together with reports of another similar incident in the North East), to highlight the truly despicable nature of the suggestion that the North East Regional Committee officers be permitted to stand for re-election and re-appointment only on the proviso that all their actions and continuation in office be entirely subject to the whims of a man such as Peter Troy.

This illustrates the true nature of those who imposed such a provision on a four member disciplinary panel that had initially reached an entirely contrary decision.

posted by Martin |8:46 AM


Monday, October 20, 2003 

Report from Ashford

An operation in Ashford was the subject of many of the questions raised regarding the incident of the Daily Mail advertisement that can be read in full from this link: Misappropriation of Party Funds?

Now this report from the Kentish Express on 16th October throws further light on the extent of the operation:-

New party expanding in town

AS our local political affairs continue to be ruled by Conservatives fighting to make the best of decisions handed down from Whitehall from the Labour government, not a lot of people know that Ashford has become the regional centre for the nation's newest party.

The UK Independence Party has created 10 new jobs in town when it recently launched a call centre.

It says that growing interest meant it had to expand outside its central London headquarters and Kent in general, and Ashford in particular as the Gateway to Europe, was the obvious choice.

The move is just the start of expansion plans with another 20 staff expected to be working in town on their campaign for the European elections next June.

Their local MEP Nigel Farage said at the opening that interest in the party has grown, as people became aware of what the proposed EU Constitution meant for Britain.

Special guest at the centre was former ITN newsreader and Conservative MP for Gravesend Tim Brinton from Folkestone who joined UKIP earlier this year.

He said: "Party membership has increased by over 50 per cent in the last year, and it continues to grow at a staggering rate.

"The time has come to decide who we are governed by Westminster or Brussels and only the UK Independence Party is prepared to offer voters that choice."

In view of the questions over money spent and gathered by this operation, the question for the UKIP membership and their NEC is more a matter of Just what the devil is going on?




posted by Martin |5:51 PM
 

The Peter Troy Enigma?

Troy is UKIP's untouchable! If it had not already been perfectly clear before now, reading the letter regarding the NE Committee Member's appeal must surely make it so. Nothing will be allowed, by the UKIP powers that be, to remove Peter Troy from his favoured place in the party.

The conditions placed on the democratically elected NE Regional Committee Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer are stated, inter alia, as follows:-

“Sufficient undertakings” would involve a signed agreement to:-

co-operate with all members of the regional committee irrespective of personal
rivalries and dislikes.

It is therefore proposed that one 'Peter Troy' the cause of all difficulties is to be protected by such a binding undertaking. With this same villain having the sole perogative, presumably, to determine whether they were being met AND with the power of this penalty should he so decide: A breach of these principles would re-activate the suspension.

The people now running UKIP must have long since left the real world, or have become totally corrupted by the omnipotent powers they see being exercised in Brussels and Strasbourg!

Anybody, knowing the long history of problems in the North East region can only draw one conclusion, namely that all present difficulties on the Regional Committee have been caused by one sole individual, that being Peter Troy. I first visited the North East in January of this year, knowing none of the people concerned. Since that first visit I have been to several of the meetings and have come to know the personalities involved reasonably well. There are to my knowledge no other such ongoing personality disputes. Troy is a menace to the party efforts and troublemaker within the region.

It was Troy who telephoned somebody within the cabal. We presume that most probably it was Nigel Farage, the Chairman of the European Elections Committee and provided his biased interpretation to the events of the 8th March Committee Meeting that resulted in its unconstitutional and improper suspension. But this had not been the first instance of such actions.

The following is an excerpt from "On the Grapevine" edition of 26 February 2001:-

Meanwhile in the North East, Peter Troy, acting under the direction of Dr North and Party Secretary Michael Harvey, attempted to rule their Annual General Meeting on 10th October (2000 - ed.) out of order on a technicality - an incorrect one as it turned out. The meeting had been perfectly properly called under normal procedures six weeks earlier. Troy's attempt to prevent the meeting taking place then became the subject of a debate, followed by a democratic vote where the members decdided they should proceed. Exit Peter Troy in a temper! The meeting went on to elect a new committee to run the Region. Acting on Dr North's advice, Party Secretary Michael Harvey then suspended the entire North East Regional Committee for daring to defy his 'instructions' to cancel the meeting, and threatened to discipline hard-working Northumberland activists Michael Rollings and Martin Rouse!

A spate of angry letters from the North east to the Party leadership protesting at these events followed. I'm sorry to say they were largely ignored. When I (the newsletter editor Tony Bennet who had been employed by Jeffrey Titford - ed.) wrote a letter on 20th October from Jeffrey's office to the North East, trying to calm matters down, Michael Harvey promptly reacted by calling for my immediate suspension and simultaneously referring my letter to the Party's Discipline Committee. Believe it or not, I remain under disciplinary investigation by the Committee for daring to support the Northumberland Officials against Michael Harvey's actions.

Well, we do believe it, Tony. (When I drew Troy's membership list padding and BNP member recruiting to the attention of the NEC, I was disqualified as a candidate!) Furthermore how could we not believe it when we have the evidence, three years later that the same Michael Rollings and Michael Rouse are still the victims of the vendetta being waged against them by the UKIP leadership dancing to the promptings of the everpresent Peter Troy, and receiving as they did the quite extraordinary letter rejecting their appeal against suspension dated 1st October 2003, which is reproduced in full below.

This even following the Graham Webster-Gardiner investigation which cleared the NE Committee of any wrongdoing and found against Troy who was supposedly faced with dismissal. He, HOWEVER, remained ensconced deep within the party, where today three years later he can savour the triumph of his determined vindictiveness. Now even the Discipline panel that reportedly informed the NEC that the NE Committee member's suspension from office was lifted, without caveat, as we are informed by Damian Hockney only this morning,has in fact been upheld according to the letter eventually sent.

Meantime Troy remains on the list of approved MEP Candidates for Scotland, as far as our source was able to confirm again this morning. What is the enigma of Troy in UKIP?

Our first posting regarding the G. Stride NE Appeal Rejection letter was posted on 15th October and can be read from this link:NE Disciplinary Appeal


posted by Martin |2:17 PM
 

Rejection of Appeal by NE Regional Committee Officers

The following is the text of the appeal rejection:-

Quote

United Kingdom Independence Party
(Bogner Regis and Littlehampton Division) October 1st 2003

Dear Michael,

APPEAL AGAINST THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF (the three officers of the UKIP NE Regional Committee).

1. Further to my letter of August 6th, the appeal committee met on September 8th and a written account of its findings was submitted to the party secretary on September 11th. Unfortunately, I had wrongly assumed that the findings would be officially communicated to you by the party secretary. My apologies therefore for your not having been informed much earlier of the outcome of the appeal.

2. The appeal committee consisted of myself, Gregg Beaman (NEC), John Harvey (Disciplinary Committee) and Jack Crosbee (Disciplinary Committee).

3. The three grounds for appeal were as follows:
a) the disciplinary panel’s decision was wrong
b) the composition of the panel was unfair and wrong; there should not be any
employees of the party on the panel.
c) the punishment was entirely in appropriate, given the circumstances
surrounding this case and in particular the conduct of Mr Troy as confirmed
by the report of the party treasurer.

The appeal committee considered each of these in detail.

4. The appeals committee found as follows:
a) The disciplinary panel’s decision was sound. The appellants had undeniably
committed the offence in the complaint against them. Appeal dismissed.
b) The composition of the disciplinary panel was fair and in strict accordance
with party rules. Disciplinary complaints and disciplinary hearing panels must
be (and were) selected from the remaining 10 members of the disciplinary
committee elected at the party’s annual conference. There are no party
employees on this committee though three members are contracted for
services to the party MEPs. Only one of these, Jill Clark, sat on the
disciplinary hearing which was unanimous in its decision and unduly
influenced by her views.
c) The appellants’ suspension from the regional committee was an appropriate
penalty for the original offence and subsequent publicity bringing the party
into disrepute. Internal personality clashes and rivalries do not justify
regional committee members refusing to comply with national internal
election policy or publicly bringing the party into disrepute.

5. The Appeal panel therefore dismissed the appeal. However, the Panel felt that a spirit of reconciliation and local democracy should prevail. Therefore, if either of the remaining appellants gives sufficient undertakings on future conduct, he should be allowed to stand in any future regional election, provided there are sufficient candidates to hold a full postal ballot run by head office. In the event of election by this popular vote, the candidate’s suspension would be lifted. However, this provision would not apply to any election with insufficient candidates to warrant a full postal ballot. “Sufficient undertakings” would involve a signed agreement to:

a) comply with national rules and guidelines on all internal elections.
b) apply all national policies and procedures within the region on matters within the
regional competence.
c) co-operate with all members of the regional committee irrespective of personal
rivalries and dislikes.
A breach of these principles would re-activate the suspension.
These findings were unanimous.

Again my apologies for the delay caused by misunderstanding. Hopefully, you and the leadership will be able to work out some constructive path for the future.

Yours sincerely,

G. T. Stride

Unquote

posted by Martin |11:18 AM
 

Statements

We publish below two statements; the first by Viscount Exmouth in support of Damian Hockney and the second a response from Christina Speight.

Quote

AN OPEN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DAMIAN HOCKNEY FROM VISCOUNT EXMOUTH

I write to add support and comments to Damian Hockney's open statement to Branch Chairmen of UK Independence Party.

I was in particular agreement with his contention that the Leadership has instituted every crisis and ignored advice, which would have prevented much of our problems.

In the MEP selection meetings, I questioned the modus operandi of the Party, its approach to the electorate and the amateurism of the Marketing approach. Since then, as I forecast UKIP made no impression on the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament, our results in the Council Elections were not a success, they were derisory. 'A triumph' proclaimed UKIP.

Who in his right mind is going to support a Party describing itself as 'the Anti Politician Party,' a Party that contends 'the Political Elite are corrupt,' and had no view on the issue which has dominated the News for a year 'War in Iraq' Why should the electorate take our views on the EU seriously when that is the only issue we address?

I hear much nonsense about 'Tory Moles', 'the major Parties being worried by UKIP' and 'members and MEP candidates being against the Party.' For my part I am pro the UK Independence (with all that that implies) Party and against the incompetence of what is referred to as 'the Leadership.' I am angry at the hypocrisy, self-delusion, incompetence and waste of money. The hard working members of UKIP have been and are being, badly served.

The appeal of Democracy is that different views be expressed and discussed. The Leaderships attitude is, don?t express them, never discuss them. The points you raised about the NEC support this contention in every regard. The sacking and reinstatement of the Party Treasurer merely adds weight to my opinion of the way in which the Leadership operates.

I made it plain in my speeches that the only seat any UKIP member will take in Westminster is in the Public Gallery. This need not and should not be the case. Some may be too concerned with the Gravy Train. My concern is that UKIP won?t even leave the sidings, let alone reach a station.

I wish you well in your approach and trust those who care about our cause will be equally vocal in their support.

Unquote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Dear Lord Exmouth

I was delighted to read your unequivocal support for Damian Hockney's statement. I have forwarded this to all those to whom I had forewarded his original.

You may also have seen that Andy Edwards has been expelled from the party at a hearing which he could not attend. The opportunity to attend a further hearing was only seen by him after the last date to request one! He thus joins that growing number of UKIPpers who have over the last three years either resigned in disgust or been expelled for trying to bring order out of scandal after scandal.

Most of us have no regrets at having left and only regret that each new batch of honest people have had to learn the hard way for themselves. There is no way forward for Britain through UKIP. The only points of decision are in a referendum or at Westminster elections and in neither of these does UKIP have any distinctive role too play. Indeed in the latter case any candidates can at most succeed in perpetuating the anti-British role of Blair and New Labour.

On the other hand euro-MEPs are of no use in our struggle and in the case of UKIP are merely a vehicle for diverting EU-money into individual pockets. The limited influence an MEP has is being more effectively exercised by MEPs such as Dan Hannan, Neil Parish, Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton-Harris etc ... all Tories. As one of the above comments "UKIP have done very little to fight for British interests - since 1999 only 1 UKIP Member has written a report; they are invisible and irrelevant in the European Parliament. On the great bulk of votes, they have either been absent or abstained - including on such key issues as asylum and immigration, energy tax harmonisation, and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. "

All anti-EU campaigners who find the leap to the Tories too much should consider working through the Democracy Movement ... via a local branch if there is one and by forming one if there isn't! There is also Vote 2004 run by the man who has so successfully run the 'NO' campaign on the euro, the Referendum 04 campaign run by Metric Martyr Neil Herron or through the Campaign for an Independent Britain.

The one thing that is certain is that UKIP cannot be brought back from the abyss and those who do not leave it now are doomed to bitterness and frustration.

Sincerely
Christina Speight
Facts, Figures & Phantasies
http://www.eufactsfigures.com

Unquote

For a quick update on the latest scandals engulfing UKIP read our posts from yesterday Misappropriation of Funds?, Further Facts on Financial Finagling and Interleaved response to Lott which also can be found immediately below.

posted by Martin |8:09 AM


Sunday, October 19, 2003 

Interleaved Response to Lott!

Subject: Response to David Lott’s Email on Daily Mail Advert
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2003

To: David Lott
CC: NEC

David,

Given your statement declaring you have no intention of pursuing a dialogue, I assume your last email is your final word on the subject. However, I shall not “get off your back”, as you diplomatically ask. You have only managed to strengthen my resolve to climb on your back, and cling on for dear life!

I shall deal with your comments in turn below. Your comments are in 'quotations'; my comments are below them (in italics):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I will reply for the last time and certainly not to threats or 'charges'
that you could not bring yourself to make in public.”

David, if you had read my last email properly, I stated that I did not have the information at the time of the conference. Anyhow, if you wish to challenge me in a public meeting of branch chairmen, please feel free to set it up. I will gladly air my views in public. In preparation, please furnish me with the paperwork surrounding the advert, including the documentation I specify in my letter. We can then engage in a meaningful, data-driven discussion.

“The people dealing with the advertisements and their analysis, which will be more thorough and detailed than you can possibly imagine, know what they are doing and do not need your advice.”

David, as an experienced management consultant, where I literally spend hours devising rigorous analysis of data and infer strategic implications for multinational clients and governments worldwide, I can imagine quite a lot. I doubt the depth of analysis will surprise me, even if it has the potential to astonish you.

“We have the experts in PR and the experience.”

David, I am glad to hear it. But do PR experts have expertise in financial controls and governance? Not to my knowledge. Your point is largely irrelevant to the problem I raised.

"But that aside this exercise is costing the UKIP nothing I say again nothing nil nix zero 0 zilch got it? So your hard earned money is not being risked spent used wasted invested wisely or any thing else it is simply not being used for this exercise.”

David, you comment above betrays a degree of ignorance that must call into question your suitability for the chairmanship of UKIP and to sit on the NEC. How can you in all honesty stand there and state that this advert costs UKIP nothing??? Let me explain the flaw in your logic:

UKIP receives most of its income from donations. All donations are central Party funds, unless made to a local or regional accounting unit for use in local or regional activities.
Therefore, when you obtained a donation to pay for a national advert, you had in fact added money to central Party funds. Your decision to spend it on a national advert is therefore a use of Central party funds. This process is as below:



By suggesting that money donated for the advert is not a cost to the Party suggests that steps 2 and 3 do not exist. If this was indeed true, the logical conclusion is that all donations to the Party are not central Party funds, and so can be freely spent by the leadership as they see fit. Unfortunately, this would bankrupt the Party, which will still need to service the costs of memberships.

“You heard @@@@ tell the conference how well spent the money was in Wales which is what I think you are on about.”

David, I am sure @@@@ thinks the money is well spent. He is head of Wales. But have you asked @@@@ and others in Wales whether the money was spent as effectively as it could, or whether the amount spent was strictly necessary for the result?

“It was a cheap election less than half the cost of fighting seats per candidate in the General election and a massive amount more successful than the GE which it dwarfed in its results. I was not at the helm for the GE!”

What kind of metric is “cost of fighting seats per candidate”? How about other metrics like:
(a) Cost per vote won
(b) Cost per member gained
(c) Cost per column inch in national papers
(d) Cost per Party list (where a normal parliamentary seat is equal to 1 list)
(e) The opportunity cost of using the extra, unauthorised £60k, for the WA and SP elections. I.e., could we have used that money to greater effect in other activities?

Your metric is useless for comparing to a General Election, where each candidate is fighting a separate campaign - there is no Party list in a GE.

Do you realist that in the Welsh election, we spent almost as much as Plaid Cymru!!!! Is that in proportion to the opportunity we had there?

“At the last NEC I took the lead with initially some opposition because telesales in London was draining money from the party. I urged the NEC to vote to close it down. They agreed and it is now closed. I shall recommend that all telesales operations in future are stand alone and that the party is indemnified against loss. Ashford is currently at worst cash neutral but is getting a good return from the advert and with the research being done will produce much more. Much of the return will go to national coffers which will improve the cash flow.”

David, I have not mentioned the telesales operation. I do not know much about it at all. Thanks for the heads-up. I shall investigate this matter further.

Again, what internal financial controls do you have to ensure that monies and data from the advert are accurate, fully accounted for, and that the full money due central party funds will be given.

“I helped raise money to get us out of an immediate short term difficulty and am engaged in an exercise with an a properly qualified accountant working with %%%% to reach a fuller understanding of the head office financial operation. The figures that we had to work on in the past did not reveal at all clearly where we stood financially. Once that analysis is done the appropriate action will be taken according to well defined priorities.”

Good. When do we see the outcome of this review. Also, I detect a subtle question mark over %%%%s accounting qualifications and competence. Do you have questions about his competence?

“As I wrote all is under control and in addition being thoroughly analysed but I cannot spell out all the ins and outs of every single aspect of my job which is truly massive and conducted by me with no secretarial support whatsoever. You will be able to see in June 2004 whether we achieve our aim until then do please show some trust in the way we handle things rather than
looking for problems that do not exist. I have just spent the afternoon leafleting for a major meeting on the IOW and by the way three days after a five hour deep operation I too was back at work for UKIP.”

The fact that you do not have the ability to describe the most rudimentary system of financial controls and proper documentation of activities undertaken in the name of the Party, and you cannot see a problem with this, is absurd beyond belief. If you cannot make the time to deal with such matters, like avoiding fraud and breaches to the Constitution, then I strongly suggest you make someone responsible NOW!

Well done for your commitment. But as I have said, the most well-intentioned individuals can also be mistaken and seriously misguided.

“I shall not respond to any more queries on this subject as I simply do not have the time and you will hear about the plans for advertising and the alterations with head office in due course. Would you now please be so good as to get off my back..”

David, what alterations with head office? No, I will not get off your back!

posted by Martin |10:36 AM
 

Further Exchanges on Finances

David Lott has now provided what he states will be his last reply (see earlier exchanges below).

>Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:32:55 +0100
>From: "david lott"

****,

I will reply for the last time and certainly not to threats or 'charges' that you could not bring yourself to make in public. The people dealing with the advertisements and their analysis, which will be more thorough and detailed than you can possibly imagine, know what they are doing and do not need your advice. We have the experts in PR and the experience. But that aside this exercise is costing the UKIP nothing I say again nothing nil nix zero 0 zilch got it? So your hard earned money is not being risked spent used wasted invested wisely or any thing else it is simply not being used for this exercise.

You heard David Rowlands tell the conference how well spent the money was in Wales which is what I think you are on about. It was a cheap election less than half the cost of fighting seats per candidate in the General election and a massive amount more successful than the GE which it dwarfed in its results. I was not at the helm for the GE!

At the last NEC I took the lead with initially some opposition because telesales in London was draining money from the party. I urged the NEC to vote to close it down. They agreed and it is now closed. I shall recommend that all telesales operations in future are stand alone and that the party is indemnified against loss. Ashford is currently at worst cash neutral but is getting a good return from the advert and with the research being done will produce much more. Much of the return will go to national coffers which will improve the cash flow.

I helped raise money to get us out of an immediate short term difficulty and am engaged in an exercise with an a properly qualified accountant working with John de Roeck to reach a fuller understanding of the head office financial operation. The figures that we had to work on in the past did not reveal at all clearly where we stood financially. Once that analysis is done the appropriate action will be taken according to well defined priorities.

As I wrote all is under control and in addition being thoroughly analysed but I cannot spell out all the ins and outs of every single aspect of my job which is truly massive and conducted by me with no secretarial support whatsoever.

You will be able to see in June 2004 whether we achieve our aim until then do please show some trust in the way we handle things rather than looking for problems that do not exist. I have just spent the afternoon leafleting for a major meeting on the IOW and by the way three days after a (edited) I too was back at work for UKIP.

I shall not respond to any more queries on this subject as I simply do not have the time and you will hear about the plans for advertising and the alterations with head office in due course. Would you now please be so good as to get off my back.
David

This response is not at all surprising to those of us who have experienced almost exactly similar forms of response from the Party Chairman when he is confronted with questions he is not prepared to answer.

We will shortly be posting the point by point rebuttal to this nonsense!

posted by Martin |10:34 AM
 

Further Facts on Financial Finagling!

(It is recommended that the two postings immediately beneath this are first read to fully understand what follows).

Another post from an internet discussion group related to the questions that have been raised following the Daily Mail advertisement., is quoted below. The source of the information was not provided but it certainly appears extremely well informed that we are convinced of its accuracy. We have removed the names of those who appear to have been innocently caught up in what appears to be a very murky matter.

Quote

1 The appearance of the ad (Daily Mail ed.)was not referred to the NEC beforehand, either through e-mail or meeting, and nembers 'and NEC members' first learned about it when in an e-mail referring to it on ind-uk. The ad solicits interest from all over the country, not just the South East, so is a national promotion. Curiously, as the ad was not in all issues of the Daily Mail many assumed that the ind-uk message and that UKIP did not, in fact, have a national UKIP ad in the Daily Mail. Of course there was one!

2 As at 18/10, no memberships or moneys have been accounted to head office or to the party treasurer for these ads. Additionally, no moneys have been accounted to Head Office (or memberships passed through to be processed) from Ashford telesales since 23rd September, almost four weeks.

3 At the October NEC, retrospective mention was made of the ad and Farage claimed that the ad would be self financing and that **** was financing this national operation but that it was being run at Ashford. The figures for response sounded very good. When questioned by &&&& about how much **** was putting in to this campaign,Farage said that he would not tell the NEC that information. &&&& said that this was wrong. In the view of many also this is wrong, as it opens up many possibilities and precedents for individuals to undertake national promotions on behalf of the party in a manner which enables them to raise money for local initiatives.

4 The South East committee appears to be in an unusual position regarding the Ashford operation - while it has been claimed by Farage that the Ashford operation is part of the South East regional committee, the South East regional committee has aparently had no details or financial figures regarding it (whether through telesales or the Daily Mail ad) and there is
some doubt as to whether it is indeed part of the South East's remit. The importance of this is that all cash-raising parts of the party have to fall within a recognised and established cost centre under the terms of PPERA.

So Head Office is one such, as is the South East Regional Committee. If something falls outside of agreed centres, then it is not a party operation. Of course, new centres can be set up, but I understand that no such centre has been established outside of these two to accommodate the Ashford operation. Pejoratively, this means that some might regard Ashford as a rogue operation, but tonight's South East meeting has this item on the agenda. It is important for them that they establish the position of Ashford within their own area, whether it is or is not part of the South East Regional Committee. The South East treasurer is %%%%, and NEC member George Stride is also on the South East committee. They might be able to throw more light on this matter.


5 At the NEC meeting in September it was minuted that Farage would provide financial details of the Ashford operation at the next NEC. No such details were provided for the agreed October NEC. Bearing in mind the criticism at various NEC meetings of this operation as a possible method of diverting national funds to Nigel's campaign, it was very important that these
details be provided.

6 Additionally, Ashford telesales has been operational since July and no figures of profit and loss have been provided to the NEC in spite of the repeated insistence by Farage that London figures be made available and criticism of the occasion at the outset when figures had not been provided.
Although Ashford telesales is claimed by Farage to be part of the South East region (and they have not seen figures either), the Ashford centre appears to use national data and it is therefore important that the NEC is aware of what it is doing. The London telesales operation has seen provision of profit and loss details for four months, with a sheet being provided to NEC members each month. On the basis of this information it was decided to close the operation and reconsider options on continuing in a more cost-effective way. There is a fear that Ashford will continue to be detached from the party, will solicit memberships in a way which does not provide the party with enough revenue to meet regular costs of servicing those memberships, and will continue to be unaccountable to the centre or indeed to its region. One of the main fears is that a national donor will be persuaded to fund the loss making centre, and that the funds which flow in will go direct to a campaign untrammelled by costs: this precedent is a matter of concern as it encourages a complete fragmentation and competition for national donors, and allows rogue cost centres to be regarded as normal. This may or may not be happening, but the important thing is that the NEC does not know and does not appear to have the ability to find out.

7 Ashford owes HQ something in the region of £2,000, but there has beendifficulty in getting the money.

Unquote

We wonder if those with the patience to grind through all this detail are left with the same impression as ourselves, namely that now only some outside authority backed by the full force of the law seems likely to get to the bottom of this situation. It certainly is obvious that the party Chairman, who should be now leading ruthless inquiries, apparently lacks both the inclination and also the necessary steely determination.

It would appear from the above that a rogue financial unit has been operating within the party for some months, with no commitments to the party whatsoever, while being the recipient of various fund-raising activities, and that an attempt has been made to keep the Party's NEC in ignorance of this operation. The role and reaction of the Party Chairman when questions on these matters have been raised at the NEC meetings would quickly provide a guide as to whether or not he can now be expected to root out the truth.

posted by Martin |9:05 AM
 

Lott's Reaction to the Daily Mail Ad Questions

Posted overnight on an internet discussion group was further correspondence on the serious questions of how UKIP money is gathered, spent and accounted for within the party. The full letter querying these matters was blogged first thing this morning and may be read from this
link here or by scrolling down to the post immediately below.

Herewith David Lott's almost unbelievable responses to the extremely grave matters and questions raised in the letter:-

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:13:31 +0100
From: "david lott"
Subject: Re: Daily Mail Advert - Important Message to Party Chairman

****
You should have raised these points at the conference **** and I would have dealt with them very swiftly in the presence of the donor.

The advert is raising our profile, raising money for the party centrally, and fuelling more adverts. That will bring votes. You heard me at conference on the subject of judgement and votes so did the party at large and they thoroughly agreed especially on the subject of unity, together with
loudly applauding the donor and his charming wife.

David

To which the letter writer then replied:-

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Daily Mail Advert - Important Message to Party Chairman

David,

I sincerely hope that is not your final word and considered response on this subject. It certainly does not amount to an answer, and I can respond equally decisively to the remarks you just made - not least being that conference is hardly the time to go into such detailed matters.
****

Lott then tried this equally fatuous sounding and impractical retort:-

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:23:22 +0100
From: "david lott"
****,
it was the time and the place, it was an AGM and that is what they are for. I will brief the NEC on the spectacular success of this project and our future plans for it at the appropriate time at the next meeting. I was elected to the NEC appointed to be chairman and endorsed by the NEC I will do my job delivering as much success as possible will you please do yours and get out there and start galvanising your area as I am galvanising the party.
David

The final response we have from the letter sender and in this series, follows below. This has been edited slightly to remove certain personal details but the sense remains intact:-

>Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:23:16 +0100

David,

I did not become aware of the issues behind the Daily Mail ad at the time of the AGM. Anyhow, the AGM is not the time and place for such detailed discussions. The detailed work must be looked at by those who understand the issues in full. Only after such investigation may the findings then be put before a conference for discussion and comment, and only then once members have had ample opportunity to consider the matters.

Also, I will work hard for the Party, along with the many others that work hard. During the last Euro elections, I campaigned and ....(edited).

But I will not work hard when my efforts to raise money can be so readily squandered by the actions of some well-intentioned, but misguided individuals. Safeguards and financial controls are critical. That seems obvious to me.

Once again, please respond to the charges made. If you have no detailed response, then you must realise that I can only assume the worst. If you wish to speak about the matter, I am certain we can arrange a time to do so.

Regards

****

posted by Martin |8:24 AM
 

Misappropriation of Party Funds?

We have acquired a copy of this letter sent to David Lott, UKIP Party Chairman, and all members of the UKIP NEC. It raises the most serious of questions resulting from the recent national advertisement for UKIP in the Daily Mail regarding the way money is raised, accounted for and spent within the party.

Quote

Dear David,

I trust you are in good health. Well done on your chairmanship of the conference. Went very smoothly. Unfortunately, there are some graver matters to return to.

Following up on our previous email correspondence regarding the Daily Mail advert and the financial controls relating to it, I have received information from multiple sources that contradicts your own assurance to me - “All ok and well thought out – no worries”. I will now detail the charges made and then list the precise information I require for you to correct or clarify the situation.

Beforehand, I must advise you that I am taking this matter extremely seriously, not because of the advert itself, but because it demonstrates the grave weaknesses in the system of control. As such, your urgent and considered response is required. In addition, I promise to follow-up on this tenaciously – and you will recognise that I have a good track record on this. Be aware that since you expressly stated that you are responsible for the day-to-day management of the Party, you are accountable for any lack of control and abuses of Party resources.

The Charges Made & My Comments

1. The NEC was not advised of the advert prior to its publication.
The fact that an advert for UKIP goes out in a national paper is not a problem.
Neither is it a problem for the leadership to embark on such a project without consulting the National Executive Committee, if and only if:

– The NEC has given prior authorisation for specific individuals to act independently in pursuit of certain objectives and targets, e.g., increasing national membership; and

– The NEC has allocated funds to be used for that purpose in advance; and

– The NEC is satisfied that effective controls are in place to guarantee that both the funds and information obtained as a result of the advert are: (i) accurately and properly recorded, (ii) suitably protected from fraud or theft, (iii) directed to central party accounts/databases in full, and (iv) freely available for scrutiny by the Party Treasurer at any time; and

– The advert does not contain information that breaches law, the UKIP constitution or NEC decisions regarding the policies and administration of the Party currently in force.

Without these in place, the donated funds may not be used according to the needs of the Party, as defined by the NEC as a whole; the advert (and associated back-room operations) may breach agreed policies or administrative procedures; the monies and data obtained may be siphoned off by individuals or those administering the operations, illegally.

2. At least one NEC member asked for information regarding the donation that funded the advert, including details on the size of the donation.
There are no circumstances I can imagine where a NEC member is denied the right to know the source of a donation or its size. Such matters cannot be confidential from the NEC. If such details were confidential, then the following would be possible:

– Donations can be solicited from undesirable sources that could irreparably damage UKIP and bring it into disrepute. E.g., the BNP, far right organisations or unknown foreign sources.

– The amounts donated will not be recorded as required under the terms of PPERA. (The Treasurer must record the size of the donation)

– The donation can be accepted with strings or conditions attached.
The NEC must be able to assess the risk associated with a donation and veto a donation that may undermine the Party’s image or integrity.

3. No information on the monies and data received as a result of the advert has been
forthcoming, despite requests for such information.

Again, a situation where the NEC is unable to obtain data on an operation’s activities and performance is inconsistent with sound governance principles. No board of directors would be refused access to information on activities that managers were undertaking, as directors are obligated to safeguard the organisation. Information on the data and monies received is the most basic data that should be provided. There can be no excuses for delay, as making such data available on a regular basis to the NEC should have been planned beforehand.

Actions Required of the Party Chairman

As a result, I must request that you and the individuals directly responsible for the advert
(their names would be helpful), provide the following as a matter of urgency:

* A dated copy of instructions authorising the Daily Mail advert: including those who expressly authorised the advert and the individuals instructed to execute the advert.

* A document that sets out how the basics regarding how enquiries are handled,
funds received and memberships applications processed, including

– Which individuals are responsible for specific activities in the process, include details on the appropriate segregation of duties to prevent fraud

– How the monies received are recorded

– In which bank account are the monies deposited

– What reconciliation is done to ensure the figures on the accounts tally with the records on advert-related enquiries/applications/donations

– How monies due Central Party funds are recorded and handed over

* A document from the office of the Party Chairman to the NEC stating categorically: (i) the size of the donation; (ii) the person(s) soliciting the donation and when; and (iii) the person(s)/organization making the donation; (iv) a statement of any conditions attached to the donation.

* A document providing up-to-date information on the monies and information received as a direct result of the advert to the NEC and Treasurer, including bank statements and (sales/membership/donation) ledgers

* An agenda item, placed high up, specifically to discuss this issue at the next NEC.

* A resolution that sets the precise time the Chairman will provide the above information to the NEC, which must be acceptable to the NEC as a whole.

If I do not hear that this information has been passed on directly to the NEC members to their satisfaction, then serious action may follow. If other activities surface that indicate a pattern of such behaviour, then an EGM is not unacceptable.

I hope you understand that such a modus operandi, as displayed in this incident, is totally unacceptable, especially under circumstances where the financial situation remains “problematic”.

Kind Regards
Unquote

posted by Martin |7:32 AM
Google
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
archives
04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003
05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009
11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009
12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010
01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010
02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010
03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010
04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010
05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010
08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010
09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010
10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010
11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010
01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011
04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011
05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011
07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011
10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011
12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012
03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012
06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012
11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012
12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013
02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013
03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013
05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013
01/01/2017 - 02/01/2017
contact us
my other blogs
IRONIES TOO
Ironies
Teetering Tories
The Strasbourg Cesspit
In French 'L'UE L'A EU'
nigel farage
Biography
Ballot Box Blackmail
Dr North's Resignation
E-mail Revealed
"Extortion Attempt?"
Farage Flouts NEC
NEC in Thrall of
Open letter CSpeight
Stolen Computer
Suspends Committees
Video Copyright
With Deavin of BNP
landmark links
Accepting Contradictory Truths
Ballot Box Blackmail
Appeal to the NEC
GLW drft to NF
Cole's Resignation
Dick Morris
Disciplined NE Committee
Disqualification Appeal
GLW Incites Murder
NE Candidates'Fiasco
NE's UKIP Today"
Non-Stop Betrayal
Peter Troy Resigns
Preparing for Future
Suspended Committees
Teignbridge Tragedy
Trevor Agnew
Treasurer's Inquiry
UKIP's Thug Image
W.Chrystal Resignation
Winding Trail
Yorks&NE Disciplne Complaint
fired treasurer

Dismissal Report
MHarvey Memo
Treasureless
Re-instatement
Joint Statement
Report on Troy
Solicitor's Ltr
glw incitement

STelgrph FrontPage
Pravda Finality
Sets back Anti-EU
UKIPUnc Attack
Joint Statement
booker/jamieson

The Election Busting Letter E-mailed by GL-W to Farage in Brussels
glw & farage

Allies/Enemies
Database Letter
NF NEC mole for GLW?
Hockney's Expose
Truth Emerges
Joint Statement
a complaint

Complaint in Full
Re-Visited 1
Re-Visited 2
Re-Visited 3
Re-visited 4
a neutered nec

Appeal for Action
Chairman David Lott
Election Results
Farage's Folderol
Members CVs
graham booth
Biography
Clanger & Sabotage?
COSMOS Cuckooland
Express&Echo
Maiden Speech
MEP Performance
derek clark
Story of Troy & Agnew
Contradictory Letter Head
Disciplinary Complaints?
Ignoring Complaints
Rule Breaking
Chuck out Rule Book
Suspended but Chair
mark croucher
No Press Release!
Martinek-Disgrace
Denials Continue
Lots more Lies?
Support from Muir
UKIP's Press Officer
michael harvey
Ignoring the Appeal
Walls have Ears
A Reasonable OR ELSE
Memo on JdeR
Resignation Misrepresentation
Cole's Resignation
Role as Returning Officer
roger knapman
Biography
Righter than right
Guardian letter re BNP
mike nattrass
Past Treachery?
Debating Points
These Tides
links
About MillenniumBlitzkrieg
BBC Bias
EU FactsFigures&Phantasies
Free Nations
Britain and the EU
UKIP London Assembly
New Ind UK
Notes from the Borderland
Truth about Europe
blogs
Blog Search
EU Referendum
Ironies
Samizdata
The Strasbourg Cesspit
press
Corriere della Sera
Economist
EUobserver
Guardian
IHT
Le Figaro
Northern Echo
Spectator
Telegraph
Washington Times
broadcasters
BBC
CNN
Deutsche Welle
Fox
Sky
google
UK News
UK Search
News International
SearCH
buy my book

Read About the Book



Order the Book for a Fiver. Proceeds go to the fight against Regional Assemblies

technorati
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.